Reply With Quote
BUT...
It was Barry and Hillary who led the attack on the Americans in Benghazi.
AT NOON on May 4th the carbon-dioxide concentration in the atmosphere around the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii hit 400 parts per million (ppm). The average for the day was 399.73 and researchers at the observatory expect this figure, too, to exceed 400 in the next few days. The last time such values prevailed on Earth was in the Pliocene epoch, 4m years ago, when jungles covered northern Canada.
There have already been a few readings above 400ppm elsewhere—those taken over the Arctic Ocean in May 2012, for example—but they were exceptional. Mauna Loa is the benchmark for CO2 measurement (and has been since 1958, see chart) because Hawaii is so far from large concentrations of humanity. The Arctic, by contrast, gets a lot of polluted air from Europe and North America.
The concentration of CO2 peaks in May, falls until October as plant growth in the northern hemisphere’s summer absorbs the gas, and then goes up again during winter and spring. This year the average reading for the whole month will probably also reach 400ppm, according to Pieter Tans, who is in charge of monitoring at Mauna Loa, and the seasonally adjusted annual figure will reach 400ppm in the spring of 2014 or 2015.
Mauna Loa’s readings are one of the world’s longest-running measurement series. The first, made in March 1958, was 315ppm. That means they have risen by a quarter in 55 years. In the early 1960s they were going up by 0.7ppm a year. The rate of increase is now 2.1ppm—three times as fast—reflecting the relentless rise in greenhouse-gas emissions.
As a rule of thumb, CO2 concentrations will have to be restricted to about 450ppm if global warming is to be kept below 2°C (a level that might possibly be safe). Because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades, artificial emissions of the gas would have to be cut immediately, and then fall to zero by 2075, in order to achieve 450ppm. There seems no chance of that. Emissions are still going up. At current rates, the Mauna Loa reading will rise above 450ppm in 2037.
http://www.economist.com/news/scienc...-years-measure
BUT...
It was Barry and Hillary who led the attack on the Americans in Benghazi.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post4672783
An oldy but a goody from 2010.
Given our CO2 emissions have been doubling every 15-20 years, the little curve seen in the OP...
Makes a pretty fair amount of sense.
I have not seen any other alternate explanation for the rapid increase in concentration.
Carbon-based energy really took off in the 19th century, coal + oil.http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post4672783
An oldy but a goody from 2010.
Given our CO2 emissions have been doubling every 15-20 years, the little curve seen in the OP...
Makes a pretty fair amount of sense.
I have not seen any other alternate explanation for the rapid increase in concentration.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Indu...al-warming.htm
Scary
one has to wonder how methane levels in the permafrost will trend for the next decade
yep, permafrost in Russia and Canada releasing Ms of tons of methane, plus the methane leaks from fracking fields, it all adds up. There Will Be (More) Consequences. (and no accountability for the perpetrators)
Jungle in Canada instead of tundra????
The problem is WHAT exactly?
A warmer earth might be a different Earth, but it might very well be an Earth much more capable of supporting more life....
Not a denier; a proponent.
No they covered it up dip . Of course you want it to be covered so Hillary can run in next election.
Boutons anti american
lol sincerely,No they covered it up dip . Of course you want it to be covered so Hillary can run in next election.
the hyper partisan guy who thows a bunch against the wall hoping it sticks to Hillary
There was global warming when the dinosaurs died. It is called mother nature. We cannot control it dip s.
Can you not care about both issues?
LOL...
So?
Only 400 ppm, yet there was a jungle...
Think about what that means. Must I spell it out?
/thread.
When you say 4M years your not trying to say 4 Million years are you?
The Coming GOP Civil War Over Climate Change
Science, storms, and demographics are starting to change minds among the rank and file.
Throughout the Republican presidential primaries, every candidate but one—former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who was knocked out of the race at the start—questioned, denied, or outright mocked the science of climate change.
Soon after his experience in South Carolina, Emanuel changed his lifelong Republican Party registration to independent. “The idea that you could look a huge amount of evidence straight in the face and, for purely ideological reasons, deny it, is anathema to me,” he says.
Emanuel predicts that many more voters like him, people who think of themselves as conservative or independent but are turned off by what they see as a willful denial of science and facts, will also abandon the GOP, unless the party comes to an honest reckoning about global warming.
And a quiet, but growing, number of other Republicans fear the same thing. Already, deep fissures are emerging between, on one side, a base of ideological voters and lawmakers with strong ties to powerful tea-party groups and super PACs funded by the fossil-fuel industry who see climate change as a false threat concocted by liberals to justify greater government control; and on the other side, a quiet group of moderates, younger voters, and leading conservative intellectuals who fear that if Republicans continue to dismiss or deny climate change, the party will become irrelevant.
“There is a divide within the party,” says Samuel Thernstrom, who served on President George W. Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality and is now a scholar of environmental policy at the American Enterprise Ins ute, a conservative think tank. “The position that climate change is a hoax is untenable.”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magaz...hange-20130509
That the jungle is like a giant piece of velcro?
Wall Street Journal's Idiocracy: CO2 Is What Plants Crave
The Wall Street Journal once again published an op-ed disputing climate science by authors with no peer-reviewed papers on the topic and ties to groups funded by the oil industry. The op-ed argues that we should be "clamoring for more" carbon dioxide because it is a "boon to plant life," ignoring scientific research establishing that our excessive carbon dioxide emissions are rapidly changing the climate, which will have significant negative impacts for plants and humans
In an op-ed led "In Defense of Carbon Dioxide," former astronaut and Republican Senator Harrison Schmitt and physics professor William Happer write that the "demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life" and thus "increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet." They add, "[t]here isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather" and conclude that "in an age of rising population and scarcities of food and water in some regions, it's a wonder that humanitarians aren't clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead, some are denouncing it."
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...at-plan/193986
s Say The Darndest Things (that money can buy)
Shazbot...
It doesn't take a peer review paper to see that increased CO2 levels haven't change the severity of natural climate changes.
Military took the lead on de-segregation, equal pay for women, admitting gays, and taking the lead on sustainable energy
Army Steamrolls $7 Billion In Renewable Energy Projects, Sequester Or No Sequester
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/09/...eanTechnica%29
Army is ed on soy or algae biosdiesel, corn/sugar ethanol, but the solar/wind initiatives are great
I still haven't seen any storm here in Oregon worse than the Extratropical Cyclone we had in October of '62.
Oh, well thanks for your scientific proof. I'm sure we will see WC's anecdotes cited in much future research.
My God...
There has been bad weather for all of history, and so much worse than anything we have experienced in decades. CO2 is not the cause of worse weather.
My point is that history is known. Just because we have more channels on the TV telling us of more disasters that they didn't previously cover, doesn't mean we have more disasters.
But... believe as you want, student from the University of Indoctrination.
I suppose you have scientific proof that weather patterns are worse due to CO2...
Might.
Not sure I want to bet my children's lives and livlihoods on "might".
I would prefer not effing with things until we were a bit more certain about the ultimate effects.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
