Global Carbon Dioxide Levels Topped 400 PPM Throughout March In Unprecedented Milestone

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unprecedented. Except for all the previous times in Earth's history when it was 400 PPM or much, much higher.

You need to actually read the article, not just the headline:

Specifically, the passage 'the first time that has happened for an entire month since record keeping first began'.

Off the top of my head, 400 ppm is higher than it ever was during the last 4 or 5 interglacial periods. Still, water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, more so than CO2 or CH4. It's within the realm of possibility that current CO2 levels have an insignificant impact of climate. If I had to guess, I'd say the effect is modest.

Higher temperatures mean the atmosphere can hold more water. So even slight increases in temperature can snowball. CO2 alone need not be the sole factor. It can increase the presence of other factors......like lower sea water density, higher atmopsheric methane and higher atmospheric water vapor.

Which each contributing it own impacts on the climate.

Higher temperatures mean the atmosphere can hold more water. So even slight increases in temperature can snowball.

Exactly! Soon it will be hot enough to melt lead.

Define 'soon'.

Didn't some French guy say we had 500 days to act?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, Trees approach has the benefit of at least acknowledging Climate Change and the effects of CO2......disputing only the degree of change and other factors.

The problem is that many of these factors are interdependent. Take the ocean currents as they exist now. Many are based on a particular degree of salination of water near Antarctica. It acts as the primary engine of sea convection,.drawing water downward due to its higher density. However, small changes in temperature due to CO2 can melt ice sheets which pour enormous quantities of fresh water directly into the convection belts, diluting the salination process that drives them.

This can have dramatic impacts on the distribution of heat from the oceans. Take...the UK. Its at the same latitude as southern Alaska or central Russia. Yet its unusually warm. This is caused largely by warm water currents pushed by the convection belt that pour tremendous amounts of heat into the regions. Disrupt or even displace the convection belts and the UK temperatures plunge. For all intents and purposes, permanently. With other pretty significant changes probable for any other region that gets a significant portion of its warmth from the oceans.

There's also the snow balling effects of methane. There's huge quantities of methane in deep water and permafrost. But its locked up because of the low temperatures. Raise the temperatures even a little and you get periods of defrosting of some permafrost. And the release of massive amounts of methane. Methane is a hugely efficient greenhouse gas in its own right. Its release will only speed the process of further warming.

Methane is a hugely efficient greenhouse gas in its own right. Its release will only speed the process of further warming.

The last time there was a release of methane, the Earth turned into Venus.
Everything died.

And when was this exactly?

Who cares, it killed everything, didn't it?

Says who?

It won't?

 

[Skylar]

Take...the UK. Its at the same latitude as southern Alaska or central Russia. Yet its unusually warm. This is caused largely by warm water currents pushed by the convection belt that pour tremendous amounts of heat into the regions. Disrupt or even displace the convection belts and the UK temperatures plunge. For all intents and purposes, permanently. With other pretty significant changes probable for any other region that gets a significant portion of its warmth from the oceans.

Everything is interdependent. I agree with that. You have to parse out and separate interdependent forcings in order to talk about them.

You've got your North Atlantic Oscillation, Arctic Oscillation, and these are tied into the meta dynamics of all the oceans' heat pumps. They change over time, independent of CO2 levels.

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

 

[Skylar]

You need to actually read the article, not just the headline:

Specifically, the passage 'the first time that has happened for an entire month since record keeping first began'.

Off the top of my head, 400 ppm is higher than it ever was during the last 4 or 5 interglacial periods. Still, water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, more so than CO2 or CH4. It's within the realm of possibility that current CO2 levels have an insignificant impact of climate. If I had to guess, I'd say the effect is modest.

Higher temperatures mean the atmosphere can hold more water. So even slight increases in temperature can snowball. CO2 alone need not be the sole factor. It can increase the presence of other factors......like lower sea water density, higher atmopsheric methane and higher atmospheric water vapor.

Which each contributing it own impacts on the climate.

Higher temperatures mean the atmosphere can hold more water. So even slight increases in temperature can snowball.

Exactly! Soon it will be hot enough to melt lead.

Define 'soon'.

Didn't some French guy say we had 500 days to act?

Which french guy said it would be so hot it would melt lead in 500 days?

 

[Skylar]

Well, Trees approach has the benefit of at least acknowledging Climate Change and the effects of CO2......disputing only the degree of change and other factors.

The problem is that many of these factors are interdependent. Take the ocean currents as they exist now. Many are based on a particular degree of salination of water near Antarctica. It acts as the primary engine of sea convection,.drawing water downward due to its higher density. However, small changes in temperature due to CO2 can melt ice sheets which pour enormous quantities of fresh water directly into the convection belts, diluting the salination process that drives them.

This can have dramatic impacts on the distribution of heat from the oceans. Take...the UK. Its at the same latitude as southern Alaska or central Russia. Yet its unusually warm. This is caused largely by warm water currents pushed by the convection belt that pour tremendous amounts of heat into the regions. Disrupt or even displace the convection belts and the UK temperatures plunge. For all intents and purposes, permanently. With other pretty significant changes probable for any other region that gets a significant portion of its warmth from the oceans.

There's also the snow balling effects of methane. There's huge quantities of methane in deep water and permafrost. But its locked up because of the low temperatures. Raise the temperatures even a little and you get periods of defrosting of some permafrost. And the release of massive amounts of methane. Methane is a hugely efficient greenhouse gas in its own right. Its release will only speed the process of further warming.

Methane is a hugely efficient greenhouse gas in its own right. Its release will only speed the process of further warming.

The last time there was a release of methane, the Earth turned into Venus.
Everything died.

And when was this exactly?

Who cares, it killed everything, didn't it?

Says who?

It won't?

Who says that 'it killed everything'. So far there is you citing....apparently yourself. I'll need more. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And so far 'methane turning Earth into Venus and everything dying' isn't supported by anything.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Off the top of my head, 400 ppm is higher than it ever was during the last 4 or 5 interglacial periods. Still, water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, more so than CO2 or CH4. It's within the realm of possibility that current CO2 levels have an insignificant impact of climate. If I had to guess, I'd say the effect is modest.

Higher temperatures mean the atmosphere can hold more water. So even slight increases in temperature can snowball. CO2 alone need not be the sole factor. It can increase the presence of other factors......like lower sea water density, higher atmopsheric methane and higher atmospheric water vapor.

Which each contributing it own impacts on the climate.

Higher temperatures mean the atmosphere can hold more water. So even slight increases in temperature can snowball.

Exactly! Soon it will be hot enough to melt lead.

Define 'soon'.

Didn't some French guy say we had 500 days to act?

Which french guy said it would be so hot it would melt lead in 500 days?

He said if we didn't act in 500 days, he said it would be too late to stop global warming.
He didn't mention lead. I guess he didn't want anyone to panic.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Methane is a hugely efficient greenhouse gas in its own right. Its release will only speed the process of further warming.

The last time there was a release of methane, the Earth turned into Venus.
Everything died.

And when was this exactly?

Who cares, it killed everything, didn't it?

Says who?

It won't?

Who says that 'it killed everything'. So far there is you citing....apparently yourself. I'll need more. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And so far 'methane turning Earth into Venus and everything dying' isn't supported by anything.

Who says that 'it killed everything'.

Are you saying it won't?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

LOL!

And so far 'methane turning Earth into Venus and everything dying' isn't supported by anything

No support for runaway global warming on Earth? Are you sure?

 

[Treeshepherd]

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

Slowing the North Atlantic Oscillation would tend to lead to the cooling of Northern Europe.

Slight increases in temperatures could be part and parcel of the global warming that has been occurring since the last ice age. That is certainly tied to Milanvovich cycles (though we're not sure exactly how). The warming trend could be a factor of long-term changes in oceanic heat pumps. We can't just assume that CO2 is the main culprit.

 

[kwc57]

Global Carbon Dioxide Levels Topped 400 PPM Throughout March In Unprecedented Milestone

Average global levels of carbon dioxide stayed above 400 parts per million, or ppm, through all of March 2015 -- the first time that has happened for an entire month since record keeping first began, according to data released this week by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Scientists with NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory have called the news a "significant milestone" in the growing scourge of man-made climate change.

“This marks the fact that humans burning fossil fuels have caused global carbon dioxide concentrations to rise more than 120ppm since pre-industrial times,” Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA's greenhouse gas network, told The Guardian on Wednesday. “Half of that rise has occurred since 1980.”

Excellent. Plants will take it in and breathe out oxygen. Ain't nature great!?

 

[Skylar]

Higher temperatures mean the atmosphere can hold more water. So even slight increases in temperature can snowball. CO2 alone need not be the sole factor. It can increase the presence of other factors......like lower sea water density, higher atmopsheric methane and higher atmospheric water vapor.

Which each contributing it own impacts on the climate.

Higher temperatures mean the atmosphere can hold more water. So even slight increases in temperature can snowball.

Exactly! Soon it will be hot enough to melt lead.

Define 'soon'.

Didn't some French guy say we had 500 days to act?

Which french guy said it would be so hot it would melt lead in 500 days?

He said if we didn't act in 500 days, he said it would be too late to stop global warming.
He didn't mention lead. I guess he didn't want anyone to panic.

So who said anything about your 'melting lead' claims?

There's you citing you and....who?

 

[Skylar]

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

Slowing the North Atlantic Oscillation would tend to lead to the cooling of Northern Europe.

Slight increases in temperatures could be part and parcel of the global warming that has been occurring since the last ice age. That is certainly tied to Milanvovich cycles (though we're not sure exactly how).The warming trend could be a factor of long-term changes in oceanic heat pumps. We can't just assume that CO2 is the main culprit.

It could be. But that would mandate that the timing of the warming trend matching up to our pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere was just a grand coincidence. A warming trend faster than we've ever measured. We haven't seen 400pm in the last 3,000,000 years.

And now, during this unprecidented spike in CO2 levels....we see unprecedented spikes in temperature that match it exactly. (Though my meaning for 'unprecedented' in each case is slightly different. For the C02 we haven't seen that level in 3,000,000 years. In temperature we have records for the last 800,000. And the speed of the increase in temperature is unprecedented in 800,000.)

That's really unlikely. You might call it the 'grand coincidence theory'. It might be fun to calculate the odds. But give the rare nature of each (no more than 1 occurrence in 800,000 years, 1 in 3,000,000 for the other), the likelihood that they both occurred by random chance at the same time would be......wow. Like lottery odds. A number best represented with an exponent.

A direct correlation between higher temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 levels is orders of magnitude more likely. Especially since we can point infrared satellites at the atmosphere and measure in real time the higher infrared emissions of atmopheric CO2.

 

[Kosh]

Take...the UK. Its at the same latitude as southern Alaska or central Russia. Yet its unusually warm. This is caused largely by warm water currents pushed by the convection belt that pour tremendous amounts of heat into the regions. Disrupt or even displace the convection belts and the UK temperatures plunge. For all intents and purposes, permanently. With other pretty significant changes probable for any other region that gets a significant portion of its warmth from the oceans.

Everything is interdependent. I agree with that. You have to parse out and separate interdependent forcings in order to talk about them.

You've got your North Atlantic Oscillation, Arctic Oscillation, and these are tied into the meta dynamics of all the oceans' heat pumps. They change over time, independent of CO2 levels.

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

CO2 does NOT control climate!

 

[Kosh]

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

Slowing the North Atlantic Oscillation would tend to lead to the cooling of Northern Europe.

Slight increases in temperatures could be part and parcel of the global warming that has been occurring since the last ice age. That is certainly tied to Milanvovich cycles (though we're not sure exactly how).The warming trend could be a factor of long-term changes in oceanic heat pumps. We can't just assume that CO2 is the main culprit.

It could be. But that would mandate that the timing of the warming trend matching up to our pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere was just a grand coincidence. A warming trend faster than we've ever measured. We haven't seen 400pm in the last 800,000 years.

And now, during this unprecidented spike in CO2 levels....we see unprecedented spikes in temperature that match it exactly. (Though my meaning for 'unprecedented' in each case is slightly different. For the C02 we haven't seen that level in 800,000 years. In temperature we have. But the speed of the increase is unprecedented in 800,000.)

That's really unlikely. You might call it the 'grand coincidence theory'. It might be fun to calculate the odds. But give the rare nature of each (no more than 1 occurrence in 800,000 years each), the likelihood that they both occured by random chance at the same time would be......wow. Like lottery odds. A number best represented with an exponent.

A direct correlation between higher temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 levels is orders of magnitude more likely. Especially since we can point infrared satellites at the atmosphere and measure in real time the higher infrared emissions of atmopheric CO2.

Once again for the far left drones!

CO2 does NOT control climate!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Most of the increase is attributed to the Hot Air being exhausted through the bloviating of AGW cult members.

We've actually burned more than enough fossil fuel to account for the increase.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I think CO2 at 400 ppm is ideal. I'm a lover of plants and trees, which actually reach maximum growth at 1500 ppm.

Doesn't do us much good when we're deforesting land at ever increasing rates.

 

[Bush92]

OMFG! "Chicken Little says the sky is fallllllllllling!!!! Run for your lives!!!"

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Take...the UK. Its at the same latitude as southern Alaska or central Russia. Yet its unusually warm. This is caused largely by warm water currents pushed by the convection belt that pour tremendous amounts of heat into the regions. Disrupt or even displace the convection belts and the UK temperatures plunge. For all intents and purposes, permanently. With other pretty significant changes probable for any other region that gets a significant portion of its warmth from the oceans.

Everything is interdependent. I agree with that. You have to parse out and separate interdependent forcings in order to talk about them.

You've got your North Atlantic Oscillation, Arctic Oscillation, and these are tied into the meta dynamics of all the oceans' heat pumps. They change over time, independent of CO2 levels.

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

CO2 does NOT control climate!

Do you think if you say that often enough it will be true?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Unprecedented. Except for all the previous times in Earth's history when it was 400 PPM or much, much higher.

You need to actually read the article, not just the headline:

Specifically, the passage 'the first time that has happened for an entire month since record keeping first began'.

Denialists don't like to read, they like to talk.

 

[EricJ]

Conservative reaction to climate change.

 

[Kosh]

Take...the UK. Its at the same latitude as southern Alaska or central Russia. Yet its unusually warm. This is caused largely by warm water currents pushed by the convection belt that pour tremendous amounts of heat into the regions. Disrupt or even displace the convection belts and the UK temperatures plunge. For all intents and purposes, permanently. With other pretty significant changes probable for any other region that gets a significant portion of its warmth from the oceans.

Everything is interdependent. I agree with that. You have to parse out and separate interdependent forcings in order to talk about them.

You've got your North Atlantic Oscillation, Arctic Oscillation, and these are tied into the meta dynamics of all the oceans' heat pumps. They change over time, independent of CO2 levels.

But with even slight increases in temperature driven by CO2, you'll see increases in freshwater ice melting and dilution of the salination of sea water. Which would effect those convection belts by reducing water density.

Slow, disrupt or even divert these heat pumps and you can see dramatic changes to the climate of regions that get significant portions of their heat from these pumps.

CO2 does NOT control climate!

Do you think if you say that often enough it will be true?

It is true!

No real scientific proof has have been presented to prove it!

Even the father of the AGW movement can not prove it with datasets and source code..