Global Carbon Dioxide Levels Topped 400 PPM Throughout March In Unprecedented Milestone

[Billy_Bob]

As even with the Muller analysis, temperature spikes like we're experiencing are relatively rare.

What I gather from Richard Muller's assessment of Michael Mann's temperature spike graph (the hockey stick) is that the math used to chart that graph was flawed.

What I gather from my understanding of paleoclimatology methods (interpreting tree ring and ice core data) is that they aren't 100% accurate. We know that tree ring data is unreliable because it didn't respond to 20th Century warming of northern latitudes. We know that ice core data isn't totally reliable because we get different data from Antarctica than we do from Greenland. Also, we have no ice core data from most of the planet's surface. That's a lot of missing data. We can't say definitively that there wasn't a 30 year stretch of warming during the Eemian period (the last interglacial period) comparable or even more extreme than the years 1979 to 2009. To do so would be an argument over less than a degree Celsius and there's too many blind spots to go back 120,000 years and attempt to do that.

All dat true. Many problems with with these sweeping proxy studies purporting to compare climate history to our last 50 years of empirical experience. But the largest prob is the resulting time resolurion that you get after selecting combining and averaging all these variuous weak proxies from different parts of the globe. Not anywhere NEAR good enough to see 40 or 50 year spikes. Especially on stupid extensions to get a GLOBAL average. You can however usena particular single type of proxy from a single area of the globe to get a pretty good snapshot of local histories.

Bingo....

The average proxy can only get between 150 and 300 years (even the ice cores). Spikes within these time frames are not long enough to create visualization.

It reminds me of Mann's deception on temperatures, where he used 1000 years, 500 years, 100 years and then spliced on his tree rings at 15 year plots... This is a statisticians parlor trick to make you think that something is wrong when it is not..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hansen has no source code on-line..

You didn't even look you fucking hack. It took me THREE MINUTES to find it.
http://simplex.giss.nasa.gov/snapshots/modelE2_AR5_branch.2015.05.12_07.50.01.tgz

Again that is not the source code and thus disproves that the Hansen source code is online.

Also Hansen has claimed that the source he did make available was a part of the source code that he used before Congress, then later claimed he no longer used said source code.

So once again the AGW cult proves that NO source code exists online to prove that CO2 drives climate..

The white Sun and the magnetic field of the Earth have more to do with driving climate than CO2..

The GISS GCM code wasn't written by a single person, jackass. Its been in development for decades, the first version being decribed by Hansen 83. I have linked you the most recent version of it, Model E.

Once again the AGW cult dismisses that Hansen now claims he does not use that code and also once they prove they can not back up their claims. So there is NO Hansen source code on the internet.

One thing that these AGW cult members as well as far left drones have proven is that using Google can make people stupid! That is something they can be proud of..

Now that is funny...

I wonder if this looks like something they have seen by Michale Mann? James Hansen used it as well for much of his work as well. That is the problem with basing your work on someone else's who is a fraud.

 

[mamooth]

Billy, please stick to the topic, which is not you faking things about Mann. Everyone already knows you fake everything.

As far as the rest of the thread goes, the Unibomber would read the denier screeds here and think "Thank God I'm not as crazy and conspiratorial as global warming deniers."

So, 400 ppm. Levels will drop below that again in the summer, and the northern hemisphere growing season sucks up CO2. But a couple more years, we'll be over that level for good.

Another problem with the 400 ppm is the ocean acidification. One person wanted it up at 1500 ppm. I guess he wants the oceans fizzing like a soda. No, that wouldn't actually happen, but the destruction from the lowered pH would be immense.

The good news, carbon emissions stabilized in 2014. And the global economy didn't crash. Another thing deniers got wrong to add to the list.

 

[Old Rocks]

So has anyone told H-Nut that weve been flirting with 400 ppm for a couple years now..? We havent even reached the first doubling of CO2 since the 1800s.. ive got a snooze alarm set for 560ppm. At that point, I highly suspect the true global increase to be right around 1degC. Just like the physics and chemistry says --- without all the added drama and fabrications.

OK, dingleberry, whose physics and chemistry? How about a link to your proof of that flapyap.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Billy, please stick to the topic, which is not you faking things about Mann. Everyone already knows you fake everything.

As far as the rest of the thread goes, the Unibomber would read the denier screeds here and think "Thank God I'm not as crazy and conspiratorial as global warming deniers."

So, 400 ppm. Levels will drop below that again in the summer, and the northern hemisphere growing season sucks up CO2. But a couple more years, we'll be over that level for good.

Another problem with the 400 ppm is the ocean acidification. One person wanted it up at 1500 ppm. I guess he wants the oceans fizzing like a soda. No, that wouldn't actually happen, but the destruction from the lowered pH would be immense.

The good news, carbon emissions stabilized in 2014. And the global economy didn't crash. Another thing deniers got wrong to add to the list.

I didn't say I wanted CO2 at 1500 ppm. I said that's the level at which plants achieve optimal growth. I think 400 ppm is ideal, and as you say emissions have stabilized and I hardly think that gas burning machines will be common in 50 years. The so-called problem is taking care of itself. Here in California, we're shifting toward renewable energy at an incredible rate, and the big players are invested (Apple and Google). As California goes, the nation is sure to follow.

Ocean acidification is a new science that has been around for only a decade. It represents a doubling down of climate panic, because CO2 in the atmosphere just isn't scaring people sufficiently.

It's a bit of a misnomer to say that the oceans are acidifying. Average PH has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1. The oceans remain basic in PH. They aren't acidic. It's more accurate to say the oceans have been slightly neutralized. In general, life is most comfortable with neutral PH environments. If you have a salt water aquarium, it's recommended that you keep it between 7.6 and 8.4 PH. If you're growing coral in your tank, you should keep it between 8.0 and 8.4. That's the conclusion after decades of people experimenting with salt water tanks. The ocean is currently at an ideal PH level.

But, PH can swing wildly in a given area of sea water. A gigantic flock of sea birds urinating can change the PH at the surface. Sea life is adapted for that. The ocean acidification 'science' likes to point to coral and oysters, which live in shallow waters and are especially susceptible to chemical runoff, including fertilizers and pesticides. If DDT was a culprit in the interference of birds to form strong eggs, then it's entirely possible that some chemical is causing problems with the anecdotal problems that people ascribe to 'acidification'. Much of the world doesn't treat it's human waste, or minimally treats it, not to mention runoff from livestock. There's also oil and gas runoff that needs to be considered. There are also viruses, like the wasting disease attacking sea stars. And then there's radiation- the Japanese dumped their nuclear waste straight into the ocean until the 1980s. The ocean is disgusting, but PH isn't the problem. That's my opinion.

 

[Old Rocks]

Your opinion, and like assholes, everyone has one.

However, the scientists have evidence, and have published that in peer reviewed journals.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Your opinion, and like assholes, everyone has one.

However, the scientists have evidence, and have published that in peer reviewed journals.

I'm curious how "the scientists" have managed to exclude the usual suspects of oil and gas spillage and runoff, industrial chemicals, nitrogen fertilizer runoff, phosphates, sewage, viruses, and every other type of pollution that ends up in the ocean. Seems like undue focus is suddenly being placed on PH.

 

[mamooth]

It's a bit of a misnomer to say that the oceans are acidifying. Average PH has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1. The oceans remain basic in PH. They aren't acidic. It's more accurate to say the oceans have been slightly neutralized.

No. An increase in [H+] is acidification. Period. That's how chemistry has always defined it. You can acidify something and have it remain basic, just as you can enrich something and have it remain poor, or beautify something and have it remain ugly.

pH 7 is only a neutral point in one specific type of system, pure unbuffered water. In a multi-stage buffered system like the ocean, there's nothing special about the number 7.

The ocean is currently at an ideal PH level.

If that's the case, then it's a bad idea to keep dropping it.

But, PH can swing wildly in a given area of sea water. A gigantic flock of sea birds urinating can change the PH at the surface. Sea life is adapted for that.

And the ocean isn't adapted for a permanently lowered pH. Little shelled critters can suspend their shell growth during a momentary pH fluctuation, but they can't suspend it for long periods.

If you think acidification isn't a problem, let the oyster farmers know they're wasting their money. They say their oyster larva die when the pH drops. It's their own money on the line, so they have every motivation to be correct.

 

[flacaltenn]

So has anyone told H-Nut that weve been flirting with 400 ppm for a couple years now..? We havent even reached the first doubling of CO2 since the 1800s.. ive got a snooze alarm set for 560ppm. At that point, I highly suspect the true global increase to be right around 1degC. Just like the physics and chemistry says --- without all the added drama and fabrications.

OK, dingleberry, whose physics and chemistry? How about a link to your proof of that flapyap.

Been there -- done that -- you forget too easily.
Won't do it again. ANY atmos physic book derives the basic warming due SOLELY to CO2 concentrations. Vast majority of researchers on BOTH sides of the problem ACCEPT this be about 1degC/doubling. As do I. THAT is what CO2 does in terms of warming. EVERY OTHER amplication is a fiction of folks with a lot of money and a little computing power. That is where the "magic multipliers" that make CO2 into a crisis came from. YOUR theory states that CO2 is merely the TRIGGER for a cascade of projected events designed to scare your pants off and empty your wallet..

 

[flacaltenn]

Orange Juice is about 7000% more acidic than clean water by Mammoth's math.. There is a REASON that PH is on a log scale. When you have ONE H+ ion and the acidity rises by 100% when another joins it -- it tells you little about whether it will burn your skin off...

 

[flacaltenn]

And greedy oyster farmers that push their production of non-native species that were SELECTED so that they cannot survive in the local waters --- try to push their profits by breeding them all year with bay water that varies greatly by time of day and season --- deserve a big handout from the govt to blame their greed on "Climate Change".

Why do you think NATIVE species spawn EN MASSE on just a few selected days of year??

What do you think could happen if you FORCED artificial breeding with those waters at the whim of your wallet?

Morons with internet connections to junk websites. Sheeezzzz.....

 

[jc456]

Billy, please stick to the topic, which is not you faking things about Mann. Everyone already knows you fake everything.

As far as the rest of the thread goes, the Unibomber would read the denier screeds here and think "Thank God I'm not as crazy and conspiratorial as global warming deniers."

So, 400 ppm. Levels will drop below that again in the summer, and the northern hemisphere growing season sucks up CO2. But a couple more years, we'll be over that level for good.

Another problem with the 400 ppm is the ocean acidification. One person wanted it up at 1500 ppm. I guess he wants the oceans fizzing like a soda. No, that wouldn't actually happen, but the destruction from the lowered pH would be immense.

The good news, carbon emissions stabilized in 2014. And the global economy didn't crash. Another thing deniers got wrong to add to the list.

Fake? Hahahaha you're as phony as they come. Now that's funny

 

[Old Rocks]

Your opinion, and like assholes, everyone has one.

However, the scientists have evidence, and have published that in peer reviewed journals.

I'm curious how "the scientists" have managed to exclude the usual suspects of oil and gas spillage and runoff, industrial chemicals, nitrogen fertilizer runoff, phosphates, sewage, viruses, and every other type of pollution that ends up in the ocean. Seems like undue focus is suddenly being placed on PH.

What it seems like is that you know nothing at all concerning chemistry. Tell you what, your local community college has 200 level Chem classes that could bring you up to speed on this subject.

 

[Old Rocks]

Orange Juice is about 7000% more acidic than clean water by Mammoth's math.. There is a REASON that PH is on a log scale. When you have ONE H+ ion and the acidity rises by 100% when another joins it -- it tells you little about whether it will burn your skin off...

Which has to do with what?

Ocean Acidification Smithsonian Ocean Portal

In a lab experiment, a sea butterfly (pteropod) shell placed in seawater with increased acidity slowly dissolves over 45 days.

Credit:
Courtesy of David Littschwager/National Geographic Society

Ocean acidification is sometimes called “climate change’s equally evil twin,” and for good reason: it's a significant and harmful consequence of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that we don't see or feel because its effects are happening underwater. At least one-quarter of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released by burning coal, oil and gas doesn't stay in the air, but instead dissolves into the ocean. Since the beginning of the industrial era, the ocean has absorbed some 525 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, presently around 22 million tons per day.

At first, scientists thought that this might be a good thing because it leaves less carbon dioxide in the air to warm the planet. But in the past decade, they’ve realized that this slowed warming has come at the cost of changing the ocean’s chemistry. When carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater, the water becomes more acidic and the ocean’s pH (a measure of how acidic or basic the ocean is) drops. Even though the ocean is immense, enough carbon dioxide can have a major impact. In the past 200 years alone, ocean water has become 30 percent more acidic—faster than any known change in ocean chemistry in the last 50 million years.

It is the ocean food chain that we are worried about, not the pH of your cup of orange juice.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Orange Juice is about 7000% more acidic than clean water by Mammoth's math.. There is a REASON that PH is on a log scale. When you have ONE H+ ion and the acidity rises by 100% when another joins it -- it tells you little about whether it will burn your skin off...

Which has to do with what?

Ocean Acidification Smithsonian Ocean Portal

In a lab experiment, a sea butterfly (pteropod) shell placed in seawater with increased acidity slowly dissolves over 45 days.

Credit:
Courtesy of David Littschwager/National Geographic Society

Ocean acidification is sometimes called “climate change’s equally evil twin,” and for good reason: it's a significant and harmful consequence of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that we don't see or feel because its effects are happening underwater. At least one-quarter of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released by burning coal, oil and gas doesn't stay in the air, but instead dissolves into the ocean. Since the beginning of the industrial era, the ocean has absorbed some 525 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, presently around 22 million tons per day.

At first, scientists thought that this might be a good thing because it leaves less carbon dioxide in the air to warm the planet. But in the past decade, they’ve realized that this slowed warming has come at the cost of changing the ocean’s chemistry. When carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater, the water becomes more acidic and the ocean’s pH (a measure of how acidic or basic the ocean is) drops. Even though the ocean is immense, enough carbon dioxide can have a major impact. In the past 200 years alone, ocean water has become 30 percent more acidic—faster than any known change in ocean chemistry in the last 50 million years.

It is the ocean food chain that we are worried about, not the pH of your cup of orange juice.

By far the greatest threat to crustaceans is over-harvesting. For example, big ships are chugging around southern waters with gigantic vacuums sucking up krill for pet food, fish farm food and health supplements. I love oysters, like many people, and supply can't keep up with demand. That's the problem in Tomales Bay, not acidification. In Humboldt Bay, from where I also eat an occasional oyster, there's no acidification problem and farmers are trying to expand their leased territory.
As flacaltenn wisely points out, oysters don't reproduce constantly throughout the year. Many of the problems they're having in the NW are due to the fact that they're using a foreign species from Japan that isn't adapted to the water they're pumping into the hatchery during upwelling. When they avoided using water during upwelling, the problem was solved. Incidentally, ocean upwelling brings up mercury, cesium and every other heavy chemical pollutant from the depths (probably snail bait too). There's probably leaking barrels of nuke waste down there from the 60s and 70s. In the gulf, there was the BP oil spill.
Rainwater is acidic (5.6?). River water is acidic. If you want to grow oysters in lower PH harbors, lagoons and inlets, you can use Crassostrea ariakensis. "When Whitman Miller ran laboratory experiments at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, he found that the Asian oyster showed no loss of shell when exposed to higher [than today's] acidity levels. Scientists think that the Asian oyster, native to the rivers of China, is better adapted to low pH waters because it evolved under more acidic conditions."
Chesapeake Quarterly Volume 11 Number 1 Crab vs. Oyster - As Acidity Increases Some Species May Win and Others Lose
The above link talks about an experiment by Justin Ries at UNC-Capel Hill. Crabs grow shells faster at lower PH, many shell fish are unaffected. Clams grow slower, but don't die, which is mainly just a problem for people who eat clams unless the clams themselves form a psychological small-clam complex. Nothing dissolves, except in experimental tanks where the researchers crank down the PH to ridiculous levels. Fish generally benefit from lower PH. The ocean is always changing and species are always adapting.

Coral is most likely being 'bleached' by fertilizer.
Fertilizer not CO2 is responsible for coral bleaching and ocean acidification from all I see. Intelligent rebuttal wanted. Thanks A conversation on TED.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Is it possible the Blob ate the oysters?

First time CO2 is at 400 and now ISIS takes over Ramadi, negating the blood and sacrifices of our soldiers.... Coincidence?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Orange Juice is about 7000% more acidic than clean water by Mammoth's math.. There is a REASON that PH is on a log scale. When you have ONE H+ ion and the acidity rises by 100% when another joins it -- it tells you little about whether it will burn your skin off...

Which has to do with what?

Ocean Acidification Smithsonian Ocean Portal

In a lab experiment, a sea butterfly (pteropod) shell placed in seawater with increased acidity slowly dissolves over 45 days.

Credit:
Courtesy of David Littschwager/National Geographic Society

Ocean acidification is sometimes called “climate change’s equally evil twin,” and for good reason: it's a significant and harmful consequence of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that we don't see or feel because its effects are happening underwater. At least one-quarter of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released by burning coal, oil and gas doesn't stay in the air, but instead dissolves into the ocean. Since the beginning of the industrial era, the ocean has absorbed some 525 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, presently around 22 million tons per day.

At first, scientists thought that this might be a good thing because it leaves less carbon dioxide in the air to warm the planet. But in the past decade, they’ve realized that this slowed warming has come at the cost of changing the ocean’s chemistry. When carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater, the water becomes more acidic and the ocean’s pH (a measure of how acidic or basic the ocean is) drops. Even though the ocean is immense, enough carbon dioxide can have a major impact. In the past 200 years alone, ocean water has become 30 percent more acidic—faster than any known change in ocean chemistry in the last 50 million years.

It is the ocean food chain that we are worried about, not the pH of your cup of orange juice.

We kept such accurate records on ocean temps and pH 150 years ago, right?

How much was the pH lowered in the experiment

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy, please stick to the topic, which is not you faking things about Mann. Everyone already knows you fake everything.

As far as the rest of the thread goes, the Unibomber would read the denier screeds here and think "Thank God I'm not as crazy and conspiratorial as global warming deniers."

So, 400 ppm. Levels will drop below that again in the summer, and the northern hemisphere growing season sucks up CO2. But a couple more years, we'll be over that level for good.

Another problem with the 400 ppm is the ocean acidification. One person wanted it up at 1500 ppm. I guess he wants the oceans fizzing like a soda. No, that wouldn't actually happen, but the destruction from the lowered pH would be immense.

The good news, carbon emissions stabilized in 2014. And the global economy didn't crash. Another thing deniers got wrong to add to the list.

Nice adhoms.... Without proof of course..

But the later was totally relevant to this discussion as the temperature record has been servery manipulated by alarmists and liars.

Any basic chemistry student knows about solutions and what it takes to change solutions by volume. Your claims of acidification are totally bogus and rife with alarmist drivel. Hundredths of a PH point is found globally in normal ocean water circulations. Your screaming of alarms is simply bull shit on a PA horn.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's a bit of a misnomer to say that the oceans are acidifying. Average PH has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1. The oceans remain basic in PH. They aren't acidic. It's more accurate to say the oceans have been slightly neutralized.

No. An increase in [H+] is acidification. Period. That's how chemistry has always defined it. You can acidify something and have it remain basic, just as you can enrich something and have it remain poor, or beautify something and have it remain ugly.

pH 7 is only a neutral point in one specific type of system, pure unbuffered water. In a multi-stage buffered system like the ocean, there's nothing special about the number 7.

The ocean is currently at an ideal PH level.

If that's the case, then it's a bad idea to keep dropping it.

But, PH can swing wildly in a given area of sea water. A gigantic flock of sea birds urinating can change the PH at the surface. Sea life is adapted for that.

And the ocean isn't adapted for a permanently lowered pH. Little shelled critters can suspend their shell growth during a momentary pH fluctuation, but they can't suspend it for long periods.

If you think acidification isn't a problem, let the oyster farmers know they're wasting their money. They say their oyster larva die when the pH drops. It's their own money on the line, so they have every motivation to be correct.

The correct terms are 'more acidic' or 'more alkaline' in regards to pH neutral of 7.35. Acid is defined as below 2. and alkaline is defined above 12.

The chicken little alarmist drivel is tiresome.

 

[mamooth]

Back in the real world, pH is monitored, we see it dropping. Only shameless cult liars claim pH measurements are some kind of conspiracy. That would be Billy.

So Billy, how do you explain your hilarious fail on the El Nino? You know, how you told us in the fall it had already turned into a massive cooldown. Will you admit getting it wrong, or is that part of the big conspiracy as well.