400 ppm in our lifetimes?

[Abraham3]

It proves it? Wow...

Why don't you get back to us when you've caught up with the last 20 years of discussion?

But just to give your catching up some direction - the data you've posted show a lag of several hundred to several thousand years between temperature and CO2 rise. How much lag do you see here?

And, while we're here, in how many of the spikes in your data was the CO2 produced independently by the dominant species?

Here's the problem bud. No one is denying that increasing the Earth's temperatures will cause an increase in CO2 levels. It's a fact. But that does NOT mean that increasing CO2 levels won't warm the planet. The two effects: CO2 coming out of solution as temperatures increase and CO2 absorbing infrared radiation, ARE INDEPENDENT. That one occurs says NOTHING about the other. In fact, in the longer run, it's bad news as it means that the warming from the CO2 WE have released will cause the release of even more CO2 (and methane and water vapor) from the lands and seas, into the atmosphere, providing a significant positive feedback mechanism.

Do you understand?

 

[Old Rocks]

Interesting reconstruction using more satellite data to add the Arctic temperature increases into the data;

https://www.skepticalscience.com/cowtan_way_surface_temperature_data_update.html

 

[KissMy]

It proves it? Wow...

Why don't you get back to us when you've caught up with the last 20 years of discussion?

But just to give your catching up some direction - the data you've posted show a lag of several hundred to several thousand years between temperature and CO2 rise. How much lag do you see here?

And, while we're here, in how many of the spikes in your data was the CO2 produced independently by the dominant species?

Here's the problem bud. No one is denying that increasing the Earth's temperatures will cause an increase in CO2 levels. It's a fact. But that does NOT mean that increasing CO2 levels won't warm the planet. The two effects: CO2 coming out of solution as temperatures increase and CO2 absorbing infrared radiation, ARE INDEPENDENT. That one occurs says NOTHING about the other. In fact, in the longer run, it's bad news as it means that the warming from the CO2 WE have released will cause the release of even more CO2 (and methane and water vapor) from the lands and seas, into the atmosphere, providing a significant positive feedback mechanism.

Do you understand?

So you want to continue to spin, deny facts & cherry-pick data to drive your agenda. You even said catch up to the discussion of the last 20 years - LOL! Here is the factual data for most of the last 20 years that destroys your bullshit - LOL!

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't know, 400 pages per minute is pretty damn fast.

 

[IanC]

It proves it? Wow...

Why don't you get back to us when you've caught up with the last 20 years of discussion?

But just to give your catching up some direction - the data you've posted show a lag of several hundred to several thousand years between temperature and CO2 rise. How much lag do you see here?

And, while we're here, in how many of the spikes in your data was the CO2 produced independently by the dominant species?

Here's the problem bud. No one is denying that increasing the Earth's temperatures will cause an increase in CO2 levels. It's a fact. But that does NOT mean that increasing CO2 levels won't warm the planet. The two effects: CO2 coming out of solution as temperatures increase and CO2 absorbing infrared radiation, ARE INDEPENDENT. That one occurs says NOTHING about the other. In fact, in the longer run, it's bad news as it means that the warming from the CO2 WE have released will cause the release of even more CO2 (and methane and water vapor) from the lands and seas, into the atmosphere, providing a significant positive feedback mechanism.

Do you understand?

you have to be vigilant whenever you run across a graph with two things being compared on two different y axis. the corelation is amplified by creative scaling and placement. the human eye looks for patterns, and in this case it is tricked into seeing a strong one even though it is not really there.

 

[Dot Com]

howso? Good dodge BTW

 

[Vigilante]

howso? Good dodge BTW

Reading comprehension, not a strong point with you, DotCommie. Read it again, at 3rd grade speed and take in what you asked about!

 

[SSDD]

Already here deniers: ESRL News: Carbon Dioxide at Mauna Loa reaches new milestone: Tops 400 ppm

anyone know how long ago the last time we reached 400 ppm?

Does anyone really care ?

WTF R U doing on this thread then asswipe?

Someone has to call bullshit on alarmism

 

[SSDD]

So say you. But all the real scientists state otherwise. There is not one Scientific Society, not one National Academy of Science, and not one major University that agrees with you. Anywhere in the whole world.

Stupidest of all possible arguments. Heard the recent news regarding cholesterol? Al least 97% of all medical scientists, from research hotshots, to doctors, to nurses, on down the line were convinced that cholesterol was bad for you and leads to heart disease. It's turning out that they have been quite wrong and their belief, and resulting medical advice might have caused great harm.

The consensus is not science...and the consensus is usually wrong since it relies on itself rather than the scientific method.

 

[SSDD]

Here's the problem bud. No one is denying that increasing the Earth's temperatures will cause an increase in CO2 levels. It's a fact. But that does NOT mean that increasing CO2 levels won't warm the planet. The two effects: CO2 coming out of solution as temperatures increase and CO2 absorbing infrared radiation, ARE INDEPENDENT. That one occurs says NOTHING about the other. In fact, in the longer run, it's bad news as it means that the warming from the CO2 WE have released will cause the release of even more CO2 (and methane and water vapor) from the lands and seas, into the atmosphere, providing a significant positive feedback mechanism.

Do you understand?

How stupid does one need to be to believe that adding a radiative gas to the atmosphere will decrease its ability to radiatively cool itself. It would be warmer with none of the so called greenhouse gasses because then the atmosphere would depend entirely on convection and conduction to move heat out of the system..

 

[whitehall]

They put a CO2 sensor on a freaking volcano and then claim that the levels are high? Why not put a methane sensor in a sewer?

 

[bripat9643]

Already here deniers: ESRL News: Carbon Dioxide at Mauna Loa reaches new milestone: Tops 400 ppm

anyone know how long ago the last time we reached 400 ppm?

Nobody but the AGW nutburgers give a shit.

 

[flacaltenn]

It proves it? Wow...

Why don't you get back to us when you've caught up with the last 20 years of discussion?

But just to give your catching up some direction - the data you've posted show a lag of several hundred to several thousand years between temperature and CO2 rise. How much lag do you see here?

And, while we're here, in how many of the spikes in your data was the CO2 produced independently by the dominant species?

Here's the problem bud. No one is denying that increasing the Earth's temperatures will cause an increase in CO2 levels. It's a fact. But that does NOT mean that increasing CO2 levels won't warm the planet. The two effects: CO2 coming out of solution as temperatures increase and CO2 absorbing infrared radiation, ARE INDEPENDENT. That one occurs says NOTHING about the other. In fact, in the longer run, it's bad news as it means that the warming from the CO2 WE have released will cause the release of even more CO2 (and methane and water vapor) from the lands and seas, into the atmosphere, providing a significant positive feedback mechanism.

Do you understand?

Proof #47 that Abe is clueless about graphing and visualizing causation.
When two functions are of low order, like linear or simple curves, it is impossible
to inspect for causality on a graph. For relations like the one shown in your plot, you can CHANGE THE APPARENT causal relationship just by monkeying with THE RELATIVE scalings of the 2 plots !!!!

To do causality by inspection, you need High DISCONTINUITIES in one or both functions. This is not in the Modern Record, but IS in the much longer record of the Ice Ages..

Multiple discontinuities for both CO2 and TEMP... Seriously, are you engineering anything in the ocean that could break or kill people?

 

[flacaltenn]

Sorry IAN.. I didnt get to your response before I posted that ^^^^^^^^

 

[Old Rocks]

They put a CO2 sensor on a freaking volcano and then claim that the levels are high? Why not put a methane sensor in a sewer?

And, of course, there are no other CO2 sensors anywhere else in the world that have also seen 400 ppm?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7jvP7BqVi4&feature=player_embedded]gv06-iPhone.mp4 - YouTube[/ame]

There are a number of stations that actually record higher levels than Mauna Loa.

 

[Vigilante]

This, of course has NOTHING to do with the increase in CO2!

2013: New Record Set for Volcanic Eruptions in any Given Year!!!

2013 has seen more volcanic eruptions than at any time since records began. As reported in Seven Volcanoes In Six Different Countries All Start Erupting Winin Hours Of Each Other, vulcanism is on the increase. In an average year, 50-60 volcanoes erupt. So far this year there have been 83, not including any eruptions when writing this article.

An extra 23-33 eruptions (so far) may not seem like much, but those extra eruptions represent a massive amount of gases and ash being blown into the atmosphere. Millions and millions of metric tonnes which can have a profound effect on life on Earth.....

2013: New Record Set for Volcanic Eruptions in any Given Year - Apparently Apparel®

 

[mamooth]

If volcanoes weren't such an insignificant source of CO2 compared to human emissions, that might have made sense.

 

[Vigilante]

If volcanoes weren't such an insignificant source of CO2 compared to human emissions, that might have made sense.

Tell us how many million of metric tons of CO2 humans put into the air, then tell us how many millions of tons of CO2 are absorbed by plant life? We are surrounded by idiots that believe everything that is thrown at them without research, and even more useful is COMMON SENSE!... What the fuck is a Mamooth?

 

[westwall]

If volcanoes weren't such an insignificant source of CO2 compared to human emissions, that might have made sense.

Don't you mean to say "mans emissions are insignificant compared to natural sources." After all, man's contribution to the GLOBAL CO2 budget is 5% of the total. Totally insignificant in the overall scheme of things.

 

[IanC]

It proves it? Wow...

Why don't you get back to us when you've caught up with the last 20 years of discussion?

But just to give your catching up some direction - the data you've posted show a lag of several hundred to several thousand years between temperature and CO2 rise. How much lag do you see here?

And, while we're here, in how many of the spikes in your data was the CO2 produced independently by the dominant species?

Here's the problem bud. No one is denying that increasing the Earth's temperatures will cause an increase in CO2 levels. It's a fact. But that does NOT mean that increasing CO2 levels won't warm the planet. The two effects: CO2 coming out of solution as temperatures increase and CO2 absorbing infrared radiation, ARE INDEPENDENT. That one occurs says NOTHING about the other. In fact, in the longer run, it's bad news as it means that the warming from the CO2 WE have released will cause the release of even more CO2 (and methane and water vapor) from the lands and seas, into the atmosphere, providing a significant positive feedback mechanism.

Do you understand?

Proof #47 that Abe is clueless about graphing and visualizing causation.
When two functions are of low order, like linear or simple curves, it is impossible
to inspect for causality on a graph. For relations like the one shown in your plot, you can CHANGE THE APPARENT causal relationship just by monkeying with THE RELATIVE scalings of the 2 plots !!!!

To do causality by inspection, you need High DISCONTINUITIES in one or both functions. This is not in the Modern Record, but IS in the much longer record of the Ice Ages..

Multiple discontinuities for both CO2 and TEMP... Seriously, are you engineering anything in the ocean that could break or kill people?

no problem flac. your answer is much better scientifically. my answer was more to point out to people why the graph was constructed the way it was, and how design and colour schemes direct people into coming to certain conclusions even though the underlying evidence is insufficient.