Earth has now passed 400 PPM almost as many times as Obama has killed Osama.
Looks like his CO2 deal with China didn’t work out quite as advertised.
Earth has now passed 400 PPM almost as many times as Obama has killed Osama.
Looks like his CO2 deal with China didn’t work out quite as advertised.
and the greens should celebrate the world becoming greener!
20% and increasing according to the latest information.
In Africa, there may be historic farming in never before doing so areas!
CO2 goes up. Planet gets greener. Temperatures still haven’t gone up in 18+ years. Libs rejoice that the planet is safe. Oh no, wait. That last one might be a little off the mark.
And I’m not talking about the planet.
The Senate plans to debate legislation that would give President Obama fast track authority over trade negotiation “very soon,” Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) tells reporters.
Start practicing ‘f*** the king’
Another very good article on the SECRET Passage of Trans-Pacific Partnership.
In other words this is the equivalent of the EU with the same secrecy surrounding it. Our politicians are about to sell out our country and make the USA a vassal state of the Trans-Pacific ‘Union’ with no real representatives or rights.
The writer has this part wrong but it is what the globalists really hope we will or better yet or politicians will swallow. Treaties Do Not Supersede the Constitution “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.
Here is a link to the WIKI leaks: https://wikileaks.org/tpp-ip2/“>Updated Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
That ‘bill’ the Senate passed yesterday will be our undoing as the Senate is Required to ratify treaties. Now they gave that away and the “Law of the Sea Treaty” will give the UN total control of the water in the US. Imagine going to the UN for the permission to pump water from your farm pond.
I read an article in Daily Caller
I find it refreshing that at least some publications have not totally bought into AGW.
Yep, but try to find such a thing from any MSM outlet.
Towards 700ppm. !!!!!
Onwards and Upwards 🙂
1,500ppm (0.15%) would be about the average for modern life on earth. Tho I wouldn’t say no to 2,000ppm (0.2%). BTW, CO2 warming peters out at about 20ppm is undetectable at 200ppm.
I too would be very very happy to see 1500 – 2000ppmv
Temp vs cO2 is logarithmic
I like 700 because its twice McGibbon’s 350.org number. 🙂
But 4 times is also good. First steps first 🙂
Earth First! We’ll mine the other planets later.
700 First! We’ll get the other levels later.
1,000 — 15,000ppmv and plants say thank you
As a counter to the next auto play video
“The CO2 is Plant Food Crock” ( I am glad I do not have sound or I would have tossed a shoe through the monitor if I had to hear that crap.)
Temperature x CO2 Interaction – Plant Growth Response (Agricultural Crops)
“critical global warming milestone”
lol-i’m still trying to find an explanation for the incredible coincidence that such a nice round figure like 400 is the milestone and not 387,403 or 412.
Is there a natural law or unknown magic that turns round numbers automatically into mega important tipping points???
what is exactly happening at 400pp that does not happen at 399 and why is 400ppm more dangerous in 2015 than 1000ppm+ have been million years ago?
or is this just another PR trick by the modern bernays/goebbels’ to indoctrinate people into eating more of the endless agw-sh!t because round numbers can be easy memorised by the masses and are therefore systematically missused to justify the installation of a global tax disguised as “save the climate” agenda and to give the elite the opportunity to stiffle production of every country in the world(=blackmail) by simply limiting their annual co2 output 🙂
What happens at 420? Do we all tip over?
North will become South.
Something’s wrong. It’s so dark and purple it must be 450-480 ppm there. They are all dead.
Would CO2 have an effect on Racism ?
Only if it kills Obama, Sharpton, and the rest of the race baiters.
We have heard for decades how the recent and rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 was caused entirely by industrialized man. So let’s run the numbers.
Atmospheric mass: 5.14E18 kg
Atmospheric mass CO2 @ 390.5 ppm (2011): 3.05E15 kg
Per IPCC AR5:
CO2 increase 1750 (278 ppm) to 2011 (390.5 ppm): 8.78E14 kg
Global fossil fuel CO2 1750 to 2011 w/ 45% residual: 3.67E14*.45=1.65E14 kg
Global fossil fuel share 1750 to 2011: 1.65/8.78 = 18.9% Not even close to “entirely.”
Global FF share of atmospheric CO2: 1.65/30.5=5.4% Natural sources fluctuate more than this.
Seems to me man is trying to solve a problem that is 95% not his.
(ppm mole basis)
The real problem is WAY WAY TOO LITTLE CO2
Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
Carbon limitation due to lower ambient CO2 partial pressures had a significant impact on the distribution of forest on the tropical mountains, in addition to climate. Hence, tree line elevation should not be used to infer palaeotemperatures.
To answer your question, at 421 ppm, the island of Grenada capsizes and Catalina Island off the California coast has a volcanic eruption.
Got to keep Global Warming in the News!!
“400 PPM Reached, Tipping point”
“2014 Hottest Year Ever”
“April 2015 Hottest Month ever”
Next: “2015 Shaping up to be the Hottest year Ever”
Total shit.. but they gotta keep up the FEAR… keep Global Warming in the news… people will forget how freakin’ cold it was this Winter!!
ok this is a serious question. they claim we haven’t had 400 ppm for millions of years, for the sake of argument i will ceed that point. My questions is what was the average (best guess or wag, wild ass guess, because evil man had not created the thermometer) temperature when the earth last had 400 ppm of co2.
This is what the Warmist show:
It is complete and utter Bovine Feces.
What is really really interesting is Barrow 1947-1948 data at 420 ppm! (average of 330 samples)
Gail, Thank you.
from a visual it appears that CO2 is a following indicator of temps, yes/no?
The article says millions of years ago, do you have one that goes back that far?
or are they just making up stuff, again
CO2 tends to become disolved in the oceans when it is cold and to outgas as the temperature rises. So yes CO2 lags temperature by about 800 years.
In general, the further back in time you go the more CO2 there is because plants and other chemical processes sequester CO2 as rock aka coal and limestone.
In this graph the present is on the left:
At this point in time the earth is actually in CO2 starvation mode:
Three papers on plant starvation:
This is a google translate of a paper on CO2 following temperature after a long delay.
Gail, even if that graph were correct, it totally destroys the warmist meme.
It proves categorically that even when CO2 was at its highest , it was totally unable to even maintain the higher temperatures.
If fact, one could almost conclude that the higher CO2 levels actually lead to cooling.
There are those who think CO2 does lead to cooling, the ‘Sky Dragon Slayers’ who WUWT banned.
CO2 emits IR in the stratosphere above the tropopause:
If I understand the physic correctly the CO2 below the tropopause. absorb the IR photons in the correct wavebands but the overwhelming ‘reaction’ is for the energy to be transfered to the rest of the atmospheric molecules warming them. At that point, since hot air rises the energy is carried up. In other words all CO2 is doing is aiding conduction in a poor conductor, air.
It is not until above the tropopause that the air is thin enough that the mean time between collusions is long enough for the CO2 molecules to emit Ir energy instead of transferring it via collision.
Paraphrasing Dr. Brown.
When CO2 near the earth’s surface absorbs back radiation, the lifetime of the excited state caused by the absorption of the photon is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO_2 molecule and other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO_2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO_2 molecules around.
In other words near the surface back radiation, aka a ‘resonantly re-emitted’ photon is a RARE EVENT.
Dr Happer in his lecture agreed and further stated that the time to radiate is about ten times slower than the time to the next collision in the troposphere. Dr Happer in his lecture also answered my question about where CO2 energy is radiated instead of being handed off via collision. Experimental data shows barely any radiation at 11 KM and that radiating is in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface as shown in the graph above.
More details and the liks in my comment HERE.
This is why there was so much discussion about the missing “Hot Spot”
As usual when the ” mid-troposphere hot spot (which was previously considered to be the definitive “fingerprint” of man-made global warming)” did not appear “despite millions of weather balloon and satellite observations over the past 60 years” The warmist turned around and are now claiming ” cooling of the stratosphere is now the new indicator.” (Roll eyes)
What stratospheric hotspot?
Yes, some of us believe that the atmosphere as a whole distributes heat and mitigates the rise and fall of temps during the day and night. The “atmospheric effect” is complex and CO2 does not do what James Hansen and the mainstream climatologists claim it does. These views are frowned upon at WUWT and are against site policy. You can briefly mention or hint at these beliefs but you better distance yourself from “the Slayers” or risk being banned.
One person observed, “Only radiation emitted by a hotter body to a cooler body is absorbed for thermal gain. The radiation emitted by a cooler source does not have the power to jump the energy gap (wider electron orbit?) to make the hotter body raise its thermal energy level. The radiation from the Sun has that power, ‘backradiation’ from atmospheric CO2 does not, unless the receiving surface is cooler, which is certainly not the case globally. So demonstrating that one can identify ‘backradiation’ exists is a far cry from proving that it causes warming of the surface!”
That last sentence is something that will send the luke-warmers into fits of anger.
Some people do get upset when you suggest that the atmospheric pressure gradient regulates the temperature, and is in fact responsible for what they call the Greenhouse Effect. (I think this seems plausible, certainly more so than the current CO2 hypothesis.)
I tend to think of Venus and Uranus as having dense atmospheres, therefore the planetary surface remains relatively constant even on the non-solar side.
Earth has a semi-tenuous atmosphere, therefore experiences wider swings, but nevertheless, the atmosphere is always trying to regulate the temperature, against other factors.
There is still A LOT we don’t know about how the atmosphere operates, so all hypotheses should be on the table. 🙂
The real point is that in those graphs, peak CO2 was ALWAYS followed by cooling.
We of course realise that CO2 is actually following the temperature, and the variations in temperature are being driven by some outside factor.
But any of the alarmista that want to use those graphs to try to prove CO2 causes warming, should be nailed to the floor with that fact that peak CO2 was ALWAYS followed by cooling.
They really DO NOT like it when you point this out to them 🙂
It will likely pass 400 ppm twice more in the next year, once down, then back up again.
Don’t you just love the way they use scary pictures of water condensation to frighten the wits out of the public so that they think it’s invisible CO2!
If Humans are making that CO2 why isn’t it accelerating?
The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed.
“The distribution of underwater volcanoes tells us something about what is happening in the centre of the Earth,” says John Hillier of the University of Cambridge in the UK. That is because they give information about the flows of hot rock in the mantle beneath. “But the problem is that we cannot see through the water to count them,” he says.
From the “famously hot” Columbia, SC — Bring it on!!
400 ppm? I thought 350 ppm was the absolute max, the limit; well according to McKibben 350 is the max. And as we continue to choke the atmosphere with Mann-Made CO2, and absolutely nothing out of the ordinary happens, then what? Can we get our money back?
You get no money back, kulak. If you are lucky you may not go to a labor camp for denialism.
The first time a used “Toward 700ppm” was on a site with some resident McGibbonites.
Gees did they get upperty ! 🙂 🙂
Needless to say, I found I was not able to post there again. 😉
When you can not win the debate with facts Toss Ad Hom Bombs and then ban the opposing side. TRUTH must never get in the way of a money making Con.
I guess they used “green house gases” because they were afraid they would confuse CO2 with CO again. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-ciandella/2015/04/07/oops-cbs-evening-news-flunks-basic-science
IPCC AR5 ties ppm and RF together in the RCP models.
RCP 2.6 = 2.6 W/m^2 & 421ppm
RCP 4.5 = 4.5 W/m^2 & 538 ppm
RCP 6.6 = 6.0 W/m^2 & 670 ppm
RCP 8.5 = 8.5 W/m^2 & 936 ppm
RCP 8.5 is the one where the ice caps melt and the sea levels rise 1.51 to 6.63 meters – in year 2500.
Solar & earth heat fluxes are hundreds of W/m^2, clouds generate -20 W/m^2, but 5 W/m^2 is terrible!! End of earth!!
Per figure 6.1 annual anthropogenic CO2 adds about 1.47E13 kg to the 3.05E15 atmospheric CO2 or 0.48%.
Why do we measure “World atmospheric CO2” at just one location? If that’s valid why don’t we just measure “world atmospheric temperature” at the same place for simplicity? 🙂
In exploring validity, most will agree that warm oceans are CO2 emitters, as are active volcanoes. So, of course, the “World CO2” measurement location, (obviously selected for neutrality /s) just happens to be an active volcano on an island located in the warmer part of the ocean.
I’m tempted to stop there and ignore the matter henceforth. But maybe I’m wrong, and current measurement of “World CO2” is actually valid. In that case, one notices that the atmospheric CO2 content graph is linear, but the human produced CO2 graph is exponential. IOW, after decades of exponential growth in “human CO2 ‘pollution’ “; there is no significant change in the ongoing rate of increase of “World CO2”. Surely I’m not the only one to conclude from this that human produced CO2 does not yet exceed the “noise” in the natural system??
I’m told (see below) a possibly valid world CO2 measurement system does exist, and that seems to be the case.. NOAA has spent megabucks on a CO2 system for over 30yrs, but that escaped me, and somehow the Hawaii CO2 measurements are the only ones I’d seen till now. Thus, my first point above is just wrong, sorry ’bout that.
NOAA’s tall towers web site has several locations. Lots of variety, pick a location and readings that suit your agenda.