We Just Breached the 410 Parts Per Million Threshold

[ScienceRocks]

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.

Everything including statistics is a socialist plot in his mind....He believes modern civilization is an attempt to steal our rights to be cavemen and savages.

 

[ScienceRocks]

May 06: 410.01 ppm

 

[Bob Blaylock]

May 06: 410.01 ppm

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Poor understanding of meta-study statistics. That combining of proxies and cohorts also reduces the VALID variance in the data. As data is resampled and re-filtered and re-fit to have similar resolutions and ranges. ESPECIALLY when the cohorts are from such varied "thermometers" as tree rings, ice cores and mud bug shells.

The loss of TRUE variance is ALSO from inadequate SPATIAL sampling in this case when you try to represent a WORLD temperature to a tiny fraction of degree with only 70 or 100 "thermometers" of varying types over TENS of THOUSANDS of years.. At such sparse AND BIASED sampling (because most tree rings and ices cores are not located globally) you can miss a lot of AMOs PDOs, tropical cycles (eg) and other natural variance.

 

[ScienceRocks]

May 15: 411.27 ppm

 

[SSDD]

May 15: 411.27 ppm

You keep saying that like it is some sort of mantra to you...as if it means something...can you provide a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports your belief that it means anything at all other than that CO2 has reached a certain number..just as the temperature today will be

Chanting the chant of the glassy eyed cult over and over ad nauseum doesn't make it mean anything at all other than that you are a dupe, a tool, and a useful idiot.

 

[Crick]

www.ipcc.ch. Look up WG-I, The Physical Science Basis. It is a thorough and objective assessment of the peer-reviewed and published evidence, empirical and otherwise. Your consistent lie that such evidence doesn't exist has attained the character of complete delusion.

 

[SSDD]

www.ipcc.ch. Look up WG-I, The Physical Science Basis. It is a thorough and objective assessment of the peer-reviewed and published evidence, empirical and otherwise. Your consistent lie that such evidence doesn't exist has attained the character of complete delusion.

Already have skid mark...more than once..and neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can pull a single shred of observed, measured, quantified data from that steaming pile that supports AGW over natural variability...

If you believe such evidence is there, then lets see it...the bullshit you have brought forward so far doesn't even come close...but it has gone a long way towards showing how easily you have been fooled, and what a low threshold you have for considering something to be actual evidence.

 

[Crick]

Doesn't it embarrass you to continue to lie when everyone here knows you're doing it?

 

[SSDD]

Doesn't it embarrass you to continue to lie when everyone here knows you're doing it?

Doesn't it embarrass you to keep claiming that observed, measured, quantified evidence exists that supports AGW over natural variability in that steaming pile of shit when everyone sees you unable to bring forward even a single shred over and over? Why do you even bother...you know that every time you claim actual evidence that supports AGW over natural variability, I am going to remind you that you claim it is there but can't seem to bring any of it here...and then you just look like an idiot because what everyone sees is that you, in fact, don't bring even a single shred here to prove your claim.

And sorry guy, but it is you who is lying...and every one sees it...every time you fail to bring even a single piece of such evidence here...if it existed, you would have it handy to wave under my nose every time I ask for it...instead, you just lie and make the same old claims that are still lacking any sort of support.

 

[Crick]

Not in the slightest. My claims are completely and demonstrably true. Yours are unsupportable and demonstrably false. You're the one that ought to be bothered my sweet.

 

[ScienceRocks]

May 17: 410.03 ppm

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Can't wait......

Let's heat this sucker up.

 

[SSDD]

Not in the slightest. My claims are completely and demonstrably true. Yours are unsupportable and demonstrably false. You're the one that ought to be bothered my sweet.

So lets see a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports AGW over natural variability...or you could just admit defeat by giving me some excuse for not providing such evidence.

My claim is that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...rather than prove me wrong by simply posting the evidence both for me, and for anyone else who is looking on, your reply is to demonstrate that my claim is true by not posting any such evidence. You would be bothered were you perhaps, just a tad more intelligent.

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody cares about the PPM........still.

 

[ScienceRocks]

May 18: 410.21 ppm

 

[Markle]

Something odd that I recently noticed. Toyota does not make a “Flex Fuel” version of the Prius. Many people see the Prius as an “environmentally-friendly” car, but really, all that it achieves with its complex hybrid drive system is a slight increase in how efficiently it uses the power from its gasoline-fueled engine. In the end, it still gets its power from burning gasoline, and it burns almost as much gasoline per mile, and produces almost as much pollution per mile, as a comparable car using a more conventional propulsion system.

My “Flex Fuel” 2016 Dodge Dart running on E85, is probably running a lot cleaner than any Prius. Yet the Prius gets to be designated as a “clean air vehicle”, and on that basis, is allowed to use the carpool lanes even with only one occupant, while my Dart does not. If Toyota was really serious about the Prius as an “environmentally-friendly” car, they'd equip every single one to be able to run, as my Dart can and does, on up to 85% ethanol.

Are you aware or do you care how much fossil fuels it takes to produce one gallon of alcohol?

Among his findings are:

• An acre of U.S. corn yields about 7,110 pounds of corn for processing into 328 gallons of ethanol. But planting, growing and harvesting that much corn requires about 140 gallons of fossil fuels and costs $347 per acre, according to Pimentel's analysis. Thus, even before corn is converted to ethanol, the feedstock costs $1.05 per gallon of ethanol.
• The energy economics get worse at the processing plants, where the grain is crushed and fermented. As many as three distillation steps are needed to separate the 8 percent ethanol from the 92 percent water. Additional treatment and energy are required to produce the 99.8 percent pure ethanol for mixing with gasoline. o Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion to ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make 1 gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. "Put another way," Pimentel says, "about 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in ethanol. Every time you make 1 gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTU."
• Ethanol from corn costs about $1.74 per gallon to produce, compared with about 95 cents to produce a gallon of gasoline. "That helps explain why fossil fuels -- not ethanol -- are used to produce ethanol," Pimentel says. "The growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol. U.S. drivers couldn't afford it, either, if it weren't for government subsidies to artificially lower the price."

Ethanol fuel from corn faulted as 'unsustainable subsidized food burning' in analysis by Cornell scientist | Cornell Chronicle

Given those facts, other than you irrationally feeling good, what benefit is there in you burning more alcohol than gasoline?

 

[Markle]

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.

How do we develop a systematic approach to murdering off a few billion people?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Let's ask Bill Nye....lol






.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Let's ask Bill Nye....lol






.

Sex is good. Do you agree?