Atmospheric carbon levels nearing historic threshold

Apr 24, 2013

(Phys.org) —For the first time in human history, concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) could rise above 400 parts per million (ppm) for sustained lengths of time throughout much of the Northern Hemisphere as soon as May 2013.

To provide a resource for understanding the implications of rising CO2 levels, Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego is providing daily updates of the "Keeling Curve," the record of measured at Hawaii's Mauna Loa. These iconic measurements, begun by Charles David (Dave) Keeling, a world-leading authority on atmospheric accumulation and Scripps pioneer, comprise the longest continuous record of CO2 in the world, starting from 316 ppm in March 1958 and approaching 400 ppm today with a familiar saw-tooth pattern. For the past 800,000 years, CO2 levels never exceeded 300 parts per million.

"I wish it weren't true, but it looks like the world is going to blow through the 400-ppm level without losing a beat," said Scripps geophysicist Ralph Keeling, who has taken over the Keeling Curve measurement from his late father. "At this pace we'll hit 450 ppm within a few decades."

The website keelingcurve.ucsd.edu offers background information about how CO2 is measured, the history of the Keeling Curve, and resources from other organizations on the current state of climate. An accompanying Twitter feed, @keeling_curve, also provides followers with the most recent Keeling Curve CO2 reading in a daily tweet.

Dave Keeling began recording CO2 data at Mauna Loa and other locations after developing an ultraprecise known as a manometer. Ralph Keeling took over the program in 2005 and also heads a program at Scripps to measure changes in . The Scripps O2 and CO2 programs make measurements of CO2 and other gases at remote locations around the world, including Antarctica, Tasmania, and northern Alaska. The Scripps programs are complementary to many other programs now measuring CO2 and other greenhouse gases worldwide.

Scientists estimate that the last time CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably the Pliocene epoch, between 3.2 million and 5 million years ago, when Earth's climate was much warmer than today. CO2 was around 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution, when humans first began releasing large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels. By the time Dave Keeling began measurements in 1958, CO2 had already risen from 280 to 316 ppm. The rate of rise of CO2 over the past century is unprecedented; there is no known period in geologic history when such high rates have been found. The continuous rise is a direct consequence of society's heavy reliance on fossil fuels for energy.

Each year, the concentration of CO2 at Mauna Loa rises and falls in a sawtooth fashion, with the next year higher than the year before. The peak of the sawtooth typically comes in May. If don't top 400 ppm in May 2013, they almost certainly will next year, Keeling said.

"The 400-ppm threshold is a sobering milestone, and should serve as a wake up call for all of us to support clean energy technology and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, before it's too late for our children and grandchildren," said Tim Lueker, an oceanographer and carbon cycle researcher who is a longtime member of the Scripps CO2 Group.

Explore further: Rising sea levels to cost Australia billions, study says

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Image: Carbon dioxide on the rise

Jun 28, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The SCIAMACHY sensor on ESA?s Envisat satellite has provided scientists with invaluable data on our planet, allowing them to map global air pollution and the distribution of greenhouse gases.

Carbon dioxide already in danger zone, warns study

Nov 18, 2008

A group of 10 prominent scientists says that the level of globe-warming carbon dioxide in the air has probably already reached a point where world climate will change disastrously unless the level can be reduced in coming ...

Recommended for you

Red tide off northwest Florida could hit economy

21 minutes ago

It's like Florida's version of The Blob. Slow moving glops of toxic algae in the northeast Gulf of Mexico are killing sea turtles, sharks and fish, and threatening the waters and beaches that fuel the region's ...

Dutch unveil big plan to fight rising tides

11 hours ago

The Netherlands on Tuesday unveiled a multi-billion-euro, multi-decade plan to counter the biggest environmental threat to the low-lying European nation: surging seawater caused by global climate change.

Drought hits Brazil coffee harvest

13 hours ago

Coffee output in Brazil, the world's chief exporter, will slide this year after the worst drought in decades, agricultural agency Conab said Tuesday.

User comments : 52

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VENDItardE
1.4 / 5 (29) Apr 24, 2013
more alarmist nonsense.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (30) Apr 24, 2013
Despite the fact that the globe has been cooling since 2000, the AGW Alarmists Cult persists with this CO2 lie. I guess constantly repeating it, is their way of staying blind to reality and the truth.
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (29) Apr 24, 2013
Despite the fact that the globe has been cooling since 2000, ... .

Another convenient lie perpetrated by the denialists, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.
Jonseer
1.4 / 5 (21) Apr 24, 2013
OMG this means that virtually the entire corp of researchers studying global warming will have to head to hard hit tropical reefs to reprove this is happening and the dangers we face.

Of course not all the really important data is found in the beautiful, remote tropics!

Researchers with Expert rock and mountain climbing as well as repelling and survivalist skills and a liking for cooler climates will head to "extreme" locations and spend months on the Greenland Ice Cap, the Antarctic and Arctic or remote, starkly beautiful mountain regions.

The fact that these spots would be considered an adventurist's dream or that such a trip would be a once in a lifetime dream vacation for the average person means nothing.

All researchers know that how exotic, beautiful, stunning and exclusive a location is directly correlates to how much valuable data can be collected.

That's why no serious climate change research is done in say Abilene, Kansas. There is NO data to find there. LOL
Claudius
1.2 / 5 (21) Apr 25, 2013
Perhaps this article will shed light on why global temperatures have not been increasing as much as predicted while CO2 levels are going up:

"NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere"
http://principia-...facebook

"...in the upper atmospheric carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space."

So it may be that increasing CO2 is actually helping to reduce global temperatures. What irony.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (15) Apr 25, 2013
....."NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere"
http://principia-...facebook

"...in the upper atmospheric carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide molecules sent as much as 95% of that radiation straight back out into space." So it may be that increasing CO2 is actually helping to reduce global temperatures. What irony.


Claudius really ...

First off you quote from a noted skeptic website that even allows a certain Mr Douglas Cotton to publicise his odd notions ( even Mr watts wont do that ).

Second, think about it ...

The clue is in the statement ( from the paper ) ..
"...that the thermosphere not only received a whopping 26 billion kilowatt hours of energy from the sun during a recent burst of solar activity.."

Err, that energy was of UV and X-rays. Damn good job i say. But anyway it would not add to surface heating. It is/was only transitory.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 25, 2013
Cont

PS; those of you who are unaware of Doug Cotton's strange take on the GHE - his paper is here ....
http://principia-...ures.pdf

And the thread I contributed to, effectively as a rebuttal to that. ( though he has not replied as yet ) and I expect if he does that I will be refered to some physics and get confounded by his pyhsics. ( has a PHd ). This is his MO, and why no one ( in his estimation ) has successfully rebutted him. I come at it from a practical meteorological standpoint.

My username there is TonyB ...
http://www.drroys...nt-76188
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (17) Apr 25, 2013
As usual, venritard and againstseeing make such astoundingly stupid comments, its barely worth noticing them.

Jonseer, nice take on the conspiracy. Should probably jump back into your bunker now.

Claudius, I see you've decided to come back for another round of making misleading summations of articles you find on denialist blogs. You can't even get that part right. The upper atmosphere is indeed cooled by CO2 emmisions. It has to do with the contraction of the very thin atmosphere in the thermosphere. Contraction, by definition, is cooling. This is an understood and expected consequence of large CO2 loading in the atmosphere. It is NOT "cooling" in the manner you mis-use it in your comment. Of course you don't understand that, you just read what someone else says about it, and then because it sounds like it is counter to global climate change, you parrot it.

So, as usual, you have no clue what you're talking about. How idiotic.
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 25, 2013
I think this again shows how correct the hockeystick theory is. The deniers (or at least a subset of them) think that CO2 rise is not anthropogenically caused, but here is more clear proof of cause and effect. I wonder if the deniers can make any predictions about what climate change has in store for us as we progress into the future with even more CO2? To paraphrase what Maggnus said, (the deniers) have no clue about what they are talking about. How idiotic.

antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (23) Apr 26, 2013
I think this again shows how correct the hockeystick theory is.

There is stupidity and then there is the AGW Cultist's blind acceptance. Every hockey stick has been proven to be fabricated.
Scientists estimate that the last time CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably the Pliocene epoch, between 3.2 million and 5 million years ago, when Earth's climate was much warmer than today.

Yet with increasing CO2 we are cooler and getting cooler each year since 1999.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 26, 2013
There is stupidity and then there is the AGW Cultist's blind acceptance. Every hockey stick has been proven to be fabricated. Yet with increasing CO2 we are cooler and getting cooler each year since 1999.


Anti: The acceptance is not blind, in my case anyway. A cult is a minority and "acceptants" are in the majority. Your "hockey stick" is there in every study produced, even in BESTS's, bar some shouting about the MWP's global effectiveness. And since 1998 the hottest 9 years on record have occurred, even with a cool ENSO.
You like proclaiming these exact same statements with every new thread. You do not win, or even influence a discussion by shouting loudly and repeating yourself. I have long since given up thinking that merely stating the opposite to you will influence your, and your likes thinking. It may well serve to dispel some of your frustration though I suppose.
As for this study it just states a fact. CO2 levels are rising. Simple as that..
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 26, 2013
You know runrig, I could not have said it better. The mighty anti must feel pretty frustrated along with the many many deniers (including my own little brother b.t.w). As a physicist I get pretty frustrated myself at the sheer volume of this AGW denialest crap. They must be pretty PO'ed at us likewise since we argue over and over what to us are just facts. To me, anti looks like a freaking loon. I guess the typical normal for him is all messed up.

Let us not forget though that there are dark forces that really support the anti-AGW positions that are tied in political circles to the rightwing of the US. Anti seems like the kind of guy (based his posts) that would take the influence money of the dark depraved ones.

What do you think, put him in FEMA region 9?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2013
You know runrig, I could not have said it better. The mighty anti must feel pretty frustrated along with the many many deniers (including my own little brother b.t.w). As a physicist I get pretty frustrated myself at the sheer volume of this AGW denialest crap. ......


Howhot: Ah, a physicist. Can I bounce something/one off you? Have you come across Douglas J Cotton B.Sc.(Physics), B.A., Dip.Bus.Admin. ?

He has this theory ... http://principia-...ures.pdf

I am rebutting it here ...http://www.drroys...nt-76188

Username TonyB

I make the point because even "educated" people can have strange ideas. One other that springs to mind is Piers Corbyn.
Psychological makeup is a strange thing.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (19) Apr 27, 2013
As for this study it just states a fact. CO2 levels are rising. Simple as that..
-- runrig
NO. It's not as simple as that.
"The 400-ppm threshold is a sobering milestone, and should serve as a wake up call for all of us to support clean energy technology and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, before it's too late for our children and grandchildren," said Tim Lueker, an oceanographer and carbon cycle researcher who is a longtime member of the Scripps CO2 Group.

Do they provide anything in their study to make this absurd alarmist conclusion?
Unless the atmosphere becomes unbreathable at 400-ppm CO2, then that's your typical AGW Alarmist propaganda.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (19) Apr 28, 2013
That's why no serious climate change research is done in say Abilene, Kansas. There is NO data to find there. LOL
LOL! That's a hilarious (but all too real and expensive) insight!
deepsand
3.4 / 5 (25) Apr 28, 2013
Yet with increasing CO2 we are cooler and getting cooler each year since 1999.

False.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (19) Apr 28, 2013
Let us not forget though that there are dark forces that really support the anti-AGW positions that are tied in political circles to the rightwing of the US. Anti seems like the kind of guy (based his posts) that would take the influence money of the dark depraved ones.

What do you think, put him in FEMA region 9?
-- howhot
Pssst!...pssst!.... com'ere. Shhh!... did you hear that? They are comin... they are comin to get us. We have to get past those giant spiders on the wall?
VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2013
Oh no. You need to put a bullet in your head to make sure they don't take you alive.

"They are comin... they are comin to get us." - Antigoracle

It's not as if you use your head for anything useful anyhow.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (16) Apr 29, 2013
You know runrig...They must be pretty PO'ed at us likewise since we argue over and over what to us are just facts. To me, anti looks like a freaking loon. I guess the typical normal for him is all messed up.

Let us not forget though that there are dark forces that really support the anti-AGW positions that are tied in political circles to the rightwing of the US. Anti seems like the kind of guy (based his posts) that would take the influence money of the dark depraved ones.

What do you think, put him in FEMA region 9?
-- howhot
If ever there was proof of the cultist behavior of the AGW Alarmist Zealots, this is it. The cult gave their follower a 4.3 rating for this. I swear they just lurk on this forum and down rate anyone who their warped fanatical mind believes is against them.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2013
If ever there was proof of the cultist behavior of the AGW Alarmist Zealots, this is it. The cult gave their follower a 4.3 rating for this. I swear they just lurk on this forum and down rate anyone who their warped fanatical mind believes is against them.


Anti: Why not consider that this is a science based website. As such it is populated by science leaning posters. The motivations of the Denialists are different. It is all about destroying the science when it supports AGW ( or even in many cases, just GW ). You see the difference. No, I would guess. Why would you expect most posters not to mark highly those with science based comments? The desperation to get to your preferred answer is glaring, and many times just plain ridiculous. The science can be either, good, bad or indifferent. Not ALL bad. Which is the stance you lot come from.
Just think about the balance of probabilities here, will you?
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Apr 29, 2013
The motivations of the Denialists are different. It is all about destroying the science when it supports AGW ( or even in many cases, just GW ).
B.S.. I've never seen anyone run away from the science faster than an AGWite.

Why would you expect most posters not to mark highly those with science based comments?
More B.S.. As with your own post, the AGWites ignore science in favor of personal attacks.

Just think about the balance of probabilities here, will you?
You talked a big talk, now walk the big walk and bring the science. ...or is it you just don't have supporting science?

Excalibur
3.2 / 5 (18) Apr 30, 2013
You know runrig...They must be pretty PO'ed at us likewise since we argue over and over what to us are just facts. To me, anti looks like a freaking loon. I guess the typical normal for him is all messed up.

Let us not forget though that there are dark forces that really support the anti-AGW positions that are tied in political circles to the rightwing of the US. Anti seems like the kind of guy (based his posts) that would take the influence money of the dark depraved ones.

What do you think, put him in FEMA region 9?
-- howhot
If ever there was proof of the cultist behavior of the AGW Alarmist Zealots, this is it. The cult gave their follower a 4.3 rating for this. I swear they just lurk on this forum and down rate anyone who their warped fanatical mind believes is against them.

Thus demonstrating that said "cult" is better informed and more rational than are you.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (22) Apr 30, 2013
The motivations of the Denialists are different. It is all about destroying the science when it supports AGW ( or even in many cases, just GW ).
B.S.. I've never seen anyone run away from the science faster than an AGWite.

Why would you expect most posters not to mark highly those with science based comments?
More B.S.. As with your own post, the AGWites ignore science in favor of personal attacks.

Just think about the balance of probabilities here, will you?
You talked a big talk, now walk the big walk and bring the science. ...or is it you just don't have supporting science?

That's been done ad nauseum, only to be ignored by you.

You cannot learn what you do not want to know.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (18) Apr 30, 2013
You talked a big talk, now walk the big walk and bring the science. ...or is it you just don't have supporting science?
That's been done ad nauseum, only to be ignored by you.
LOL This is just another deepsand dodge.

You cannot learn what you do not want to know.
Obviously. As you demonstrate, AGWites are incapable of providing science, and incapable of learning.

deepsand = ignoramus

.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (21) Apr 30, 2013
Not worthy of substantive response.
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Apr 30, 2013
Not worthy of substantive response.


Agreed deepsand ...
I don't intend to waste any time with him/her any more - The most intransigent and obnoxious poster on here. With an overbearingly arrogant attitude, borne of delusions of superiority.

I'll get in the B.S.'s ..... and LOL's first shall I?
deepsand
3 / 5 (20) May 01, 2013
Not worthy of substantive response.


Agreed deepsand ...
I don't intend to waste any time with him/her any more - The most intransigent and obnoxious poster on here. With an overbearingly arrogant attitude, borne of delusions of superiority.

AO is not very far behind in that regard.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (18) May 01, 2013
Not worthy of substantive response.


Agreed deepsand ...
I don't intend to waste any time with him/her any more - The most intransigent and obnoxious poster on here. With an overbearingly arrogant attitude, borne of delusions of superiority.

AO is not very far behind in that regard.

The ignorance and paranoia of the AGW Alarmist Cult knows no limit.
Answer me this - Do you gulp down the AGW Kool-Aid or sip it?
runrig
5 / 5 (9) May 01, 2013

The ignorance and paranoia of the AGW Alarmist Cult knows no limit.
Answer me this - Do you gulp down the AGW Kool-Aid or sip it?


I know this will go over your head but, anyway ............

I come at climate with a "certain" elevated level of understanding. In fact re Meteorology. Now to have that understanding arrogantly dismissed, as though obviously worthless ... well, shall I say it is blood-boiling. I don't know what you do or what he/she does as a profession, but I suspect you would feel the same at ignorant, arrogant "assertions" contrary to your knowledge.
Can that situation be applied to the AGW Acceptants? re insulting Denialists. Are we insulting their "greater" knowledge on the subject. I can take reasonable criticism, but certainly not that. And when the nub of the argument comes back to politics then it is an argument "made in the pub" and no side will win. We are what we are. But my point is the science is what it is. Good, bad or indifferent.
deepsand
3 / 5 (18) May 01, 2013
Not worthy of substantive response.


Agreed deepsand ...
I don't intend to waste any time with him/her any more - The most intransigent and obnoxious poster on here. With an overbearingly arrogant attitude, borne of delusions of superiority.

AO is not very far behind in that regard.

The ignorance and paranoia of the AGW Alarmist Cult knows no limit.

Are you a congenital liar or one of convenience of the moment?
Howhot
5 / 5 (8) May 01, 2013
What do you think, put him in FEMA region 9?
-- howhot
If ever there was proof of the cultist behavior of the AGW Alarmist Zealots, this is it. The cult gave their follower a 4.3 rating for this. I swear they just lurk on this forum and down rate anyone who their warped fanatical mind believes is against them.


Lol. No the warped fanatical minds are those that think somehow CO2 levels don't relate to global average temperature. It's just that simple Anti. You are denying Physics if in your brain, you think that global temperatures and global CO2 levels are not linked. And just as CO2 is increasing like a hockey stick, so are global average temperatures!

That is a fact jack! What I find even more bizarre is that those that fear being moved into FEMA region 9, are the same Al-Gore deniers that suck the tit of big oil! But they use lunatic ideas to disguise that relationship.

antigoracle
1 / 5 (16) May 02, 2013
Lol. No the warped fanatical minds are those that think somehow CO2 levels don't relate to global average temperature. It's just that simple Anti. You are denying Physics if in your brain, you think that global temperatures and global CO2 levels are not linked. And just as CO2 is increasing like a hockey stick, so are global average temperatures!
-- howhot
Of course they are linked, but the fact that your single neuron has nothing it can link with means you cannot see the truth. Temperature drives CO2.
http://hockeyscht...ure.html
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) May 02, 2013
Agreed deepsand ...
I don't intend to waste any time with him/her any more - The most intransigent and obnoxious poster on here. With an overbearingly arrogant attitude, borne of delusions of superiority.

AO is not very far behind in that regard.


Uba is the more dishonest of the two, on an intellectual level. AO is the more obnoxious, and clearly comes at it with an agenda. VenCARd whatever is the most obnoxious with the least to add. None comes across as being very bright, although Uba seems to be slightly better than AO and on par with Claudius. It's funny watching all of them struggle with the science amid their cries of conspiracy.

Consider AO's comment right above this one. He is right, in that temperature can drive CO2. He doesn't realize that he is admitting there is warming, and of course he misses completely that CO2 can also drive temperature. It's laughable how often they all do that; admit there is warming while trying to make arguments that it's not.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (15) May 02, 2013
Consider AO's comment right above this one. He is right, in that temperature can drive CO2. He doesn't realize that he is admitting there is warming, and of course he misses completely that CO2 can also drive temperature. It's laughable how often they all do that; admit there is warming while trying to make arguments that it's not.

No, it's laughable how you could make such an idiotic comment and the Cult would give you a 5 for it.
It's been warming since the end of the little ice-age, prior to which, it was warmer than it's today with less CO2.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) May 02, 2013
.........No, it's laughable how you could make such an idiotic comment and the Cult would give you a 5 for it.
It's been warming since the end of the little ice-age, prior to which, it was warmer than it's today with less CO2.


Anti:
It matters not how often we state and provide links re the processes involved and the historical data, you come back to the same myths. Temp drives CO2 . It's been warming since the last Ice Age. Blah Blah.
You are welcome to keep repeating that to yourself - and on here I suppose. It doesn't matter to me. You clearly do not take on-board the evidence and science involved. You have ( along with others ) these fixed ideas that Heaven nor Earth will not move. Fine - we all live in a world of our own to some extent. But it IS a world of your own. And comes nowhere near the real one.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (17) May 02, 2013
Lol. No the warped fanatical minds are those that think somehow CO2 levels don't relate to global average temperature. It's just that simple Anti. You are denying Physics if in your brain, you think that global temperatures and global CO2 levels are not linked. And just as CO2 is increasing like a hockey stick, so are global average temperatures!
-- howhot
Of course they are linked, but the fact that your single neuron has nothing it can link with means you cannot see the truth. Temperature drives CO2.
http://hockeyscht...ure.html

TROLL.
deepsand
3 / 5 (18) May 02, 2013
Consider AO's comment right above this one. He is right, in that temperature can drive CO2. He doesn't realize that he is admitting there is warming, and of course he misses completely that CO2 can also drive temperature. It's laughable how often they all do that; admit there is warming while trying to make arguments that it's not.

No, it's laughable how you could make such an idiotic comment and the Cult would give you a 5 for it.
It's been warming since the end of the little ice-age, prior to which, it was warmer than it's today with less CO2.

What is truly laughable is your abject ignorance of Science in general, and Physics in particular.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (14) May 03, 2013
What is truly laughable is your abject ignorance of Science in general, and Physics in particular.

http://www.forbes...armists/
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (17) May 04, 2013
What is truly laughable is your abject ignorance of Science in general, and Physics in particular.

http://www.forbes...armists/

Another steaming heap of TROLL TRASH.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (14) May 04, 2013
What is truly laughable is your abject ignorance of Science in general, and Physics in particular.

http://www.forbes...armists/

Another steaming heap of TROLL TRASH.

Warmists Display Cowardice and Hypocrisy In Avoiding Global Warming Debate
http://www.forbes...-debate/
As Carbon Dioxide Levels Continue To Rise, Global Temperatures Are Not Following Suit
http://www.forbes...ng-suit/
As The Consensus Among Scientists Crumbles, Global Warming Alarmists Attack Their Integrity
http://www.forbes...tegrity/
Global Warming Alarmists Chant 'Forget The Carbon,
http://www.forbes...the-tax/
Howhot
5 / 5 (6) May 04, 2013
Of course they are linked, but the fact that your single neuron has nothing it can link with means you cannot see the truth. Temperature drives CO2.


Lol. At least my single neuron beats your none! Please tell me, No please enlighten my single neuron how the physics of that works. Because frankly, that is another one of the denier's BS talking points that they like to throw out there and make stick. Seriously tell me how temperature drives CO2.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (14) May 04, 2013
Seriously tell me how temperature drives CO2.

http://hockeyscht...ure.html
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (17) May 04, 2013
What is truly laughable is your abject ignorance of Science in general, and Physics in particular.

http://www.forbes...armists/

Another steaming heap of TROLL DUNG.
deepsand
3 / 5 (18) May 04, 2013
Seriously tell me how temperature drives CO2.

http://hockeyscht...ure.html

Another TROLL LIE.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (16) May 05, 2013
Seriously tell me how temperature drives CO2.

http://hockeyscht...ure.html

Another TROLL LIE.
-- deepsandTurd
The usual non-response from the AGW TURD. I can't blame them, when the lies of their "science" fails what is a RETURD to do.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) May 05, 2013
.....Temperature drives CO2.
http://hockeyscht...ure.html


Here a critique of paper's author's methods...
We have been very critical of the correspondence of BHS. Some might even say harsh. But we must acknowledge that their contributions are very interesting. In fact, their letters provide with a perfect example of the strategies deployed by climate "skeptics" to twist the debate and sow doubt in the minds of the public. BHS articulate their argumentation around the defense of an ideal of scientific method they believe in while clearly violating the rules they pretend to respect. Citing irrelevant quotes or taken out of their context, misunderstanding fundamental concepts, concentrating on precise points without looking at the broad picture, cherry-picking or even inventing scientific facts and data in order to provide with justifications to their hypotheses, etc.

http://www.skepti...ain.html
Howhot
5 / 5 (6) May 05, 2013
You know Anti, I really enjoyed the comment section on your forbes website links. Comments like these of your Forbes reference; "Your in error. NCDC, NASA, and CRU all show a statistically significant warming trend, despite both a solar minima and increased volcanic activity." or this, " I hate the bias and poorly referenced information that you use that makes you think the US should not have any part to play in reducing CO2 emissions." or this beauty, ""It's hard to find "journalism" less worthy of a "journalist" than this"

I would say your reference have very very little credibility. In fact, all they are opinion hit pieces from shyster bloggers.

runrig
5 / 5 (6) May 05, 2013
deepsand
3 / 5 (18) May 05, 2013
Seriously tell me how temperature drives CO2.

http://hockeyscht...ure.html

Another TROLL LIE.
-- deepsandTurd
The usual non-response from the AGW TURD. I can't blame them, when the lies of their "science" fails what is a RETURD to do.

Of course it's usual to call a lie a lie. If it offends you, don't lie.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (15) May 06, 2013
Of course it's usual to call a lie a lie. If it offends you, don't lie.
--deepsandTurd
You offend me, in that you are an offensive Turd.
I could call you a lying Turd, but then I must consider your abject ignorance.
Now that is no lie.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (15) May 07, 2013
AO might want to see the chaplain about getting his TS card punched.
Neinsense99
2.7 / 5 (12) May 26, 2013
Please stop insulting real skeptics by using that term to describe pig-headed contrarians.