We Just Breached the 410 Parts Per Million Threshold

[mamooth]

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Lucy, what do you really think concerning the changes we are seeing from the increase in GHG's? Or are you just going to do nonsensical posts like the rest of the 'Conservatives' here?

What changes. There have been no changes. Nothing that is happening now is in any way different than what has happened before. Long before mankind was able to add much more than the normal background CO2. It is all a lie.

What changes? Only the entire cryosphere. Only the acidity of sea water. Only sea level. Only number of extreme weather events per year. Only intensity of droughts and flooding precipitation events. Only the number of exteme heat days. Yeah, what changes.

 

[westwall]

Now Lucy, what do you really think concerning the changes we are seeing from the increase in GHG's? Or are you just going to do nonsensical posts like the rest of the 'Conservatives' here?

What changes. There have been no changes. Nothing that is happening now is in any way different than what has happened before. Long before mankind was able to add much more than the normal background CO2. It is all a lie.

What changes? Only the entire cryosphere. Only the acidity of sea water. Only sea level. Only number of extreme weather events per year. Only intensity of droughts and flooding precipitation events. Only the number of exteme heat days. Yeah, what changes.

Show me a time when the cryosphere hasn't been in flux. Go ahead I dare you. Amazingly enough google books has a ton of the nautical gazettes from the 1800's now posted online and the reports they printed from vessels in the area show that what is happening right now happened waaaaay back then. In other words, it is NORMAL.

 

[SSDD]

Now Lucy, what do you really think concerning the changes we are seeing from the increase in GHG's? Or are you just going to do nonsensical posts like the rest of the 'Conservatives' here?

What changes. There have been no changes. Nothing that is happening now is in any way different than what has happened before. Long before mankind was able to add much more than the normal background CO2. It is all a lie.

What changes? Only the entire cryosphere. Only the acidity of sea water. Only sea level. Only number of extreme weather events per year. Only intensity of droughts and flooding precipitation events. Only the number of exteme heat days. Yeah, what changes.

Pure bullshit rocks...pure imaginary bullshit.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Lucy, what do you really think concerning the changes we are seeing from the increase in GHG's? Or are you just going to do nonsensical posts like the rest of the 'Conservatives' here?

What changes. There have been no changes. Nothing that is happening now is in any way different than what has happened before. Long before mankind was able to add much more than the normal background CO2. It is all a lie.

What changes? Only the entire cryosphere. Only the acidity of sea water. Only sea level. Only number of extreme weather events per year. Only intensity of droughts and flooding precipitation events. Only the number of exteme heat days. Yeah, what changes.

Show me a time when the cryosphere hasn't been in flux. Go ahead I dare you. Amazingly enough google books has a ton of the nautical gazettes from the 1800's now posted online and the reports they printed from vessels in the area show that what is happening right now happened waaaaay back then. In other words, it is NORMAL.

Link?

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Lucy, what do you really think concerning the changes we are seeing from the increase in GHG's? Or are you just going to do nonsensical posts like the rest of the 'Conservatives' here?

What changes. There have been no changes. Nothing that is happening now is in any way different than what has happened before. Long before mankind was able to add much more than the normal background CO2. It is all a lie.

What changes? Only the entire cryosphere. Only the acidity of sea water. Only sea level. Only number of extreme weather events per year. Only intensity of droughts and flooding precipitation events. Only the number of exteme heat days. Yeah, what changes.

Show me a time when the cryosphere hasn't been in flux. Go ahead I dare you. Amazingly enough google books has a ton of the nautical gazettes from the 1800's now posted online and the reports they printed from vessels in the area show that what is happening right now happened waaaaay back then. In other words, it is NORMAL.

Once again, you are a liar.

Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years

• Christophe Kinnard,
• Christian M. Zdanowicz,
• David A. Fisher,
• Elisabeth Isaksson,
• Anne de Vernal
• & Lonnie G. Thompson

Arctic sea ice extent is now more than two million square kilometres less than it was in the late twentieth century, with important consequences for the climate, the ocean and traditional lifestyles in the Arctic1, 2. Although observations show a more or less continuous decline for the past four or five decades3, 4, there are few long-term records with which to assess natural sea ice variability. Until now, the question of whether or not current trends are potentially anomalous5 has therefore remained unanswerable. Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic6 seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.

 

[SSDD]

Arctic sea ice extent is now more than two million square kilometres less than it was in the late twentieth century, with important consequences for the climate, the ocean and traditional lifestyles in the Arctic1, 2. Although observations show a more or less continuous decline for the past four or five decades3, 4, there are few long-term records with which to assess natural sea ice variability. Until now, the question of whether or not current trends are potentially anomalous5 has therefore remained unanswerable. Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic6 seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.

Always the short view...and outdated papers...because that is the only way to make it scary to the uneducated...Your paper completely ignores the gold standard temperature reconstruction of the past 10,000 years in favor of alarmist dogma....

Here...from a more up to date paper...published in 2017...done by an actual scientist as opposed to a dogma preaching idiot...

Holocene variability in sea ice cover, primary production, and Pacific‐Water inflow and climate change in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas (Arctic Ocean)

 

[westwall]

Now Lucy, what do you really think concerning the changes we are seeing from the increase in GHG's? Or are you just going to do nonsensical posts like the rest of the 'Conservatives' here?

What changes. There have been no changes. Nothing that is happening now is in any way different than what has happened before. Long before mankind was able to add much more than the normal background CO2. It is all a lie.

What changes? Only the entire cryosphere. Only the acidity of sea water. Only sea level. Only number of extreme weather events per year. Only intensity of droughts and flooding precipitation events. Only the number of exteme heat days. Yeah, what changes.

Show me a time when the cryosphere hasn't been in flux. Go ahead I dare you. Amazingly enough google books has a ton of the nautical gazettes from the 1800's now posted online and the reports they printed from vessels in the area show that what is happening right now happened waaaaay back then. In other words, it is NORMAL.

Once again, you are a liar.

Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years

• 
  
  
  • Christophe Kinnard,
  • Christian M. Zdanowicz,
  • David A. Fisher,
  • Elisabeth Isaksson,
  • Anne de Vernal
  • & Lonnie G. Thompson

Arctic sea ice extent is now more than two million square kilometres less than it was in the late twentieth century, with important consequences for the climate, the ocean and traditional lifestyles in the Arctic1, 2. Although observations show a more or less continuous decline for the past four or five decades3, 4, there are few long-term records with which to assess natural sea ice variability. Until now, the question of whether or not current trends are potentially anomalous5 has therefore remained unanswerable. Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show that—although extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth century—both the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic6 seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.

"Reconstruction" (in other words computer derived fiction) vs OBSERVED scientific reports. I know which I will lend more credence to.

 

[task0778]

Remote Sensing Systems, Inc. (RSS) is one of the two satellite-based datasets (the other is the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). And RSS is one of the five standard global temperature datasets, which include the two satellite datasets and the three terrestrial datasets – Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); the Hadley Centre/CRU dataset, version 4 (HadCRUT4); and the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). As this month, RSS is usually the first to report, and its latest monthly value, for February 2014, became available just hours ago.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

As usual, you are spinning and HOPING no one will notice. At the time of the FAR, not that long ago, there were only 4 emission scenarios presented. The one USED in that graph I put up was the "business as usual" scenario and is the PROPER one to use since neither the Montreal Protocols got fully implemented nor was deforestation reversed. So the next choice DOWN and ALL below that were not applicable..

So in 1990 -- that WAS the prediction and those results I showed were valid.

Furthermore -- you are projecting the "bad practice" of telling the media and politicians about the WORST CASE scenario. Which accounted for SCREAMING HEADLINES of doom and gloom and initiated this entire circus. I would NEVER take the Worst Case numbers from a turdish projection like that ---- but that's EXACTLY what the GW Parade Directors did to alarm the public and create the panic..

 

[Markle]

a cooling trend will begin and then the real problems begin...shorter growing seasons..famine..war on a scale we have never seen, etc. etc. etc.

You and your cult masters have been predicting this catastrophic cooling for 40 years now. It never arrives. Instead, it just keeps warming. Given how your cult has failed totally with every prediction it's made for 40 years running now, why shouldn't everyone put you in the same category as flat earthers?

In contrast, the real scientists have been correct with every prediction over that time. Mainstream scientists have credibility because they've earned it through success. If your cult wants similar credibility, you have to earn it by racking up a similar 40-year win streak. Simply whining about how unfair it is that everyone laughs at your failures is not going to earn you credibility.

You're a hoot! You don't even attempt to simply attempt to revise history, you reverse it entirely.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

All we have to do is put all the liberals at the bottom of the ocean and Global Warming would go away.....

Really? You want to pollute the oceans by dumping that sort of filth into them?

 

[Old Rocks]

More dumb fucks hiding the depths of their ignorance in trolling comments. Care to show us why 410 ppm of CO2 and 1800+ ppb of CH4 should not be a concern for everyone on this planet?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Ive been looking for a coal powered prius...any idea where I might find one?

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.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The only blind thinkers are those who demand that you not question them and their positions matt. Now, who is saying the "science is settled" again?

That would be the same side that thinks that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

 

[flacaltenn]

More dumb fucks hiding the depths of their ignorance in trolling comments. Care to show us why 410 ppm of CO2 and 1800+ ppb of CH4 should not be a concern for everyone on this planet?

Already did. It's called High Resolution CO2 Proxy studies. Shows similar PEAK levels of CO2 less then 2 Mill yrs before the descent into the Ice Ages. You've seen them multiple times. So why do you dismiss them?

Just because someone shoves a lower resolution historical study in your face and says " SEE -- no peaks".. Doesn't mean there aren't studies that show higher historical CO2 variance.

 

[Old Rocks]

Plio-Pleistocene climate sensitivity evaluated using high-resolution CO2 records

• M. A. Martínez-Botí,
• G. L. Foster,
• T. B. Chalk,
• E. J. Rohling,
• P. F. Sexton,
• D. J. Lunt,
• R. D. Pancost,
• M. P. S. Badger
• & D. N. Schmidt

Abstract

• Abstract•
• References•
• Author information•
• Extended data figures and tables•
• Supplementary information

Theory and climate modelling suggest that the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to changes in radiative forcing could depend on the background climate. However, palaeoclimate data have thus far been insufficient to provide a conclusive test of this prediction. Here we present atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) reconstructions based on multi-site boron-isotope records from the late Pliocene epoch (3.3 to 2.3 million years ago). We find that Earth’s climate sensitivity to CO2-based radiative forcing (Earth system sensitivity) was half as strong during the warm Pliocene as during the cold late Pleistocene epoch (0.8 to 0.01 million years ago). We attribute this difference to the radiative impacts of continental ice-volume changes (the ice–albedo feedback) during the late Pleistocene, because equilibrium climate sensitivity is identical for the two intervals when we account for such impacts using sea-level reconstructions. We conclude that, on a global scale, no unexpected climate feedbacks operated during the warm Pliocene, and that predictions of equilibrium climate sensitivity (excluding long-term ice-albedo feedbacks) for our Pliocene-like future (with CO2 levels up to maximum Pliocene levels of 450 parts per million) are well described by the currently accepted range of an increase of 1.5 K to 4.5 K per doubling of CO2.

Plio-Pleistocene climate sensitivity evaluated using high-resolution CO2 records : Nature : Nature Research

Interesting

 

[SSDD]

More dumb fucks hiding the depths of their ignorance in trolling comments. Care to show us why 410 ppm of CO2 and 1800+ ppb of CH4 should not be a concern for everyone on this planet?

The fact that neither you, nor all the kings horses and all the kings men can show no evidence to the contrary is enough...if there were actual evidence...observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting AGW over natural variability, then there would be reason to at least show some concern and do further research...but after decades of trying, and hundreds of billions of dollars down the toilet, you can't present a single shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that supports the claim that we should even give a second glance to either the CO2 concentration or the CH4 concentration in the atmosphere.

 

[mamooth]

You're a hoot! You don't even attempt to simply attempt to revise history, you reverse it entirely.

Pretending your cult didn't fail with its constant ice age predictions won't make that record of failure go away.

I'll assume you're just being stupid instead of deliberately dishonest. Your cult fed your a fake story that scientists predicted cooling, and, running on pure faith, you simply believed the story. After all, if you could think independently and check facts, you wouldn't be a denier.

Sadly for you, you believing very fervently in your conspiracy theory still doesn't make it true. It's only the deniers that have been predicting an imminent ice age for the past 40 years. The real scientists have been predicting warming all that time. One mainstream scientist, Dr. Reid Bryson, was a big ice age predictor in the 1970s. The media loved to focus on his stuff, because his alarmism made for an eye-catching story. Dr. Bryson, of course, was a hardcore global warming denier until his death. The rest of the scientists were correctly pointing out that warming was coming.

Over the years, ice agism became sort of a required belief of the denier cult. The constant warming instead doesn't phase them at all, as their faith is strong. Ask them, and they'll tell you that the new ice age is still just around the corner.

 

[SSDD]

[

Pretending your cult didn't fail with its constant ice age predictions won't make that record of failure go away.

Still trying to rewrite history...climate science was predicting a coming ice age back in the 70's and no amount of claiming otherwise is going to change it. How many published papers from 70's climate science would you like to see predicting cooling?