Might hit 411 tomorrow s0ns................. [URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Nobody%20cares.gif.html][/URL]
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
How is it that it's the RWNJs who didn't learn about CO2 in 6th grade?
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
…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.
…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.
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.
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.
A 20% cyclical modulation? Crap, Mr. Flacaltenn, don't ever criticize anyone's math on here again.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.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...
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%.
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.
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.
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.
ut most of the paleo data you cite doesn't have the resolution to show quick peaks. Same with the paleo proxies for temp.
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..