CO2 passes Symbolic 400 PPM mark.

[code1211]

games don't always reflect reality.

In this case, what you are looking at is reality.

I feel that what you are relying on for your information is the opinion of those that have an agenda and want you to accept a particular conclusion.

The Wood for trees web site with the interactive application allows you to actually see the temperature as measured by the actual collected data from the actual sources of that data and actually make your own opinion without the pollution of the agenda driven getting in the way.

It is a look behind the curtain at the man that they are telling you to ignore.

 

[Lord of Planar]

it is true that CO2 can increase as a result of increased temps. the science, and the reasons why this is, is well known.

To confuse this with what is happening now is either evidence of not being aware of the science, or a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation to confuse the public.

I think the truth you miss here is that if the oceans were not warming, they would be absorbing more of the CO2 we release than they do. The oceans hold about 50 times more than the atmosphere. It would only take enough warming to reduce it's absorption by about 2% to double the CO2 content in the atmosphere without mankind adding any. For what we have added, if the oceans had not warmed, then the equilibrium would have them absorb all but under 5 ppm extra in the atmosphere. Oh course, over many more years. It doesn't happen right away.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

In what way am I not aware of the science or attempting to spread misinformation?

If anything, from what i've seen in this thread, I'm one of the few that is actually linking to information.

your lack of understanding/intent to spread misinformation is demonstrated by the previous post. Yes, scientists ARE WELL AWARE that CO2 levels can increase after warming has occurred.

This is not evidence that there is no causative element in carbon emissions resulting from human activities - and if you understand science you should know this.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

In this case, what you are looking at is reality.

I feel that what you are relying on for your information is the opinion of those that have an agenda and want you to accept a particular conclusion.

The Wood for trees web site with the interactive application allows you to actually see the temperature as measured by the actual collected data from the actual sources of that data and actually make your own opinion without the pollution of the agenda driven getting in the way.

It is a look behind the curtain at the man that they are telling you to ignore.

as I regard scientists as a more reliable source of information on this issue that industry funded right wing think tanks, whose agenda CLEARLY IS political - what you are inferring is that the vast majority of the world's scientists are in on some global conspiracy.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

This is an interactive web site.

You can plug in any start date you would like for any of the major temperature data gathering organizations in operation today. It's actually kind of fun.

Plug in a date of 1980, for instance, and the warming trend is steeply warming. Plug in 2000 and, for most, it's flat. Plug in 2003 and, for most, there is cooling.

Have fun!

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

unless an interactive web site is based on the most reliable data available, it is only a game.

 

[code1211]

your lack of understanding/intent to spread misinformation is demonstrated by the previous post. Yes, scientists ARE WELL AWARE that CO2 levels can increase after warming has occurred.

This is not evidence that there is no causative element in carbon emissions resulting from human activities - and if you understand science you should know this.

I'm not saying that it's impossible there can be a forcing effect from the rise of CO2.

What i am saying is that every prediction of global temperature increase based on the notion of AGW has been wrong. It is a completely unblemished record of failure.

You just have to be impressed by this demonstration of the lack of understanding.

As an aside, there is not evidence that global is not caused by warm and fuzzy kittens. The lack of evidence against something not happening is not proof that it is happening. Wow! how many negatives can be put into one sentence?

 

[code1211]

unless an interactive web site is based on the most reliable data available, it is only a game.

These are all of the data gathering organizations on the planet.

Which organization would you prefer to see?

 

[code1211]

as I regard scientists as a more reliable source of information on this issue that industry funded right wing think tanks, whose agenda CLEARLY IS political - what you are inferring is that the vast majority of the world's scientists are in on some global conspiracy.

I imply nothing of the kind.

That is why I continue to link to research conducted by scientists. I may be the only one in this thread doing so.

 

[Deuce]

so what planet is your real world on?

Uranus?

He is one of many who thinks the fact that the temperature rise halted a decade or so ago invalidates AGW, and that it means "global warming has stopped."

It's not his fault, hardly anybody is taught the slightest bit of statistics these days.

 

[Deuce]

I'm not saying that it's impossible there can be a forcing effect from the rise of CO2.

What i am saying is that every prediction of global temperature increase based on the notion of AGW has been wrong. It is a completely unblemished record of failure.

You just have to be impressed by this demonstration of the lack of understanding.

As an aside, there is not evidence that global is not caused by warm and fuzzy kittens. The lack of evidence against something not happening is not proof that it is happening. Wow! how many negatives can be put into one sentence?

Actually, the issue is that the idea that the "predictions have been wrong" is based on some incorrect ideas of how the predictions work, the variables involved, and the nature of climate models. Weird as it sounds, temperatures not falling into the "predicted" range aren't necessarily proof that the model is wrong. Not that any of the so-called skeptics would bother listening to that explanation. Complicated must be wrong!

 

[Threegoofs]

I imply nothing of the kind.

That is why I continue to link to research conducted by scientists. I may be the only one in this thread doing so.

How about hundreds of scientists in a peer reviewed document?
http://www.ipcc.ch/

 

[Lord of Planar]

unless an interactive web site is based on the most reliable data available, it is only a game.

These are all of the data gathering organizations on the planet.

Which organization would you prefer to see?

Yep.

It's the same data the AGW crowd uses.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

I'm not saying that it's impossible there can be a forcing effect from the rise of CO2.

What i am saying is that every prediction of global temperature increase based on the notion of AGW has been wrong. It is a completely unblemished record of failure.

You just have to be impressed by this demonstration of the lack of understanding.

As an aside, there is not evidence that global is not caused by warm and fuzzy kittens. The lack of evidence against something not happening is not proof that it is happening. Wow! how many negatives can be put into one sentence?

that is not true.

If you look at credible sources, you can see that.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

These are all of the data gathering organizations on the planet.

Which organization would you prefer to see?

It may help if you think about some of the things the site owner says:

Computers are great tools for helping you think; just never rely on them to do the thinking for you.

and

.... with sharp tools comes great responsibility... Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others.

 

[marywollstonecraft]

I imply nothing of the kind.

That is why I continue to link to research conducted by scientists. I may be the only one in this thread doing so.

you most certainly DO imply this

All the world's major scientific organisations recognize that AGW is a challenge facing this planet.

if you are linking to research conducted by scientists, you are cherrypicking to support your own agenda, ad not being entirely honest..

 

[code1211]

Actually, the issue is that the idea that the "predictions have been wrong" is based on some incorrect ideas of how the predictions work, the variables involved, and the nature of climate models. Weird as it sounds, temperatures not falling into the "predicted" range aren't necessarily proof that the model is wrong. Not that any of the so-called skeptics would bother listening to that explanation. Complicated must be wrong!

In the upside down world of climate science this may make sense.

Being wrong proves that I'm right.

If, given the inputs, the models are perfect, that is just further evidence that the inputs are not understood and the system is too complex to figure out. This is not saying anything beyond the absolute fact that the experts don't understand the system and cannot make accurate predictions. They might be absolutely right, although the evidence suggests they are not, but being shown to be right requires proof.

 

[code1211]

How about hundreds of scientists in a peer reviewed document?
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Could you please cut and paste the temperature prediction from the 5th Assessment?

Also, please compare and contrast it with those from the 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st.

If this was an understood science, they should all be identical.

 

[code1211]

that is not true.

If you look at credible sources, you can see that.

Please present the accurate prediction.

 

[code1211]

It may help if you think about some of the things the site owner says:

Computers are great tools for helping you think; just never rely on them to do the thinking for you.

and

.... with sharp tools comes great responsibility... Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others.

I think that I noted the same thing when i said that the trend if starting from 1998 shows warming and if starting from 2003 shows cooling.

I'm not truing to hide anything. I'm showing you all the cards I can find. If there was a person in this field who knew what was up, that would be one thing. That is not the case, though.

There may be a day when Climate Science rises to the level of rocket science, but that day has not yet arrived. Comparatively speaking the current climate scientists are about where the Chinese rocket scientists were in 1300 a.d. The climate scientists are fortunate that they cannot blow themselves up in this pursuit.

 

[code1211]

you most certainly DO imply this

All the world's major scientific organisations recognize that AGW is a challenge facing this planet.

if you are linking to research conducted by scientists, you are cherrypicking to support your own agenda, ad not being entirely honest..

Then, please, present the data that contradicts what I am posting.

 

[clownboy]

The OP says it all, and clearly shows how the cultists are being manipulated:

Daily measurements of CO2 at a US government agency lab on Hawaii have topped 400 parts per million for the first time.
The station, which sits on the Mauna Loa volcano, feeds its numbers into a continuous record of the concentration of the gas stretching back to 1958.

Let's see, sits on an active volcano that has erupted several times in modern history and goes through periods of inactivity and intense activity. And now, during a period of greater activity they're getting more CO2? Can we say duh!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Could you please cut and paste the temperature prediction from the 5th Assessment?

Also, please compare and contrast it with those from the 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st.

If this was an understood science, they should all be identical.

LOL...

How true.

I didn't find any AR5 predictions where I expected to, but found this:

 

[Lord of Planar]

The OP says it all, and clearly shows how the cultists are being manipulated:



Let's see, sits on an active volcano that has erupted several times in modern history and goes through periods of inactivity and intense activity. And now, during a period of greater activity they're getting more CO2? Can we say duh!

Well, in all fairness, there are other CO2 monitoring sites that show CO2 rising as well. Though I doubt any of the others hit 400 ppm yet.

 

[clownboy]

Well, in all fairness, there are other CO2 monitoring sites that show CO2 rising as well. Though I doubt any of the others hit 400 ppm yet.

Yeah, just like the temp monitoring stations for Portland that are all located within a sea of blacktop. Be willing to bet that the other CO2 monitoring stations showing increase are located in areas where local CO2 is high due to environmental factors. Put one close to a fracking site and you're likely to get elevated CO2 readings as well.

 

[Threegoofs]

Yeah, just like the temp monitoring stations for Portland that are all located within a sea of blacktop. Be willing to bet that the other CO2 monitoring stations showing increase are located in areas where local CO2 is high due to environmental factors. Put one close to a fracking site and you're likely to get elevated CO2 readings as well.

Well, your wishful speculation is cute.

But a quick look at NOAA shows hundreds of air monitoring stations, and a glance at a few shows that they all pretty much agree with the 400ppm figure.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/

I'm glad scientists stick with data instead of wishful speculation.

It's too bad the clowns who vapidly criticize them don't understand that they do tend to know what they are doing, because they have a pretty singular dedication to getting the best data possible.