Climate change: Arctic passes 400 parts per million milestone

[wirebender]

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.

Stop saying 0.00011. It isn't scary enough. It doesn't fortell doom and destruction. It makes their claims laughable in the extreme. You are in a religious discussion, have some reverence for their dogma and scriptures.

 

[Liability]

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.

Stop saying 0.00011. It isn't scary enough. It doesn't fortell doom and destruction. It makes their claims laughable in the extreme. You are in a religious discussion, have some reverence for their dogma and scriptures.

ACTUALLY, I believe I expressed it incorrectly. The difference between 400 parts per million and 290 parts per million comes to a change of .011 percent.

290/1000000 = .00029 = .029%
400/1000000 = .00040 = .04%
The difference is .00011 or .011%.

Now THAT is a difference that obviously controls the difference between global freezing and global conflagration.

It's not 1%.
It's not one-tenth of 1 percent.
It's just a tiny bit over one-hundredth of one percent.

 

[Oddball]

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

I stand corrected.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Stop saying 0.00011. It isn't scary enough. It doesn't fortell doom and destruction. It makes their claims laughable in the extreme. You are in a religious discussion, have some reverence for their dogma and scriptures.

ACTUALLY, I believe I expressed it incorrectly. The difference between 400 parts per million and 290 parts per million comes to a change of .011 percent.

290/1000000 = .00029 = .029%
400/1000000 = .00040 = .04%
The difference is .00011 or .011%.

Now THAT is a difference that obviously controls the difference between global freezing and global conflagration.

It's not 1%.
It's not one-tenth of 1 percent.
It's just a tiny bit over one-hundredth of one percent.

So, that tiny amount made the differance between continental glaciers, and the glaciers we saw at 1900. And we have added that much again, but it is not supposed to make any differance because the amount is so tiny, in spite of the fact that tiny amount melted the continental glaciers. That is some interesting logic.

But, wait, there's more. You see, we have increased the CH4 level from 0.7 ppm to 1.8 ppm. While, on the scale of a century, CH4 is over 20 times as effective of a greenhouse gas, on the scale of two decades, it is 60 to 100 times as effective of a GHG. Then you throw in the industrial gases that have no natural analog, and are as much as thousands of times effective a CO2, and we can see that we are well past the 450 ppm CO2 equivelent.

Real scientists discussing the affects of the GHGs;

When could global warming reach 4°C?

 

[Liability]

Stop saying 0.00011. It isn't scary enough. It doesn't fortell doom and destruction. It makes their claims laughable in the extreme. You are in a religious discussion, have some reverence for their dogma and scriptures.

ACTUALLY, I believe I expressed it incorrectly. The difference between 400 parts per million and 290 parts per million comes to a change of .011 percent.

290/1000000 = .00029 = .029%
400/1000000 = .00040 = .04%
The difference is .00011 or .011%.

Now THAT is a difference that obviously controls the difference between global freezing and global conflagration.

It's not 1%.
It's not one-tenth of 1 percent.
It's just a tiny bit over one-hundredth of one percent.

So, that tiny amount made the differance between continental glaciers, and the glaciers we saw at 1900. And we have added that much again, but it is not supposed to make any differance because the amount is so tiny, in spite of the fact that tiny amount melted the continental glaciers. That is some interesting logic.

But, wait, there's more. You see, we have increased the CH4 level from 0.7 ppm to 1.8 ppm. While, on the scale of a century, CH4 is over 20 times as effective of a greenhouse gas, on the scale of two decades, it is 60 to 100 times as effective of a GHG. Then you throw in the industrial gases that have no natural analog, and are as much as thousands of times effective a CO2, and we can see that we are well past the 450 ppm CO2 equivelent.

Real scientists discussing the affects of the GHGs;

When could global warming reach 4°C?

"So, that tiny amount made the differance between continental glaciers, and the glaciers we saw at 1900."

According to whom and based upon WHAT doctored fraudulent faked bullshit "data?"

 

[Old Rocks]

According to just about every geologist in the world, dumbass.

 

[elvis]

According to just about every geologist in the world, dumbass.

I saw a frightening book cover the other day with manhattan under water. When is that supposed to take place? 5 years, 10 years?

 

[Liability]

According to just about every geologist in the world, dumbass.

Bullshit, ya dishonest dumb ass.

 

[bobgnote]

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.

Wienerbitch, dance on over to your post, only yesterday, about the oyster die-offs, in the Pacific NW. Read the part about cold-water up-wellings, which carried the H2CO3 (that's the carbonic acid, Wienerbitch!), to the larvae. If you have to, read my OP at the acidification thread, where I posted the later link, with the story, which eliminated the other theories, as to why the oysters died.

I'm not scared, Wienerbitch. Obviously, you have a large handgun collection, and you carry on the street, all the way through the time somebody wants to take you out, to 'dinner.' So you aren't scared, you are just stupid.

Since you are a fucktard, let me remind you, to read the die-off report, I posted yesterday. Even a stupid fucktard has to admit, maybe trouble comes! So what's your sorry excuse, for confidence? Are you just too stupid, to measure?

 

[bobgnote]

According to just about every geologist in the world, dumbass.

I saw a frightening book cover the other day with manhattan under water. When is that supposed to take place? 5 years, 10 years?

What will happen to Manhattan is a big storm surge will slosh the fucker, and there will be loads of damage. In the long run, we can't save a lot of NYC, SF, NOLA, Miami, etc.

Areas subject to subsidence will go, soon enough. We have to wait for the methane to add greenhouse effect, to the already dangerous CO2, for the ice on land to melt, enough to wash over in storms or otherwise rising sea levels. The storm which surges over Manhattan can happen this year. NYC is a doomed city, which will not be relieved from eventual wash-over, until glaciers creep down, from Canada, again, which is likely why the movie shows all that ice, after the wash.

See ground zero, where there are delays in construction? The basements are below the water-line, so they are always subject to floods, like the NYC subway. Time is not on the side, of NYC. That is one of the reasons the 9/11 terrorists chose that target, to make a point about the long run, to Americans, who are mostly short-running stupid-shits.

And now, we are in a long-running war, on 'terror,' which has a big carbon footprint, and it will bankrupt us, before we stop giving money, to Israel, which started all the problems in the Middle East, in the first place. Hey, you can't argue with Je-zus freaks and Zio-nazis.

Global warming must be Gawd's will, so be it. Shit!

 

[wirebender]

So, that tiny amount made the differance between continental glaciers, and the glaciers we saw at 1900. And we have added that much again, but it is not supposed to make any differance because the amount is so tiny, in spite of the fact that tiny amount melted the continental glaciers. That is some interesting logic.

No rocks, it didn't make any difference in 1900, or in 1800, oe in 10 million BC, or today. CO2 is not, can not, and never has driven the climate. When the earth dropped into the ice age that we are currently coming out of, atmospheric CO2 was around 1000ppm. Square the facts with your belief if you can.

 

[wirebender]

Wienerbitch, dance on over to your post, only yesterday, about the oyster die-offs, in the Pacific NW. Read the part about cold-water up-wellings, which carried the H2CO3 (that's the carbonic acid, Wienerbitch!), to the larvae. If you have to, read my OP at the acidification thread, where I posted the later link, with the story, which eliminated the other theories, as to why the oysters died.

No need. I remember it perfectly. Clearly you are still unable to grasp what the words said. The upwelling from the deep is in no way unusual in its CO2 content and is in no way related to CO2 emissions by man. Can you even comprehend the word natural?

I'm not scared, Wienerbitch.

Of course you are. That is why you begin every statement with some sort of impotent name calling. You are merely trying to bolster yourself. It is called mental masturbation but hey, whatever gets you through the next incoherent outburst.

Since you are a fucktard, let me remind you, to read the die-off report, I posted yesterday. Even a stupid fucktard has to admit, maybe trouble comes! So what's your sorry excuse, for confidence? Are you just too stupid, to measure?

If you could understand the paper you would grasp that the oyster die off is due to natural causes exacerbated by hatcheries heating the water and a bacterium that is competing for what little oxygen there is in that deep water. Nothing whatsoever to do with our burning of fossil fuels.

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

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.

According to who? Algore?

Someone arbitrarily set a number and you buy that as gospel?
Has anyone died as a result of the increase from the pre industrial revolution 295 ppm to current levels?
When the CO2 levels were below 300 ppm, life expectancy was, what 45 years? and now it's pushing 80? Bring on the CO2!

Ridiculous? Sure, but no more so than setting an arbitrary number of 350ppm.

 

[bobgnote]

CO2 to H2CO3 to CO32, for everybody:

RealClimate: The Acid Ocean

"Most of the carbon in seawater is in the form of HCO3-, while the concentrations of CO32- and dissolved CO2 are one and two orders of magnitude lower, respectively. The equilibrium reaction for CO2 chemistry in seawater that most cogently captures its behavior is

CO2 + CO32- + H2O == 2 HCO3-

where I am using double equal signs as double arrows, denoting chemical equilibrium. Since this is a chemical equilibrium, Le Chatlier’s principal states that a perturbation, by say the addition of CO2, will cause the equilibrium to shift in such a way as to minimize the perturbation. In this case, it moves to the right. The concentration of CO2 goes up, while the concentration of CO32- goes down. The concentration of HCO3- goes up a bit, but there is so much HCO3- that the relative change in HCO3- is smaller than the changes are for CO2 and CO32-. It works out in the end that CO2 and CO32- are very nearly inversely related to each other, as if CO2 times CO32- equaled a constant.

Coral reefs are built from limestone by the reaction Ca2+ + CO32- == CaCO3, where Ca is calcium. Acidifying the ocean decreases the concentration of CO32- ions, which by le Chatlier’s principal shifts the equilibrium toward the left, tending to dissolve CaCO3. Note that this is a sort of counter-intuitive result, that adding CO2 should make reefs dissolve rather than pushing carbon into making more reefs. It’s all because of those H+ ions.

CaCO3 tends to dissolve in the deep ocean, both because of the high pressure and because the waters have been acidified by CO2 from rotting dead plankton. Surface waters, however, are supersaturated with respect to CaCO3, meaning that there is enough Ca2+ and CO32- in surface waters that you could give up some, and still not provoke CaCO3 to dissolve. However, it has been documented that corals produce CaCO3 more slowly as the extent of supersaturation decreases. This is also true for planktonic CaCO3-secreters such as coccolithophorids and foraminifera. We should note that for coral reef communities, the acid ocean is only one problem that they face, and it’s not the worst. Rising temperatures are tightly correlated with coral bleaching events, the expulsion of symbiotic algae, often followed by death of the coral. There is a terrifying time-series of temperature and coral bleaching from Tahiti in Hoegh-Guldberg, 1999]. When you look at the temperatures that killed the coral, and project future temperatures, it looks to be all over for corals. Coral communities are also impacted by water turbidity, resulting from fertilizer runoff, and by overfishing.

Elevated CO2 levels also affect fish and other aquatic organisms, in part because of the decrease in pH, but also because CO2 is what heterotrophic organisms try to exhale. However, we should note that dissolved CO2 levels were substantially higher than today in the geologic past, and organisms were able to cope with this OK, so apparently there can be some acclimation of populations to higher CO2."

--New retard on a bike, go back over the previous posts, including the ones about die-offs accelerating, 2012. What attracted you to this thread, since you can't read? I'm still wondering what Wienerbitch wants, but like his daddy, Meat Romney, he has CRS, and I'm helping him. I think. Who can help wingpunks, actually?

 

[Liability]

NASA Scientists Dispute Climate Change Activism

 

[IanC]

more convincing evidence that CO2 is torching the arctic! /sarc off


edit- http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif

 

[bobgnote]

NASA Scientists Dispute Climate Change Activism

Your link is a piece of shit, leading to a blog story, by "Robert," who re-prints a stupid letter, by a load of un-named assholes:

"We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,"

(Attached signatures)

Littleidiot, what kind of cocksucker are you, to send people to a letter, without signatures, re-printed by some guy? Hey, my name is "Robert," but I'd never print that shit and claim credibility. Why don't you just spam up some pictures, like your asshole friends? You don't have the brains it takes, to do anything but spam, so spam some smileys or pictures of girls with big breasts, like Suckassbil does, on some threads.

The Arctic just went past 400 ppm CO2, it is oozing CH4, and the planet is going to hell. Those assholes who sent that letter didn't want it getting out because they'd look like shitheads, if their names became known, since the lot of them are flying assholes or shooters, dedicated to destroying the ozone, with rockets. Go get another link, idiot.