400 ppm CO2

[Ernie S.]

Could, is the operative word. We could go into a world wide drought, or the temperature could plunge 3 degrees and polar ice caps and glacier growth COULD drop sea level 6 feet. One is just as likely as the other.

 

[skookerasbil]

CO2 is a trace gas........we actually need more of it.

Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer: In Defense of Carbon Dioxide - WSJ.com



Anyway.....being a trace gas, its impact on climate is insignificant.


When you see this, you'll laugh your balls off ( if youre not a comitted climate k00k)........


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations Surpass 400 PPM Milestone

Scientists argue we've loaded the "climate dice" in favor of more weather anomalies and extreme heat waves.

Research also shows that continued emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide will mean "largely irreversible" climate change for 1,000 years even after we curtail emissions.

"The last time we're confident that CO2 was sustained at these levels is more than 10 million years ago, during the middle of the Miocene period," climate scientist Michael Mann told The Huffington Post in an email. "This was a time when global temperatures were substantially warmer than today, and there was very little ice around anywhere on the planet."

There is no way that we will keep the rise in temperatures below 2 C this century. And the Arctic Ice will be gone for most of the summer while many of us here are still alive.

"LOL, you guys STILL believe me. LOL"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

CH4 is measured in PPB parts per BILLION so it's far less than the rounding error CO2 is

 

[gslack]

This thread doesn't have any science outside of the op. HOLY SHIT!

The OP was from HUFFPO... Get real..

 

[Saigon]

This thread doesn't have any science outside of the op. HOLY SHIT!

No, it doesn't.

What it does have is spamming, closed-minded ignorance, illiteracy and a desire to ridicule science from a position of staggering ignorance.

I had a poster ridicule me yesterday for suggesting snow formation is linked to humidity.

This thread is a really excellent example of the challenge science is up against.

Meanwhile...

 

[Saigon]

This is the kind of chart that no Denier will ever discuss rationally:

http://co2now.org/

I challenge Boedcia, Take a Step Back, Oddball and Frank to tell us what they see in the chart, and to explain why they do not consider this needs to be taken seriously.

 

[Mr. H.]

No one has since addressed my post #8.

Natural gas. High volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing. Lowest C02 emissions in 20 years.

 

[Saigon]

No one has since addressed my post #8.

Natural gas. High volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing. Lowest C02 emissions in 20 years.

I doubt anyone will argue against the use of natural gas. I just don't think it should be wasted on electrical production when it is needed more for transport.

Fracking...well, I think a lot more research needs to be done on that before we can assess the earthquake risk.

 

[gslack]

Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations Surpass 400 PPM Milestone

Scientists argue we've loaded the "climate dice" in favor of more weather anomalies and extreme heat waves.

Research also shows that continued emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide will mean "largely irreversible" climate change for 1,000 years even after we curtail emissions.

"The last time we're confident that CO2 was sustained at these levels is more than 10 million years ago, during the middle of the Miocene period," climate scientist Michael Mann told The Huffington Post in an email. "This was a time when global temperatures were substantially warmer than today, and there was very little ice around anywhere on the planet."

There is no way that we will keep the rise in temperatures below 2 C this century. And the Arctic Ice will be gone for most of the summer while many of us here are still alive.

Just wanted to put some reality in this...

I went to your HUFFPO source you used, and followed their link to the NOAA site. Saw this page..Trends in Carbon Dioxide

And then I noticed they take this measurement at their observation facility at Mauna Lua. Thought about it and remembered something about that place..

Mauna Loa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mauna Loa (pron.: /ˌmɔːnə ˈloʊ.ə/ or /ˌmaʊnə ˈloʊ.ə/; Hawaiian: [ˈmɔunə ˈlowə]) is one of five volcanoes that form the Island of Hawaii in the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi in the Pacific Ocean, and the largest on Earth in terms of volume and area covered. It is an active shield volcano, with a volume estimated at approximately 18,000 cubic miles (75,000 km3),[3] although its peak is about 120 feet (37 m) lower than that of its neighbor, Mauna Kea. The Hawaiian name "Mauna Loa" means "Long Mountain".[4] Lava eruptions from Mauna Loa are silica-poor, and very fluid; eruptions tend to be non-explosive and the volcano has relatively shallow slopes.

Mauna Loa has probably been erupting for at least 700,000 years, and may have emerged above sea level about 400,000 years ago. The oldest-known dated rocks are not older than 200,000 years.[5] The volcano's magma comes from the Hawaii hotspot, which has been responsible for the creation of the Hawaiian island chain over tens of millions of years. The slow drift of the Pacific Plate will eventually carry Mauna Loa away from the hotspot within 500,000 to one million years from now, at which point it will become extinct.

Mauna Loa's most recent eruption occurred from March 24 to April 15, 1984. No recent eruptions of the volcano have caused fatalities, but eruptions in 1926 and 1950 destroyed villages, and the city of Hilo is partly built on lava flows from the late 19th century. Based on the hazards it poses to population centers, Mauna Loa is part of the Decade Volcanoes program, which encourages studies of the world's most dangerous volcanoes. Mauna Loa has been monitored intensively by the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory since 1912.

Observations of the atmosphere are undertaken at the Mauna Loa Observatory, and of the Sun at the Mauna Loa Solar Observatory, both located near the mountain's summit. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park covers the summit and the southeastern flank of the volcano, and also incorporates Kīlauea, a separate volcano.

Yes that's right they take measurements of CO2 concentration in our atmosphere from near the top of an active volcano, in fact one of the largest volcanoes on the planet.. You know volcanoes which spew out a lot of "greenhouse gases".. Yep if it weren't true I'd be laughing right now..

But wait! there's more!

Know how they take these measurement? Here's where it gets good.. Read this from the NOAA..

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Carbon Cycle Group

Summary

We have confidence that the CO2 measurements made at the Mauna Loa Observatory reflect truth about our global atmosphere. The main reasons for that confidence are:

The Observatory near the summit of Mauna Loa, at an altitude of 3400 m, is well situated to measure air masses that are representative of very large areas.
All of the measurements are rigorously and very frequently calibrated.
Ongoing comparisons of independent measurements at the same site allow an estimate of the accuracy, which is generally better than 0.2 ppm.
Infrared absorption.

How does the CO2 analyzer work? Air is slowly pumped through a small cylindrical cell with flat windows on both ends. Infrared light is transmitted through one window, through the cell, through the second window, and is measured by a detector that is sensitive to infrared radiation. In the atmosphere carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation, contributing to warming of the earth surface. Also in the cell CO2 absorbs infrared light. More CO2 in the cell causes more absorption, leaving less light to hit the detector. We turn the detector signal, which is registered in volts, into a measure of the amount of CO2 in the cell through extensive and automated (always ongoing) calibration procedures.

Mole fraction in dry air

What do we need to measure? Most people assume that we measure the concentration of CO2 in air, and in communicating with the general public we frequently use that word because it is familiar. The quantity we actually determine is accurately described by the chemical term “mole fraction”, defined as the number of carbon dioxide molecules in a given number of molecules of air, after removal of water vapor. For example, 372 parts per million of CO2 (abbreviated as ppm) means that in every million molecules of (dry) air there are on average 372 CO2 molecules. The table below gives an example for 372 ppm CO2 in dry air. All species have been expressed as ppm, turning 78.09% nitrogen into 780,900 ppm. The rightmost column shows the composition of the same air after 3% water vapor has been added:

Now pay careful attention to the underlined parts above, they tell the tale..

The first underlined part tells you they measure it at the summit of an active volcano..So no real comparison to an average global measurement, just what they get from the air around the active volcano.. LOL..So the gas from the volcano is representative of the entire planet???? ROFL...

The next underlined part they explain that their readings are generally accurate to +or- 0.2 ppm. Wait a tick.. Yes that's right that means it could be actually be less or more. And the term "generally" means it's even less accurate than that a lot of the time. No big deal really, its only a couple tenths we can live with that right? Well I could but.....

I get to the next underlined part and find how they measure this PPM of CO2.. Turns out they measure it by a complex means of sending Infra-red light through a system that traps the air and lets the light through it, then hits an IR sensor on the other side... WAIT! They just admitted they do not actually measure CO2 content, they actually measure what the GHG theory (it is a theory not a fact) would say happens when CO2 is hit with IR radiation. Meaning they don't measure CO2 actually, but rather the presumed effect based on a theory of IR radiation interacting with GHG's.. yes, they do admit that.. Shocking..No actual measurement just a measurement of its presumed effects, AND doing so using particularly dubious location, that's shoddy science boys..

Next part is priceless...They tell you plainly exactly what I just said above, and even worse tell you that it's NOT an actual measurement of CO2, but rather CO2 content AFTER removing water. Why do that? Isn't water a much more abundant GHG? yes it is. I'll let them explain it now..

Why do we express the abundance of CO2 as a mole fraction in dry air? The concentration of a gas is defined formally as the number of molecules per cubic meter. The goal of our measurements is to quantify how much CO2 has been added to, or removed from, the atmosphere. The concentration does not give us that information because it primarily depends on the pressure and temperature, and secondarily on how much the relative abundance of each gas has been diluted by water vapor, which is extremely variable. Only the dry mole fraction reflects the addition and removal of a gas species because its mole fraction in dry air does not change when the air expands upon heating or upon ascending to higher altitude where the pressure is lower. Nor does it change when water evaporates, or condenses into droplets. Why is this so important? Here is an example: The amount of CO2 is higher in the Northern than in the Southern Hemisphere as a result of the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. The measurement of this difference gives us crucial quantitative information about the emissions and removals of CO2. The concentration change produced by the addition of water vapor can be greater than the CO2 difference between the two hemispheres. In contrast, the difference in dry mole fraction does reflect the differences in emissions and removals between the hemispheres.

There you have it, they do that because with water in the air it changes the measured outcome.. No kidding? Well then wouldn't that be a more accurate representation of a real world scenario? Yes it would, but as we see they don't care about that,they care about peddling CO2 fear and all the money and popularity it brings to their otherwise ignored science...

Seriously people if you can't see the holes in this scenario, seek help..

 

[ScienceRocks]

You could look all over the world and find the co2 level within 1-2ppm. That blows your little volcano theory out of the water. LOL.

 

[jon_berzerk]

But then they would have to unplug the outlets!

Don't you get it? Enviros want everything to be as uncomfortable and inconvenient as possible...for other people.

yeah

sort of like the prezbo

wanting to exert as much pain as possible

on the American folks to make a point

about sequestration

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

Well, I am a whitey...or is the proper term "honky"?

typical white person as the president says

 

[Saigon]

You could look all over the world and find the co2 level within 1-2ppm. That blows your little volcano theory out of the water. LOL.

Exactly. It is only one site in a massive network, so if someone doesn't like it, they don't have to use it.

The site was chosen because it is so far from any urban area that it makes for a great site, and because of its altitude it is above most local weather patterns. The volcanic "background" is simply measured and filtered out if and when it occurs.

More info on the network here: CarbonTracker 2011 - ESRL Global Monitoring Division

Gslack -

Yep if it weren't true I'd be laughing right now..

As is so often the case, you would be laughing because you do not understand the issue. By all means check the data from another source and tell us how funny that is.

 

[Old Rocks]

Gslack, what is priceless is what an ignorant bastard you are. Ever take any school at all after high school?

 

[Saigon]

Gslack, what is priceless is what an ignorant bastard you are. Ever take any school at all after high school?

You think Gslack made high school?

 

[boedicca]

This is the kind of chart that no Denier will ever discuss rationally:

CO2 Now | CO2 Home

I challenge Boedcia, Take a Step Back, Oddball and Frank to tell us what they see in the chart, and to explain why they do not consider this needs to be taken seriously.

I think you are unclear on the concept of this thread. The OP announced that things were so far gone, it's hopeless. So if we are All Going To Die, let's at lease enjoy our remaining time.

But, if you really want a response: global warming has been Very Very Good for human kind. Humans have flourished due to the warming of the earth (which for much of its history has been a giant ball of ice).

 

[jon_berzerk]

This is the kind of chart that no Denier will ever discuss rationally:

CO2 Now | CO2 Home

I challenge Boedcia, Take a Step Back, Oddball and Frank to tell us what they see in the chart, and to explain why they do not consider this needs to be taken seriously.

I think you are unclear on the concept of this thread. The OP announced that things were so far gone, its hopeless. So if we are All Going To Die, let's at lease enjoy our remaining time.

But, if you really want a response: global warming has been Very Very Good for human kind. Humans have flourished due to the warming of the earth (which for much of its history has been a giant ball of ice).

true

folks have always done better in warm environments

over cold ones

 

[skookerasbil]

losing............


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBO2IstMi2A]CO2 is a trace gas. - YouTube[/ame]



no logic and no proof of the whole CO2 narrative........


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFfxCtjza3Q&list=PL46171C73E489F8CB"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFfxCtjza3Q&list=PL46171C73E489F8CB[/ame]




[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8X2P3072Tg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8X2P3072Tg[/ame]



The k00ks ALWAYS make out like there is no solar influence =

 

[skookerasbil]

I love when the climate nutter bozo's come back to their threads a few hours later and their shit has been blown apart!!!