Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone

[konradv]

1 part out of every 2,500?

AHHHHH! Global Inferno!

Per usual, not the point. It's the increase that's important. Your comment would only make sense, if CO2 had no effect on temps at historical levels. Since we know that if the earth had no CO2 we'd be degrees colder, your comment is a FAIL. It makes as much sense as saying a drug has wouldn't have much effect because the actual amount in a pill is a small percentage of the total weight, as if the inactive ingredients counted.

 

[konradv]

You forgot how methane is being released, to accelerate warming, since the first quote is not mine. You forgot how 350 ppm CO2 is the maximum safe level, and the Arctic is at 400 ppm, now, since you got the 2nd quote from me.

Causation of warming phenomena is partly human. Relief and remedy are 100% human responsibility. You are dumb as shit. Quit selectively quoting and fucking up replies.

Aside from a gang of kook warmist cult members, who says 350 ppm is the maximum safe level?

It was chosen as a number to shoot for without going draconian by trying to achieve historical levels.

 

[konradv]

Carbon dioxide is the chief climate-change gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years.

Unless, of course, it gets absorbed by the flora of the Earf prior to that time.

Before the Industrial Age, carbon dioxide levels were 275 ppm.

Correlation still doesn't equal causation, no matter how many times you try to say it does.

Except that isn't correlation. It's a simple matter to put CO2 into a spectrophotometer and show it absorbs IR. Add more, it absorbs more. That isn't correlation, that's a direct observation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Carbon dioxide is the chief climate-change gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years.

Unless, of course, it gets absorbed by the flora of the Earf prior to that time.

Before the Industrial Age, carbon dioxide levels were 275 ppm.

Correlation still doesn't equal causation, no matter how many times you try to say it does.

Except that isn't correlation. It's a simple matter to put CO2 into a spectrophotometer and show it absorbs IR. Add more, it absorbs more. That isn't correlation, that's a direct observation.

And yet the laboratory is so so so cruel to your "100PPM of additional CO2 melts the ice caps, warms the planet and turns the oceans into rising baths of acid" hypothesis

Why?

 

[Douger]

Bahhh. CO2. Mix it with a li'l O that thar cesium and them thar plants will growed quicker.

 

[Liability]

1 part out of every 2,500?

AHHHHH! Global Inferno!

Per usual, not the point. It's the increase that's important. Your comment would only make sense, if CO2 had no effect on temps at historical levels. Since we know that if the earth had no CO2 we'd be degrees colder, your comment is a FAIL. It makes as much sense as saying a drug has wouldn't have much effect because the actual amount in a pill is a small percentage of the total weight, as if the inactive ingredients counted.

Wrong. It was an observation that one part of every 2500 of a perfectly natural planetary gas is quite unlikely to have the fucking absurd effects "predicted" by you alarmists.

I do give you props though for the medicine analogy.

 

[bobgnote]

You forgot how methane is being released, to accelerate warming, since the first quote is not mine. You forgot how 350 ppm CO2 is the maximum safe level, and the Arctic is at 400 ppm, now, since you got the 2nd quote from me.

Causation of warming phenomena is partly human. Relief and remedy are 100% human responsibility. You are dumb as shit. Quit selectively quoting and fucking up replies.

Aside from a gang of kook warmist cult members, who says 350 ppm is the maximum safe level?

You mean 350.org and CO2now.org? Reply to their issues, Brainless. Then let's discuss.

"Warmist cult members." You mean people who report carbonic acidification and the related die-offs:

Study Links Raised Carbon Dioxide Levels to Oyster Die-Offs - NYTimes.com

Climate Change in Coastal Alaska: Ocean Acidification | Marine Advisory Program | Alaska Sea Grant

Die-offs show need to address ocean acidity - Editorials - The Olympian - Olympia, Washington news, weather and sports

Ocean Acidification

CO2 is at 400 ppm in the atmosphere, it exchanges to ocean water, where it becomes H2CO3, the carbonic acid kills eggs, little fish, reefs, plankton, and oysters, to threaten the entire oceanic food chain. The food chain on land will take longer to kill, but when the US poisons all it can, the Ogalalla Acquifier dries up, bees die, and the seas rise, that land food chain can go, and we have to eat shit patties on toast.

Don't go around, tonight.

Even Brainless Pat-kids have to eat.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The oceans are turning acidic and rising. Oh, Dear!

Are beaches a thing of the past?

Will people be afraid to walk on the shoreline for fear of melting should they be unlucky enough to get hit by a wave

 

[konradv]

1 part out of every 2,500?

AHHHHH! Global Inferno!

Per usual, not the point. It's the increase that's important. Your comment would only make sense, if CO2 had no effect on temps at historical levels. Since we know that if the earth had no CO2 we'd be degrees colder, your comment is a FAIL. It makes as much sense as saying a drug has wouldn't have much effect because the actual amount in a pill is a small percentage of the total weight, as if the inactive ingredients counted.

Wrong. It was an observation that one part of every 2500 of a perfectly natural planetary gas is quite unlikely to have the fucking absurd effects "predicted" by you alarmists.

I do give you props though for the medicine analogy.

What you get wrong is the notion that one part in 2500 is significant in a negative sense. It's not significant at all. What's significant is that historical averages for CO2 were at around 290 and now we're at ~400, a 37-38% increase. Your position only makes sense, if at 290 CO2 was having no effect at all.

 

[konradv]

Unless, of course, it gets absorbed by the flora of the Earf prior to that time.

Correlation still doesn't equal causation, no matter how many times you try to say it does.

Except that isn't correlation. It's a simple matter to put CO2 into a spectrophotometer and show it absorbs IR. Add more, it absorbs more. That isn't correlation, that's a direct observation.

And yet the laboratory is so so so cruel to your "100PPM of additional CO2 melts the ice caps, warms the planet and turns the oceans into rising baths of acid" hypothesis

Why?

How is it cruel to the theory? I can't answer "why?", until you answer "how?".

 

[konradv]

Humans didn't develop under co2 levels higher than 400 ppm as the last time it was this high is around 10-15 million years ago. Was their life on this planet, yes, but not complex life like us that use the environment around us to survive(farming, water, etc)...

Our form of doing things hasn't been tested in such an environment. We will survive, but things might not be comfortable as they're now.

Matthew, you do realize, don't you that CO2 enhances plant growth so your argument that more CO2 might harm farming is an invalid point. And again, it has been warmer and those warm periods were very good for civilization. Historically, it is the cold periods that cause us the most problems.

Sure CO2 aids plant growth, but it's also possible to have too much of a good thing. Water is a necessity for life, but too much can be bad. Just ask NOLA.

 

[Oddball]

Carbon dioxide is the chief climate-change gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years.

Unless, of course, it gets absorbed by the flora of the Earf prior to that time.

Before the Industrial Age, carbon dioxide levels were 275 ppm.

Correlation still doesn't equal causation, no matter how many times you try to say it does.

Except that isn't correlation. It's a simple matter to put CO2 into a spectrophotometer and show it absorbs IR. Add more, it absorbs more. That isn't correlation, that's a direct observation.

Right...Now cite the experiment -performed in the context of a dynamic system- where it's definitively shown that a change of .0001% of the total creates any significantly measurable, let alone catastrophic, change.

G'head....Dazzle us.

 

[Liability]

Unless, of course, it gets absorbed by the flora of the Earf prior to that time.

Correlation still doesn't equal causation, no matter how many times you try to say it does.

Except that isn't correlation. It's a simple matter to put CO2 into a spectrophotometer and show it absorbs IR. Add more, it absorbs more. That isn't correlation, that's a direct observation.

Right...Now cite the experiment -performed in the context of a dynamic system- where it's definitively shown that a change of .0001% of the total creates any significantly measurable, let alone catastrophic, change.

G'head....Dazzle us.

But the models indicate --

 

[bobgnote]

Per usual, not the point. It's the increase that's important. Your comment would only make sense, if CO2 had no effect on temps at historical levels. Since we know that if the earth had no CO2 we'd be degrees colder, your comment is a FAIL. It makes as much sense as saying a drug has wouldn't have much effect because the actual amount in a pill is a small percentage of the total weight, as if the inactive ingredients counted.

Wrong. It was an observation that one part of every 2500 of a perfectly natural planetary gas is quite unlikely to have the fucking absurd effects "predicted" by you alarmists.

I do give you props though for the medicine analogy.

What you get wrong is the notion that one part in 2500 is significant in a negative sense. It's not significant at all. What's significant is that historical averages for CO2 were at around 290 and now we're at ~400, a 37-38% increase. Your position only makes sense, if at 290 CO2 was having no effect at all.

As O.R. noted in another post, the increase to 280 ppm CO2 was the difference, between glaciated continents and glaciers, at the start of the industrial age.

350.org

CO2 Now | CO2 Home

The increase to 400 ppm CO2 is the way the oceans develop acidification, including spot acidity, in cold waters, formerly used by plankton and oysters, so the food chain wavers.

What is happening now is sequestered methane leaks into the atmosphere, which will bend the stick-graph, upward. We will get warmer, faster.

Again, wingpunks issue tard-premise and GIGO-logic, while ignoring the release of sequestered methane.

 

[wirebender]

Sure CO2 aids plant growth, but it's also possible to have too much of a good thing. Water is a necessity for life, but too much can be bad. Just ask NOLA.

So tell me konradv, exactly how much is too much and upon what actual evidence do you base the claim?

 

[bobgnote]

Mysterious Mass Animal Die-Offs

"Over the last couple of years the mysterious mass deaths of birds, bees, fish and other wildlife has been raising alarm bells for many in the scientific community. While the reaction from those in the mainstream news has been largely dismissive, it’s getting hard to ignore the numbers.

For instance, did you know that there have been over 6.7 Million Bat deaths in the U.S. over the last 5 years?

And what about all the strange die-offs in just the first five months of this years?

Timeline:
January 2, 2012
20 Tons of Dead Fish Wash up in Norway
Residents in a small Norwegian town woke to find millions of dead fish on the shores of Kvaenes, in Nordreisa. The school of Herring literally blanketed the entire shoreline.

January 5,2012
100 tons of Fish Die in Brazil
An estimates 100 tons of sardines, croaker, and catfish have died off the shores of Paraná, Brazil.

January 19, 2012
3 Tons of dead fish wash up in Somalia (TWICE)
For the second time in less than a month Dead fish washed up on the Bossaso shores in Somalia. The first incident happened in January followed by a second die-off in February. Both incidents happened all along the coast of Puntland.

February 18, 2012
52,000 Sea Urchins dead off Kaumakani Hawaii
An estimated 52,000 sea urchins were found dead by divers near Kaumakani Hawaii. Scientists say that the death of these sea urchins should serve as an early warning sign indicating that large-scale changes are happening in our oceans.

March 2012
Hundreds of Dead Dolphins in the Atlantic
Hundred of dead dolphins have been found dead on the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, off the United States. A majority of the dead dolphins are being found on the shores of Cape Cod in Massachusetts.

April 24, 2012
28,613 dead fish in Ohio
The Ohio Division of Wildlife finds 28,613 fish and other aquatic species dead along a three-mile stretch of the Rocky River. The fish included bass, darters, a large variety of minnows, rainbow trout and white suckers.

April 25, 2012
11,000 Dead Fish Kettering Ohio
11,000 Fish found dead at Little Beaver Creek in Kettering Ohio. Wildlife officials say it’s the third fish die-off in the last two weeks to hit the Dayton Ohio area. The dead aquatic species included bass, catfish, suckers, darters, salamanders, frogs and crayfish.

April 2012
3000 Dead Dolphins Peru
As many as 3000 Dead dolphins have been found near Peru and around 900 of them have washed up on the Shores of Peru since January 2012.

May 10, 2012
Thousands of dead sand eels New Jersey
The New Jersey Environmental Department reported thousands of dead sand eels found washed up on New Jersey beaches in St Clement, Bonne Nuit, St Ouen and Ouaisne.

May 10,2012
550 tons of dead farmed salmon
Norwegian Fisheries are keeping a watchful eye on their fish, as a number of fishing facilities reported a large number of farmed salmon deaths. So far over 550 tons of dead salmon have been found in the last ten days.

May 12, 2012
Thousands of Dead Birds found of the Shores of Chile
Thousands of dead gray petrels, pelicans, gannets and cormorants were found on the beaches of central Chile. Some experts believe that this bird Die-off may be related to the Peruvian pelican die-off.

So why are so many animals mysteriously dying off?

So far, the reaction from the scientific community has been mixed. A number of experts suggest that many of these events are probably natural and say that over reporting is causing unnecessary panic. But when you see reports of millions of dead fish washing up at the same time and then hear the media dismiss thousands of dead birds dropping form the sky as natural phenomenon, it starts to make you a little bit suspicious.

Are we poisoning the planet?"

--Maybe it's pesticides. But like the bee die-offs, I think carbonic and other acids accentuate the effects, of pesticides and other petroleum pollution. You decide. But animals are dying.
--------------------

Mass Extinction, Mass Die-Off Information, Prehistoric Facts -- National Geographic

"More than 90 percent of all organisms that have ever lived on Earth are extinct. As new species evolve to fit ever changing ecological niches, older species fade away. But the rate of extinction is far from constant. At least a handful of times in the last 500 million years, 50 to more than 90 percent of all species on Earth have disappeared in a geological blink of the eye.

Though these mass extinctions are deadly events, they open up the planet for new life-forms to emerge. Dinosaurs appeared after one of the biggest mass extinction events on Earth, the Permian-Triassic extinction about 250 million years ago. The most studied mass extinction, between the Cretaceous and Paleogene periods about 65 million years ago, killed off the dinosaurs and made room for mammals to rapidly diversify and evolve.

The causes of these mass extinction events are unsolved mysteries, though volcanic eruptions and the impacts of large asteroids or comets are prime suspects in many of the cases. Both would eject tons of debris into the atmosphere, darkening the skies for at least months on end. Starved of sunlight, plants and plant-eating creatures would quickly die. Space rocks and volcanoes could also unleash toxic and heat-trapping gases that—once the dust settled—enable runaway global warming."

--Global warming kills, DDs and smart people. The smart people are going to have to get past the DDs, or you-know-what. I have this one DD named Wienerbender, who is now trying to inform me about acidification, when it took me about 10 posts and an OP for a thread on this, to get him to read it. Now he's got a couple acid-rants up, like he's schooling me.

Neo-con fucktard geeks suck.

 

[Old Rocks]

Unless, of course, it gets absorbed by the flora of the Earf prior to that time.

Correlation still doesn't equal causation, no matter how many times you try to say it does.

Except that isn't correlation. It's a simple matter to put CO2 into a spectrophotometer and show it absorbs IR. Add more, it absorbs more. That isn't correlation, that's a direct observation.

Right...Now cite the experiment -performed in the context of a dynamic system- where it's definitively shown that a change of .0001% of the total creates any significantly measurable, let alone catastrophic, change.

G'head....Dazzle us.

Potassium Cyanide

 

[konradv]

Unless, of course, it gets absorbed by the flora of the Earf prior to that time.

Correlation still doesn't equal causation, no matter how many times you try to say it does.

Except that isn't correlation. It's a simple matter to put CO2 into a spectrophotometer and show it absorbs IR. Add more, it absorbs more. That isn't correlation, that's a direct observation.

Right...Now cite the experiment -performed in the context of a dynamic system- where it's definitively shown that a change of .0001% of the total creates any significantly measurable, let alone catastrophic, change.

G'head....Dazzle us.

290 to 400 isn't a .0001% change. It's a 38% change. Inactive ingredients don't count. That's Science 101!

 

[Liability]

Except that isn't correlation. It's a simple matter to put CO2 into a spectrophotometer and show it absorbs IR. Add more, it absorbs more. That isn't correlation, that's a direct observation.

Right...Now cite the experiment -performed in the context of a dynamic system- where it's definitively shown that a change of .0001% of the total creates any significantly measurable, let alone catastrophic, change.

G'head....Dazzle us.

290 to 400 isn't a .0001% change. It's a 38% change. Inactive ingredients don't count. That's Science 101!

No.

It's a 38% increase of the trace gas. In the entire system, how much does that increase amount to?

It comes to (as Oddball correctly noted) 0.00011%

That's basic MATH 101.

EDIT:

As noted in subsequent post, I stated it incorrectly. It's not .00011 PERCENT. Gotta move the decimal point a couple of spots to correctly state it as a percentage.

It's .011 PERCENT

 

[wirebender]

Mysterious Mass Animal Die-Offs

Other than the large number of bats dying in wind turbines, can you show even a bit of hard evidence to suggest that our CO2 emissions are responsible? As to carbonic acid, geez guy, get a life and stop being so scared. The sky is not falling no matter what your priests tell you.