We Just Breached the 410 Parts Per Million Threshold

[skookerasbil]

Might hit 411 tomorrow s0ns................. [URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Nobody%20cares.gif.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

I think if it hits 412, we might have a crisis...............

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/laughing.gif.html][/URL]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

How is it that it's the RWNJs who didn't learn about CO2 in 6th grade?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[SSDD]

How is it that it's the RWNJs who didn't learn about CO2 in 6th grade?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

I learned all about CO2...thing is, I didn't learn from a thoroughly indoctrinated federal government employee..we learned that CO2 is what makes all life on earth possible...even yours..We learned that plants absorb it and turn it into oxygen...We learned that in the past, CO2 was many times higher than it is at present and that it didn't cause any of the disasters that your fantasy scenario claims it will cause...We learned that all of the life in the present oceans evolved during times when atmospheric CO2 was multiple times higher than it is today...and we took that knowledge forward and applied it to the fact that the .03% to .04% increase has resulted in little more than greener, more drought tolerant forests and grasslands...and a host of other observed facts that the present crop of government funded drones simply overlook or willfully ignore in favor of promoting the AGW fantasy for money.

 

[skookerasbil]

Nobody cares about the CO2 thing......the OCD's just don't realize it.

They cant post up one single link that is showing where Americans are caring about CO2 levels!!

The OP thinks its news when CO2 goes up .5ppm...................ok

 

[Bob Blaylock]

…and a host of other observed facts that the present crop of government funded drones simply overlook or willfully ignore in favor of promoting the AGW fantasy for money.

I don't think it's nearly so much about money as it is about political power and elitism.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is about the effects on a world containing 7 billion+ people. All the lies and flap yap of the deniers cannot hide the fact that we are changing the world in a manner that will have very negative effects on our children and grandchildren.

 

[SSDD]

…and a host of other observed facts that the present crop of government funded drones simply overlook or willfully ignore in favor of promoting the AGW fantasy for money.

I don't think it's nearly so much about money as it is about political power and elitism.

You have that right...but a percentage of the multiple trillions of dollars they are asking for is certainly a fine incentive to toe the line.

 

[SSDD]

It is about the effects on a world containing 7 billion+ people. All the lies and flap yap of the deniers cannot hide the fact that we are changing the world in a manner that will have very negative effects on our children and grandchildren.

CO2 has no measurable effect on the global climate.....ergo your complete inability to provide the first shred of observed, measured quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability....other than that bit of AGW religious dogma you constantly link to but are too embarrassed to bring forward any part of it that passes for evidence in that feeble old mind of yours for fear of being even a bigger laughing stock than you already are.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's spelled awesome, whiz brain. We passed 400 ppm in late September of last year. It's taken us 7 months to increase that level by 2.5%. That's 4.29% annual increase. With no change, that will put us at roughly 14,000 ppm by the year 2100. If we simply add 10 ppm every 7 months, levels by 2100 will be a measly 1,422 ppm. Amazing how these little numbers add up, eh?

Awesome.

Your math and understanding of the Mauna Loa data is appalling. You don't take annual increases on a 6 month period when there's a 20% cyclical modulation riding on the mean value...

 

[flacaltenn]

Meanwhile Matthew --- it's been awhile since a screeching headline on hitting new temps. I can always tell when the warmers are NOT posting the daily / monthly temperatures -- that I need to go check the satellite record...

 

[Old Rocks]

That's spelled awesome, whiz brain. We passed 400 ppm in late September of last year. It's taken us 7 months to increase that level by 2.5%. That's 4.29% annual increase. With no change, that will put us at roughly 14,000 ppm by the year 2100. If we simply add 10 ppm every 7 months, levels by 2100 will be a measly 1,422 ppm. Amazing how these little numbers add up, eh?

Awesome.

Your math and understanding of the Mauna Loa data is appalling. You don't take annual increases on a 6 month period when there's a 20% cyclical modulation riding on the mean value...

A 20% cyclical modulation? Crap, Mr. Flacaltenn, don't ever criticize anyone's math on here again.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

At 400 ppm, the cyclical variation would be 80 ppm if it were 20%. But it is about 10 ppm. it is about 2.5%.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well yes, let us look at that graph. April 2017 at 0.27 is above all but three months prior to 1997. After 1998, From 1998 to present, I would say the average was about 1.5, higher then any high point of the average before 1997. After 1998 by now the average had plummeted to 0, and a few months were as low -0.15, yet here we are at 0.27. Looks to me as if the graph is confirming the worst case predictions.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's spelled awesome, whiz brain. We passed 400 ppm in late September of last year. It's taken us 7 months to increase that level by 2.5%. That's 4.29% annual increase. With no change, that will put us at roughly 14,000 ppm by the year 2100. If we simply add 10 ppm every 7 months, levels by 2100 will be a measly 1,422 ppm. Amazing how these little numbers add up, eh?

Awesome.

Your math and understanding of the Mauna Loa data is appalling. You don't take annual increases on a 6 month period when there's a 20% cyclical modulation riding on the mean value...

A 20% cyclical modulation? Crap, Mr. Flacaltenn, don't ever criticize anyone's math on here again.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

At 400 ppm, the cyclical variation would be 80 ppm if it were 20%. But it is about 10 ppm. it is about 2.5%.

Should have said an annual cyclical variance equal to a 5 year mean movement.. . You knew what I meant..

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? I did not know that telepathy was a necessary talent to communicate with you.

The highest the CO2 level has been in at least a million years has been about 300 ppm. Until we started burning fossil fuels. Possibly the highest we have seen in 25 million years.

When’s the Last Time Our CO2 Levels Were This High?

In either case, the world was a very different place at that time. And we no idea what kind of hell we are going to raise by creating a warming as much as ten times as rapid as seen during some of the great extinctions.

 

[flacaltenn]

Really? I did not know that telepathy was a necessary talent to communicate with you.

The highest the CO2 level has been in at least a million years has been about 300 ppm. Until we started burning fossil fuels. Possibly the highest we have seen in 25 million years.

When’s the Last Time Our CO2 Levels Were This High?

In either case, the world was a very different place at that time. And we no idea what kind of hell we are going to raise by creating a warming as much as ten times as rapid as seen during some of the great extinctions.

Depends on the evidence you look at. I've showed you hi res CO2 proxies with PEAKS at near 400ppm in this interglacial. You guys are always looking at ANY paleo study and making wild ass statements about it's "NEVER been this high in XXXX years". But most of the paleo data you cite doesn't have the resolution to show quick peaks. Same with the paleo proxies for temp.

How rapid a warming do you see now? At 0.15degC/decade --- there is no crisis at 2100. By then -- the whole energy/technology paradigms will have changed.

Have you SEEN Accelerations? Nope. It's just as boring as the basic chemistry and physics of the 19th century guys you like to quote. About 1.2degC/doubling plus natural variation. The rest of the enhanced GHouse catastrophe theories are not settled and not likely..

 

[SSDD]

Really? I did not know that telepathy was a necessary talent to communicate with you.

We rarely consider that crayons are necessary when talking to you.

The highest the CO2 level has been in at least a million years has been about 300 ppm. Until we started burning fossil fuels. Possibly the highest we have seen in 25 million years.

You know...even a mildly competent geologist wouldn't make such a claim...Even a mildly competent geologist would take into consideration the fact that for the time frame you stick to, the earth has been in an ice age which would naturally suppress atmospheric CO2, due to cold oceans....

And an even mildly competent anyone would realize that CO2 has zero impact on the global climate.

In either case, the world was a very different place at that time. And we no idea what kind of hell we are going to raise by creating a warming as much as ten times as rapid as seen during some of the great extinctions.

And that claim is nothing more than alarmist bullshit...there is no proxy study which supports a claim anything like that...and the gold standard ice core temperature reconstructions from both poles put the lie to the claim...they indicate warming that far exceeds the present in both magnitude and the rate of change...and the fingerprints of the warming show up in both the north and the south indicating to someone with even the most rudimentary knowledge that the warmer climate was global.

 

[mamooth]

ut most of the paleo data you cite doesn't have the resolution to show quick peaks. Same with the paleo proxies for temp.

Still clinging to your "You can't prove it didn't happen, so it did!" philosophy, I see.

Needless to say, it's not taking the scientific world by storm. That's because all scientists recognize that it's bad logic and wildly inconsistent. We can't absolutely rule out just about anything in any branch of science, but that doesn't mean we assume it's true.

For example, we can't prove that evil fairies aren't the cause of lung cancer. Therefore, by your standards, we should be ignoring the other evidence, and instead focus everything on anti-fairy strategies.

 

[flacaltenn]

ut most of the paleo data you cite doesn't have the resolution to show quick peaks. Same with the paleo proxies for temp.

Still clinging to your "You can't prove it didn't happen, so it did!" philosophy, I see.

Needless to say, it's not taking the scientific world by storm. That's because all scientists recognize that it's bad logic and wildly inconsistent. We can't absolutely rule out just about anything in any branch of science, but that doesn't mean we assume it's true.

For example, we can't prove that evil fairies aren't the cause of lung cancer. Therefore, by your standards, we should be ignoring the other evidence, and instead focus everything on anti-fairy strategies.

There's nothing that's imaginary about this. High resolution proxies show more variance than the ones the GW movement relied to CLAIM the past temperature/CO2 was largely flat. I show you AMPLE data that shows rapid and LARGE swings in temperature for the past 4000 years. AND it's understandable why those studies HAVE the resolution and the "hockey sticks" don't..

Except defiantly arrogant morons who spend time in ad homs -- will never get it..

 

[mamooth]

There's nothing that's imaginary about this. High resolution proxies show more variance than the ones the GW movement relied to CLAIM the past temperature/CO2 was largely flat. I show you AMPLE data that shows rapid and LARGE swings in temperature for the past 4000 years. AND it's understandable why those studies HAVE the resolution and the "hockey sticks" don't..

Well, yes. Basic statistics. Averages always show less noise. Thus, a global average shows less noise than a proxy at one location.

Interesting, that you define basic statistics as a socialist plot.