2017 Co2 watch thread--How high will it go?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Articles: Pruitt to Dismantle EPA Climate Agenda

ppm has never been more irrelvant

And like Gavin said, the climate of our planet doesn't care about our political idiocy. Not one damn bit.

the climate of our planet doesn't care about our political idiocy.

Or about the trillions you'd like to waste, damaging our economy, lowering our standards of living, building ******* windmills.
Morons.

 

[skookerasbil]

Articles: Pruitt to Dismantle EPA Climate Agenda

ppm has never been more irrelvant

And like Gavin said, the climate of our planet doesn't care about our political idiocy. Not one damn bit.

s0n.........but you're doing it wrong. The AGW crowd still hasn't made the case to the only people it needs to impress: the idiots......just the way it is s0n. The graphs, the models, the science, the big scary red maps.......none of it matters for dick if the public is unimpressed. The AGW crowd lives in a bubble.

s0n....you might be the director of the greatest play production ever made but if nobody comes to see it, nobody cares.

We have bozos in here screaming from the hilltops about solar energy being the greatest thing in the world but nobody is caring.....its still uber-fringe and will be for decades. Sales of EV's are still a joke no matter how many bows the bozo's take!!

There are certainly football fans in Cleveland who truly think their Browns team is the best football team in the sport.......but 999 out of 1,000 people would say they are doing it wrong.

 

[ScienceRocks]

December 11: 404.36 ppm

 

[polarbear]

December 11: 404.36 ppm

Here is some math for you matthew
read this:
What is the average global temperature now? | UCAR - University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
For example, the average annual temperature for the globe between 1951 and 1980 was around 57.2 degrees Fahrenheit (14 degrees Celsius). In 2015, the hottest year on record, the temperature was about 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C) warmer than the 1951–1980 base period.
And then this:
First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface | Berkeley Lab
Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade.
So now go figure how much impact that has on temperature.
3.5 decades @ .2 watts/m^2 = 0.7 watts/m^2 more than you had in 1980
In 1980 the average GT was 14 C and a 14 C body radiates 384.715 watts/m^2
add the 0.7 watts/m^2 to that = 385.415 Watts/m^2 which is how much heat the earth will radiate after it`s come to the new & "hotter" equilibrium.
So how much "hotter" will that be?
Work it backwards from the watts/m^2 and all you`ll get is 0.13 deg C "hotter" which is something you can`t even register with a normal thermometer

So if they (the AGW freakouts) tell you it`s gotten warmer by 1 whole deg C since 1980, then that could not have come from the CO2
the other 0.87 Degrees (or 87% of the increase) must have come from something else. Try the sun !

 

[Wyatt earp]

December 11: 404.36 ppm

December 11, 128,897,854 B.C.

2056.78 ppm

 

[ding]

Good Lord, Matthew... run for the hills. We are in an interglacial cycle.

 

[ScienceRocks]

December 11: 404.36 ppm

December 11, 128,897,854 B.C.

2056.78 ppm

Sea levels were 240 feet higher...Every major coastal city on earth gone.

 

[ScienceRocks]

December 18: 404.52 ppm
December 17: 405.54 ppm
December 16: 405.04 ppm
December 15: 405.68 ppm

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

December 11: 404.36 ppm

December 11, 128,897,854 B.C.

2056.78 ppm

Sea levels were 240 feet higher...Every major coastal city on earth gone.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[ScienceRocks]

December 11: 404.36 ppm

December 11, 128,897,854 B.C.

2056.78 ppm

Sea levels were 240 feet higher...Every major coastal city on earth gone.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Considering the majority of civilization and large cities live near the coast...Well, that would make sense.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

December 11: 404.36 ppm

December 11, 128,897,854 B.C.

2056.78 ppm

Sea levels were 240 feet higher...Every major coastal city on earth gone.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Considering the majority of civilization and large cities live near the coast...Well, that would make sense.

Lot's of uncivilized large cities.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Week beginning on December 11, 2016: 404.93 ppm

 

[Lastamender]

Week beginning on November 13, 2016: 403.74 ppm

Some predictions
1. We'll have a daily high of >= 412ppm
2. Weekly high of over 411ppm
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_weekly_mlo.txt

3. Peak Monthly around 409.75-410.25ppm

This thread is for data and the discussion of such...I aint replying to you if you make a remark outside of this...

Stop breathing that will cut down on it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Week beginning on November 13, 2016: 403.74 ppm

Some predictions
1. We'll have a daily high of >= 412ppm
2. Weekly high of over 411ppm
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_weekly_mlo.txt

3. Peak Monthly around 409.75-410.25ppm

This thread is for data and the discussion of such...I aint replying to you if you make a remark outside of this...

Stop breathing that will cut down on it.

Same for you. I wish the same for you.

 

[Lastamender]

Week beginning on November 13, 2016: 403.74 ppm

Some predictions
1. We'll have a daily high of >= 412ppm
2. Weekly high of over 411ppm
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_weekly_mlo.txt

3. Peak Monthly around 409.75-410.25ppm

This thread is for data and the discussion of such...I aint replying to you if you make a remark outside of this...

Stop breathing that will cut down on it.

Same for you. I wish the same for you.

0Good luck I am not worried about Co2

 

[Old Rocks]

Articles: Pruitt to Dismantle EPA Climate Agenda

ppm has never been more irrelvant

And like Gavin said, the climate of our planet doesn't care about our political idiocy. Not one damn bit.

the climate of our planet doesn't care about our political idiocy.

Or about the trillions you'd like to waste, damaging our economy, lowering our standards of living, building ******* windmills.
Morons.

And what would you have us spend money on for energy? Coal? Way too dirty and expensive. Nuclear, far, far too expensive, and there is still the waste problem. Gas, a good bridge to renewables, but now more expensive than either solar or wind.

Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels

Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels
Record clean energy investment outpaces gas and coal 2 to 1.
by
Tom Randall
April 6, 2016, 2:00 AM PDT

Wind and solar have grown seemingly unstoppable.

While two years of crashing prices for oil, natural gas, and coal triggered dramatic downsizing in those industries, renewables have been thriving. Clean energy investment broke new records in 2015 and is now seeing twice as much global funding as fossil fuels.

One reason is that renewable energy is becoming ever cheaper to produce. Recent solar and wind auctions in Mexico and Morocco ended with winning bids from companies that promised to produce electricity at the cheapest rate, from any source, anywhere in the world, said Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

"We're in a low-cost-of-oil environment for the foreseeable future," Liebreich said during his keynote address at the BNEF Summit in New York on Tuesday. "Did that stop renewable energy investment? Not at all."

Here's what's shaping power markets, in six charts from BNEF:

Renewables are beating fossil fuels 2 to 1

 

[ScienceRocks]

December 29: 405.27 ppm

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

December 29: 405.27 ppm

Less than it was on December 17. We're saved!

 

[ScienceRocks]

December 29: 405.27 ppm

Less than it was on December 17. We're saved!

Well, it bounces around quite abit through Dec-Jan...Feb-May are the big months.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Articles: Pruitt to Dismantle EPA Climate Agenda

ppm has never been more irrelvant

And like Gavin said, the climate of our planet doesn't care about our political idiocy. Not one damn bit.

the climate of our planet doesn't care about our political idiocy.

Or about the trillions you'd like to waste, damaging our economy, lowering our standards of living, building ******* windmills.
Morons.

And what would you have us spend money on for energy? Coal? Way too dirty and expensive. Nuclear, far, far too expensive, and there is still the waste problem. Gas, a good bridge to renewables, but now more expensive than either solar or wind.

Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels

Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels
Record clean energy investment outpaces gas and coal 2 to 1.
by
Tom Randall
April 6, 2016, 2:00 AM PDT

Wind and solar have grown seemingly unstoppable.

While two years of crashing prices for oil, natural gas, and coal triggered dramatic downsizing in those industries, renewables have been thriving. Clean energy investment broke new records in 2015 and is now seeing twice as much global funding as fossil fuels.

One reason is that renewable energy is becoming ever cheaper to produce. Recent solar and wind auctions in Mexico and Morocco ended with winning bids from companies that promised to produce electricity at the cheapest rate, from any source, anywhere in the world, said Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

"We're in a low-cost-of-oil environment for the foreseeable future," Liebreich said during his keynote address at the BNEF Summit in New York on Tuesday. "Did that stop renewable energy investment? Not at all."

Here's what's shaping power markets, in six charts from BNEF:

Renewables are beating fossil fuels 2 to 1

How many time you gonna post this lie?