42

World passes carbon dioxide level milestone

Experts say ‘we’re stuck’ with global warming


 

WASHINGTON – The old saying that “what goes up must come down” doesn’t apply to carbon dioxide pollution in the air, which just hit an unnerving milestone.

The chief greenhouse gas was measured Thursday at 400 parts per million in Hawaii, a monitoring site that sets the world’s benchmark. It’s a symbolic mark that scientists and environmentalists have been anticipating for years.

While this week’s number has garnered all sorts of attention, it is just a daily reading in the month when the chief greenhouse gas peaks in the Northern Hemisphere. It will be lower the rest of the year. This year will probably average around 396 ppm. But not for long — the trend is going up and at faster and faster rates.

Within a decade the world will never see days — even in the cleanest of places on days in the fall when greenhouse gases are at their lowest — when the carbon measurement falls below 400 ppm, said James Butler, director of global monitoring at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth Science Research Lab in Boulder, Colo.

“The 400 is a reminder that our emissions are not only continuing, but they’re accelerating; that’s a scary thing,” Butler said Saturday. “We’re stuck. We’re going to keep going up.”

Carbon dioxide stays in the air for a century, some of it into the thousands of years. And the world carbon dioxide pollution levels are accelerating yearly. Every second, the world’s smokestacks and cars pump 2.4 million pounds of the heat-trapping gas into the air.

Carbon pollution levels that used to be normal for the 20th century are fast becoming history in the 21st century.

“It means we are essentially passing one in a whole series of points of no return,” said Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University.

Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said the momentum in carbon dioxide emissions has the world heading toward and passing 450 ppm. That is the level which would essentially mean the world warms another 2 degrees, what scientists think of as dangerous, he said. That 2-degree mark is what much of the world’s nations have set as a goal to prevent.

“The direction we’ve seen is for blowing through the best benchmark for what’s dangerous change,” Oppenheimer said.

And to see what the future is, scientists look to the past.

The last time the worldwide carbon level probably hit 400 ppm was about 2 million years ago, said Pieter Tans of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

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 metres (33 to 66 feet).”

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

Environmental activists, such as former Vice-President Al Gore, seized on the 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.”

Carbon dioxide traps heat just like in a greenhouse. 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.

When measurements of carbon dioxide were first taken in 1958, it measured 315 ppm. Some scientists and environmental groups promote 350 ppm as a safe level for CO2, but scientists acknowledge they don’t really know what levels would stop the effects of global warming.

The level of carbon dioxide in the air is rising faster than in the past decades, despite international efforts by developed nations to curb it. On average the amount is growing by about 2 ppm per year. That’s 100 times faster than at the end of the Ice Age.

Back then, it took 7,000 years for carbon dioxide to reach 80 ppm, Tans said. Because of the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil and coal, carbon dioxide levels have gone up by that amount in just 55 years.

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. There are natural ups and downs of this 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.

“What we see today is 100 per cent due to human activity,” said Tans, a NOAA senior scientist. 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.

The world sent 38.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air 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 per cent annually. The U.S. at No. 2 is slowly cutting emissions and is down to 5.9 billion tons per year.

The speed of the change is the big worry, said Pennsylvania State’s Mann. If carbon dioxide levels go up 100 ppm over thousands or millions of years, plants and animals can adapt. But that can’t be done at the speed it is now happening.

___

Online:

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

Seth Borenstein can be followed at http://twitter.com/borenbears


 
Filed under:

World passes carbon dioxide level milestone

  1. Someone should send this article to Rex Murphy.

  2. Where’s BillyBobby and his Glo-Bull Warming linking to peer reviewed climate change studies done during the Dark Ages? Evidently NASA studies are just subversive plots meant to deceive the mindless masses. BillyBobby knows that because the voices in his head tell him that what’s happening.

    • Yes, NASA is entirely unified on this point, aren’t they?
      Let me guess, these are the right type of nasa people now are they?

      March 28, 2012

      The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
      NASA Administrator
      NASA Headquarters
      Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

      Dear Charlie,

      We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard
      Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven
      remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA
      and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact
      on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when
      considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of
      well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists
      publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming
      particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is
      NOT settled.

      The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change
      is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of
      all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public
      statements.

      As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme
      position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact
      of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA
      refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future
      releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the
      exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and
      employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

      For additional information regarding the science behind our concern,
      we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or
      others they can recommend to you.

      Thank you for considering this request.

      Sincerely,

      (Attached signatures)

      CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

      CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

      Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12,
      regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated
      claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on
      climate change.

      /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

      /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

      /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

      /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

      /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

      /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

      /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

      /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

      /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

      /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

      /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

      /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

      /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

      /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

      /s/ Anita Gale

      /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

      /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

      /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

      /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

      /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

      /s/ Thomas J. Harmon

      /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

      /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

      /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

      /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

      /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

      /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

      /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

      /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

      /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

      /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

      /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

      /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

      /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

      /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

      /s/ Tom Ohesorge

      /s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

      /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

      /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

      /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

      /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

      /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

      /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

      /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44
      years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket
      Boosters, 15 years

      /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

      /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

      /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

      /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

      /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

    • Sorry typo, meant to write that: “… these aren’t the right type …”
      Normally, that is always the 1st argument, you’ve not got the right type of scientist, like we (alarmists) do.

      Then a numbers game, then a funding game, and so-on, and so-on.

      • It’s hard to tell what the “right type” of expertise is for climate information isn’t it? An astronaut? a Quality Assurance Manager? A Climatologist? Who knows!

        It’s like when you’ve broken a limb and you need someone to look after it. You just never know if you should call your travel agent or your plumber.

        • Astronauts, QA managers, etc almost all have engineering or science backgrounds to degree level, most to post-grad level.

          There is no single discipline which covers all aspects of global warming, no-one person can stand up and say I am the master. There is particularly a hard-core statistical aspect to AGW, but statitiscians are not really considered climatologists are they? Yet the work they contribute is essential to understanding the vast amount of data (most noise) being thrown into the climate models. Check climateaudit.org for this aspect. Check wattsupwiththat.com for a more general approach.

          Or you can just rely on Al Gore, certainly he is an expert – he has certainly made a lot of money off AGW.

          • Riiight. There’s no single discipline which covers all aspects of health so maybe I’ll see if my personal trainer will have a look at my prostate.

            And yeah, I’ll be sure start consulting a guy that reads the weather on the radio and the penny stock guy on the topic.

          • “Or you can just rely on Al Gore, certainly he is an expert – he has certainly made a lot of money off AGW.”

            He’s not the only one but that does not mean Gore is a bad guy. I’m sure he’s friendly and junk.

  3. Even this article notes, this was a daily reading and not an annual average.

    However, and most importantly, I thought CO2 caused global warming. Yet, we have seen a stalled global warming for over a decade. None of what is currently happening is anyways close to the model predictions coming from hansen, mann, and fellow global warming supporters. Yet the alarmist propaganda continues.

    Before alarmists or global warming supporters start taking this as a sign of eminent doom, maybe you should read a little more and gain, at least a basic, understanding of what is happening. I would suggest http://wattsupwiththat.com

    However, I guess now that winter is over we should expect to here many more stories over global warming. After all, its hard to trick people into warming fears when its -30, best wait until summer comes along.

    So, go ahead – please tell me that I am an oil supporter, want to kill the earth, blah blah blah. What you won’t be able to do is point out any actual data that isn’t full of manipulation to support your view.

    I would say wake-up people, Al Gore is making money off your foolishness, but I know that you liked being milked by big green capitalists.

    • So you are saying pollution is good for us and we should just keep on pumping out CO2 as fast as we can? Because that’s the message that you and your ilk seem to be pushing – consume, consume as fast as we can!

      We may not have unanimity on the effects of all that CO2 in the atmosphere, but it isn’t the only pollutant. Doesn’t it simply make sense to pollute less and consume fewer resources? Regardless of whether AGW activists are right or not?

      Or do you think that recycling and sewage treatment are a waste of time and money too?

      • No, I am not saying too pollute, pollute, pollute. However, CO2 is not a pollutant. In case you haven’t realised it, we exhale C02 with every breath, along with every other animal on earth – is that pollution? Does the fact the plants/trees need C02 to live also maybe give you a clue that CO2 isn’t a pollutant?

        recycling and sewage treatment – ????, can’t you even stay on topic?

        Obviously you need to read a little more, try watts up with that

        • Everything on the planet has always been here, so by your logic nothing can be deemed to be a pollutant. It’s an absurd position so I used absurd examples.

          It’s simple Frenchie: Too much of anything is a pollutant, if it throws nature out of balance. We don’t know yet what the precise effects of rising CO2 levels will be, but the results are not likely to be beneficial. Among other things, the higher the ratio of CO2 in the air, the harder it gets for us to breathe. So doesn’t it make sense to try to reduce the amount we expel?

          I’m not touting any one position on greenhouse gases as being “true”. But common sense dictates that the more we abuse the planet, the greater the risk we put ourselves and our descendants in. We see and accept that in any number of other areas (see waste collection and sewage treatment). Keeping the air as clean as possible ought to be a no-brainer. We should do whatever we can to ameliorate the negative effects of civilization – and that includes the reduction in the amount of air pollutants we create.

          • We also know that CO2 level vary greatly in the earth’s past and they always LAG temp, that’s right increases in CO2 lag temperature.

            We also know that there is a minimum level of CO2 needed for life to be even possible on earth at all, and that we are near the bottom level of that limit. During previous epochs CO2 PPM was in the thousands, not hundreds and life flourished,

            As Joe says – CO2 is plant food, more CO2 implies more plants – not death of the planet.

            For CO2 to start being dangerous to people, as we have currently evolved, is in the tens of thousands PPM. We are a long ways from there.

            More likely is that the upcoming cooling period will cause many more deaths than any CO2 will.

          • “… the results are not likely to be beneficial.”

            How so?

            We do know that higher CO2 improves plant growth (eg- our food supply) and that the warmer periods in the past were times of prosperity (the Roman and Mediaeval climatic optima), as is the modern era.

            All the jeremiads about catastrophes are built on suppositions and assumptions that are no better founded than the climate models whose predictions don’t match the observations.

          • So that’s the latest ploy, huh? “Plant food.” God knows the plants need all the help they can get, the way we have been deforesting and otherwise stripping vegetation from the planet…

          • Exactly, we need to stop the plants from eating all the food.

      • Keith CO2 is NOT pollution its PLANT FOOD…………

    • Yes. Of course. “The Standard Handbook For Climate Change Deniers” Chapter 3: Methodology. Keep using, quoting, referencing, and linking to the same tired worn out arguments against the increase in global CO2 emmissions. Blame rising global temperatures on solar flares, the International Space Station, El Nino, and volcanic eruptions. Perhaps you could actually publish a newsletter based on the meticulous, detailed findings that you’ve been keeping. I’m sure that you’d find a ready audience of other highly qualified armchair scientists like yourself.
      John Broder
      New York Times
      Past Decade Warmest Ever
      The National Climate Change Data Center found that 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record, based on measurements taken on land and sea, for the decade ending 2009. Modern temperature measurement began in 1880.The hottest recorded years have all occurred since 1998.

      • Yes, I know – only your data is the correct data. Everyone else just has this grand conspiracy to keep killing the earth.

        What rising global temps, even IPCC acknowledges that the alarmist data can’t show it for the past 15 years in all contradiction to their models.

        Do you know what the sun is? It’s that hot thing in the sky, maybe it has an effect on weather? Really, have you considered that? Everything I hear from the lunatic fringes on global warming seems to discount the sun and only consider that CO2 is a magic heat generator.

        Seriously, how do you sleep at night when you are so scared you are going to burn to death in the heat or drown in the flooding?

        • A greenhouse is a structure used to hold glass panels. The glass panels lets the infrared rays from the sun penetrate but not escape. Depending on the time of the day the temperature inside the greenhouse increases noticeably. A greenhouse gas ( CO2 ) functions in the same manner. It lets the rays of the sun penetrate the atmosphere but not let them escape. That, just like the effect of a common greenhouse, has a noticeable effect of increasing global temperatures. Yes the suns position does play a major role in regulating global temperatures, but any increase in global CO2 emissions will have a noticeable effect of enhancing the overall performance of that dynamic. That particular dynamic can be measured. It’s simple high-school physics.
          Do you get the picture dimwit?

          • “That particular dynamic can be measured.”

            And the measurements show that the CO2 dynamic is not resulting in temperature increases, as the globe has seen no warming for over a decade now:

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png

            As CO2 increases:
            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_data_mlo.svg

            While temperatures do not:
            http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

            It is becoming abundantly clear that CO2 never was the Great Climate Boogeyman it has been made out to be.

          • Why do you keep the same crap you know to be wrong?

            Still waiting for you to answer the following:

            If the first week in April is warmer than the last, despite the Earth’s
            axis continuing to tilt the northern hemisphere further and further
            towards the sun, does this lead you to believe that August will be no warmer than April and that the the Earth’s axis has no affect on seasonal temperatures – in fact there are no seasons at all?

          • It is only the AGW crowd that keeps throwing the same lies, deceipt, and general crap around.

          • Then, by all means answer my question.

          • Take your time.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • It’s pretty simple and straightforward – but you know that.

            Here’s another idea: Seeing as Glynn has uncovered proof that that climate change is nothing to worry about, why don’t you help him write up a paper. I’m sure Science and Nature will be crawling over each other to publish it, you’ll be a hero, and you’ll save us all from economic destruction.

          • Been done:

            http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

            http://www.climateaudit.org

            Why don’t you read the papers and dissection of papers. Of note is the continual manipulation, omission, or just flat-out lies being propagated through some of the biggest and best minds behind AGW. It started with the completely and utterly debunked hockey stick from Mann. It is curious, how such sharp minds fail at the overall lack of statisical analysis needed to come to an understanding of their data.

            One man, Steve McIntyre, is an AGW data-buster and has shown, repeatedly, how the AGW crowd misrepresents or doesn’t even understand the data they ‘choose’ to show in order to support their conclusions.

            But then again, you wouldn’t be able to understand the work given the appalling lack of logic you have shown in this commentary.

          • While I’m sure it’s fascinating to read the thoughts of reads-the-weather-on-the-radio guy and penny-stock guy I’ll stick with the science, which unfortunately confirms the “hockey stick”:

            http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature%2700.pdf

            http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/smith2006.html

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/oerlemans2005/oerlemans2005.html

            http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html

            However, the “hockey stick” has nothing to do with the claims made in this thread. Namely that recent temperatures somehow prove that climate science is wrong on climate change is nothing to worry about. And obviously “publish” doesn’t mean “put it on the blog of a guy who reads the weather on the radio”.
            So, wadda ya say? Are you going to get to work on that paper?

          • Obviously you didn’t, nor did I expect you to, read either of those websites.

            So let me summarise what happens by your lovely AGW scientists:

            1) data is cherry-picked

            2) data is fabricated, that’s right – they just make it up when needed

            2) prediction algorithms are manipulated to spew out ‘correct’ results regardless of input

            3) prediction algorithms cannot work on actual 19th and 20th century data. In other words, if we set the clock at 1800 and run the algorithms forward they come nowhere near the actual results we have seen for the past 200 years, so how likely is it that the next 100 years is any more accurate- answer, not at all likely, not even a little bit.

            4) as evidenced by that last 10-15 yeras, which the algorithms predicted would see increaed global warming

            5) Algorthms in the models make many assumptions in order to simplify their complexity, adjust any of these parameters and you can completely change the results

            6) an example is the famous co2 forcing, which is turning out to be much, much lower than their algorithms use. This means alll their dastardly prediction are wrong. Heck, even the NYT has recognised this and which is why they know talk of increasing Co2 level by multiple factors in their scare stories to try to make up the difference

            There are papers that rely on ‘science’ such as this and then there are papers & rebuttals that point how bad AGW science really is. The website I link to are very methodical and rigorous in destroying the AGW ‘science’, it ain’t just armchair bloggers as there are many papers published by them. Even the AGW crowd acknowledge that these guys are difficult to overcome. One would think that the AGW crowd would up their game with better science, but no – they have just turned up the volume and rely on shrills such as yourselves to keep spewing the garbage.

            You CLEARLY do not want to hear what is actually going, as your pre-conceived poltical desires overwhelm any common sense. The fact that you still believe the hockey stick tells me that you are completely out of touch of climate science, even the IPCC do not use the stick anymore. Yet here you are with it.

            For you climat science is not science, it has moved into the realm of religion – it is your faith.

          • Capping off that completely fact-free, unsubstantiated screech as some sort of “response” to published science and finishing with that last line is just perfect!
            If someone has already published a paper using GlynnMhor’s “method” to demonstrate that climate change is no longer a concern, by all means provide the details.

          • Chances are good I’m in New Zealand or Australia.

          • Except of course, the earth is not a greenhouse!

            You may model it like a greenhouse, but it is not one. This is why simple people applying simple models to a very, very complex system get it wrong again and again.

            It ain’t high school physics, if it was then why do we need to spend billions on NASA or IPCC funding for AGW. Why do we need to do all these studies, particularly the ones that hansen, mann et all need to live on. You believe these guys and yet even they know it isn’t a simple greenhouse model.

            Don’t argue things you don’t understand, I think Mark Twain ‘may’ have coined a term here that would be most applicable for you! Take his advice.

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Well, would you look at that – you can keep quiet!

            Now, just read a little more and come back to discuss.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/

  4. As more and more years pass with no return to the exciting times of global temperature rise typical of the late 20th century, more and more people of the 21st century are turning away from the fear-mongery of the AGW alarmists.

    The IPCC predicted that continued CO2 increases would surely result in continued temperature increases:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-10-4.jpg

    And sure enough, CO2 has continued to rise unabated:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_data_mlo.svg

    Yet far from cleaving to those expectations, global average temperatures show trivial (if any) increases for more than a decade now:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png

      • The AGW crowd has been repeating the same lies for many years, hoping it eventually becomes the truth.

        I doubt very much you would even understand the climateaudit.org or wattsupwith.com, even though they go to great lengths to present real analysis and real debate on the topic.

        It looks to me that you are the one repeaatiiinnng the same crap!

      • The truth needs repetition, apparently.

  5. Why are we not being BURNED ALIVE I demand an explanation some one call St Suzuki and the Goracale I want an answer…………………

  6. Send in the clowns,
    Where are the clowns?
    Don’t bother they’re here.

    At least you’re entertaining. LOL

  7. The chief greenhouse gas is not CO2, it is water vapour.

    And CO2 is not a pollutant.

Sign in to comment.