Greenhouse gas level highest in two million years, NOAA reports (Update 2)

May 10, 2013 by Associated Press
In this Sunday, Dec. 2, 2012 photo, a flock of Geese fly past the smokestacks at the Jeffrey Energy Center coal power plant as the suns sets near Emmett, Kan. Worldwide levels of the chief greenhouse gas that causes global warming have hit a milestone, reaching an amount never before encountered by humans, federal scientists said Friday, May 10, 2013. Carbon dioxide was measured at 400 parts per million at the oldest monitoring station in Hawaii which sets the global benchmark. The last time the worldwide carbon level was probably that high was about 2 million years ago, said Pieter Tans of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

Worldwide levels of the greenhouse gas that plays the biggest role in global warming have reached their highest level in almost 2 million years—an amount never before encountered by humans, U.S. scientists said Friday.

Carbon dioxide was measured at 400 parts per million Thursday at the oldest monitoring station in Hawaii, which sets the global benchmark.

The number 400 has been anticipated by climate scientists and environmental activists for years as a notable indicator, in part because it's a round number.

"What we see today is 100 percent due to human activity," said Pieter Tans, a senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal for electricity and oil for gasoline, has caused the overwhelming bulk of the man-made increase in carbon in the air, scientists say.

At the end of the Ice Age, it took 7,000 years for carbon dioxide levels to rise by 80 parts per million, Tans said. Because of the burning of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide levels have gone up by the same amount in just 55 years.

The speed of the change is the big worry, said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann. If carbon dioxide levels go up 100 parts per million over thousands or millions of years, plants and animals can adapt. But that can't be done at the speed it is now happening.

The last time the worldwide carbon level was probably this high was about 2 million years ago, Tans said. That was during the Pleistocene Era.

"It was much warmer than it is today," Tans said. "There were forests in Greenland. Sea level was higher, between 10 and 20 meters (33 to 66 feet)."

Other scientists say it may have been 10 million years since Earth last encountered this level of carbon dioxide. The first modern humans only appeared in Africa about 200,000 years ago.

When measurements were first taken in 1958, carbon dioxide was measured at 315 parts per million. Levels are now growing about 2 parts per million per year. That's 100 times faster than at the end of the Ice Age.

Before the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide levels were around 280 ppm, and they were closer to 200 during the Ice Age, which is when sea levels shrank and polar places went from green to icy.

Some scientists and environmental groups promote 350 parts per million as a safe level for CO2, but scientists acknowledge they don't really know what levels would stop the effects of global warming.

"Physically, we are no worse off at 400 ppm than we were at 399 ppm," Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said. "But as a symbol of the painfully slow pace of measures to avoid a dangerous level of warming, it's somewhat unnerving."

The world pumps on average 2.4 million pounds of carbon dioxide into the air every second for a total of 38.2 billion tons in 2011, according international calculations published in a scientific journal in December. China spews 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air per year, leading all countries, and its emissions are growing about 10 percent annually. The U.S. at No. 2 is slowly cutting emissions and is down to 5.9 billion tons per year.

Environmental activists, such as former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, seized on this week's milestone.

"This number is a reminder that for the last 150 years—and especially over the last several decades—we have been recklessly polluting the protective sheath of atmosphere that surrounds the Earth and protects the conditions that have fostered the flourishing of our civilization," Gore said in a statement. "We are altering the composition of our atmosphere at an unprecedented rate."

There are natural ups and downs of the greenhouse gas, which comes from volcanoes and decomposing plants and animals. But that's not what has driven current levels so high, Tans said. He said the amount should be even higher, but the world's oceans are absorbing quite a bit, keeping it out of the air.

Carbon dioxide traps heat just like in a greenhouse and most of it stays in the air for about a century. Some lasts for thousands of years, scientists say. It accounts for three-quarters of the planet's heat-trapping gases. There are others, such as methane, which has a shorter life span but traps heat more effectively. Both trigger temperatures to rise over time, scientists say, which is causing sea levels to rise and some weather patterns to change.

Last year, regional monitors briefly hit 400 ppm in the Arctic, but those monitoring stations aren't seen as a world mark like the one at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.

Generally carbon levels peak in May then fall slightly, so the yearly average is usually a few parts per million lower than May levels.

Explore further: Asian monsoon much older than previously thought

More information: NOAA monitoring at Mauna Loa: www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

4 /5 (61 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Climate chief warns of 'urgency' as CO2 levels rise

Apr 29, 2013

The UN's climate chief called for urgency Monday as she opened a new round of global talks amid warnings that Earth-warming carbon dioxide levels were approaching a symbolic threshold never seen in human ...

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 ...

US scientists report big jump in heat-trapping CO2 (Update)

Mar 05, 2013

The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the air jumped dramatically in 2012, making it very unlikely that global warming can be limited to another 2 degrees (1.2 C) as many global leaders have hoped, new federal figures ...

Recommended for you

Asian monsoon much older than previously thought

16 hours ago

The Asian monsoon already existed 40 million years ago during a period of high atmospheric carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures, reports an international research team led by a University of Arizona geoscientist.

Rules of thumb for climate change turned upside down

16 hours ago

With a new analysis of land regions, ETH climate researcher are challenging the general climate change paradigm that dry regions are getting drier and wet regions are getting wetter. In some regions they ...

Tropical Storm Odile taken on by two NASA satellites

Sep 12, 2014

As Tropical Storm Odile continues to affect Mexico's west coast and stir up dangerous surf, NASA's TRMM and Aqua satellites provided forecasters information on clouds and rainfall in the coast-hugging storm. ...

User comments : 143

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (73) May 10, 2013
"The Earth has not experienced this level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for about three million years, when global average temperature was two to three centigrade degrees higher than pre-industrial levels, the polar ice caps were much smaller and global sea level was about 20 meters (yards) higher than today," Ward said.

Yet we are no where near that but instead the globe has been cooling for the last 15 years. So, expect the AGW Alarmism to get even hotter as their lies are exposed.
Midcliff
3.4 / 5 (34) May 10, 2013
The globe should have been cooling as we just came out of a solar minimum. Yet the temp remained flat because there is so much CO2. As the sunspots increase over the next few years we will continue to see record high local temps. When will you be convinced? When your head is under 20 yards of ocean?
Tektrix
3.4 / 5 (25) May 10, 2013
"When will you be convinced?"

The dogmatic are never convinced contrariwise of their dogma.
BaconBits
4.1 / 5 (46) May 10, 2013
AntiG - thanks for showing up and posting a thoroughly discredited talking point. (See www.skepticalscience.com for any comment reader that seeks knowledge) The addition of heat into the earth's air, land and oceans continues to increase and continues to drive huge, easily measured consequences. It shows you have no comprehension of the science of climate change and that you have no interest in forwarding dialog but instead play one singular role, to retard any discourse or action about a serious issue with demonstrably serious consequences.

Enjoy your self deluded righteousness. You are a pawn fighting for men who place no value on you and who will sow lies and misinformation to protect their power and comfort.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (59) May 10, 2013
"When will you be convinced?"

The dogmatic are never convinced contrariwise of their dogma.

The idiotic, however, are so easily convinced, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
LariAnn
3.3 / 5 (46) May 10, 2013
Deniers like antig will admit to AGW once they figure out how to make obscene profits out of climate change. So long as they think AGW is going to cost them money, they will deny vehemently even as their beach homes begin flooding in normal low tides.
AWaB
4.7 / 5 (23) May 10, 2013
globe should have been cooling as we just came out of a solar minimum

Incorrect. 2013 was the predicted solar maximum.

http://www.nasa.g...max.html

Sorry, I can't let bad info go unchallenged. The rest can be debated but solar max and mins are pretty easy to determine.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (52) May 10, 2013
The speed of the change is the big worry, said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann. If carbon dioxide levels go up 100 parts per million over thousands or millions of years, plants and animals can adapt. But that can't be done at the speed it is now happening.

First it was the Polar Bears, now it's all plants and animals. This guy should stick to fabricating Hockey Shticks.
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (48) May 10, 2013
LariAnn,
Deniers like antig will admit to AGW once they figure out how to make obscene profits out of climate change. So long as they think AGW is going to cost them money, they will deny vehemently even as their beach homes begin flooding in normal low tides.


I think you will find the obscene profits to accrue to the AGW socialists like Al Gore.
3432682
1.9 / 5 (44) May 10, 2013
World wide, all the plants are cheering "more food!".
djr
3.7 / 5 (28) May 10, 2013
Yet we are no where near that but instead the globe has been cooling for the last 15 years. So, expect the AGW Alarmism to get even hotter as their lies are exposed

Except the globe has not been cooling - so that makes you the liar! Here is a little atmospheric temp. data that disputes your lie - http://www.woodfo...13/trend

That does not even consider the melting ice sheets, melting glaciers, rising ocean levels - the other indicators of a warming planet.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (36) May 10, 2013
The speed of the change is the big worry, said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann. If carbon dioxide levels go up 100 parts per million over thousands or millions of years, plants and animals can adapt. But that can't be done at the speed it is now happening.

First it was the Polar Bears, now it's all plants and animals. This guy should stick to fabricating Hockey Shticks.

AO should stick to basket weaving.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (36) May 11, 2013
World wide, all the plants are cheering "more food!".

No, ding-a-ling, plants do not positively respond to ever increasing CO2 levels.

You should join AO in his basket weaving classes.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (37) May 11, 2013
The idiotic, however, are so easily convinced, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Indeed. And, you stand as living proof of such.
david_king
3.1 / 5 (33) May 11, 2013
Don't all you gents have something better to do than argue with the basket weavers?
The deniers are a noisy 2% of the population of a country that's 6% of the global population. Find a more productive use of your time. Old age will soon take care of these boneheads.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (23) May 11, 2013
Except the globe has not been cooling - so that makes you the liar! Here is a little atmospheric temp. data that disputes your lie - http://www.woodfo...13/trend


An extended version of that graph illustrates much better - http://www.skepti..._500.gif

A bit of clarity and enlightenment on our cycles and trends - http://www.skepti...Fnv2.gif
Sinister1811
3 / 5 (29) May 11, 2013
World wide, all the plants are cheering "more food!".


Well, if the atmosphere had a higher concentration of Oxygen, would that cause us to breathe more Oxygen? Hardly.
Moebius
2.6 / 5 (25) May 11, 2013
The bible predicted the world would end in fire this time. We are going to make that come true. We really should kill everyone that thinks climate change is BS or natural, they are trying to kill us. It would solve a bunch of problems. It would lower the population by about half and raise the average IQ by 50%.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (16) May 11, 2013
Don't all you gents have something better to do than argue with the basket weavers?
The deniers are a noisy 2% of the population of a country that's 6% of the global population. Find a more productive use of your time. Old age will soon take care of these boneheads.


All true - however ignorance should always be denied.
ThomasQuinn
3.8 / 5 (23) May 11, 2013
LariAnn,
Deniers like antig will admit to AGW once they figure out how to make obscene profits out of climate change. So long as they think AGW is going to cost them money, they will deny vehemently even as their beach homes begin flooding in normal low tides.


I think you will find the obscene profits to accrue to the AGW socialists like Al Gore.


If you think Al Gore is a socialist, that completely disqualifies you from any sensible discussion. I am a political historian, and remarks like that make me ashamed of the complete idiocy of some of my fellow-humans.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (41) May 11, 2013
Environmental activists, such as former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, seized on this week's milestone.

"This number is a reminder that for the last 150 years—and especially over the last several decades—we have been recklessly polluting the protective sheath of atmosphere that surrounds the Earth and protects the conditions that have fostered the flourishing of our civilization," Gore said in a statement. "We are altering the composition of our atmosphere at an unprecedented rate."

Says the hypocrite, who lives in luxury in his mansion, burning more electricity than most third world villages, flies the world in private jets and made untold millions feeding of the AGW lies. This is who the AGW Cult would anoint their Vicar. Makes one wonder what the hypocritical AGW Cult themselves are burning.
Jo01
1.7 / 5 (34) May 11, 2013
"Carbon dioxide traps heat just like in a greenhouse and ... It accounts for three-quarters of the planet's heat-trapping gases"

This is misleading information because water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas.

"It was much warmer than it is today," Tans said. "There were forests in Greenland. Sea level was higher, between 10 and 20 meters (33 to 66 feet)."

If you make a statement that (seems to) directly contradict that CO2 concentration is a driving factor for climate warming, explain why this isn't the case (if you can).

It should also be mentioned that a linear increase in ppm CO2 doesn't result in a linear increase of heat trapping and that earth survived 2000 (to 8000) ppm.

The discussion about CO2 distracts ofcourse from the real issues, like pending total habitat loss of all other animals on the planet and the ever increasing population growth that leads to this all.

The best way to save the planet still is not to have children and not to fly airplanes.

J.
deepsand
3 / 5 (32) May 11, 2013
Environmental activists, such as former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, seized on this week's milestone.

"This number is a reminder that for the last 150 years—and especially over the last several decades—we have been recklessly polluting the protective sheath of atmosphere that surrounds the Earth and protects the conditions that have fostered the flourishing of our civilization," Gore said in a statement. "We are altering the composition of our atmosphere at an unprecedented rate."

Says the hypocrite, who lives in luxury in his mansion, burning more electricity than most third world villages, flies the world in private jets and made untold millions feeding of the AGW lies. This is who the AGW Cult would anoint their Vicar. Makes one wonder what the hypocritical AGW Cult themselves are burning.

And you make us wonder what it is that you are smoking.
dogbert
1.5 / 5 (40) May 11, 2013
ThomasQuinn,
I think you will find the obscene profits to accrue to the AGW socialists like Al Gore.


If you think Al Gore is a socialist, that completely disqualifies you from any sensible discussion. I am a political historian, and remarks like that make me ashamed of the complete idiocy of some of my fellow-humans.


1) I notice you failed to comment on the point of my comment, that Al Gore has profited obscenely from his Chicken Little AGW alarmism.

2) Have you ever met Al Gore? He is one of the few people I have met who can match our president's narcissism. And he is about as far left as left can go.The man could not carry his own state in his attempt to become president because his own state knew him and his politics.
djr
4.2 / 5 (26) May 11, 2013
1) I notice you failed to comment on the point of my comment, that Al Gore has profited obscenely from his Chicken Little AGW alarmism.

And you failed to comment on the content of this article. Sure - Al Gore is a rich little prick - who has probably done more to hurt the cause of science and the environment than anyone - so what? That changes nothing in terms of the science. Why do people insist on bringing up this red herring every time there is some research on the climate? Oh - because it is much easier to raise red herrings - than to be intelligent about the science.
djr
4.3 / 5 (22) May 11, 2013
Jo01: "It was much warmer than it is today," Tans said. "There were forests in Greenland. Sea level was higher, between 10 and 20 meters (33 to 66 feet)."

If you make a statement that (seems to) directly contradict that CO2 concentration is a driving factor for climate warming, explain why this isn't the case (if you can).

I don't see how this statement contradicts that C02 concentration is a driving fact for climate warming - the statement makes no reference to causation. Are you aware of the other factors that scientists are aware of that have been causal in terms of the earth's climate? Eg solar radiation, and Milankovich cycles? The climate is complex.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (34) May 11, 2013
djr,
And you failed to comment on the content of this article.


From the article:
Environmental activists, such as former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, seized on this week's milestone.

"This number is a reminder that for the last 150 years—and especially over the last several decades—we have been recklessly polluting the protective sheath of atmosphere that surrounds the Earth and protects the conditions that have fostered the flourishing of our civilization," Gore said in a statement. "We are altering the composition of our atmosphere at an unprecedented rate."


My comment to ThomasQuinn:
I notice you failed to comment on the point of my comment, that Al Gore has profited obscenely from his Chicken Little AGW alarmism.


Very much a comment on the content of this article. Did you miss the part about Chicken Little AGW alarmism?
Pkunk_
1.1 / 5 (29) May 11, 2013
2) Have you ever met Al Gore? He is one of the few people I have met who can match our president's narcissism. And he is about as far left as left can go.The man could not carry his own state in his attempt to become president because his own state knew him and his politics.

Yes, the anti-capitalist Al Gore is so far left that he has just one 9 MILLION$$$ Mansion. This is the same mansion that was . He is the perfect leftist hypocrite who does exactly the opposite of what he preaches.
Here below is a pic of the far-left Al Gore's mansion.
[img]http://mommylife.net/archives/2010/05/08/gore%20villa.jpg[/img]
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (33) May 11, 2013
Pkunk,
Yes, the anti-capitalist Al Gore is so far left that he has just one 9 MILLION$$$ Mansion. This is the same mansion that was . He is the perfect leftist hypocrite who does exactly the opposite of what he preaches.


Socialists don't mind making money -- and they hold tight to any money they have. They just want you to be poor. Al Gore is the perfect leftist hypocrite.
djr
4.3 / 5 (20) May 11, 2013
Pkink: Yes, the anti-capitalist Al Gore is so far left that he has just one 9 MILLION$$$ Mansion.

Again - what does this have to do with the science of climate change. Why do you think it contributes any to a science article on climate change to bring up Al Gore? Yes - Al Gore is a prick - yes Al Gore is a hypocrite, yes Al Gore has a big house. So What?
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (31) May 11, 2013
Why do you think it contributes any to a science article on climate change to bring up Al Gore?


Why did the writers of the article bring up Al Gore and quote him?
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (17) May 11, 2013

"Yet we are no where near that" - Rntigorical Retard

Temperatures 3 million years ago were at near equilibrium. Ocean temperatures, Polar ice extents and surface temperatures had adjusted levels commensurate with the concentration of atmospheric CO2.

Present day earth is still adjusting to the artificially higher levels of CO2 that are the result of human activity.

Not only the computer models, but history tells us that at current levels of atmospheric CO2, additional warming of approximately 3'C can be expected.

Stabilization of atmospheric CO2 at that level will require an immediate reduction in global emissions of around 80 to 90 percent of the current rate of CO2 emission.

Failure to produce such a reduction will mean yearly increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations forever, limited only by the ability to find carbon based fuel, oxygen with which to burn it and our ability to withstand surface temperatures similar to those of Venus.

CONT
djr
4.2 / 5 (17) May 11, 2013
"Why did the writers of the article bring up Al Gore and quote him?" Probably because they are journalists - and looking to create sensational articles that will get them eyeballs - the state of our media today is pretty sad.

You and I agree - Al Gore is a self serving, egotistical, hypocritical little prick.

The science of climate change is advancing - and gives us good cause to be concerned about what is happening - and the potential consequences for future generations. You choose to comment on Al Gore. I recognize that this is because you are no better than the sensationalist authors of this article. You are not interested in facts, science, or other intelligent concerns - it is easier to be a childish sensationalist.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (18) May 11, 2013
Human society will vanish long before then, along with most of the world's population, of course. And that is the primary self limiting factor for the problem of anthropogenic CO2.

The question is how much of the earth's surface do people wish to destroy and how many people do the people of the earth wish to kill?

Antigorical and other denialists place no limits on the death they wish to cause.

Such immorality, should it continue to be realized, will not go unpunished.

VendicarE
4 / 5 (16) May 11, 2013
There is almost no discernible effect on the earth's temperature from the solar cycle.

"The globe should have been cooling as we just came out of a solar minimum" - Midcliff

The effect isn't large enough to be seen as it occurs, but only though statistical methods over multiple solar cycles.

VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (16) May 11, 2013
"Why did the writers of the article bring up Al Gore and quote him?" - Denialist Retard

Probably because he is a moral man who knows a great deal about the subject and has done his best to alert the world to the problem, and has earned the admiration and gratitude of many people for doing so.

Denialists on the other hand.... They are just Congenital Liars driven by Ideology rather than reason or morality.
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (19) May 11, 2013
"Al Gore is a hypocrite" - dir

Hardly. That house is powered with Green Energy.

Energy has to be consumed in the promotion of energy consumption.

This is a necessity imposed by the laws of physics.

The real question is.. "Is Al Gore Right?"

You know as well as I do that the answer to that question is "YES".

VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (19) May 11, 2013
More self contradiction from DogberTard

"Socialists don't mind making money -- and they hold tight to any money they have. They just want you to be poor. " - DogberTard

The CO2 problem is directly related to the rate of material consumption.

Wealth is defined by the amount of material possession.

DogberTard isn't smart enough to know it, but it is correct in the implication of it's first sentence that material wealth can easily increase even with a reduction in material production.

Keeping the rate of material production high only benefits corporations and wealthy stock holders since the rate of production is roughly proportional to the rate at which they can extract wealth from the consumer.

Vyhea
4 / 5 (26) May 11, 2013
Why did the writers of the article bring up Al Gore and quote him?

Denialist bait. I'm pretty sure. Just dangle Al Gore's name somewhere in a climate article and data denialists will stick like glue. I see it happen all the time.

I'd stick to that damn Gore magnet too if I couldn't present a levelheaded rebuttal to the reality of the climate data. It's like "How can we possibly believe in warming? Look at Al Gore!"

"Okeydoke. Sounds reasonable. You mentioned Al. You've completely covered all bases. You win."
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (20) May 11, 2013
"Here below is a pic of the far-left Al Gore's mansion." - PkUnk

You aren't showing the 33 solar panels, and 7 geothermal wells that Gore uses to heat and power the place.

You also fail to mention that when he does need to purchase more power, he purchases green power - probably produced by windmills.

Why do you feel a need to tell a lie of omission?

VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (19) May 11, 2013
DogberTard - "Al Gore has profited obscenely from his Chicken Little AGW alarmism."

Since Al Gore's comments are supported by solid science that is accepted by 98% of scientists, those comments can not honestly be claimed to be alarmist since they in fact represent scientific truth as best as can be discerned at present.

It is only because you are inherently anti-scientific, and your thought processes polluted by ideological rhetoric and fear, that you claim that Gore's comments are "alarmist".

As to Gore's wealth, it's existence also contradicts your nonsense claims of necessary poverty and the fear you have of reduced material consumption, for Gore has managed to acquire considerable wealth while remaining essentially carbon neutral compared to his peers.

Honesty doesn't appear to be one of your strengths.

Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (21) May 11, 2013
3432682 blurted
World wide, all the plants are cheering "more food!".
with the consequences that plants increase the production of cyanogens to protect them against predators, that means more cyanide released !
Rachy
2 / 5 (23) May 11, 2013
"Environmental activists, such as former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, seized on this week's milestone."

Please stick to quotes from real scientists, not wacko activists like Al Gore.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (34) May 11, 2013
Honesty doesn't appear to be one of your strengths.
-- VediTurd
You obviously count stupidity towards yours.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (33) May 11, 2013
3432682 blurted
World wide, all the plants are cheering "more food!".
with the consequences that plants increase the production of cyanogens to protect them against predators, that means more cyanide released !

Wow, just wow!! The stupidity of the AGW Cult knows no limit.
djr
3.9 / 5 (16) May 11, 2013
Vendi: "You know as well as I do that the answer to that question is "YES".

Yes I do - and so we are in agreement. The dilemma for me is that someone like Gore seems to make this more about Al Gore - giving fodder to the anti science crowd to then constantly discuss Al Gore - and thus avoid the science. Look at antigoracle above - an immediate claim that the globe is cooling - but not supported in any way - and ignored when challenged. But hey - it is easy to make childish statements about 'AGW cult member'. So the conversation becomes about Al Gore - and then absurdities like 'AGW cult member'. There is no solution - arguing with fools is pointless - but the alternative is giving them the floor. But I do think Gore makes their job easier.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (37) May 11, 2013
"Here below is a pic of the far-left Al Gore's mansion." - PkUnk

You aren't showing the 33 solar panels, and 7 geothermal wells that Gore uses to heat and power the place.

You also fail to mention that when he does need to purchase more power, he purchases green power - probably produced by windmills.

Why do you feel a need to tell a lie of omission?

-- VendiTurd
Your stupidity knows no bounds. Has your Vicar Gore reduced his energy consumption?
Unlike your Vicar Gore, not everyone made millions from AGW Alarmism and so cannot afford expensive alternative energy and so will be forced to further reduce while your Vicar burns more energy than most third world villages.
Gore uses 20 times the national average
http://www.snopes...home.asp

solar electricity is so expensive
http://tlc.howstu...n418.htm

MandoZink
4.3 / 5 (23) May 11, 2013
You know, when I first joined this website I naively assumed contrary data and evidence would be discussed in a scientifically rational manner. More so than any other articles, climate related stories are inevitably followed by a surge of dialogue full of false logic and dismissive terminology.

RELIGION, CULT, AGENDA, CONSPIRACY, LEFTIST, SOCIALIST, PROPAGANDA, HOAX, SCAM, MYTH, ALARMIST, etc. are the talking points instead of honest discussion. A disliked personality is represented as some claim of proof. Persistent accusations that funding grants are the only motivations behind the majority of scientists are relentless. That, in itself, is absurd and an insult to the great people I known working in science.

Worse yet, it looks appears to look like religion vs. science – those with unshakeable faith arguing ever more vehemently against the consilience of continuously mounting evidence.
Vyhea
4.4 / 5 (20) May 11, 2013
The faithful must not fall down and be moved by the "consilience of continuously mounting evidence", lest they be damned to moments of scientific enlightenment.
Frilla_Poo
3.1 / 5 (24) May 11, 2013
The faithful must not fall down and be moved by the "consilience of continuously mounting evidence", lest they be damned to moments of scientific enlightenment.

For them, a specter worse than burning in hell for losing the faith might be getting pre-cooked first by global warming on earth.

"Blessed are the greenhouse gasses and the contributions of my fellow man, as it is they who test my resolve and keep me on the path. And never forget it was at least 4 below in Barrow, Alaska yesterday."
julianpenrod
2.1 / 5 (27) May 11, 2013
Basically, even for many with severe brain damage, if they do something they do it for a reason.
To see the mentally ambulatory who deny the observable of the globe warming, or, at least, espouse the far less demonstrated "cooling", then, is to see someone with a purpose. But what purpose?
Some may genuinely believe that what they see fits a "cooling" model. They can be described as typing their comments with calm, normally flickering eyes.
What of those who say it, even without having seen proof or even evidence?
Those who type with smirks on their face or with stony, spiritless glares.
Some are passed off diffidently as "dogmatists". By why are they that way? Some are vicious, smarmy types who just like to cause dissension. They used to be called "contrary", then "difficult", nowadays, they are recognized as clinical sociopaths. Then there are those who promote that which is opposite to what is seen just to do it, not even for fun.
Solidproof_Layman
2.5 / 5 (21) May 11, 2013
"Blessed are the greenhouse gasses and the contributions of my fellow man, as it is they who test my resolve and keep me on the path. And never forget it was at least 4 below in Barrow, Alaska yesterday."

I was leaning toward the GW side myself, but I notice it's 12 degrees cooler at my house today than it was yesterday. And why is "Albert A Gore" an anagram for "globe errata" if he's not gonna recant.

Just lookin' for proof in all the wrong places I guess.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (16) May 11, 2013
"The dilemma for me is that someone like Gore seems to make this more about Al Gore" - dir

Rubbish.

You have partially bought into the anti-Gore rubbish being pushed by the Anti-Science crowd.

You are right, they use it as an excuse to alter the subject.

That is their failing, not that of Gore.

They will villainize anyone who challenges the ignorance of their corrupt and evil Conservative Ideology.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (17) May 11, 2013
"Has your Vicar Gore reduced his energy consumption?" - Anti-Gore-Retard

Gore employs so many people, How do you intend to distinguish between his consumption and the consumption of the corporations he controls?

Overall, Gore has undoubtedly reduced the global rate of growth of CO2 emissions.

The Villa that your denialist brethren often point to as an example of profligate energy consumption has turned out to be Carbon neutral, and the accusations against Gore, malicious Lies that stem from your failed Conservative Ideology.

One Chronic failure of Denialists - among a seemingly infinite number of logical and factual failures, is the underlying assumption that energy consumption must stop and wealth must decline for there to be a reduction in CO2 emissions.

This is a logical failure on two counts, since wealth is a state, not a rate of change, and since CO2 emissions are not a result of energy consumption, but a result of fossil fuel consumption.

Fail must be your middle name.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (17) May 11, 2013
"How many solar cells would I need in order to provide all of the electricity that my house needs?" - Anti-Gore-Retard

The key word in the above sentence is "need".

In most instances people do not "need" electricity to produce hot water or cook, and with improvements in home insulation they do not "need" to consume as much energy for heating and cooling.

One "needs" hot water, one does not "need" to burn carbon based fuels to provide it.

I have estimated my ultimate "Need" for electricity and it comes in at roughly 4 kwH per day which can be provided by approximately 10, 80 watt panels.

If my home were oriented so that one side of it's roof faced south, this would take up less than half of my roof area.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (18) May 11, 2013
From Anti-Gore-Tard's own reference...

Denialist retards never seem capable of reading their own references.

---
The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs.

"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.
---
The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (28) May 11, 2013
And yet our fossil fuel consumption has not kept pace, certainly it has leveled off relative to recent CO2 "increase."
This suggests it is not the whole story.
Of course there remain the problems with measuring at Mauna Loa.
It is on top of an increasingly active volcano.
It is removed from CO2 production by thousands of miles of CO2 absorbing ocean.
The graphs are composites.
Other primary NOAA data is from active volcanos in Samoa-which agree in magnitude, but not in character, and in "anti-climate" locations, such a Antartica and Alaska.
Compensation algorithms are faith based, or non-existent-depending on effect.
None of these is adequately explained by NOAA.
So, why don't we get some data from a reasonable place in Pennsylvania, Central Canada, Missouri, etc?
I can deal with "exaggerated effects." I can deal with the morning rush, and the 5 O'clock commute.
Surely there are measuring stations in these places, anybody know how to acquire the data?
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (18) May 11, 2013

"And yet our fossil fuel consumption has not kept pace, certainly it has leveled off relative to recent CO2 "increase." - AlchemisTard

Globally, the rate of Carbon based fuel consumption has not declined. Neither has the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase.

Your statement is pure, unadulterated idiocy.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (17) May 11, 2013
"Of course there remain the problems with measuring at Mauna Loa." - AlchemisTard

Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at roughly 100 different sites all over the world.

They all show the same trend within their observation history.

Here is a map of where many of them are located.

http://www.lmd.po..._co2.png

Your statement is therefore, pure, unadulterated idiocy.
djr
4.1 / 5 (13) May 11, 2013
Vendi - "Rubbish"

Me - Rubbish? I am wounded... but perhaps you are right - perhaps I want to have a nice conversation with people who may have an honest disagreement with me. The reality is more that they are fools - and it is a fools errand to try polite conversation.

You addressed antigoracles nonsense article about the cost of solar well. The reason we are seeing so much solar being installed - is due to the low cost of panels. This is a great article on the subject - http://cleantechn...y-graph/

Nat gas is at unsustainably low levels here in the U.S. - so wonder what happens when that solar curve and the gas curve cross....

Notice Anti has never supported the claim of global cooling. But guess who will be the first troll to comment on the next global warming article.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (31) May 11, 2013
"How many solar cells would I need in order to provide all of the electricity that my house needs?" - Anti-Gore-Retard

The key word in the above sentence is "need".

In most instances people do not "need" electricity to produce hot water or cook, and with improvements in home insulation they do not "need" to consume as much energy for heating and cooling.

One "needs" hot water, one does not "need" to burn carbon based fuels to provide it.

I have estimated my ultimate "Need" for electricity and it comes in at roughly 4 kwH per day which can be provided by approximately 10, 80 watt panels.

If my home were oriented so that one side of it's roof faced south, this would take up less than half of my roof area.

-- vendiTURD
Uh huh it's that simple. Yet, this turd has not done it.
Why? Because it's easier to be a AGW Alarmist hypocritical a-hole, preaching how they are holier than thou.
The Alchemist
1.6 / 5 (27) May 11, 2013
Apparently Vendi-liar doesn't think that I can read French. Boy was he mistaken.

Measuring is not agreement, and although le These de Docteur Diderot is an excellent work advancing satellite engineering, it doesn't say nearly what you say it does, does it?

L'honte, l'honte, l'honte.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (17) May 11, 2013
"Uh huh it's that simple. Yet, this turd has not done it." - Anti-Gore-Tard

Hire a crane lift my house, build a second compatible foundation and lower onto the new foundation?

That takes time.

However it would have taken ZERO additional time during it's construction since it simply would require taping out a different starting position for the house.

Acknowledging that simple fact is enough for cities and towns to enact bylaws that require all new construction to be built to take maximal advantage of sunlight for home heating and energy generation.

It is trivially simple to do.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (14) May 11, 2013
"Why? Because it's easier..." - Anti-Gore-Tard

The average electric energy consumption of an American home is 30 kilowatt hours per day.

I consume 7 kilowatt hours per day.

Reuding consumption without altering one's quality of life is only rocket science for the truly feeble minded.

Like you, TardBoy.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (28) May 11, 2013
djr,
And you failed to comment on the content of this article.


From the article:
Environmental activists, such as former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, seized on this week's milestone.

"This number is a reminder that for the last 150 years—and especially over the last several decades—we have been recklessly polluting the protective sheath of atmosphere that surrounds the Earth and protects the conditions that have fostered the flourishing of our civilization," Gore said in a statement. "We are altering the composition of our atmosphere at an unprecedented rate."


My comment to ThomasQuinn:
I notice you failed to comment on the point of my comment, that Al Gore has profited obscenely from his Chicken Little AGW alarmism.


Very much a comment on the content of this article. Did you miss the part about Chicken Little AGW alarmism?

Did you miss the part about denialists having their heads in the sand; and, for selfish reasons?
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (28) May 11, 2013
Honesty doesn't appear to be one of your strengths.
-- VediTurd
You obviously count stupidity towards yours.

Says he who who thinks that fecal matter is the apex of the food pyramid.
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (28) May 11, 2013
3432682 blurted
World wide, all the plants are cheering "more food!".
with the consequences that plants increase the production of cyanogens to protect them against predators, that means more cyanide released !

Wow, just wow!! The stupidity of the AGW Cult knows no limit.

It's at least an order of infinitude smaller than your own.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (28) May 11, 2013
Of course there remain the problems with measuring at Mauna Loa.
It is on top of an increasingly active volcano.
It is removed from CO2 production by thousands of miles of CO2 absorbing ocean.
The graphs are composites.
Other primary NOAA data is from active volcanos in Samoa-which agree in magnitude, but not in character, and in "anti-climate" locations, such a Antartica and Alaska.
Compensation algorithms are faith based, or non-existent-depending on effect.
None of these is adequately explained by NOAA.
So, why don't we get some data from a reasonable place in Pennsylvania, Central Canada, Missouri, etc?
I can deal with "exaggerated effects." I can deal with the morning rush, and the 5 O'clock commute.
Surely there are measuring stations in these places, anybody know how to acquire the data?

How often, and in how many threads, are you going to repeat this drivel, when it's been more than amply addressed?
deepsand
2.6 / 5 (29) May 11, 2013
"How many solar cells would I need in order to provide all of the electricity that my house needs?" - Anti-Gore-Retard

The key word in the above sentence is "need".

In most instances people do not "need" electricity to produce hot water or cook, and with improvements in home insulation they do not "need" to consume as much energy for heating and cooling.

One "needs" hot water, one does not "need" to burn carbon based fuels to provide it.

I have estimated my ultimate "Need" for electricity and it comes in at roughly 4 kwH per day which can be provided by approximately 10, 80 watt panels.

If my home were oriented so that one side of it's roof faced south, this would take up less than half of my roof area.

Uh huh it's that simple. Yet, this turd has not done it.
Why? Because it's easier to be a AGW Alarmist hypocritical a-hole, preaching how they are holier than thou.

This from one whose Holy Scripture is a work of fiction authored by the new Robber Barons?
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (29) May 11, 2013
Honesty doesn't appear to be one of your strengths.
-- VediTurd
You obviously count stupidity towards yours.

Says he who who thinks that fecal matter is the apex of the food pyramid.
-- deepsandTurd aka FecalMatter
Mighty vain to put yourself at the top, even for a stupid AGW Alarmist turd.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (30) May 11, 2013
Apparently Vendi-liar doesn't think that I can read French. Boy was he mistaken.

Measuring is not agreement, and although le These de Docteur Diderot is an excellent work advancing satellite engineering, it doesn't say nearly what you say it does, does it?

L'honte, l'honte, l'honte.

That you may understand French in no way compensates for your self-imposed blindness.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (29) May 11, 2013
Honesty doesn't appear to be one of your strengths.
-- VediTurd
You obviously count stupidity towards yours.

Says he who who thinks that fecal matter is the apex of the food pyramid.
-- deepsandTurd aka FecalMatter
Mighty vain to put yourself at the top, even for a stupid AGW Alarmist turd.

See that you still haven't learned to stop projecting. :rolleyes:
The Alchemist
1.6 / 5 (28) May 11, 2013
@deepsand-it has been amply addressed only to the credulous.
Indeed-I am interested in discussing short comings, which there are many that need some background/explaining.
Not one of your strong points, I'm afraid.
But if I want a disparaging one-liner, I look to you with affection.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (26) May 11, 2013
Sorry this got side-tracked:
And yet our fossil fuel consumption has not kept pace, certainly it has leveled off relative to recent CO2 "increase."
This suggests it is not the whole story.
Of course are problems with measuring at Mauna Loa.
It is on top of an increasingly active volcano.
It is removed from CO2 production by thousands of miles of CO2 absorbing ocean.
The graphs are composites.
Other primary NOAA data is from active volcanos in Samoa-which agree in magnitude, but not in character, and in "anti-climate" locations, such a Antartica and Alaska.
Compensation algorithms are faith based, or non-existent-depending on effect.
None of these is adequately explained by NOAA.
So, why don't we get some data from a reasonable place in Pennsylvania, Central Canada, Missouri, etc?
I can deal with "exaggerated effects." I can deal with the morning rush, and the 5 O'clock commute.
There are measuring stations in these places, anybody know how to acquire the data?
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (27) May 11, 2013
@deepsand-it has been amply addressed only to the credulous.
Indeed-I am interested in discussing short comings, which there are many that need some background/explaining.

Asked and answered. Stop pretending otherwise.

If you truly do not understand that, then you've no business pretending to be sufficiently knowledgeable and understanding of the subject for making any assertions of the sort that you've become well known for.
Jo01
1.4 / 5 (20) May 12, 2013
I don't see how this statement contradicts that C02 concentration is a driving fact for climate warming - the statement makes no reference to causation. Are you aware of the other factors that scientists are aware of that have been causal in terms of the earth's climate? Eg solar radiation, and Milankovich cycles? The climate is complex.

It probably doesn't, but if you think about it it seems that CO2 is unrelated. So it's not wise to mention this without explaining it.

J.
Itrizia
2.1 / 5 (16) May 12, 2013
wow it's pathetic that so many reasonable people won't acknowledge how CO2 measurably increases the greenhouse effect and hence causes global warming. it's just a fact.

similarly it's even more pathetic when 'enlightened' liberals view global warming with such fear. More rain, more living land, thawing canada out, what's not too like?

And if our weather does get too weird even existing technology is more than capable of increasing our aldebo w/o sulfuric acid clouds. White rooftops or seeding clouds with micronized ocean water droplets would be more than enough. And if that doesn't work we could just tap 1/100 of our annual plastic consumption and turn it into durable white plastic floats, to float as a mat in the pacific.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (27) May 12, 2013
I don't see how this statement contradicts that C02 concentration is a driving fact for climate warming - the statement makes no reference to causation. Are you aware of the other factors that scientists are aware of that have been causal in terms of the earth's climate? Eg solar radiation, and Milankovich cycles? The climate is complex.

It probably doesn't, but if you think about it it seems that CO2 is unrelated.

If you'd really thought about it, you would understand that CO2 is very much related, as it is the only input to radiative forcing that is substantially increasing.

So it's not wise to mention this without explaining it.

Wiser still is not denying known empirical facts.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (31) May 12, 2013
similarly it's even more pathetic when 'enlightened' liberals view global warming with such fear. More rain, more living land, thawing canada out, what's not too like?

What's not to like? How about more violent weather, now arable land becoming too hot to sustain agriculture, some of it becoming desert, the loss of forests, the acidification of the oceans, the loss of many species of fauna, both land and aquatic, the loss of stores of water in high mountains snow packs, ice, and aquifers, increased heat related deaths, the release of massive amounts of methane into the atmosphere, large amounts of coastal areas flooded, etc.,

BTW, most of that newly thawed Canada would be barren glacier scoured rock.
david_king
2.6 / 5 (24) May 12, 2013
Do most of the comments here seem to be generated by bots of one sort or another?
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (24) May 12, 2013
Jo01 offered a guess, showing emotional attachment with
.. if you think about it it seems that CO2 is unrelated. So it's not wise to mention this without explaining it. J.
Facts:-

1. Climate is essentially a closed system
2. CO2 has known physical properties regarding heat
3. Unlike H2O there is no rapid mechanism to extract CO2 from the atmosphere
4. Significant rise in CO2 has been documented & is not in dispute & is still rising
5. Current shifting equilibrium of last 200 years is not the same as last occasion of millions of years ago when CO2 was higher.
6. Additional heat is being dumped in the atmosphere from fossil/nuclear sources

Given above is it not logical & sensible to examine temperatures *and* integrate over largest regions capable of absorbing this heat/CO2.

We find the oceans & ice, all of which show increases in temperature & expansion !

I understand some feebles cannot appreciate long huge releases of CO2 & heat cause small rises in overall heat globally.
srikkanth_kn
3 / 5 (16) May 12, 2013
Some of the preceding comments are senseless war of words- Moderators ! please sanitize 'em. This looks like a war zone. BTW, whether caused by Humans or not - its our responsibility to cleanup- yet we're doing too little
Jo01
1.8 / 5 (26) May 12, 2013
Jo01 offered a guess, showing emotional attachment with
.. if you think about it it seems that CO2 is unrelated. So it's not wise to mention this without explaining it. J.
...
I understand some feebles cannot appreciate long huge releases of CO2 & heat cause small rises in overall heat globally.


Hi Mike, your response doesn't have any merit at all.
To clarify it for you: my remark was about how sensible it is to confuse the people you want to convince (that CO2 is the driving factor of climate change). Emotion has nothing to do with it.

J.
Jo01
1.6 / 5 (25) May 12, 2013
And Mike how is this for a fact: http://www.geocra...ate.html (read for example "Similarities with our Present World"), this shows that temperature and CO2 isn't easily correlated. It seems that CO2 of 8000 ppm can coexist with current day temperatures.
Another important issue that is overshadowed by this CO2 ppm number fixation is black carbon. Scientific research indicates that almost half of the observed warming is due to black carbon; reduction of black carbon emission has a direct effect and will improve the quality of life of many, because in contrast with CO2, black carbon has a toxic effect on humans and animals.

J.
Jo01
1.7 / 5 (23) May 12, 2013
So it's not wise to mention this without explaining it.

Wiser still is not denying known empirical facts.


Even wiser yet is to understand what I was saying. Read my comment to Mike.

J.
Egleton
2.3 / 5 (22) May 12, 2013
The USA must do less navel gazing and hurry up and collapse already so that the rest of us can make plans to live and die in a very changed world.
Who is this "Al Gore"?
Is he a famous porn star or something that everyone is interested in his huge "house".
djr
4.5 / 5 (15) May 12, 2013
Jo01 - "this shows that temperature and CO2 isn't easily correlated."

Are you suggesting that there is not a correlation between C02, and temperature? Take a look at the data here. http://www.ncdc.n...nge.html

Your graph goes back 600 million years. According to this wiki article "At the far left of the graph, we see modern CO2 levels and the appearance of the climate under which human species and human civilization developed."

From http://en.wikiped...mosphere

Does this not suggest that we are comparing to vastly different time periods - and that what really applies to our current climate is maybe the past million years or so?
barakn
4.1 / 5 (17) May 12, 2013
Of course there remain the problems with measuring at Mauna Loa.
It is on top of an increasingly active volcano.
Between 1843 and 1984 Mauna Loa erupted 33 times, or about once every 4 years. It hasn't erupted since 1984 - the longest inter-eruption interval in the volcano's recorded history. http://hvo.wr.usg...ble.html
It is removed from CO2 production by thousands of miles of CO2 absorbing ocean.
How is this a problem? 71% of the Earth's surface is water, so why wouldn't knowing the CO2 concentration of air over the ocean be useful? And oddly that distant measuring location still measures a steadily increasing contribution from human sources, so apparently the "thousands of miles of CO2 absorbing ocean" aren't enough to absorb it.

The graphs are composites.
Huh? There's not enough argument there for us to know what you mean by 'composite' let alone why you think it's a problem.
Jo01
1.5 / 5 (26) May 12, 2013
Are you suggesting that there is not a correlation between C02, and temperature?
... Does this not suggest that we are comparing to vastly different time periods - and that what really applies to our current climate is maybe the past million years or so?

No, I'm not suggesting that. It seems that the earth survived 8000ppm of CO2 and even had a mean temperature comparable to today if the data is correct (and I assume it is because the source is scientific and recent). So CO2 levels 20 to 25 times that of today and still the same temperature, means that CO2 is of minor influence compared to other forces that determine the temperature on earth and that ultra high levels of CO2 doesn't result in a runaway greenhouse effect (perhaps because a linear increase in CO2 doesn't result in a linear temperature increase).
I don't think data from that far ago is irrelevant, I think it's essential in understanding our current climate and our climate models should be able to predict the ...
Jo01
1.5 / 5 (24) May 12, 2013
... past (even if it is 600 million years) as well as the future.

J.
barakn
4.3 / 5 (16) May 12, 2013
Other primary NOAA data is from active volcanos in Samoa-which agree in magnitude, but not in character, and in "anti-climate" locations, such a Antartica and Alaska.

CO2 mixes fairly quickly and has a long residence time. You fail to explain why measuring it in globally disparate locations is a weakness rather than a strength. Also the last Samoan eruption was in 1905, so 'active' is probably stretching it (not counting the active underwater volcano, but scientists are too smart to place an atmospheric monitoring station underwater).
Compensation algorithms are faith based, or non-existent-depending on effect.
None of these is adequately explained by NOAA.
Don't equate laziness and an unwillingness to do research on your part with a lack of explanation. http://web.archiv...cCO2.htm
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) May 12, 2013
Some of the preceding comments are senseless war of words- Moderators ! please sanitize 'em. This looks like a war zone. BTW, whether caused by Humans or not - its our responsibility to cleanup- yet we're doing too little


Welcome to a typical Climate related thread on Phys.org.....

Nothing new here - except a few new/infrequent names.

The lines have been drawn in many cases and no amount of science will convince otherwise.
That's even if they admit it's science.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) May 12, 2013

It is removed from CO2 production by thousands of miles of CO2 absorbing ocean.


Alchemist:
Now to me, you see, that is stupid. As I think of it in meteorological terms.

Mauna Loa is in the Sub-tropics and lies under the quasi-permanent belt of high pressure. Which is created by sinking air from the sub-tropical jet. Err - it is sampling descending air that has been well mixed in transport from the surface, via convection aloft to a jet-stream, and then descending in the confluence aloft. It has NOT traveled over 1000's miles of absorbing Ocean, as in just above it. Really this is desperate red-herring stuff. Look at the CO2 trace - does it look like there is much noise in it? That is because it is where it is and as such a bloody good sampling point.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) May 12, 2013

No, I'm not suggesting that. It seems that the earth survived 8000ppm of CO2 and even had a mean temperature comparable to today if the data is correct (and I assume it is because the source is scientific and recent). So CO2 levels 20 to 25 times that of today and still the same temperature, means that CO2 is of minor influence compared to other forces that determine the temperature on earth and that ultra high levels of CO2 doesn't result in a runaway greenhouse effect ...............


But that is comparing apples and cheese. An 8000ppm CO2 fraction hundreds of millions of years ago in no way can be compared with the Earth of today What was the Earth's albedo? You do know what that is?

The CO2 fraction can only hold back what is available to hold back - if a large part of it is reflected back to space then, well, it would take a high GHG content to keep that smaller quantity in to warm Earth. Also, what were the continental configurations then, as in ocean currents?
The Alchemist
1.5 / 5 (25) May 12, 2013
@runrig-you do me dis-service sir. Among all the people on this site, I like to be proven wrong. So by saying I'm stupid because you're a meteorologist... I could as well make an argument and say you're stupid for not being a chemist.
But I'm not your typical post-er.
I see your point, and recognize it has some validity. It does force into light other paradoxes-but not for this thread.
I made a similar remark about the noise-there absolutely should be more noise in it. When I do labs under ideal conditions they have noise.
Really, isn't there data from nowhere'sville in the continental US?
Jo01
1.5 / 5 (23) May 12, 2013
But that is comparing apples and cheese. An 8000ppm CO2 fraction hundreds of millions of years ago in no way can be compared with the Earth of today What was the Earth's albedo? You do know what that is?

Do you?

The CO2 fraction can only hold back what is available to hold back - if a large part of it is reflected back to space then, well, it would take a high GHG content to keep that smaller quantity in to warm Earth. Also, what were the continental configurations then, as in ocean currents?

Good questions, maybe an official veteran climate scientist has the answer.
If you ask me, I would say that it is highly unlikely that the earth reflected 20 times more sunlight than it does today and that the ocean currents are largely irrelevant in the long run.
But maybe someone in the 'know' can answer this properly and show us the climate model simulations of this era on a computer.

J.
VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (14) May 12, 2013
"No, I'm not suggesting that. It seems that the earth survived 8000ppm of CO2 and even had a mean temperature comparable to today" - Jo01

800 Million years ago the earth's surface was devoid of life, and the oceans and landmasses - which were not where they are now, were covered in one massive ice sheet.

Since there was no substantive organic uptake of CO2 and since the ocean was covered in ice preventing the uptake of CO2 into the ocean through the surface, there was a slow accumulation of CO2 over the centuries to very high levels. Much higher than today.

However until the end of the period, the CO2 levels were not high enough to overcome the lower surface temperatures in large part caused by the blanket of white - reflective - ice covering the earth's surface.

Eventually the steady increase in CO2 levels overcame the higher surface reflectivity and the global ice cover began to be reduced. This process accelerated rapidly due to the positive feedback of reflective ice cont.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) May 12, 2013
cont...

being replaced with less reflective, dark soil, and rock.

The conditions were different than today, including a cooler sun. But they can be and have been modeled.
djr
4.7 / 5 (14) May 12, 2013
Jo01: "If you ask me, I would say that it is highly unlikely that the earth reflected 20 times more sunlight than it does today"

Jo - I want to get at a serious issue here. What are your credentials for having an opinion on the climate of 800 million years ago? Have you studied this era of geological history? It would seem that Vendi's explanation is a fairly informed one - and as you say - we should defer to a 'veteran climate scientist' If you read the wiki article I referenced - or Vendi's explanation - you see what I made reference to before - and that is that this topic is very complex. Do you see the problem in people spamming boards like this with 'if you ask me' opinions about a subject that is as complex as 4.5 billion years of global climate. I see it as no different than me arguing about genetic mutations in viruses, when I have no credentials to back such an opinion up.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (25) May 12, 2013
So it's not wise to mention this without explaining it.

Wiser still is not denying known empirical facts.


Even wiser yet is to understand what I was saying. Read my comment to Mike.

You conveniently ignored my pointing out to you that that CO2 is very much related, as it is the only input to radiative forcing that is substantially increasing.
deepsand
3 / 5 (26) May 12, 2013
@runrig-you do me dis-service sir. Among all the people on this site, I like to be proven wrong. So by saying I'm stupid because you're a meteorologist... I could as well make an argument and say you're stupid for not being a chemist.
But I'm not your typical post-er.
I see your point, and recognize it has some validity. It does force into light other paradoxes-but not for this thread.
I made a similar remark about the noise-there absolutely should be more noise in it. When I do labs under ideal conditions they have noise.
Really, isn't there data from nowhere'sville in the continental US?

Given the depth and bread of atmospheric mixing, which has been amply pointed out, why this fixation with "the continental US?"
Howhot
4.5 / 5 (16) May 12, 2013
It seems that the earth survived 8000ppm of CO2 and even had a mean temperature comparable to today

This is pure unadulterated crap! A lie spread by a blog and has no foundation in experimental fact. It took me some digging but I finally found the graph that purports to show this, and it's locate on a toady denier site. It deals with a time in earth's history way way way before the dinosaurs, way be before the first fossils and indeed, way before the first life forms. Here is the URL for the website that host this crap:
http://stevengodd...ppm-co2/

And that graph never show it reaching 8000. 7000ppm tops! An there are no reliable proxies of temperature at that time, so at best the temp like is just wild ass speculation, second, it would defy the physics of greenhouse gas warming. It's very easy to show in experimental settings that the greenhouse effect is linear with respect to a wide range of CO2 levels, so your full of it!

Howhot
4.5 / 5 (15) May 13, 2013
@Mike_Massen says; "Fact" ...

1. Climate is essentially a closed system
2. CO2 has known physical properties regarding heat
3. Unlike H2O there is no rapid mechanism to extract CO2 from the atmosphere
4. Significant rise in CO2 has been documented & is not in dispute & is still rising
5. Current shifting equilibrium of last 200 years is not the same as last occasion of millions of years ago when CO2 was higher.
6. Additional heat is being dumped in the atmosphere from fossil/nuclear sources

I could not have stated it more succinctly.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (26) May 13, 2013
Dramatic glacial advance in Minnesota:

http://www.cbsnew...0146674n

antigoracle
1.1 / 5 (27) May 13, 2013
@Mike_Massen says; "Fact" ...

1. Climate is essentially a closed system
2. CO2 has known physical properties regarding heat
3. Unlike H2O there is no rapid mechanism to extract CO2 from the atmosphere
4. Significant rise in CO2 has been documented & is not in dispute & is still rising
5. Current shifting equilibrium of last 200 years is not the same as last occasion of millions of years ago when CO2 was higher.
6. Additional heat is being dumped in the atmosphere from fossil/nuclear sources

I could not have stated it more succinctly.

Uh huh, but it's still too many words to say a whole lot a nothing.
Glad you're impressed though.
deepsand
3 / 5 (25) May 13, 2013
Dramatic glacial advance in Minnesota:

http://www.cbsnew...0146674n

UTube doesn't even know what a glacier is. :rolleyes:

Oh, well; no surprise there.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (25) May 13, 2013
@Mike_Massen says; "Fact" ...

1. Climate is essentially a closed system
2. CO2 has known physical properties regarding heat
3. Unlike H2O there is no rapid mechanism to extract CO2 from the atmosphere
4. Significant rise in CO2 has been documented & is not in dispute & is still rising
5. Current shifting equilibrium of last 200 years is not the same as last occasion of millions of years ago when CO2 was higher.
6. Additional heat is being dumped in the atmosphere from fossil/nuclear sources

I could not have stated it more succinctly.

Uh huh, but it's still too many words to say a whole lot a nothing.
Glad you're impressed though.

What is much more impressive is your need to publicly display your inability to understand said words.
VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (13) May 13, 2013
"Uh huh, but it's still too many words to say a whole lot a nothing." - Anti-Gore-Retard

You just reek of ignorance.

It is a strongly Republican Stench.
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (12) May 13, 2013
"If you ask me, I would say that it is highly unlikely that the earth reflected 20 times more sunlight than it does today" - Jo01

Other than your mathematical illiteracy, is there anything else that convinces you that it need do so?

You are presuming an equivalence between measurements that not only have no equivalence, and doing so without comprehending what the measurements mean.

Your behavior is beyond idiotic.

I have seen more intelligent comments than yours made by 8 year-olds.

jnjnjnjn
1.1 / 5 (22) May 13, 2013
Jo - I want to get at a serious issue here. What are your credentials for having an opinion on the climate of 800 million years ago? Have you studied this era of geological history? It would seem that Vendi's explanation is a fairly informed one - and as you say - we should defer to a 'veteran climate scientist' If you read the wiki article I referenced - or Vendi's explanation - you see what I made reference to before - and that is that this topic is very complex. Do you see the problem in people spamming boards like this with 'if you ask me' opinions about a subject that is as complex as 4.5 billion years of global climate. I see it as no different than me arguing about genetic mutations in viruses, when I have no credentials to back such an opinion up.

Credentials are irrelevant as far as logic and facts are concerned and this is a discussion board thats open to anyone (as it should be) and someones comment should be judged on the merits (or lack thereof) and not ...
jnjnjnjn
1.1 / 5 (22) May 13, 2013
... on other factors. If I say 'if you ask me' its absolutely clear that I give an opinion and that it is up to others to disagree with that and point out why thats (not) so.

My point in general is that climate science is very complex and climate research itself is in its infancy and that (recent) history shows that all kinds of important processes are not as well understood as the science itself presents it. This means that it is a very good idea to keep asking questions and presenting (possible) contradictions to simulate scientist to do proper research and find explanations. Thats how science works (or should work) and it doesn't matter if the remark comes from outside the field if it is relevant. It is no accident that mixing science disciplines give great results. Another point is that climate science is - in my opinion - contaminated by politics and this gives a bias to the research and thats all the more reason to question it.

J.
jnjnjnjn
1 / 5 (20) May 13, 2013
cont...

being replaced with less reflective, dark soil, and rock.

The conditions were different than today, including a cooler sun. But they can be and have been modeled.


Thanks for the explanation, I was aware of that. The point is that it isn't about 800 million years ago, it's about the era 440 to 480 million years ago and thats quite different.

J.
jnjnjnjn
1 / 5 (21) May 13, 2013
"If you ask me, I would say that it is highly unlikely that the earth reflected 20 times more sunlight than it does today" - Jo01

Other than your mathematical illiteracy, is there anything else that convinces you that it need do so?

You are presuming an equivalence between measurements that not only have no equivalence, and doing so without comprehending what the measurements mean.

Your behavior is beyond idiotic.

I have seen more intelligent comments than yours made by 8 year-olds.



Some 8 year old kids can be quite bright.
But enlighten me about my "mathematical illiteracy".

J.
jnjnjnjn
1.1 / 5 (22) May 13, 2013
Jo - I want to get at a serious issue here. What are your credentials for having an opinion ...


Feel free to comment on the other points I brought up like 'black carbon' (almost half of the measured 0.6C rise in temperature is attributed to it) , the CO2 fixation (like going to Mars to save humankind and forget to protect the Earth from a meteor wipeout) and conveniently ignoring the root cause of our problems: total overpopulation and loss of habitat of all other animals, and if I might add, the consequences of the solutions proposed to the CO2 problem and the point that it seems utterly useless to solve it because the end to burning fossil fuel is near (at 800ppm CO2?).

J.
djr
4.6 / 5 (11) May 13, 2013
jnjn - are you the same person as Jo01? I was responding to Jo01. If you are the same person - why the need to complicate matters with multiple handles?
djr
4.7 / 5 (12) May 13, 2013
Credentials are irrelevant as far as logic and facts are concerned and this is a discussion board thats open to anyone (as it should be) and someones comment should be judged on the merits (or lack thereof) and not ...

Credentials are not irrelevant when discussing science - especially when many of the comments are very critical of highly complex science research - and say things like 'idiots'. Jo01 said "If you ask me, I would say that it is highly unlikely that the earth reflected 20 times more sunlight than it does today" Look hard at that comment. It is like me saying "if you ask me - the earth is only 10,000 years old." I think it would be very appropriate to ask me what my credentials were for making such a blanket statement - with no support.
antigoracle
1.1 / 5 (27) May 13, 2013

I have seen more intelligent comments than yours made by 8 year-olds.
-- vendiTurdy
Was this when they were describing where you touched them.
jnjnjnjn
1.2 / 5 (23) May 13, 2013
jnjn - are you the same person as Jo01? I was responding to Jo01. If you are the same person - why the need to complicate matters with multiple handles?


Hey, I didn't see that I logged into the forum differently. It's the default on this machine.

J.
jnjnjnjn
1.3 / 5 (24) May 13, 2013
Credentials are not irrelevant when discussing science - especially when many of the comments are very critical of highly complex science research - and say things like 'idiots'.

So, you can only be critical if you have proper credentials? I disagree completely, again this is an open forum and no credentials are required. You can be critical about my comments but I judge you only on the merits of the arguments and facts you give. Thats sane.
By the way, I have never said 'idiot(s)' in this discussion.
...It is like me saying "if you ask me - the earth is only 10,000 years old." I think it would be very appropriate to ask me what my credentials were for making such a blanket statement - with no support.
Hey, its no scientific thesis, its just a discussion and you could ask me to explain myself or ignore me (and write me of as insane) like I would do if you issued such a statement.

J.
jnjnjnjn
1.4 / 5 (22) May 13, 2013
Why 'djr' don't you explain to me why my statement is incorrect and what the correct numbers are?
That shouldn't be a problem for you I think. Maybe I can learn something.

J.
djr
4.7 / 5 (12) May 13, 2013
"Why 'djr' don't you explain to me why my statement is incorrect and what the correct numbers are?"

Which statement is that jnjn? - you did not answer the question regarding the handles - and why you may be using two different handles. If you are referring to the statement made by Jo01 - "If you ask me, I would say that it is highly unlikely that the earth reflected 20 times more sunlight than it does today"

Then I will take the advice of jnjn - "you could ask me to explain myself "

Please explain the basis for the conjecture that 800 million years ago - the earth was not capable of reflecting back more light than it does today. If you read Vendi's discussion above - and also the wiki article I referenced - you will see that earth's conditions were dramatically different than they are today.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) May 13, 2013
@runrig-you do me dis-service sir. Among all the people on this site, I like to be proven wrong. So by saying I'm stupid because you're a meteorologist... I could as well make an argument and say you're stupid for not being a chemist.


Alechemist: with respect, I did not say you were stupid, just that your statement was .... in my mind - as I know of the meteorology required for the air to arrive at 11000ft over Hawaii.
Now if I was talking about Chemistry then the situation would be reversed and you would be entitled to call *my statement* stupid. You see the difference? NOT that you are stupid because you're not a meteorologist.
manifespo
1.4 / 5 (22) May 13, 2013
CO2 is the natural food for all land plants. Of much more importance is eliminating the release of poisonous artificial toxins and synthetic chemical contaminants released from our economic activities.
Jo01
1 / 5 (19) May 13, 2013
"Why 'djr' don't you explain to me why my statement is incorrect and what the correct numbers are?"

Which statement is that jnjn? - you did not answer the question regarding the handles - and why you may be using two different handles.

I did, your not paying attention.

...Then I will take the advice of jnjn - "you could ask me to explain myself "

I just asked you.

Please explain the basis for the conjecture that 800 million years ago - the earth was not capable of reflecting back more light than it does today. If you read Vendi's discussion above - and also the wiki article I referenced - you will see that earth's conditions were dramatically different than they are today.


I see, never mind, it's just one statement I made between several far more important issues I mentioned, so lets not get distracted. (For the record it's 450-480 million years ago, not 800.)

J.
djr
5 / 5 (10) May 13, 2013
jnjn: "I did, your not paying attention."

No you did not. Here is your response - "Hey, I didn't see that I logged into the forum differently. It's the default on this machine."

Which is very cryptic - and most certainly does not answer the question "are you the same person"

I will assume from your evasiveness that the answer is yes - jnjn, and Jo01 are the same person - and my read on that is that a person has multiple handles because they are playing games - and acting in a very ignorant manner - and not someone I would have any need to converse with.

Howhot
5 / 5 (12) May 13, 2013
jnjn or Jo01 says "For the record it's 450-480 million years ago, not 800".
For the record, it doesn't matter, it's BS anyway probably pulled from some denier school of viral anti-intellectualism established by the 501c Heartland Institute!

Let's get back to what the article is saying which is captured so well in the title;
Greenhouse gas level highest in two million years, NOAA reports
This is FACT right now, present day, a man made catastrophe for the globe. Deniers want to just make everyone believe its not bad... it won't hurt ... we been through it before.... 800 million years ago ... 8000 ppm and we survived.. Really? I mean Really? Do you expect anyone to buy into such nonsense?

I think yout right @dir, the guy is just playing denialist games.


deepsand
2.8 / 5 (22) May 13, 2013
Jo01/jnjnjnjn is so confused that he not only doesn't understand the posts of others, he doesn't even understand his own.

Jo01 = Johannes Noordanus = jnjnjnjn
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (23) May 13, 2013

I have seen more intelligent comments than yours made by 8 year-olds.
-- vendiTurdy
Was this when they were describing where you touched them.

TROLL CRAP
deepsand
3 / 5 (24) May 13, 2013
CO2 is the natural food for all land plants.

But, beneficial only within certain limits, just as is the case for man and that which he eats, drinks, and breathes.

Plants to not continue to respond positively to ever increasing concentrations of CO2.
Howhot
5 / 5 (9) May 14, 2013
TROLL CRAP
Lol! Good one. At least they haven't sent in the religious nuts like they did one year.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (22) May 15, 2013
TROLL CRAP
Lol! Good one. At least they haven't sent in the religious nuts like they did one year.

While they may not explicitly express their religious views when discussing climate change, very many of the denialists are christer nutters.
Sinister1811
3.1 / 5 (21) May 15, 2013
TROLL CRAP


Over the years, we've seen it all here. All their usual uninformed arguments are disproven with counter arguments on this website.

http://www.skepti...ment.php
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (23) May 15, 2013
Another ready source of rebuttals to the skeptics' claims, with both one line and full paragraph responses, is at http://www.altern...ging=off
antigoracle
1 / 5 (23) May 15, 2013
Another ready source of rebuttals to the skeptics' claims, with both one line and full paragraph responses, is at http://www.altern...ging=off

TURD STOOLS do come in clusters.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (21) May 16, 2013
Another ready source of rebuttals to the skeptics' claims, with both one line and full paragraph responses, is at http://www.altern...ging=off

TURD STOOLS do come in clusters.

Which explains why you constantly leave steaming heaps of dung in your wake.
Jo01
1 / 5 (20) May 16, 2013
Jo01/jnjnjnjn is so confused that he not only doesn't understand the posts of others, he doesn't even understand his ...

Hey deepsand, I see you don't show a name in your profile.
Gutsy.

J.
Jo01
1.2 / 5 (19) May 16, 2013
Which is very cryptic - and most certainly does not answer the question "are you the same person"

I will assume from your evasiveness that the answer is yes - jnjn, and Jo01 are the same person - and my read on that is that a person has multiple handles because they are playing games - and acting in a very ignorant manner - and not someone I would have any need to converse with.

Not cryptic at all. You assume wrong.
You lost the argument and now you try to find something.
Nice.

J.
Jo01
1 / 5 (19) May 16, 2013
jnjn or Jo01 says "For the record it's 450-480 million years ago, not 800".
For the record, it doesn't matter, it's BS anyway probably pulled from some denier school of viral anti-intellectualism established by the 501c Heartland Institute!

It does matter, a lot. But probably not to you.

Deniers want to just make everyone believe its not bad... it won't hurt ... we been through it before.... 800 million years ago ... 8000 ppm and we survived.. Really? I mean Really? Do you expect anyone to buy into such nonsense?

You do seem to get pretty worked up about it.
I think yout right @dir, the guy is just playing denialist games.

You think wrong. I'm discussing the subject and question some of it with arguments and reason.
And quite rightly so because the science has proven to be far from definitive and is heavily influenced by politics and other trends.
But I see that discussion and understanding isn't one of your strong points.

J.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (22) May 16, 2013
Jo01 / jnjnjnjn is long on misdirection and short on substance.
.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (22) May 21, 2013
The bible predicted the world would end in fire this time. We are going to make that come true. We really should kill everyone that thinks climate change is BS or natural, they are trying to kill us. It would solve a bunch of problems. It would lower the population by about half and raise the average IQ by 50%.

Yes, yes, gather up you rabid AGW Alarmist fanatics and burn the heretics. Climate change and warming will continue, since it's all natural and your average IQ may increase but you will certainly still be just as stupid.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (23) May 22, 2013
As usual, our resident Potty Mouth, AO, has nothing of substance to offer.
Neinsense99
3.1 / 5 (17) Jun 04, 2013
As usual, our resident Potty Mouth, AO, has nothing of substance to offer.

He seems unable to hide his decline.
Howhot
5 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2013
The AO does froth at the mouth a lot. I wonder what he is saying? I hear this faint cry from yonder... a gurgling sound "burn the heretics!" AO has apparently gone off the deep-end to join what the internet has dubbed trolldom.

Maybe he can make a few bucks as an inspirational speaker at an anti-gore rally in the swampland of Mississippi with toothless joe dickweed running for the local sewer inspector! Yeah that's the trick.

Seriously though, how can anyone have any respect for AO when the first words are "rabid AGW Alarmist fanatics". Dickweed piss ant is about all I can think.