Is it a coincidence that 410 was acheived on 4/20 ? You gotta be smoking something to celebrate either one.
Congratulations, this was the only denier post on this thread that wasn't conspiracy trolling or calls for genocide. Sadly, that's now normal.
BTW -- It will be BELOW 410ppm again this fall. Because the PEAK rides on the Mean and there is at least 20ppm variance EVERY YEAR.. So anybody panicking about this -- just needs to wait out the summer when the OCEAN (around Mauna Loa) is "polluting" with 10 times the CO2 that man puts out
A fine red herring. Yes, CO2 has a cyclical component on top of the increasing trend. So? I can't figure out why you mentioned the oceans outgassing CO2, as it has no bearing on anything here.
What MATTERS is --- the initials models that got this HYSTERIA started were way off. Even back the 1990 IPCC report (FAR) -- they were OFF on temperature dependency by a factor of 2.
No, they weren't. Your image shows temps inside the FAR projection. You're taking the top edge of the prediction, not the middle.
What's more, those predictions were made considering a certain high emission scenario. Emissions have been much lower. Matching to actual emissions, the 1990 FAR predicted 0.2C/decade. Actual warming was 0.15C/decade. So, not bad.
Instead of something like 1.2DegC by 2020, It's looking more like 0.6degC by 2020..
It's already around 1.0C, with half a doubling. That puts the transient climate sensitivity around 2.0C. The equilibrium climate sensitivity has to be much bigger. That's based only on direct measurements, and does not depend on any model. Equilibrium climate sensitivity looks to be over 3.0C.
ALL these estimates that started the panic were WAY over-hype and exaggerated. There's an ISSUE --- not a CRISIS .. Bottom Line.. FAR is the First IPCC report, SAR then Third or TAR. Guess which numbers the politicians and the media ran headlines on 1990??
We shouldn't have to guess. You should show us, with links.
Your logic is bad in other ways. "A 1990 model was a little high ... therefore all the models are wrong" is not valid logic. You're also using bad "Y2K was not a catastrophe, so Y2K was a hoax" type logic. Emissions were controlled because of predictions of what would happen if they weren't. That doesn't make the predictions of high-emission scenarios wrong.