"Well, yeah. It's even higher than eleven!"
Posted on 05/31/2012 8:27:32 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (AP) — The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.
Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace. Years ago, it passed the 350 ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.
So far, only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will follow soon.
"The fact that it's 400 is significant," said Jim Butler, global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, Colo. "It's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this and we're still in trouble."
Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and most of it lasts about 100 years in the air, but some of it stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the Industrial Age, levels were around 275 parts per million.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
and I still need to post a Nascar race thread. talk about a disaster in the making. ;-]
Last I heard the “tippping point” was going to come in 2008. Since its too late now anyhow maybe these chicken littles will please just shut up an go away.
We are all gona' die!!!
What’s changed since 2008?
Obama took office, that’s what. We shall all blame Obama, it happened under his watch.
Air bubbles in Cretaceous amber show that CO2 levels then were around 3,200 ppm.
Hey, pal......I’ve got your CO2 home removal kit right here. Don’t crowd...plenty to go around.
Is something carrying CO2 to the arctic, but not to the antarctic? Or failing to absorb it in one locale but not the other? Le Chatelier’s [sp?] principle would suggest that, like chilling a fizzy Coke, you’d absorb more carbon dioxide in the water in the arctic (so long as there was open liquid water available to do so). So there should be less of the stuff in the arctic, not more.
” - - - carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.”
WRONG!
There is no known cause and effect between a change in the CO2 content in the atmosphere and a change in the temperature of the atmosphere.
Yup. “Gaia” has survived far greater atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, and she has come back from it smelling like a rose. The hard question is how can you manage to kill the earth, not how can you keep from killing it.
LOL! Who wrote this, an eighth grader?
IOW.....we’re perpetuating the concocted MYTH....so those RICH countries will forgive those POOR countries their debt and shift $$$$ to them through a ‘Robin Hood Tax’ (i.e. ‘Carbon Exchange’).
Even more to the point CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. All the models require that CO2 merely act as a trigger to up H20 levels which is what actually causes the real temperature change. You can double atmospheric CO2 and get only a 1 C increase in temperature.
The best theoretical (not hyperventilated empirical) principles suggest a weak heat trapping effect from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide that is logarithmic. To double the effect requires far more than twice the amount of carbon dioxide. And other entities such as methane and plain old water vapor vastly dominate the heat trapping effects of the atmosphere.
There is a theoretical cause and effect, but it’s so small that it would get lost in the chaotic noise of normal natural processes.
But they never let facts get in the way.
/johnny
I believe I read or heard a few days ago that a construction project of some kind on Alaska’s north slope had to be postponed due to uncommonly thick ice.
????????????????
But again, as more water vapor gets into the air, there are more clouds, whose tops reflect sunlight away from the planet! So it’s by no means a simplistic issue. Science as we know it has too little data to make anything but SWAGs (slyentific wild arse guesses).
Do these idiots not realize how close .04% is to zero?
As an agent necessary to plant growth, it's an alarmingly low level, especially when compared to 78% for Nitrogen
F-in Yahoo is aptly named. They are also heavily invested in the global warming scam or just plain stupid enviro idiots who just jumped off a Whale War boat.
No, it isn't. It is just a number from an arbitrary numbering system, measuring in arbitrary units. The number has no natural, intrinsic significance whatsoever. However, it does help "sell" the AGW agenda to make it sound "significant."
Some carbon dioxide is natural...
Well, I guess that depends on your definition of "some." To me, I might go with "an overwhelming majority of" instead. You see, as I understand it, 97% of the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources. Yes, 97%, not a typo. We contribute just under 3%... 97%, yeah, that's "some" from natural sources...
It’s all those factories, cars, and CO2 exhaling humans in the ARCTIC causing the levels to rise there. Must be, because that is what they say is the cause of all this, humans.
"Well, yeah. It's even higher than eleven!"
Obama must have been giving another speech. Someone shut this man up or the planet will die! LOL.
I wish I could make up complete BS and get paid handsomely.
Errr....that would be water vapor.
...I thought all the ice at the arctic was supposed to be gone by now....
CO2 is NOT a pollutant and is essential for all life on earth. That minute amounts of CO2 can alter the global climate is pure BS. In Australia a group of scientists have formed the Galileo Movement to oppose the Labour governments CO2 tax. This Galileo Movement video puts the whole CO2 as pollutant argument to rest. Grain of Rice Video
All that number means is that there are 999,605 parts per million of other gases.
There is a depiction of WATER VAPOR on most WEATHER SATELLITE websites.
There NEVER is a CO2 depiction. Wonder why?
RIGHT!
CO2 = < 400ppM = < 0.04 % of atmosphere
H2O = 25,000 ppM = 2.5 % of atmosphere
BTW, note that the CO2 levels did not statistically correlate with the atmosphere temperatures in the 1940’s.
“carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.”
LOL! Who wrote this, an eighth grader?
I apologize for the lack of html, HB (my kids and husband use a French keyboard and I can only do html properly at home), but isn’t methane one of the biggest pollutants? As in, um, cow emissions?
at home = should be “at work.”
Calm Down ! Calm Down ! God made it we can’t break it !
Absolutely. The theories they proffer have nothing to back them up and fly in the face of historical data. I mean if that 1 C change from CO2 could get us to a tipping point, why have we not hit it already and gone into a catastrophic warming death spiral? I mean the annual temperature variations year to year can be appreciably greater than 1 degree.
The theories are complete bunk, and only a self deluded computer modeller or someone who’s funding 100% relies upon panicking people would sell such crap.
WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE! (sometime)
bookmark to show the kids
LOL! Who wrote this, an eighth grader?
Have you seen photos of some of these liberal 'journalists'? Most of them look like they just stepped in from skateboarding at the local mall.
I'm not kidding. Most of what we read in the liberal press is being pounded out by people whose very first presidential vote was for John Kerry.
Dang it! I just bought some green bananas!
And the last Ice Age was 2000+ PPM....
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/ice-age-at-2000-ppm-co2/
Careful now - they don’t take kindly to you mathy types throwing facts around like that.
” - - - - There is a theoretical cause and effect, but it’s so small that it would get lost in the chaotic noise of normal natural processes.”
First there is an idea, then a speculation, then an hypothesis and finally after exhaustive testing the idea becomes a theory. Rarely is anything tested enough to become a Law.
If it does become a Law, then someone finds exceptions to it and the process starts all over. The two Laws of Gravity is a recent example: Newton’s and Einstein’s.
Since Global Warming is still in the statistical inference stage, Global Warming is an idea that is struggling to become a speculation.
Testing the idea of Global Warming is maintained at the impossible level by “experts”increasing the number of factors to be independently tested. Last year there were over 200 such variables - - - .
ALL TOGETHER NOW: “GLOBAL WARMING IS JUNK SCIENCE!”
BTW, since CHON is found in all life, and the main source of C is from CO2, is it not true that CO2 is an Environmentally Essential and Friendly Gas?
Ping.
More ecowacko BS, even if they are Govt employees.
I love the stupidity in the line about plants will absorb some CO2 in the summer which might lower the recorded level to below 400 ppwhatever.
I guess the plants that started to grow in my garden in February/March, April, and May didn’t absorb any CO2 during that time. I wonder how they grew without it.
Also, if there is increased plant growth due to global warming, then they are available to reduce any increase in CO2 levels.
I’ve always wondered why these so-called scientists are above my pay grade when they are so wrong so often. If I did that in my job, I would have been fired 20 years ago (and I wouldn’t have saved the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in liability costs).
Go figure! Up is down; down is up. God knows everything; Obama is God. Issue settled.
George Orwell just crapped in his grave.
Actually, there is a correlation. Rising temps have been shown by ice core data to be followed by a rise in CO2 concentration. In other words, CO2 rises always lag behind rises in temperature, by a fairly noticeable margin.
Doubling CO2 from the “safe” 350 to the “dangerous” 700 will cause the atmosphere to heat up about 1 degree C.
The disagreement concerns “Forcings,” or secondary events.
“Warmists” claim that 700ppm will set off a chain reaction of other events (like drought) that will ADD at least 3.0 degrees C more.
“Skeptics” claim that 700ppm will set off a chain reaction of other events (like clouds) that will REDUCE warming by at least 0.2 degrees C.
Wow.
I wonder how they decided that?
Does that mean we're dead? No? So they made a mistake. The real number is now 400 ppm. Never mind why. You're not qualified to understand complex computer modeling and integrating the vertical lapse rate of the framistan reciprocal of the alternating rapid global freezing and global warming.
These joker will need a few more gazillion$ to look further into it to find out how much time we really have left. But it's unlikely to be very long.
Cigar smoke is the chief emission of burning cigars. Some stays in the air for fortnight but some remains in the atmosphere for a millenum.
BZZZZZZZT! WRONG! Water is. Thanks for playing.
Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the Industrial Age, levels were around 275 parts per million.
I wonder what the levels were before fermentation? By the way, just how much CO2 does the fermentation process to manufacture Ethanol produce??
Could 'renewable fuels' be a culprit?
Are these guys having a cold one while they are measuring?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.