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



## ScienceRocks (Nov 20, 2016)

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...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2016)

Yawn.....

Breathless Mathew worrying about something that does not do what he thinks..   A measurement that ranges from 380ppm to 411ppm depending on where you are on the globe..

Tell me Mathew did we have glaciation when the earth CO2 levels were above 7,000ppm?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Nov 20, 2016)

Stop exhaling, Matthew.  Save the planet.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 20, 2016)

*This thread is only for data...God, how dumb are you people.*

*Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2*
November 19:    404.29 ppm
November 18:    403.18 ppm
November 17:    404.23 ppm
November 16:    404.70 ppm
November 15:    404.70 ppm


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Yawn.....
> 
> Breathless Mathew worrying about something that does not do what he thinks..   A measurement that ranges from 380ppm to 411ppm depending on where you are on the globe..
> 
> Tell me Mathew did we have glaciation when the earth CO2 levels were above 7,000ppm?


. Was thinking the same thing.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 20, 2016)

Do you have data from the twenty's, thirty's, and the fourty's also Matthew ?? We have to have the history of these numbers in order to judge the current trends and up's and downs right ?  Current or future stats have to be judged against the old numbers if there were any to judge from.  When did we start tracking such a thing ?? What about the scientist who were found to be lying or misrepresenting the numbers in order to get the conclusions they sought after ?  What can we believe in any of this Matthew or was it all a way to shift money around ?? Hmmm.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Yawn.....
> 
> Breathless Mathew worrying about something that does not do what he thinks..   A measurement that ranges from 380ppm to 411ppm depending on where you are on the globe..
> 
> Tell me Mathew did we have glaciation when the earth CO2 levels were above 7,000ppm?


*Because we did not have a glaciation when the CO2 levels were above 7000 ppm, Silly Billy, you lying little fuck.*

http://www.atmosedu.com/Geol390/articles/RoyeretalCO2GSAToday'04PhanerozoicClimate.pdf

ABSTRACT Recent studies have purported to show a closer correspondence between reconstructed Phanerozoic records of cosmic ray flux and temperature than between CO2 and temperature. The role of the greenhouse gas CO2 in controlling global temperatures has therefore been questioned. Here we review the geologic records of CO2 and glaciations and find that CO2 was low (<500 ppm) during periods of long-lived and widespread continental glaciations and high (>1000 ppm) during other, warmer periods. The CO2 record is likely robust because independent proxy records are highly correlated with CO2 predictions from geochemical models. The Phanerozoic sea surface temperature record as inferred from shallow marine carbonate δ18O values has been used to quantitatively test the importance of potential climate forcings, but it fails several first-order tests relative to more well-established paleoclimatic indicators: both the early Paleozoic and Mesozoic are calculated to have been too cold for too long. We explore the possible influence of seawater pH on the δ18O record and find that a pH-corrected record matches the glacial record much better. Periodic fluctuations in the cosmic ray flux may be of some climatic significance, but are likely of secondorder importance on a multimillionyear timescale.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2016)

We're clearly doomed.
You know what would help?
If we boot 20 million illegals.
Back in their home countries they would release a lot less CO2.
It's the only chance to save the planet.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 20, 2016)

Perhaps, Matthew, you should stop contributing to the problem, if you feel so strongly about it.   Do you realize that every time you exhale, you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere?  When you use electricity to run your lights, or A/C, your heating, or your other appliances, you're adding CO[sub]2[/sub].  When you travel by car or bus or any other conveyance, you're adding CO[sub]2[/sub].  Nearly all of the products that you buy and consume, added CO[sub]2[/sub] during the course of their production and transportation.

  Like any good *li*b*e*ral, you're quick to call for others to stop adding CO[sub]2[/sub] to the atmosphere, but what are you doing about your own impact?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2016)

beagle9 said:


> Do you have data from the twenty's, thirty's, and the fourty's also Matthew ?? We have to have the history of these numbers in order to judge the current trends and up's and downs right ?  Current or future stats have to be judged against the old numbers if there were any to judge from.  When did we start tracking such a thing ?? What about the scientist who were found to be lying or misrepresenting the numbers in order to get the conclusions they sought after ?  What can we believe in any of this Matthew or was it all a way to shift money around ?? Hmmm.


Well now, why don't you just name those scientists, and your source for claiming that they are lying?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 20, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *This thread is only for data...God, how dumb are you people.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have data from the twenty's, thirty's, and the fourty's also Matthew ?? We have to have the history of these numbers in order to judge the current trends and up's and downs right ?  Current or future stats have to be judged against the old numbers if there were any to judge from.  When did we start tracking such a thing ?? What about the scientist who were found to be lying or misrepresenting the numbers in order to get the conclusions they sought after ?  What can we believe in any of this Matthew or was it all a way to shift money around ?? Hmmm.
> ...



Nobel Prize winning scientist, Michael Mann, never lied once in his life.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn.....
> ...



Or infrastructure 
Or homes on the coast
Cities on the coast

Hell, most of our ability to transport cars, oil, natural gas and other goods is still by ship. A couple of feet of sea level change = can't use anymore.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 20, 2016)

Now back to data, please.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2016)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Perhaps, Matthew, you should stop contributing to the problem, if you feel so strongly about it.   Do you realize that every time you exhale, you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere?  When you use electricity to run your lights, or A/C, your heating, or your other appliances, you're adding CO[sub]2[/sub].  When you travel by car or bus or any other conveyance, you're adding CO[sub]2[/sub].  Nearly all of the products that you buy and consume, added CO[sub]2[/sub] during the course of their production and transportation.
> 
> Like any good *li*b*e*ral, you're quick to call for others to stop adding CO[sub]2[/sub] to the atmosphere, but what are you doing about your own impact?


Look, you dumb ass, what GHGs do in the atmosphere have nothing to do with liberal or conservative politics. That your abysmal knowledge base lets you make idiotic statements like stop breathing demonstrates what your level of willful ignorance is. What is being done about GHG emissions is the switch to renewable energy. Developing the batteries of the future so that transportation contributes very little to the GHGs.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 20, 2016)

*Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2*
October 2016:     401.57 ppm
October 2015:     398.29 ppm 

ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> We're clearly doomed.
> You know what would help?
> If we boot 20 million illegals.
> Back in their home countries they would release a lot less CO2.
> It's the only chance to save the planet.


. And the out of control breeding continues. America needs to understand that it can't control the world, but it sure can control the borders.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Yawn.....
> 
> Breathless Mathew worrying about something that does not do what he thinks..   A measurement that ranges from 380ppm to 411ppm depending on where you are on the globe..
> 
> Tell me Mathew did we have glaciation when the earth CO2 levels were above 7,000ppm?


Once again, you are pulling figures out of your ass, and they stink, Silly Billy. Scripps has many CO2 measuring stations worldwide, and the lowest recent figures, from New Zealand and Antarctica showed 398 ppm of CO2.

Home | Scripps CO2 Program


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2016)

beagle9 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > We're clearly doomed.
> ...


Off subject


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps, Matthew, you should stop contributing to the problem, if you feel so strongly about it.   Do you realize that every time you exhale, you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere?  When you use electricity to run your lights, or A/C, your heating, or your other appliances, you're adding CO[sub]2[/sub].  When you travel by car or bus or any other conveyance, you're adding CO[sub]2[/sub].  Nearly all of the products that you buy and consume, added CO[sub]2[/sub] during the course of their production and transportation.
> ...


. What's more hilarious is that you figured him to be serious about the exhaling comments. Wow.


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn.....
> ...


. And these figures are being thrown against what?  Any global event to talk about, where these figures got so out of whack that they caused that event, and then was it man's fault or something man can't control anyway ??


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


. How so ?  Doesn't it all contribute in some form or another ?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2016)

Why not, that is the typical intellectual level of our 'Conservatives'.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn.....
> ...


lol...

And Old Fraud does not have a clue about what CO2 actually does or how CO2  actually does it..

A Study I am currently reading and commenting on, says your magical back-scatter is meaningless and INCREASING CO2 actually results in cooling of the lower troposphere. 

The empirical evidence collected shatters the warmers point of view and theroy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2016)

beagle9 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


First, that is measured empirical data from all over the world by a first class scientific institution, the Scripps Institute. Second, if you want to argue the physics of how a GHG works, argue that with the American Institute of Physics. You are going to lose with your obvious low scientific knowledge base. And, yes, the increase is very much due to man. We have the records of our use of fossil fuels to prove it. That you could even question that is indictative of the fact that you have never even looked at the facts surrounding the science.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 20, 2016)

beagle9 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Look, you dumb ass, what GHGs do in the atmosphere have nothing to do with liberal or conservative politics. That your abysmal knowledge base lets you make idiotic statements like stop breathing demonstrates what your level of willful ignorance is. What is being done about GHG emissions is the switch to renewable energy. Developing the batteries of the future so that transportation contributes very little to the GHGs.
> ...



  It's no coincidence that there's a cliché about being _“as dumb as _[old][i] rocks[/i]_”_


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Well now, post that silly link, Silly Billy, and we will demolish it. And that is why you did not post it, because you know that is the case.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 You shout "but I got scientists" and they belong to a "political organization" that gets funding from the lie...


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


. After the scientist were found to be padding the numbers, what can we believe ?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2016)

The very large and looming danger of the GHGs is that this warming will lead to the release of the GHGs from clathrates and permafrost. If at some time, these begin to release about the same amount of GHGs as mankind, then the game is over. We will not be able to change the warming until it has ran it's full course.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2016)

beagle9 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


Links, asshole, links. And reputable sources. Rags like Breibart are not reputable.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


You couldn't demolish a pile of shit.

The paper will be published soon enough and the findings are going to turn the AGW hypothesis on its head.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The very large and looming danger of the GHGs is that this warming will lead to the release of the GHGs from clathrates and permafrost. If at some time, these begin to release about the same amount of GHGs as mankind, then the game is over. We will not be able to change the warming until it has ran it's full course.



LOL...  where do you dig up this crap?

Two studies this year show the permafrost contains far less CO2 than you alarmists are claiming..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


A moron like you gets to decide what is or is not reputable?  You really are a fucking moron...


----------



## beagle9 (Nov 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> The very large and looming danger of the GHGs is that this warming will lead to the release of the GHGs from clathrates and permafrost. If at some time, these begin to release about the same amount of GHGs as mankind, then the game is over. We will not be able to change the warming until it has ran it's full course.


 *IF, IF, IF, IF.... Big word that IF word is ain't it ??  Since Bill Clinton, we still don't know what the definition of "IS" is, so aren't you giving the nation way to much credit to figure out this ominous climate change ?? LOL...... It's exactly what you are hoping for (the dumbness) to continue ain't it ?*


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 20, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Promises, promises.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 23, 2016)




----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 25, 2016)

November 24:  403.08 ppm
November 23:    403.47 ppm
November 22:    403.55 ppm
November 21:    403.54 ppm
November 20:    403.40 ppm


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 25, 2016)

Just have to say......the OP is clearly in the middle of some kind of derangement syndrome thing after the election. These people still don't get they have been on this bomb throwing/scare mongering crusade for 2 decades to zero avail. Fucking duh........nobody out there gives a flying rats ass about 2017 CO2 levels except the alarmist OCD's.

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Trump.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 25, 2016)

Well, by the end of 2017, we will see how that flies. If the asshole does half the things he promised, we will see people out on the streets in all the cities in the US.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *This thread is only for data...God, how dumb are you people.*
> 
> *Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2*
> November 19:    404.29 ppm
> ...


But you don't believe in God, Matthew.


----------



## ding (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Are you Matthew's monitor police?  i.e. minion?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 25, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, by the end of 2017, we will see how that flies. If the asshole does half the things he promised, we will see people out on the streets in all the cities in the US.



You mean more than the whiney bitches already out on the streets?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 26, 2016)

November 25:    405.42 ppm


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 26, 2016)

Is the OP able to show us where anybody is giving a fuck about this?

Links please!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 26, 2016)

One beeeeelion


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 26, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> Is the OP able to show us where anybody is giving a fuck about this?
> 
> Links please!!!



I don't give a fuck what you say...

Millions of people give a fuck about the rise of co2 and its greenhouse effects on our climate...


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Matthew said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Is the OP able to show us where anybody is giving a fuck about this?
> ...


Matthew, I believe you are right.  Sell your car and your house.  Go live off of the land, but please don't make fires to cook your food.  Just eat it raw.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

Ah, here we go again. Ding. So you have reached down into the toilet of 'Conservative' arguments to pull out the old 'go live in a cave' stupidity. Well, you have already demonstrated your lack of intellect, so that is not surprising.

Actually, GM has a nice EV out now that has over 200 miles range on a charge, and excellent car for urban driving. And, of course, you have the Tesla's, S, X, and 3. In fact, Tesla, Porsche, and Mercedes are having meetings working on a faster charging system than even the Tesla Supercharger that will work for all three manufactures car and truck lines.

As the price of the batteries come down, and the power density goes up, you will see the EV's take over from the ICE's. And, within two decades, I think you will see oil used as an industrial stock, not for fuel. And then we will have no reason to drill for more, we will have plenty with existing fields.

Wind, solar, and geo-thermal will power our civilization, and spread the profits out among many, rather than just a few at the top.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah, here we go again. Ding. So you have reached down into the toilet of 'Conservative' arguments to pull out the old 'go live in a cave' stupidity. Well, you have already demonstrated your lack of intellect, so that is not surprising.
> 
> Actually, GM has a nice EV out now that has over 200 miles range on a charge, and excellent car for urban driving. And, of course, you have the Tesla's, S, X, and 3. In fact, Tesla, Porsche, and Mercedes are having meetings working on a faster charging system than even the Tesla Supercharger that will work for all three manufactures car and truck lines.
> 
> ...



*GM has a nice EV out now that has over 200 miles range on a charge*

We'll need to burn more coal.


----------



## ding (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Ah, here we go again. Ding. So you have reached down into the toilet of 'Conservative' arguments to pull out the old 'go live in a cave' stupidity. Well, you have already demonstrated your lack of intellect, so that is not surprising.
> 
> Actually, GM has a nice EV out now that has over 200 miles range on a charge, and excellent car for urban driving. And, of course, you have the Tesla's, S, X, and 3. In fact, Tesla, Porsche, and Mercedes are having meetings working on a faster charging system than even the Tesla Supercharger that will work for all three manufactures car and truck lines.
> 
> ...


What is YOUR carbon footprint, hypocrite?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, here we go again. Ding. So you have reached down into the toilet of 'Conservative' arguments to pull out the old 'go live in a cave' stupidity. Well, you have already demonstrated your lack of intellect, so that is not surprising.
> ...


Not at all. We will burn more natural gas for a while, but as the grid scale storage comes on line, we will burn less of that and use more wind and solar. Coal is dead, and bankruptcy is burying the coal companies.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 26, 2016)

Matthew said:


> November 25:    405.42 ppm




405.42ppm in late Nov is higher then the peak in 2015. That is monthly, weekly and I believe also daily.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So we can build twice as much unreliable solar to charge the batteries so that we can use the batteries at night to charge the EV batteries. Cool!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > November 25:    405.42 ppm
> ...



Your posts keep releasing CO2. You should be ashamed!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 26, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



All life does...Just that we shouldn't be dumb enough to release all the green house gases as occurred 250 million years ago in the great dying.

====On topic===

Co2 levels are over 3.1 to 3.2ppm over last year...410ppm is a very real possibility for the monthly peak.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 26, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > November 25:    405.42 ppm
> ...


Yes, we have hit the point where the previous years high are going to be comparable to this years lows. And, somewhere along the line, the permafrost and clathrates are going to start making significant contributions.


----------



## ding (Nov 27, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


What is YOUR carbon footprint, hypocrite?


----------



## Crick (Nov 27, 2016)

And what relevance do you think that has to the thread topic?  Do you have some threshold in mind above which one is not allowed to participate in the conversation?


----------



## ding (Nov 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> And what relevance do you think that has to the thread topic?  Do you have some threshold in mind above which one is not allowed to participate in the conversation?


It goes to the character of the witness.  If you religious fanatics really believed your own dogma your actions would match your words.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 27, 2016)

November 26:    405.40 ppm
Week beginning on November 20, 2016:   403.98 ppm


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 27, 2016)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 27, 2016)

Matthew said:


>



Trump is gonna make it 500 ppm!!!


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




By 2066 or maybe as soon as the 2050's...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 28, 2016)

The highest monthly was 407.7ppm last May...We're easily going to see our first 410ppm month this year as that is only a 2.3ppm rise...

Our first 400ppm monthly was in April of 2014.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Nov 28, 2016)

This is how fast and how far outside the 800,000 year norm we're.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 28, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Next year!!!!


----------



## ding (Nov 28, 2016)

Let's tell the whole story....


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 3, 2016)

December 02:    404.32 ppm


----------



## ding (Dec 3, 2016)

Matthew said:


> December 02:    404.32 ppm


You do realize that the annual cyclicity affects these readings, right?  And since we are in the winter months they will swing up, right?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 3, 2016)

ding said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > December 02:    404.32 ppm
> ...



  It's unlikely that Matthew realizes any such thing.  I think that's the sort of knowledge that the average person wouldn't have, much less someone as spectacularly far below average as Matthew.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 3, 2016)

ding said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > December 02:    404.32 ppm
> ...



lol,

Well, that is normal for things to go up and down as the earth breaths. Dumbass.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 3, 2016)

Bob Blaylock said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



You don't know shit about what you're talking about retarded red neck piece of crap. The plant life breaths from June-Oct as the % ppm of co2 decreases but now it suppose to be rising as the cycle beings again as we move into the new year. This happens every effin year and I think the people that study this shit understand a billion times more than a inbreed piece of shit like you. And yes, it is adjusted for.

It is all adjusted for. FUCKYOU!!! FUCK YOU IN YUOUR COCK SUCKING filth...FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT. My knowledge is above a hick double trailer piece of shit like you that doesn't even accept even the most basics of science and fights to destroy it. Don't fucking insult me with the image that you give a damn about science. Mother fucker.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 3, 2016)

Dumb fuckers think they know more about something they want to abolish than someone that has spent their lives watching, studying and researching the subject. lol, lol, lol. You hold no value on such science but you will pound your massive fucking fist on the fucking table when anyone stands up to your anti-science crap.

All you have are insults and personal opinions that aren't backed up by shit. That is why me and most scientist are right and you're* WRONG!*


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 4, 2016)

Looks like I hit a nerve.  Bereft of any rational, educated argument, Matthew is left to desperately try to project his own ignorance, ill-breeding, and sexual perversions, at his adversaries.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 4, 2016)

And yes, I have put both pieces of anti-science shit on ignore.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 4, 2016)

Matthew said:


> And yes, I have put both pieces of anti-science s••• on ignore.



  Irony:  Someone who accepts the madness that is _“transgenderism”_ calling anyone else _“pieces of anti-science _[Matthew]_”_.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 4, 2016)

December 03:    404.42 ppm

Also I can't read you and I will put anyone on ignore that thinks they can attack me with lies and pure bile. I'm Autistic and do have problems in writing but I've got degrees and I don't deserve to be belittled. If it makes you feel powerful or good about yourself by attacking me than I don't want anything to do with you.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 4, 2016)

Matthew said:


> And yes, I have put both pieces of anti-science [Matthew] on ignore.







Matthew said:


> Also I can't read you and I will put anyone on ignore…



_“There is none so blind as he who will not see.”_

  One who willfully chooses ignorance over knowledge is worthy only of scorn, contempt, and mockery.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 4, 2016)

So, what if all of us who have IQs above a dozen or so, provoke Matthew into putting us on “ignore”, and then continue to post prolifically in this thread?  Matthew will then just see his own needles of vapid posts in this thread, buried in a haystack of notifications about posts he's “ignoring”.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 4, 2016)

Classic Matthew..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 4, 2016)

I will never stop posting science and numbers.  It helps me and makes happy. It's soothing to me to post these numbers...

Before the election I had every single libertarian and conservative on ignore...Probably at least 200! I started out fresh after the election...Starting to reload it.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 4, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn.....
> ...



Notice that the charts in your paper only go back to 600 MA.  We had something called the "snowball Earth"  between 650 MA to 750 MA.

How convenient that the paper wouldn't include this period of Earth's climate history.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 4, 2016)

Matthew said:


> I will never stop posting science and numbers.



  You have no idea what science is.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 5, 2016)

*Global CO2*
October 2016:     402.31 ppm
October 2015:     398.60 ppm


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 5, 2016)

*Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2*
November 2016:     403.53 ppm
November 2015:     400.16 ppm


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 5, 2016)

just to point out once again..........nobody cares about this ppm thing.

Most Americans accept that climate change is real, they just don’t care that much about it


97 Percent Of Americans Don’t Care About Global Warming



Five Reasons Why We Don't Care About Climate Change | The Huffington Post


A Psychologist Explains Why People Don't Give a Shit About Climate Change | VICE | United States



CNN Boss Zucker: 'Tremendous' Lack of Interest in Our Climate Change Stories - Breitbart





pointing out too that Matthew has the political IQ of a small soap dish.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 5, 2016)

And that is why most of the world believes in global warming! Not only the scientist...But, hell, people that make shit up here in America seem to want to go against reality.

Says a lot about this country. Maybe the American people are generally really stupid?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 5, 2016)

Matthew said:


> And that is why most of the world believes in global warming! Not only the scientist...But, hell, people that make shit up here in America seem to want to go against reality.
> 
> Says a lot about this country. Maybe the American people are generally really stupid?



*But, hell, people that make shit up here in America seem to want to go against reality.*

From your base in reality, how many trillions do we have to spend on windmills to ensure the climate never, ever changes?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 7, 2016)

Matthew said:


> And that is why most of the world believes in global warming! Not only the scientist...But, hell, people that make shit up here in America seem to want to go against reality.
> 
> Says a lot about this country. Maybe the American people are generally really stupid?



Sunday’s snow sets record in several locations | WJBC AM 1230


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 7, 2016)

Matthew said:


> *This thread is only for data...God, how dumb are you people.*
> 
> *Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2*
> November 19:    404.29 ppm
> ...



Do you understand Matthew that the SEASONAL VARIATION of CO2 at Mauna --- the part that HAPPENS EVERY FUCKING YEAR --  is 3 times as large as the annual increase?  Watching it DAILY like gambling addict is not normal..  And pretty darn meaningless.


----------



## Crick (Dec 7, 2016)

Matthew posted two pairs of values, each pair exactly one year apart.  Your criticism is in error and unwarranted.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 8, 2016)

Crick said:


> Matthew posted two pairs of values, each pair exactly one year apart.  Your criticism is in error and unwarranted.



Certainly NOT in the post above that I replied to..  Do you not use the quote function -- so you can get these little digs in without alerting me to a response?  Or are you lazy? 

There are no "pairs" of data in Post #4 that I responded to.


----------



## ding (Dec 8, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew posted two pairs of values, each pair exactly one year apart.  Your criticism is in error and unwarranted.
> ...


The former.  He's trying to get his digs in without alerting you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > And yes, I have put both pieces of anti-science [Matthew] on ignore.
> ...


And that is exactly what you deserve, Blaylock. You have obviously chosen ignorance and stupidity over knowledge. You constantly post but never back anything at all up with links to credible scientists. Mathew does back almost all his posts.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Really? How so? Explain yourself if you can.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > And that is why most of the world believes in global warming! Not only the scientist...But, hell, people that make shit up here in America seem to want to go against reality.
> ...


Snow records are precipitation events. Was it record cold?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > And that is why most of the world believes in global warming! Not only the scientist...But, hell, people that make shit up here in America seem to want to go against reality.
> ...


Now Todd, we spend many billions, not trillions, on wind turbines because they produce electricity at a profit. The ultra-liberal state of Texas has the most wind power, and is installing a lot more as we post. It is economics that is driving the boom times for wind and solar.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew posted two pairs of values, each pair exactly one year apart.  Your criticism is in error and unwarranted.
> ...


In other words, I don't want to face the reality of the increasing CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere. I would rather pretend like nothing is happening, and go along with the orange clown and shut down science in the USA.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


"How so" what?  Aren't you familiar with the geologic period called "snowball earth" when the entire planet was covered with ice?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


They only produce at a profit if you include the government subsidies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



*Now Todd, we spend many billions, not trillions, on wind turbines because they produce electricity at a profit.*

Would that be the case if all subsidies and mandates were removed?


----------



## miketx (Dec 9, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Week beginning on November 13, 2016:  * 403.74 ppm
> 
> Some predictions
> 1. We'll have a daily high of  >= 412ppm
> ...


If more liberals would stop breathing, it would go way down.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Knowing that the yearly NATURAL variance is 3 times the yearly trend -- NO.. I don't want "daily updates".  It would assinine to even check. 

And WHY is the natural variance that high?   Because TEMPERATURE drives CO2, just as much as CO2 drives temperature..


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



BTW -- My bet is the orange clown will actually PROMOTE debate and open discussion of the GW science. A good start would be replacing Gavin Schmidt with Judith Curry. I recommended that the LParty pledge to conduct a series of high level lightly moderated debates at the Whitehouse. HIGHLY advertised and televised. I'd be thrilled if that happened.

Consensus doesn't happen without DEFENDING theories and practices. 'Bout time for that to happen.

*You'd be in favor of letting the cards play out --- wouldn't you?
*
You have confidence what the results of open public debate would be --- DON'T YOU??

Gavin Schmidt ADMITTED he lost he ass in the ONLY public debate he was a part of. You wouldn't be worried or anything right????


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



It's so warm in the midwest right now

Check out the 12-hour snowfall totals across Northeast Ohio


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

Is it supposed to be warm in the midwest right now? December? Any of these records for December?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Is it supposed to be warm in the midwest right now? December? Any of these records for December?



It was 17 F last night where I am.  Next Tuesday it's supposed to be -3 F.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


GSA Position Statement
 Adopted in October 2006
 Please let us know how you used this GSA Position Statement.
 Click on the questionnaire link at www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm.

Global Climate Change

 Contributors:

 Mark Peters — Chair Sally Benson, Thure Cerling, *Judith Curry,* Yehouda Enzel, Jim Finley, Alan Gillespie, Mickey Glantz, Lynn Soreghan

 Position Statement 

The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning. GSA also supports statements on the global climate change issue made by the joint national academies of science (June, 2005), American Geophysical Union (December, 2003), and American Chemical Society (2004). GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally: (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate.

 Background 

The geologic record provides a direct measure of the frequency, range, and duration of significant global climate changes throughout Earth’s history. Natural phenomena and processes have caused significant alterations of Earth’s climate. Of significance to the issue of modern global climate change are the interpretations of the geologic record showing that the rate of change in atmospheric composition, especially with respect to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, is unprecedented in Earth’s recent history. Specifically, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and probably higher than at any time in the past 30 million years. In addition, the geologic record shows that global climate change can have significant consequences to Earth’s life systems, with effects ranging from global modification of ecosystem distribution to large-scale extinctions. Because the geologic record provides the important archive of the consequences of global climate changes and harbors examples of icehouse-greenhouse transitions potentially analogous to modern climate change, the current nature and magnitude of global climate change should be evaluated in the context of Earth’s full geologic record. 

Many earth-science disciplines contribute to the scientific and public understanding of the complex, global climate change issue, including sedimentary geology, Quaternary geology, geochemistry, paleontology, and paleohydrology, in addition to oceanography and atmospheric sciences. The understanding of the full spectrum of magnitudes and rates of climate change over geologic time provides boundary conditions for evaluating any human impacts on climate and for producing more reliable predictions of the extent of future climate change. In addition, understanding of active geologic processes provides invaluable information to better understand and monitor ongoing climate change and to develop approaches for adapting to the consequences of climate change. Earth scientists also contribute to research on carbon capture and storage — potential methods for preventing atmospheric carbon dioxide from building up as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and biomass and the production of cement and lime.

 Current predictions of the consequences of global climate change include: (1) rising sea level, (2) significant alteration of global and regional climatic patterns with an impact on water availability, (3) fundamental changes in global temperature distribution, (4) melting of polar ice, and (5) major changes in the distribution of plant and animal species. While the precise magnitude and rate of climate change cannot be predicted with absolute certainty, significant change will affect the planet and stress its inhabitants. GSA Position Statement Adopted in October 2006 Please let us know how you used this GSA Position Statement. Click on the questionnaire link at www.geosociety.org/aboutus/position.htm. co

*Mr. Flaccaltenn, Dr. Curry's position is that AGW is real. She just objects to scientists participating in the political fights that are inevitable in preventing the worst of the damage that will cause. She thinks that the scientists should be little virginal adolescents when it comes to politics. Unfortunetly for her, most scientists have children and grandchildren, and worry about the world they will inherit.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Is it supposed to be warm in the midwest right now? December? Any of these records for December?
> ...


and?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Global warming, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



_The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries._

How much will it cost to eliminate the portion of climate change due to human activities?
How much will it cost to eliminate the portion of climate change not due to human activities?
How much will it cost to ensure the climate never changes?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 9, 2016)

December 08:    404.02 ppm


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Then she and I agree. And she'd be the perfect person to put a REALISTIC public policy position on the SCIENCE.  Note -- that there were hysterics, no real projections in that statement. AND -- that statement is TEN years old. It was BEFORE Judith Curry was FORCEFULLY PURGED from her profession. 

Why don't you ask her TODAY -- what climate change REALISTS believe???  And how POLITICAL POWER has abused the science??   She'll tell you. And so will the respondents to the Bray/von Storch polls. Where OVER HALF of the folks in the field of climate science say that politics has TOO MUCH influence on the work..


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



_"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities;"_

Committee statements are not science.  They are political propaganda.  Truth isn't determined by majority vote.   End of story.

As always, you employ logical fallacies rather than logic and science.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 9, 2016)

I really couldn't care less about what any of you anti-science assholes think.

I'll keep posting data. I know you want to shut it all down and that tells me exactly what you're all about...


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 9, 2016)

The fact that you want to shut it all down tells me that you're the ones that aims to end all debate..YOU don't like the reality of the results and so you want everyone silenced to forcefully shut everyone up...

Well, guess what mother fuckers, You won't silence me. You'll have to roll tanks down my street to do it. You fucking assholes can take your backwards dark age anti-science trash and stick it up your retarded goddamn asses.

I'll stand with scientist that have earned my respect through their decades of education.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


GSA Position Statement 

 Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013; April 2015

Climate Change

Position Statement.   

 Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been for many thousands of years. Human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013). If the upward trend in greenhouse‐gas concentrations continues, the projected global climate change by the end of the twenty‐first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. The tangible effects of climate change are already occurring. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

 Purpose.    

This position statement (1) summarizes the scientific basis for the conclusion that human activities are the primary cause of recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse‐gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the current and future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

 RATIONALE 

Scientific advances have greatly reduced previous uncertainties about recent global warming. Ground‐station measurements have shown a warming trend of ~0.85 °C since 1880, a trend consistent with (1) retreat of northern hemisphere snow and Arctic sea ice; (2) greater heat storage in the ocean; (3) retreat of most mountain glaciers; (4) an ongoing rise in global sea level; and (5) proxy reconstructions of temperature change over past centuries from archives that include ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments, boreholes, cave deposits, and corals. Both instrumental records and proxy indices from geologic sources show that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries (National Research Council, 2006). Earth’s surface has been successively warmer in each of the last three decades and each of those has been warmer than any decade since 1850. The period from 1983 to 2012 is likely the warmest 30 years in the northern hemisphere during the last 1,400 years (IPCC, 2013). This recent warming of Earth’s surface is now consistently supported by a wide range of measurements and proxies, including land‐ and satellite‐based measurements.

*OK, there is the present statement. Has Dr. Curry disavowed this statement? It is just an update of the 2006 statement.,*


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Why yes, they are correct. Politics has far too much influence on their work. They find themselves threatened with lawsuits for publishing the results of their research in scientific journals. They get personal threats from the locos influenced by the wackos that are saying that the scientists are in the employ of people seeking the destruction of our nation. They are pilloried in Congress by whores like Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma. In fact, what we need now is a massive push back from the people are honest enough, and smart enough, to realize the meaning of the events we are seeing right now due to AGW.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Won't know til someone gives her a new job. The Climate Change mafia destroyed her old one. You need to read this ENTIRE article to understand why she probably WOULD disavow that POLITICAL statement you're selling.    

Climate heretic: Judith Curry turns on her colleagues : Nature News


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Now Pattycake, virtually every Scientific Society of every country in the world has such statements. So what you are saying is that there is some monstrous worldwide conspiracy among over 90% of the scientists from all the different nations and cultures to fool the rest of us? Better stock up on tinfoil for your little hats.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You have that exactly bass-ackwards. It's the mafia of a small minority in the community enforcing rigor and adhesion to "the cause" that are paid patrons of Govt largess that is stifling "consensus" and resolution of what to TELL the policy planners in a realistic assessment of CC effects. And the front office staff who WRITES those "resolutions" for AGU and others who are espousing party line politics instead of "consensus" within their own ranks.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Those resolutions aren't the paper they were written on. There was no polling of membership. No period of accepting input from the membership. They are just "policy statements" to put those organizations in line with the "general wisdom".. Call us when they VOTE on resolutions like that. In Australia, where they DID THAT -- it turned into a 2 year battle with the "resolution" permanently tabled. 

In the meantime --- Bray and von Storch is the BEST source for any "opinion" from the Climate Community..


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Well now, Dr. Curry thought the IPCC was overly alarmist on their statements. Now we have just had three record warm years in a row, each warmer than the prior year. And both the Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice are way below normal for this time of year. Nature has just published articles that show observational evidence that both the Greenland Ice Cap, and the Antarctic Ice Cap are more vulnerable to rapid breakup than previously thought. Based on present observations of ice movements and paleo data.

So, she calls them alarmist, and they turn out to be way too conservative in their estimates. Pretty poor predictive abilities for someone that is supposed to be a climate scientist. Allowing herself to be used by whore like Inhofe and Watts is hardly endearing to anyone doing serious research in climate science.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


I see. So, all these governments, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, all those in the EU, Great Britain, Brazil, Japan, and many more, are all conspiring together and forcing their scientists to go along with those statements. And none of the scientists are revealing this international conspiracy. Mr. Flacaltenn, you are venturing into tinfoil hat territory.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The IPCC has a HISTORY of being alarmist. EVERY ONE of their ARs is a revision DOWNWARDS in the projections. To the point that they won't even MAKE predictions anymore and their whole "rented scientist" process may just "go away"..   Serious talk about discontinuing it.. 

Antarctic Ice Cap is NOT "in danger of breaking up" because of 1degC global avg change. THERE is your alarmism in a nutshell right there.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 9, 2016)

Matthew said:


> I really couldn't care less about what any of you anti-science assholes think.
> 
> I'll keep posting data. I know you want to shut it all down and that tells me exactly what you're all about...


You're the anti-science asshole, Mathew.  You don't even know what science is.  Government subsidized "science" is often nothing more than propaganda.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 9, 2016)

None of this is really "on-topic"

How about we quit re-fighting this and give Matthew his thread back. BREATHLESSLY awaiting tomorrow's CO2 number from Mauna Loa. I say we get a 403.something before Christmas..


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

Well, on that topic, the year that all of us fear, is the one where the world anthropogenic output of GHGs is actually down, but the level of GHGs in the atmosphere continues to go up. At that time we will know that the feedbacks are kicking in.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, on that topic, the year that all of us fear, is the one where the world anthropogenic output of GHGs is actually down, but the level of GHGs in the atmosphere continues to go up. At that time we will know that the feedbacks are kicking in.



You could get feedbacks all the way to 1120ppm and not raise the surface more than another 1.5 or 2 degC.. 
And how did the four Ice thaws STOP !!! Why didn't the feedbacks kick in then to finish us off before we got started?   The permafrost was melting for MILLENIA in each of those thaws -- wasn't it? About 40% of the total land surface came out of solid ice, melted and the feedbacks STOPPED? WTF?

So you're saying the last 20 or 25% of the thaw -- is gonna finish us off? Or HALF of what's left?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

Millenia versus decades. That is the difference. And we have not had a full meltout at any time in the present ice ages. Nor a release from the clathrates in the last 55 million years. Will that happen? The problem is, we don't know that it won't. If it does, the human species will survive, but there will be a major die off.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 9, 2016)

*For 2016, Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations are Rising at the Fastest Rate Ever Seen*
_“The MMCO [Middle Miocene Climate Optimum] was ushered in by CO2 levels jumping abruptly from around 400ppm to 500 ppm, with global temperatures warming by about 4°C  and sea levels rising about 40m (130 feet) as the Antarctic ice sheet declined substantially and suddenly. ” — _Skeptical Science





(Fossil fuel carbon emissions are about 100 times that of volcanoes during any given year. And so much heat trapping carbon dumped into the atmosphere is forcing the world’s climate to rapidly change. Image source: The Union of Concerned Scientists.)

Human beings have never seen atmospheric CO2 values that are so high as they are today. They significantly predate our species — even preceding our distant relative Australopithecus by about 7 million years. And weather and climate conditions to which we are not adapted — either as individuals or as a civilizations — are well on the way as atmospheric CO2 levels are ramping up into the lower range of those last seen during the Middle Miocene of 14-16 million years ago at 404 parts per million during 2016.

_*Record Rate of CO2 Increase for 2016*_

As we reported in November, 2016 is on track to see a record rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) increase. A key heat-trapping gas, CO2 is the primary driver of the big temperature increases seen around the world recently. And with new figures out from NOAA for the month of November, we have a clearer picture than ever of just how unprecedented the jump will be.

For the first 11 months of the year, 2016 atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations exceeded those of 2015 by an average of 3.45 parts per million. With no sign evident that the pace of increase has slackened — despite a transition to La Nina during the fall — it now appears that the world is set to experience a 3.3 to 3.5 part per million jump in the atmospheric CO2 measure for this year.





(Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations will rise by a record rate during 2016 to an annual average of around 404 parts per million. Levels during 2017 could peak at around 410 to 411 parts per million in April and May before averaging between 406 and 407 parts per million. Image source: NOAA.)

The past two record jumps were 2015 — with a 3.05 ppm annual increase and 1998 with a 2.93 ppm annual increase. But 2016 now appears set to exceed these two values by a pretty hefty margin.

_*More and More Toward the Middle Miocene Range of 400 to 500 Parts Per Million CO2*_

Such rapid rates of atmospheric carbon dioxide increase are primarily caused by global fossil fuel burning — which now produces an emission that is more than 100 times greater than all the volcanoes that erupt across the Earth during any given year. And recent reports have found that US automobile emissions alone equal the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the Mount St. Helens eruption every three days. This is a heavy insult to the Earth’s climate system. One that is unprecedented for millions of years.

All this fossil fuel burning has largely helped to push atmospheric CO2 values for 2016 into an average range of 404 parts per million. This is 124 parts per million higher than the pre-industrial value of 280 parts per million. Meanwhile, peak monthly values during April-May of 2017 could strike as high as 410 to 411 parts per million.





(15 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels in the range of 400-500 parts per million produced Antarctic melt resulting in substantial sea level rise. The above image shows the estimated location of the U.S. eastern coastline at the time. Image source: Colorado Geosystems.)

These atmospheric concentrations are now roughly equivalent to the lower range CO2 levels of the Middle Miocene climate epoch of 14-16 million years ago. Meanwhile, atmospheric CO2 equivalent concentrations, which include other greenhouse gasses like methane, averaged 485 parts per million in 2015 and likely were around 490 parts per million during 2016. These CO2e values approach the upper Middle Miocene range.

During the Miocene of 14-16 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 levels, which had hovered around 400 parts per million for about 10 million years jumped higher due to volcanic activity. Global temperatures rose from about 2-3 C hotter than Holocene values to around 4 C hotter. Antarctic ice melted and seas which were around 60 feet higher than today lifted to around 130 feet above present day levels.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Millenia versus decades. That is the difference. And we have not had a full meltout at any time in the present ice ages. Nor a release from the clathrates in the last 55 million years. Will that happen? The problem is, we don't know that it won't. If it does, the human species will survive, but there will be a major die off.



Who says there's been no release of the calthrates? Oceans warmed 6 or 8DegC during those interglacials. The land even more. Does that not "release calthrates"??  And it WOULD be centuries at least before a 2degC rise (like in the trigger theory) caused anywhere NEAR a "complete meltout". 

You really didn't answer the question. Cleveland under 1/2 mile of ice. COMPLETE meltout. Same for over 40% of the land mass. Exposing decayed or preserved carbon that hadn't seen the sun in millenia. * WHY did the feedbacks not kick in and cause runaway climate change?* Likely PEAK CO2 during those interglacials was pretty close to current conditions. Since the Ice Record is pretty incapable of reproducing PEAK data on anything. And the few HI RES proxies suggest CO2 during the "melt-outs" was much closer to 350ppm than it was to the 280ppm that's widely tossed about flippantly.

Every tick of the atmos CO2 upwards during the interglacial warm-ups produced MASSIVE amounts of previously sequestered CO2. If the feedback effect is so persistent, pernicious and powerful -- WHY did it STOP then??


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 9, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Millenia versus decades. That is the difference. And we have not had a full meltout at any time in the present ice ages. Nor a release from the clathrates in the last 55 million years. Will that happen? The problem is, we don't know that it won't. If it does, the human species will survive, but there will be a major die off.
> ...


Who says there's been no release of the calthrates? Oceans warmed 6 or 8DegC during those interglacials. The land even more. Does that not "release calthrates"?? And it WOULD be centuries at least before a 2degC rise (like in the trigger theory) caused anywhere NEAR a "complete meltout". 

*Why yes, it did warm up that much in the previous interglacial, just as it did in this one. So, the clathrates were not coming out in this one, either. At least not until we added over 40% more CO2 and 250% more CH4. The last time there was this much GHGs in the atmosphere, there was no ice cap on Greenland, and just high altitude glaciers on Antarctica.*

You really didn't answer the question. Cleveland under 1/2 mile of ice. COMPLETE meltout. Same for over 40% of the land mass. Exposing decayed or preserved carbon that hadn't seen the sun in millenia. *WHY did the feedbacks not kick in and cause runaway climate change?* Likely PEAK CO2 during those interglacials was pretty close to current conditions. Since the Ice Record is pretty incapable of reproducing PEAK data on anything. And the few HI RES proxies suggest CO2 during the "melt-outs" was much closer to 350ppm than it was to the 280ppm that's widely tossed about flippantly.

*Really? I have not seen those estimates. Link. Milankovic Cycles. Why do you think that the downslope is so much slower than the warming?*

Every tick of the atmos CO2 upwards during the interglacial warm-ups produced MASSIVE amounts of previously sequestered CO2. If the feedback effect is so persistent, pernicious and powerful -- WHY did it STOP then??

*Because the warming of the oceans stopped, and as they cooled, they absorbed CO2. Milankovic Cycles.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 9, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Milankovic cycles are no where NEAR the answer. The melting side of interglacial period is VERY steep. THAT is CO2 coming out of sequestration. Probably does has a feed back effect with that kind of magnitude. But reaching near current temperatures for several millenia -- will melt as much ice and unfreeze ocean sediments JUST AS MUCH as a couple hundred years (our experience) at slightly higher temperatures. No real indication of M-cycle Cooling for THOUSANDS of years at those previous interglacials. That will do the same trick with the same or MORE energy put into the thermodynamic system.

As for the Hi-Res proxies on CO2 -- I've posted them SO many times -- I've sure you've seen them. And since they WARPED your religious faith on the "common knowledge" and showed that CO2 were likely HIGHER than the usual propaganda -- you just flush it... I think 4 or 5 times is enough.. Trust me on the numbers this time. When I start outright fabricating shit and quoting junk sources -- I'll feel compelled to repost them for 6th or 7th time.. Just like Charlie Brown and the football.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 9, 2016)

Given the same shape of Summer temperature distribution above 0degC (melting point of ice) a peak of 2degC for a 100 years will have the same melting energy as 0.2degC for 1000 years. When you look at the time scale on the interglacials -- a thousand years is an small instant of time.

Same as saying the glaciers were doomed as soon as we left the last Maunder Minimum. It was only the length of time that it would take to melt them. And HONESTLY man, I don't WANT to live thru a Maunder Minimum.  I can barely stand TONIGHT in Tennessee..


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Dec 9, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Week beginning on November 13, 2016:  * 403.74 ppm
> 
> Some predictions
> 1. We'll have a daily high of  >= 412ppm
> ...



Who cares, and for those who do, why?

Friends of Science | The Myths and Facts of Global Warming


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 10, 2016)

Matthew said:


> I really couldn't care less about what any of you anti-science assholes think.



  Someone who gives any credence to _“transgenderism”_ is in no position to accuse anyone else of being _“anti-science”_.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 10, 2016)

Matthew said:


> I really couldn't care less about what any of you anti-science assholes think.
> 
> I'll keep posting data. I know you want to shut it all down and that tells me exactly what you're all about...



I really couldn't care less about what any of you easily led, anti-economics assholes think.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 10, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > I really couldn't care less about what any of you anti-science assholes think.
> ...


I get a kick out of Mathew because he thinks he understands science.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 10, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



A lot more than an asshole like you and that also goes for Politics, Economics and many other issues. In any case I follow much more intelligent people called scientist instead of fat pigs on the AM radio like you.

You hate civilization but want to act like you understand the institutions of it? hahaha


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 10, 2016)

Matthew said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Every time you post you only prove your ignorance of science.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 10, 2016)

At least I aint arrogant enough to think i know more than nearly all the worlds scientist unlike you idiots. 

You clowns really believe that you're all that? hahahahaha! You're making me laugh. Fucked up visions of godhood you have.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 10, 2016)

Little man,

You don't know shit. All you think you know is you want to shut it all down and burn everything to the ground...What a fucking joke you're.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 10, 2016)

Matthew said:


> At least I aint arrogant enough to think i know more than nearly all the worlds scientist unlike you idiots.
> 
> You clowns really believe that you're all that? hahahahaha! You're making me laugh. Fucked up visions of godhood you have.


I hate to break it to you, Mathew, but all the world's scientists don't buy the AGW hocus-pocus.    The 97% claim is fake news.

Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: debunked, demolished, staked through the heart - Breitbart

The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 10, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Little man,
> 
> You don't know shit. All you think you know is you want to shut it all down and burn everything to the ground...What a fucking joke you're.


The AGW cult members are the ones who want to shut it all down.  They want to shut down our economy and make us all live like Medieval serfs.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 10, 2016)

Thankfully, for my sanity I am now Ignoring another person.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Week beginning on November 13, 2016:  * 403.74 ppm
> 
> Some predictions
> 1. We'll have a daily high of  >= 412ppm
> ...


It is called an interglacial cycle.  I wouldn't be surprised if global temperatures rose another 1.4C to 2.4C because of it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 11, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Little man,
> ...


My, my, another lying little dumb fuck. LOL No, we want to move on to a world of less expensive energy that does not pollute. We want a world for our grandchildren better than, or at least as good as, the one we inherited. We are on course to give them a far poorer record than we inherited. And you are all for that.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 11, 2016)

ding said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Week beginning on November 13, 2016:  * 403.74 ppm
> ...


*How is Today’s Warming Different from the Past?*
Earth has experienced climate change in the past without help from humanity. We know about past climates because of evidence left in tree rings, layers of ice in glaciers, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. For example, bubbles of air in glacial ice trap tiny samples of Earth’s atmosphere, giving scientists a history of greenhouse gases that stretches back more than 800,000 years. The chemical make-up of the ice provides clues to the average global temperature.

See the Earth Observatory’s series Paleoclimatology for details about how scientists study past climates.









Glacial ice and air bubbles trapped in it (top) preserve an 800,000-year record of temperature & carbon dioxide. Earth has cycled between ice ages (low points, large negative anomalies) and warm interglacials (peaks). (Photograph courtesy National Snow & Ice Data Center.NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Jouzel et al., 2007.)

Using this ancient evidence, scientists have built a record of Earth’s past climates, or “paleoclimates.” The paleoclimate record combined with global models shows past ice ages as well as periods even warmer than today. But the paleoclimate record also reveals that the current climatic warming is occurring _much more rapidly_ than past warming events.

As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.





Temperature histories from paleoclimate data (green line) compared to the history based on modern instruments (blue line) suggest that global temperature is warmer now than it has been in the past 1,000 years, and possibly longer. (Graph adapted from Mann et al., 2008.)

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual.


Global WarmingIs Current Warming Natural?
Global Warming : Feature Articles

Dear little johnny one note. See the link? So give links to your original sources for the graphs you use. Bet all them have interpretations 180 degrees to your interpretations. Certainly the source of the graphs for the ice ages says your interpretation is bullshit. Who do we trust, an anonymous poster, or NASA?


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


When are you going to acknowledge that our present temperature is still 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperature of three of the last four interglacials?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 11, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


*
No, we want to move on to a world of less expensive energy that does not pollute.*

That leaves out wind and solar........


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 11, 2016)

December 10:    404.12 ppm


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 11, 2016)

Articles: Pruitt to Dismantle EPA Climate Agenda

ppm has never been more irrelvant


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 11, 2016)

Matthew said:


> December 10:    404.12 ppm



It was higher a month ago Matthew. What happened? Less turkeys around or something?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 12, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> Articles: Pruitt to Dismantle EPA Climate Agenda
> 
> *ppm* has never been more irrelvant [sic]



  I think that where the term _“ppm”_ is being used in this thread, that it usually represents something other than what most of us usually assume it to mean.  Something about the IQ of the person using the term, multiplied by a factor of ten.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 12, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > December 10:    404.12 ppm
> ...




It bounces around quite a bit in Nov, Dec, and Jan.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 12, 2016)

skookerasbil said:


> 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.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 12, 2016)

Matthew said:


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



  And yet, it's being used as an excuse for and by some of the very deepest, darkest elements of political idiocy.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 12, 2016)




----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 12, 2016)

Matthew said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Articles: Pruitt to Dismantle EPA Climate Agenda
> ...



*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 fucking windmills.
Morons.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 12, 2016)

Matthew said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Articles: Pruitt to Dismantle EPA Climate Agenda
> ...




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 (Dec 12, 2016)

December 11:    404.36 ppm


----------



## polarbear (Dec 15, 2016)

Matthew said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2016)

Matthew said:


> December 11:    404.36 ppm




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

2056.78 ppm


----------



## ding (Dec 15, 2016)

Matthew said:


>


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


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 19, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > December 11:    404.36 ppm
> ...



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


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 19, 2016)

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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2016)

Matthew said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



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


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 19, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Lot's of uncivilized large cities.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 21, 2016)

Week beginning on December 11, 2016:   404.93 ppm


----------



## Lastamender (Dec 21, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Week beginning on November 13, 2016:  * 403.74 ppm
> 
> Some predictions
> 1. We'll have a daily high of  >= 412ppm
> ...


Stop breathing that will cut down on it.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 21, 2016)

Lastamender said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > Week beginning on November 13, 2016:  * 403.74 ppm
> ...



Same for you. I wish the same for you.


----------



## Lastamender (Dec 22, 2016)

Matthew said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


0Good luck I am not worried about Co2


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 22, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


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 (Dec 30, 2016)

December 29:    405.27 ppm


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 30, 2016)

Matthew said:


> December 29:    405.27 ppm



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


----------



## ScienceRocks (Dec 30, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > December 29:    405.27 ppm
> ...



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


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




How many time you gonna post this lie?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 31, 2016)

Matthew said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...


There were no coastal cities 128 million years ago, moron.  Yet, somehow life managed to survive and even thrive.  If you look at the history of the earth, a warmer climate has always been beneficial for life.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2016)

Again, the problem isn't the absolute temperature.  It is the *RATE* OF CHANGE.  Try to get that through your thick head, eh


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> Again, the problem isn't the absolute temperature.  It is the *RATE* OF CHANGE.  Try to get that through your thick head, eh


There is no evidence that the rate of change now is any different than it was in the past.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2016)

From an adjoining thread

What were the temperature *change rates*?  I haven't the slightest doubt that the rate was slow enough to to allow accurate determination even with the crude resolution.  Let's have a look






For it's height and youth, let's take the peak at 125,000 years. It rises approximately 12C in a period of 12-13,000 years.  That comes to roughly *0.1C/century*.  The resolution of these data is more than fine enough to accurately measure that slope. The rate of warming from 1915 to 2015 is *1.08C/century*.  More than *ten times as fast*.[/QUOTE]

For those who still fail to understand the very basics of the global warming problem: the threat is not the absolute temperatures we will ever reach.  It is the *RATE OF CHANGE*.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 31, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



They were smart enough to move inland away from rising waters..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> From an adjoining thread
> 
> What were the temperature *change rates*?  I haven't the slightest doubt that the rate was slow enough to to allow accurate determination even with the crude resolution.  Let's have a look
> 
> ...



Another Mann et al fabrication made by placing 5 year plots on the end of 500 year plots... so your claim of ten times faster is but an artifact of manipulations and not based on fact.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 31, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...




Yeah the Flintstones were a very smart dynasty,  to bad they died out using to much fossil fuel. 

.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> From an adjoining thread
> 
> What were the temperature *change rates*?  I haven't the slightest doubt that the rate was slow enough to to allow accurate determination even with the crude resolution.  Let's have a look
> 
> ...



The resolution of your graph is bigger than a century.  There could be temperature fluctuations in the past that were far greater than what has occurred in the last 100 years that wouldn't even show up on your graph.   So it's meaningless to compare it with graphs where the resolution is a year or a month or even a week.  That's scientific malpractice.  It's chicanery and abracadabra.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2016)

The value per century was the slope calculated across 13,000 years.  Try again.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> The value per century was the slope calculated across 13,000 years.  Try again.



That doesn't alter what I said on bit.  Within your 13,000 you could have spikes and valleys 5 times greater than the increase of the last 100 years.

This math stuff is hard for you AGW cult members, isn't it?


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2016)

Our temperature and our CO2 levels have had peaks and valleys that weren't detailed in the slope I gave.  All these data are fractal.  There is an equivalent amount of detail at all scales.  The long term trend in what was obviously a significant rise was a tiny fraction of what we are currently experiencing.  You are all being fooled by data plotted at radically differing scales.  The rate of change for both CO2 and temperature has not likely been seen since the KT impact.

And, as I have told you all on numerous occasions, these mean nothing.  Even if you found a spike exactly like what we are experiencing today, it does nothing to refute the many points of evidence that show CO2 is responsible for this warming and that humans are responsible for this CO2.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> Our temperature and our CO2 levels have had peaks and valleys that weren't detailed in the slope I gave.  All these data are fractal.  There is an equivalent amount of detail at all scales.  The long term trend in what was obviously a significant rise was a tiny fraction of what we are currently experiencing.  You are all being fooled by data plotted at radically differing scales.  The rate of change for both CO2 and temperature has not likely been seen since the KT impact.
> 
> And, as I have told you all on numerous occasions, these mean nothing.  Even if you found a spike exactly like what we are experiencing today, it does nothing to refute the many points of evidence that show CO2 is responsible for this warming and that humans are responsible for this CO2.



Temperature increase caused the increase in CO2, not the other way around.  There is no evidence that shows CO2 is responsible for the warming.  None.


----------



## Crick (Dec 31, 2016)

Wrong Paddie.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

*Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation*

Jeremy D. Shakun
Peter U. Clark
Feng He
Shaun A. Marcott
Alan C. Mix
Zhengyu Liu
Bette Otto-Bliesner
Andreas Schmittner
Edouard Bard

Affiliations
Contributions
Corresponding author
Nature

484,

49–54

(05 April 2012)

doi:10.1038/nature10915
Received

16 September 2011
Accepted

01 February 2012
Published online

04 April 2012
Citation

Reprints

Rights & permissions

Article metrics
*Abstract*

Abstract•
References•
Author information•
Supplementary information•
Comments

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2016)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Well, Silly Billy, instead of flapping your gums, why don't you present evidence from a credible source that states otherwise?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Our temperature and our CO2 levels have had peaks and valleys that weren't detailed in the slope I gave.  All these data are fractal.  There is an equivalent amount of detail at all scales.  The long term trend in what was obviously a significant rise was a tiny fraction of what we are currently experiencing.  You are all being fooled by data plotted at radically differing scales.  The rate of change for both CO2 and temperature has not likely been seen since the KT impact.
> ...


Why no, no evidence at all, other than basic physics involving absorption spectra. God, you are one stupid little twit.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


And you actually think that qualifies as an intelligent reply. Lordy, lordy.


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Do you believe that CO2 prevented an ice age from happening?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 31, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


Here ya go, douche bag:

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming | New Scientist

New research in Antarctica shows CO2 follows temperature “by a few hundred years at most”

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper demonstrates temperature drives CO2 levels, not man-made CO2


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2016)

ding said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Now how could that happen if the ice age is thousands of years in the future by the Milankovic Cycles? You truly don't read very well, do you, Dingleberry. No, what the GHGs did was to start a very rapid rise in temperature, one that will continue for quite a while. We are committed, in the coming decades and centuries to several meters of sea level rise, and a worldwide rise in temperatures that will give us a climate that the naked ape has never experianced before.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 31, 2016)

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


153

Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming | New Scientist


 16 May 2007

*Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming*
The lag proves that rising CO2 did not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming.

By Catherine Brahic and Michael Le Page

Sometimes a house gets warmer even when the central heating is turned off. Does this prove that its central heating does not work? Of course not. Perhaps it’s a hot day outside, or the oven’s been left on for hours.

Just as there’s more than one way to heat a house, so there’s more than one way to heat a planet.

Ice cores from Antarctica show that at the end of recent ice ages, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere usually started to rise only after temperatures had begun to climb. There is uncertainty about the timings, partly because the air trapped in the cores is younger than the ice, but it appears the lags might sometimes have been 800 years or more.

*Initial warming*
This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet.

*We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs and emits certain frequencies of infrared radiation. Basic physics tells us that gases with this property trap heat radiating from the Earth, that the planet would be a lot colder if this effect was not real and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will trap even more heat.*

*Why yes, I agree with your site. Perhaps you should actually read the site you post. LOL You prove yourself beyond stupid.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 31, 2016)

Crick said:


> Wrong Paddie.
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
> 
> ...




That paper is just making a distinction that Temperature led CO2 in the Southern Hemi, But lagged in the Northern hemi.  So NATURALLY, the ice cores that SHOW a complete record are in the Southern Hemi and that is INCONVENIENT for the warmers. So they devise a series of proxies that show the 1000 YEARS of warming delay between southern and northern hemi.  

To me -- this is probably likely to be a component of Milankovich axis changes and is pretty irrelevant. 

Are we to believe the laws of Physics are DIFFERENT in the different in the hemispheres? NO !!! it's a matter of heat transport and thermodynamics and the FORCING FUNCTION -- which was Earth orbital dynamics.


----------



## flacaltenn (Dec 31, 2016)

Instead of spending time on explaining WHY that happened, they spend all their time making GLOBAL ASSUMPTIONS that put CO2 AHEAD of temperature. It's masturbation. Since their THESIS IS --- It was different in different Hemis. No NEED to form a "Global average" other than to confuse the issue and defuse the basic science of the Ice Ages.

*By WHAT MECHANISM would a frozen earth SUDDENLY "leak" CO2 out of frozen land and ocean BEFORE the temperatures rose????*


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


Dude, too late.  You have just credited AGW with saving the planet from an ice age.  This is what you wrote:

_Dingleberry, you are truly a dumb ass. The temperatures peaked at various point in past interglacials, according to the forcings of the Milankovic Cycles. For the present interglacial, we peaked about 8000 years ago, and, by the cycles, were slowly descending toward another ice age, slowly, as in tens of thousands of years. However, when we started pumping GHGs into the atmosphere at the start of the Industrial revolution, we changed that, and now we are warming at a very rapid rate, with all that implies for our climate._


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 1, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> Instead of spending time on explaining WHY that happened, they spend all their time making GLOBAL ASSUMPTIONS that put CO2 AHEAD of temperature. It's masturbation. Since their THESIS IS --- It was different in different Hemis. No NEED to form a "Global average" other than to confuse the issue and defuse the basic science of the Ice Ages.
> 
> *By WHAT MECHANISM would a frozen earth SUDDENLY "leak" CO2 out of frozen land and ocean BEFORE the temperatures rose????*


Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

Milankovitch Cycles — OSS Foundation

Look and learn


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 1, 2017)

Dude, too late. You have just credited AGW with saving the planet from an ice age. This is what you wrote:

_Dingleberry, you are truly a dumb ass. The temperatures peaked at various point in past interglacials, according to the forcings of the Milankovic Cycles. For the present interglacial, we peaked about 8000 years ago, and, by the cycles, were slowly descending toward another ice age,* slowly, as in tens of thousands of years.* However, when we started pumping GHGs into the atmosphere at the start of the Industrial revolution, we changed that, and now we are warming at a very rapid rate, with all that implies for our climate._
_
*Yep, same amount of brain power as Comrade Frankie boi.*_


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of spending time on explaining WHY that happened, they spend all their time making GLOBAL ASSUMPTIONS that put CO2 AHEAD of temperature. It's masturbation. Since their THESIS IS --- It was different in different Hemis. No NEED to form a "Global average" other than to confuse the issue and defuse the basic science of the Ice Ages.
> ...


He did.  His argument was convincing.  You did not make one.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude, too late. You have just credited AGW with saving the planet from an ice age. This is what you wrote:
> 
> _Dingleberry, you are truly a dumb ass. The temperatures peaked at various point in past interglacials, according to the forcings of the Milankovic Cycles. For the present interglacial, we peaked about 8000 years ago, and, by the cycles, were slowly descending toward another ice age,* slowly, as in tens of thousands of years.* However, when we started pumping GHGs into the atmosphere at the start of the Industrial revolution, we changed that, and now we are warming at a very rapid rate, with all that implies for our climate.
> 
> *Yep, same amount of brain power as Comrade Frankie boi.*_


Sorry, but you have just admitted that an interglacial is better than a glacial.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 1, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of spending time on explaining WHY that happened, they spend all their time making GLOBAL ASSUMPTIONS that put CO2 AHEAD of temperature. It's masturbation. Since their THESIS IS --- It was different in different Hemis. No NEED to form a "Global average" other than to confuse the issue and defuse the basic science of the Ice Ages.
> ...




VERY GOOD man.. You seem to following along. So now which parameter is TWEAKED by Milankovitch Cycles? 

CO2 ---------------------- OR ----------------------- Temperature ???      Clock is ticking. Need a final answer..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 1, 2017)

All that paper is doing is clouding (maybe on purpose) the evidence in the Antarctic Ice Cores. Because they CAN cloud the issue by attempting a "GLOBAL" proxy reconstruction that is subject to 1000s of years of thermodynamic delays.  They say so RIGHT IN THE PAPER.. But what they DIDN'T DO is to propose any rational PHYSICAL mechanism for a "big thaw" BEGINNING in any one place with sudden unexplainable releases of CO2 from a frozen planet. 

If it was my "theory" -- I'd go examine the possible sources of CO2 release from frozen land and water and examine the tropics (maybe).  But barring that -- it's just another useless "GLOBAL" attempt at proxy reconstruction using sparse data. .


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 2, 2017)

January 01:    406.35 ppm


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jan 8, 2017)

January 07:  406.09 ppm
January 06:    405.98 ppm


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 9, 2017)

Methane concentrations in the atmosphere, they report, were rising only at about .5 parts per billion per year in the early 2000s. But in the past two years, they’ve spiked by 12.5 parts per billion in 2014 and 9.9 parts per billion in 2015. With carbon dioxide rising more slowly, that means that a higher fraction of the global warming that we see will be the result of methane, at least in the next decade or so.

“Methane in the atmosphere was almost flat from about 2000 through 2006. Beginning 2007, it started upward, but in the last two years, it spiked,” said Rob Jackson, an earth scientist at Stanford University who co-wrote the study.





NOAA.
The paper’s first author was Marielle Saunois, a researcher at the French Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement. Saunois and Jackson are part of a larger team of researchers with the Global Carbon Project, which tracks the flows of this element across the planet (carbon is a component of both carbon dioxide and methane), and publishes a global methane budget every two years. 
The latest budget is here.

Atmospheric levels of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, are spiking, scientists report

*And when one looks at the levels over the Arctic, you see real trouble coming down the line.

759
Shares
Alex Kirby


The quantity of methane leaking from the frozen soil during the long Arctic winters is probably much greater than climate models estimate, scientists have found.

They say at least half of annual methane emissions occur in the cold months from September to May, and that drier, upland tundra can emit more methane than wetlands.

The multinational team, led by San Diego State University (SDSU) in the US and including colleagues from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the University of Sheffield and the Open University in the UK, have published their conclusion, which challenges critical assumptions in current global climate models, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is about 25 times more powerful per molecule than carbon dioxide over a century, but more than 84 times over 20 years. The methane in the Arctic tundra comes primarily from organic matter trapped in soil which thaws seasonally and is decomposed by microbes.

It seeps naturally from the soil over the course of the year, but climate change can warm the soil enough to release more methane from organic matter that is currently stable in the permafrost. 

Arctic methane emissions 'greater' than previous estimates | Climate Home - climate change news

And that does not consider what the clathrates are doing as the Arctic Ocean warms.

*


----------



## ding (Jan 11, 2017)

Old Rocks said:


> Methane concentrations in the atmosphere, they report, were rising only at about .5 parts per billion per year in the early 2000s. But in the past two years, they’ve spiked by 12.5 parts per billion in 2014 and 9.9 parts per billion in 2015. With carbon dioxide rising more slowly, that means that a higher fraction of the global warming that we see will be the result of methane, at least in the next decade or so.
> 
> “Methane in the atmosphere was almost flat from about 2000 through 2006. Beginning 2007, it started upward, but in the last two years, it spiked,” said Rob Jackson, an earth scientist at Stanford University who co-wrote the study.
> 
> ...


Dang... look at that slope from 1984 to 1992.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 11, 2017)

Why yes, look at that slope. About the same as present. Would be much better were that slope in the opposite direction.



*The Arctic is leaking methane 200 times faster than usual: Massive release of gas is creating giant holes and 'trembling tundras'*

*Russian scientists have measured the gas emitted by the mysterious bubbles on Belyy Island in the Kara Sea* 
*The 'trembling tundra' also contains concentrations of carbon dioxide 20 times higher than usual levels*
*Add to mysterious behaviour in the vast region, including the sudden appearance of giant holes in northern Siberia*
By Will Stewart for MailOnline

PUBLISHED: 11:49 EST, 22 July 2016 | UPDATED: 15:32 EST, 22 July 2016


Strange bubbles have been discovered in the Arctic permafrost - adding to mysterious behaviour seen in the region, including the sudden appearance of giant holes in northern Siberia.


Now Russian scientists have revealed the bubbles in the wobbly Earth are are leaking methane gas some 200 times above the norm in the atmosphere.

The 'trembling tundra' also contains concentrations of carbon dioxide 20 times higher than usual levels.

Scroll down for video 









Read more: The Arctic is leaking methane 200 times faster than usual | Daily Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## mamooth (Jan 12, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> All that paper is doing is clouding (maybe on purpose) the evidence in the Antarctic Ice Cores.
> 
> Because they CAN cloud the issue by attempting a "GLOBAL" proxy reconstruction that is subject to 1000s of years of thermodynamic delays.  They say so RIGHT IN THE PAPER..



If you can't discuss the science, invoke the magical invisible conspiracy.



> But what they DIDN'T DO is to propose any rational PHYSICAL mechanism for a "big thaw" BEGINNING in any one place with sudden unexplainable releases of CO2 from a frozen planet.



So, you didn't read the paper. That seems obvious, being how the paper has a whole section devoted to what you said the paper didn't talk about.



> If it was my "theory" -- I'd go examine the possible sources of CO2 release from frozen land and water and examine the tropics (maybe).  But barring that -- it's just another useless "GLOBAL" attempt at proxy reconstruction using sparse data. .



From the paper that you didn't read ...

http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf
---
An important exception is the onset of deglaciation, which features about 0.3C of global warming before
the initial increase in CO2, 17.5 kyr ago. This finding suggests that CO2 was not the cause of initial warming
---

That is, an initial bump up in temperature released CO2, and then the CO2 took over as primary driver. What caused the initial bump is discussed more in the "The trigger for deglacial warming" section.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 12, 2017)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > All that paper is doing is clouding (maybe on purpose) the evidence in the Antarctic Ice Cores.
> ...



That's what I SAID moron.. But it wasn't 0.3degC --- no proxy is gonna determine the temperature trigger to that accuracy even at just ONE proxy location...


----------



## Kosh (Jan 12, 2017)

Another failed thread by the AGW cult:






Figure 9. CO2 calculated from Moberg temperatures (dark blue curve), Law Dome ice cores (magenta curve) and plant stomata (green, light blue and purple squares).

A Brief History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Record-Breaking


----------



## mamooth (Jan 12, 2017)

Kosh, what was the point of posting some random old fudge from a WUWT kook? We already know they fudge everything.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 12, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> That's what I SAID moron..



Where? I only saw you claiming the opposite.

"But what they DIDN'T DO is to propose any rational PHYSICAL mechanism". That's you saying the opposite of what you're now claiming you said.



> But it wasn't 0.3degC --- no proxy is gonna determine the temperature trigger to that accuracy even at just ONE proxy location...



Move those goalposts! 

Now instead of "They didn't do it at all!", you've shifted do, "Well, they did do it, but they couldn't have had the resolution to do it, so it must be faked!".

And you back it up with your usual "Because I say so!".


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 12, 2017)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > That's what I SAID moron..
> ...




I'm not following your rant. You're not following your rant. Why don't we call it quits.. Every I wrote, you haven't touched.. Not wasting my time with your angry self.. Don't think you're ABLE to defend that "Global proxy study" that produced CO2 leading temperature "globally" out of the last ice age.. That's the discussion here. Not me..


----------



## mamooth (Jan 12, 2017)

flacaltenn said:


> I'm not following your rant. You're not following your rant. Why don't we call it quits.. Every I wrote, you haven't touched.. Not wasting my time with your angry self.. Don't think you're ABLE to defend that "Global proxy study" that produced CO2 leading temperature "globally" out of the last ice age.. That's the discussion here. Not me..



The topic is that you plainly didn't read the paper, made up a load of nonsense about it, got caught, and tried to deflect unsuccessfully. But since that's been settled, let's move on. You claim to want to discuss science, let's discuss.

You say the proxy average could not have gotten an 0.3C resolution. On precisely what science and statistics do you base that claim? Make sure you don't confuse individual proxies with a proxy average, a point you've failed on already. And most importantly, give us something besides "Because I say so."


----------

