Atmospheric CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday — A Level not Seen in 15 Million Years

http://robertscribbler.com/

Posted by: Colorado Bob | February 07, 2016 at 22:24

source: comments section, http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/01/-3rd-clisap-workshop-arctic-and-permafrost.html

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 12:35pm:

Atmospheric CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday — A Level not Seen in 15 Million Years http://robertscribbler.com/ Posted by: Colorado Bob | February 07, 2016 at 22:24 source: comments section, http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/01/-3rd-clisap-workshop-arctic-and-permafrost.html

are you sure?

I wonder where all this CO2 is coming from?

Sounds very odd to me.

Perhaps the Mini Ice Age can assist with explaining this?

I will need to read some more stuff from Dr Sircus's web site and get back to you

Temperature precedes CO2

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 2:27pm:

Temperature precedes CO2

lee you should try to understand what is actually happening with the science and its underlying mechanisms before you repeat AGW denialist spin.

This statement is selective spin.

Your choice of word "precedes" is deliberate in order to imply a causal effect for the current CO2 rise.

This particular observation over long time periods in Earths history, is referred to as a "time lag" between temperature rise and CO2 increase

Do you want me to provide a link for you to read the credible scientific explanation of this "time lag"?

It will provide you will ample opportunity to apologise

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 2:27pm:

Temperature precedes CO2

That's not the whole truth though. increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 12:49pm:

I wonder where all this CO2 is coming from? Sounds very odd to me.

Maybe it's the hot spell. People drinking more fizzy drinks.  ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 12:35pm:

Atmospheric CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday — A Level not Seen in 15 Million Years http://robertscribbler.com/ Posted by: Colorado Bob | February 07, 2016 at 22:24 source: comments section, http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/01/-3rd-clisap-workshop-arctic-and-permafrost.html

Don't worry numb nuts its not the end of the world just yet.


Quote:

180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS BY CHEMICAL METHODS by Ernst-Georg Beck 3. CO2 MEASUREMENTS OF THE BACKGROUND BEFORE 1958 This tropospheric CO2 concentration from about 5 km height is the CO2 background postulated by Keeling and the IPCC as stable in nature and rising since industrial time by burning of fossil fuels. The Mauna Loa measurements initiated by Keeling show a rise of the background since 1958 until today. In fact the CO2 concentration has been measured in the upper troposphere since the end of the 19th century by dozens of balloon flights and after the World War II by rockets. A literature research revealed [23] 63 single values since 1894 –1973, from which 18 yearly averages can be calculated for heights of 1 –50 Km (stratosphere). The resulting graph is shown in figure 4. In most cases cryogen condensation had been used to separate CO2 from air using absorption in alkaline solution, by IR spectroscopy afterwards. A pronounced peak during the 30s of the 20th century is noticeable. The modern CO2 concentration is therefore not unique for thousands of years, as is stated repeatedly. This confirms the analysis by chemical methods near ground since 1812, which also show a maximum during 1930–1945 [19]. Read the rest here. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/08_Beck-2.pdf

http://i66.tinypic.com/208d4r5.jpg

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 4:08pm:

lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:27pm: Temperature precedes CO2 That's not the whole truth though. increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming.

At what level does the magic gas take control?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 4:06pm:

Do you want me to provide a link for you to read the credible scientific explanation of this "time lag"? It will provide you will ample opportunity to apologise

You don't need to ask my permission.

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 4:08pm: lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:27pm: Temperature precedes CO2 That's not the whole truth though. increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. At what level does the magic gas take control?

I realise that with your grasp of science, it must appear to be magic. This is probably the simplest explanation I can find on the web.  If you don't believe that CO2 absorbs Long Wave Infra Red, then go and argue the point with an Infrared  Spectrophotometer.  ;D

I don't know. Maybe there has been a mass conspiracy ever since the IR spectrophotometer was invented and they just made it appear like CO2 absorbs and re-emits Infrared.

Do you think that could be the reason?


http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 6:42pm:

I realise that with your grasp of science, it must appear to be magic. This is probably the simplest explanation I can find on the web.  If you don't believe that CO2 absorbs Long Wave Infra Red, then go and argue the point with an Infrared  Spectrophotometer

Yep. CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR frequency. There is a slight lag. Now tell us why the CO2 is trapped. Especially when CO2 IR bandwidth is also concurrent in the water vapour, which of course forms the major part of GHG's.

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 6:42pm: I realise that with your grasp of science, it must appear to be magic. This is probably the simplest explanation I can find on the web.  If you don't believe that CO2 absorbs Long Wave Infra Red, then go and argue the point with an Infrared  Spectrophotometer Yep. CO2 absorbs and re-emits IR frequency. There is a slight lag.

CO2 absorbs and re-emits LWIR practically instantaneously. How much of a lag do you mean? 


Quote:

Now tell us why the CO2 is trapped.

What on Earth are you talking about?


Quote:

Especially when CO2 IR bandwidth is also concurrent in the water vapour, which of course forms the major part of GHG's.

This is true, except in the upper stratosphere where the water concentration is extremely low.

Now tell me. What is the CO2 concentration in the upper stratosphere? How does this differ from the troposphere?

What's wrong with the diagram on the link I gave you?  It should be obvious if you understand the basics.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 7:17pm:

Now tell us why the CO2 is trapped. What on Earth are you talking about?

Sorry. CO2 traps the heat.


John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 7:17pm:

This is true, except in the upper stratosphere where the water concentration is extremely low. Now tell me. What is the CO2 concentration in the upper stratosphere? How does this differ from the troposphere?

For some strange reason people seem to believe that GHG's have different properties depending on where they are in the atmosphere. But they can;t explain it.

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 7:35pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 7:17pm: Now tell us why the CO2 is trapped. What on Earth are you talking about? Sorry. CO2 traps the heat.

So do you want to rephrase your question?



Quote:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 7:17pm: This is true, except in the upper stratosphere where the water concentration is extremely low. Now tell me. What is the CO2 concentration in the upper stratosphere? How does this differ from the troposphere? For some strange reason people seem to believe that GHG's have different properties depending on where they are in the atmosphere. But they can;t explain it.

You haven't answered my questions.  Greenhouse gases have the same properties. Only the concentration varies in some cases.  I'll try to explain anything you want. (Just this once. )

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 4:08pm: lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:27pm: Temperature precedes CO2 That's not the whole truth though. increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. At what level does the magic gas take control?

have you worked out why there is a time lag in the ice core data with respect to Temperature and CO2 concentration?

Have you accepted the reality that in the past, humans were not building and operating coal fired power stations and extracting oil and gas for combustion?

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 8:10pm:

Greenhouse gases have the same properties. Only the concentration varies in some cases.

CO2 warms the troposphere (tropospheric hotspot) and cools the stratosphere

'Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere have resulted in the warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere which is caused by two mechanisms. '

http://skepticalscience.com/Stratospheric_Cooling.html

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 8:33pm:

have you worked out why there is a time lag in the ice core data with respect to Temperature and CO2 concentration? Have you accepted the reality that in the past, humans were not building and operating coal fired power stations and extracting oil and gas for combustion?

Have you worked out why 3% of 4% has such a huge influence?

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 8:36pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:10pm: Greenhouse gases have the same properties. Only the concentration varies in some cases. CO2 warms the troposphere (tropospheric hotspot) and cools the stratosphere 'Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere have resulted in the warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere which is caused by two mechanisms. ' http://skepticalscience.com/Stratospheric_Cooling.html

Well, that is true, but it's incidental. I will try to explain that effect  to you  once we get past the basics.

I have more questions after you answer the first two. 

What is wrong with the diagram?  Look at the arrows.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 8:44pm:

What is wrong with the diagram?  Look at the arrows.

You mean it only shows downwelling radiation? That it should radiate in all directions?

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/stephens2.gif

Don't you just love the surface imbalance of Stephens et al 2012?

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 8:49pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:44pm: What is wrong with the diagram?  Look at the arrows. You mean it only shows downwelling radiation?

Not quite.

You said something about the saturation effect of water vapour in the lower atmosphere. That's correct, but it's a function of concentration. Do you understand why the bandwidth increases with concentration?

Nope

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 8:33pm:

lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 6:26pm: John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 4:08pm: lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:27pm: Temperature precedes CO2 That's not the whole truth though. increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. At what level does the magic gas take control? have you worked out why there is a time lag in the ice core data with respect to Temperature and CO2 concentration? Have you accepted the reality that in the past, humans were not building and operating coal fired power stations and extracting oil and gas for combustion?

Don't worry Chimp - just for now -

the new Ice Age will keep us cool till 2030 -

then it's going to get very hot.

Bobby. wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 9:47pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:33pm: lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 6:26pm: John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 4:08pm: lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:27pm: Temperature precedes CO2 That's not the whole truth though. increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. At what level does the magic gas take control? have you worked out why there is a time lag in the ice core data with respect to Temperature and CO2 concentration? Have you accepted the reality that in the past, humans were not building and operating coal fired power stations and extracting oil and gas for combustion? Don't worry Chimp - just for now - the new Ice Age will keep us cool till 2030 - then it's going to get very hot.

explain the physical mechanisms and dynamics of this snap change in temperature

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 9:52pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 9:47pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:33pm: lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 6:26pm: John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 4:08pm: lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:27pm: Temperature precedes CO2 That's not the whole truth though. increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. At what level does the magic gas take control? have you worked out why there is a time lag in the ice core data with respect to Temperature and CO2 concentration? Have you accepted the reality that in the past, humans were not building and operating coal fired power stations and extracting oil and gas for combustion? Don't worry Chimp - just for now - the new Ice Age will keep us cool till 2030 - then it's going to get very hot. explain the physical mechanisms and dynamics of this snap change in temperature

It's to do with the decrease in Solar activity & the amount of
volcanic eruptions just like the Maunder minimum.

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 9:34pm:

Nope

Well I'll explain that bit too.

Ok, but you do understand that the radiative forcing concerns longwave radiation from the Earth?  The arrow should be coming upwards.

Imagine a photon of Longwave IR radiation (heat transmitting) coming up from the Earth's surface. It's like the stem of the dandelion. The centre of the dandelion "clock" is like the position of a CO2 molecule. If the energy (frequency) of that photon is just right, the CO2 molecule will absorb it and start stretching (a bit like the diagram in that link). (There is also bending)

In practice, CO2 molecules and water, methane etc molecules are absorbing and retransmitting the radiation all the time.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1FO6E70uabM/UaXgLXZd_cI/AAAAAAAAC5w/FMz3RpiI5Uc/s1600/dandelion.jpg

Now in the lower atmosphere, these events are much more common, because the atmosphere is thicker.  As we get further and further up the atmospheric column,  it becomes more and more likely that the emitted radiation will escape to space. Also the curvature of the Earth starts to have an effect.

So when the CO2 molecules releases a packet of IR, it can do that in any direction, much like the directions of the seeds on the dandelion head.

Follow so far?

The CO2 molecule absorbs the IR coming from the ground, then re-emits IR in a random direction. The probability of the IR returning back to the lower atmosphere is about 50%.   

Do you understand that the atmosphere gets cooler and thinner  with height, so that its capacity to hold water vapour decreases substantially as the water dewpoint decreases?

Bobby. wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 9:58pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 9:52pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 9:47pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:33pm: lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 6:26pm: John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 4:08pm: lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:27pm: Temperature precedes CO2 That's not the whole truth though. increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. At what level does the magic gas take control? have you worked out why there is a time lag in the ice core data with respect to Temperature and CO2 concentration? Have you accepted the reality that in the past, humans were not building and operating coal fired power stations and extracting oil and gas for combustion? Don't worry Chimp - just for now - the new Ice Age will keep us cool till 2030 - then it's going to get very hot. explain the physical mechanisms and dynamics of this snap change in temperature It's to do with the decrease in Solar activity & the amount of volcanic eruptions just like the Maunder minimum.

where is the data that supports this?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 10:20pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 9:58pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 9:52pm: Bobby. wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 9:47pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:33pm: lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 6:26pm: John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 4:08pm: lee wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 2:27pm: Temperature precedes CO2 That's not the whole truth though. increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. At what level does the magic gas take control? have you worked out why there is a time lag in the ice core data with respect to Temperature and CO2 concentration? Have you accepted the reality that in the past, humans were not building and operating coal fired power stations and extracting oil and gas for combustion? Don't worry Chimp - just for now - the new Ice Age will keep us cool till 2030 - then it's going to get very hot. explain the physical mechanisms and dynamics of this snap change in temperature It's to do with the decrease in Solar activity & the amount of volcanic eruptions just like the Maunder minimum. where is the data that supports this?

Have you seen my new ice age thread?

it's here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1421385253/0#0

I'm going to move any off topic posts to your Ice Age trolling thread.  Please keep Ice Age trolling confined to that thread. 

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

So when the CO2 molecules releases a packet of IR, it can do that in any direction, much like the directions of the seeds on the dandelion head.

That's my understanding of downward and upward IR.


John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

Do you understand that the atmosphere gets cooler and thinner  with height, so that its capacity to hold water vapour decreases substantially as the water dewpoint decreases?

Yes. Although the dwpoint is not a constant.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 4:06pm:

Do you want me to provide a link for you to read the credible scientific explanation of this "time lag"?

You still haven't shown me this credible explanation.

New paper from Marcott and host.

'Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change'

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 10:41am:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 10:18pm: Do you understand that the atmosphere gets cooler and thinner  with height, so that its capacity to hold water vapour decreases substantially as the water dewpoint decreases? Yes. Although the dwpoint is not a constant.

At an altitude of 35,000 to 40,000 feet,  the air pressure is about 1/5 of that at sea level.  The temperature is typically about -40 to -50 degrees C and the water vapour  content under those conditions is usually 2/5 of FA. (Forecast Analysis of course. What did you think I meant?)

At sea level at 100% Relative Humidity and say 20 degrees C, the water content is  about 17 grams per cubic metre of air.

At -50 degrees, even at 1 bar, and 100% RH, the water content  is 0.038 grams per cubic metre of air. At 0.2 Bar, it's considerably less than that.  You are correct. It varies, but on average, it's much less than 0.038g/m3, or  < 0.22% of its value at sea level at 1 bar. This is a grossly conservative exaggeration. In practice, there is an adiapatic lapse associated with dew point against altitude (it decreases)

So you can see that as altitude increases, water vapour becomes less important as a greenhouse gas, because the air is extremely dry. Carbon dioxide, methane and all the other fixed gases still have roughly the same concentration in ppm, but their vapour pressure falls in line with barometric pressure.  At 50,000 feet, it's roughly 1/5.

So if you look at the absorption spectrum in the Lower Troposphere, the water peaks tend to be broader due to higher concetration.  In the lower stratosphere, Carbon dioxide is the dominant greenhouse gas.  (and when it comes to radiation to space, the lower stratosphere/ upper troposphere  is where most of the action is. )

Does this still sound like magic, or have you grasped the principle? I'm trying to keep it as non-technical as possible.      

The magic is how is how CO2 is the "driver" of climate change at such small levels.

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 1:17pm:

The magic is how is how CO2 is the "driver" of climate change at such small levels.

CO2 is not THE driver it is a driver

And what makes it a unique driver is the fact that it is anthropogenic in nature.

Have you found any historical data that can match the rapid rate of CO2 increase in the Earth's atmosphere that occurred over the past century or so?

I really do believe that you should apologise to John in writing.

http://www.kongtechnology.com/images/geek-monkey.jpg

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 1:30pm:

And what makes it a unique driver is the fact that it is anthropogenic in nature. Have you found any historical data that can match the rapid rate of CO2 increase in the Earth's atmosphere that occurred over the past century or so?

So ocean outgassing of CO2 is anthropogenic? Contributions by forests and plants generally?

The IPCC says that it wasn't until the 2nd half of the 20th century that CO2 had a measurable affect on temperatures.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/hadcrut_diff.jpg


Source: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/updating-the-cru-and-hadcrut-temperature-data/


Note 1920-1940 when CO2 was not supposed to have a measurable effect. Note the slope - rate of change.

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 1:17pm:

The magic is how is how CO2 is the "driver" of climate change at such small levels.

Can you explain what you mean in better English? I'll answer once I'm sure what you're saying.

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 2:03pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 9th, 2016 at 1:30pm: And what makes it a unique driver is the fact that it is anthropogenic in nature. Have you found any historical data that can match the rapid rate of CO2 increase in the Earth's atmosphere that occurred over the past century or so? So ocean outgassing of CO2 is anthropogenic? Contributions by forests and plants generally?

How about being honest and talking about ocean "ingassing" as well? - And while you're at it, flux to forests and plants. 

Or are you claiming that the fluxes from the atmosphere are somehow irrelevant?

If you want to treat these natural fluxes as equivalent to fossil fuel burning emissions, where is the balancing flux for fossil fuel burning?

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 1:17pm:

The magic is how is how CO2 is the "driver" of climate change at such small levels.

you can't define "small levels": you pretend the world has never heard of nomenclature and give me your ass on the internet everytime we meet,... and I'm a friggin' spastic so what does that mean you are  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ?

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 12:53pm:

New paper from Marcott and host. 'Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change' http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html

Abstract



Most of the policy debate surrounding the actions needed to mitigate and adapt to anthropogenic climate change has been framed by observations of the past 150 years as well as climate and sea-level projections for the twenty-first century. The focus on this 250-year window, however, obscures some of the most profound problems associated with climate change. Here, we argue that the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, a period during which the overwhelming majority of human-caused carbon emissions are likely to occur, need to be placed into a long-term context that includes the past 20 millennia, when the last Ice Age ended and human civilization developed, and the next ten millennia, over which time the projected impacts of anthropogenic climate change will grow and persist. This long-term perspective illustrates that policy decisions made in the next few years to decades will have profound impacts on global climate, ecosystems and human societies — not just for this century, but for the next ten millennia and beyond.
<<

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ..and then?

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 10:41am:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 10:18pm: So when the CO2 molecules releases a packet of IR, it can do that in any direction, much like the directions of the seeds on the dandelion head. That's my understanding of downward and upward IR. John_Taverner wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 10:18pm: Do you understand that the atmosphere gets cooler and thinner  with height, so that its capacity to hold water vapour decreases substantially as the water dewpoint decreases? Yes. Although the dwpoint is not a constant.

I think you meant to say NO  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 2:41pm:

How about being honest and talking about ocean "ingassing" as well? - And while you're at it, flux to forests and plants. Or are you claiming that the fluxes from the atmosphere are somehow irrelevant? If you want to treat these natural fluxes as equivalent to fossil fuel burning emissions, where is the balancing flux for fossil fuel burning?

I'm only going on Skeptical Science, They say 29 Gt of CO2 through burning fossil fuel compared to 750 Gt in the carbon cycle. That means 3.8% is anthropogenic. That is the net effect, yes?

So Chimp is arguing 3.8%, others say 3%, is a driver of climate change. But HADCRUt and the IPCC seem to say NO.

The CSIRO tell us of 'Greening of the Deserts', so more natural CO2.

Now when we look at the earth energy budget as per Stevens et al 2012, they show earth's imbalance as 0.6W +/-17W. How's that for uncertainty?

lee wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 8:38pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 8th, 2016 at 8:33pm: have you worked out why there is a time lag in the ice core data with respect to Temperature and CO2 concentration? Have you accepted the reality that in the past, humans were not building and operating coal fired power stations and extracting oil and gas for combustion? Have you worked out why 3% of 4% has such a huge influence?

lol, nice stats!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:11pm:

lee wrote on Feb 9th, 2016 at 1:17pm: The magic is how is how CO2 is the "driver" of climate change at such small levels. you can't define "small levels": you pretend the world has never heard of nomenclature and give me your ass on the internet everytime we meet,... and I'm a friggin' spastic so what does that mean you are  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ?

My fruit trees, & other plants are gunna love it!!!!

When I first planted my fruit trees the guy said they'd mature in 5 to 8 years.....they only took jus over 3. ;)

The more of them, & the better they grow, we get cleaner more abundant oxygen .....cut Carbon Dioxide, plants go retarded, we get less oxygen, & less whatever the plants produce for the dining table.

God Bless ......... thank You for Your CO2!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:13pm:

lee wrote on Feb 9th, 2016 at 12:53pm: New paper from Marcott and host. 'Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change' http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html Abstract Most of the policy debate surrounding the actions needed to mitigate and adapt to anthropogenic climate change has been framed by observations of the past 150 years as well as climate and sea-level projections for the twenty-first century. The focus on this 250-year window, however, obscures some of the most profound problems associated with climate change. Here, we argue that the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, a period during which the overwhelming majority of human-caused carbon emissions are likely to occur, need to be placed into a long-term context that includes the past 20 millennia, when the last Ice Age ended and human civilization developed, and the next ten millennia, over which time the projected impacts of anthropogenic climate change will grow and persist. This long-term perspective illustrates that policy decisions made in the next few years to decades will have profound impacts on global climate, ecosystems and human societies — not just for this century, but for the next ten millennia and beyond. << :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ..and then?

Yep. What was it the IPCC said?

'The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.'

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:51pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 9th, 2016 at 3:13pm: lee wrote on Feb 9th, 2016 at 12:53pm: New paper from Marcott and host. 'Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change' http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html Abstract Most of the policy debate surrounding the actions needed to mitigate and adapt to anthropogenic climate change has been framed by observations of the past 150 years as well as climate and sea-level projections for the twenty-first century. The focus on this 250-year window, however, obscures some of the most profound problems associated with climate change. Here, we argue that the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, a period during which the overwhelming majority of human-caused carbon emissions are likely to occur, need to be placed into a long-term context that includes the past 20 millennia, when the last Ice Age ended and human civilization developed, and the next ten millennia, over which time the projected impacts of anthropogenic climate change will grow and persist. This long-term perspective illustrates that policy decisions made in the next few years to decades will have profound impacts on global climate, ecosystems and human societies — not just for this century, but for the next ten millennia and beyond. << :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ..and then? Yep. What was it the IPCC said? 'The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.' https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

Again you misinterpret selective statements to suit some sort of pre-agenda fossilised deranged neurosis.

Notice that the statement says "LONG TERM prediction of FUTURE climate states"?

You cannot use this to justify an uncontrolled increase in CO2 level in the earths atmosphere NOR can you claim that the earth will NOT heat up or that the climate will not change.

It's a specific statement that relates to long term climate states being predicted accurately.

There are also plenty of coupled non-linear chaotic systems in science. And other systems such as asteroid motion and comet behavior as they are nudged out of the Oort Cloud and plunge inward towards the Sun.

Can meteorologists predict the exact weather conditions in a city say in 2 years time?  2 months time? What predictive tools would they deploy and what will be the uncertainty associated with the predictions?

You need to apologise to John in writing as soon as possible lee

Then you will most probably need to implement a self ban period of at least 48 hours.

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 9th, 2016 at 2:41pm: How about being honest and talking about ocean "ingassing" as well? - And while you're at it, flux to forests and plants. Or are you claiming that the fluxes from the atmosphere are somehow irrelevant? If you want to treat these natural fluxes as equivalent to fossil fuel burning emissions, where is the balancing flux for fossil fuel burning? I'm only going on Skeptical Science, They say 29 Gt of CO2 through burning fossil fuel compared to 750 Gt in the carbon cycle. That means 3.8% is anthropogenic. That is the net effect, yes?

No.  I think I'll have to take it slower so that you understand.

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 2:03pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 9th, 2016 at 1:30pm: And what makes it a unique driver is the fact that it is anthropogenic in nature. Have you found any historical data that can match the rapid rate of CO2 increase in the Earth's atmosphere that occurred over the past century or so? 1. So ocean outgassing of CO2 is anthropogenic? Contributions by forests and plants generally? The IPCC says that it wasn't until the 2nd half of the 20th century that CO2 had a measurable affect on temperatures. Note 1920-1940 when CO2 was not supposed to have a measurable effect. Note the slope - rate of change.

1. I said that did I?

are you deliberately confusing natural CO2 cycle with anthropogenic sources?

Its true that CO2 is released by the earths oceans, but the oceans also re-absorb CO2. To do you understand the net effect of Ocean CO2 diffusion?

the same applies to land and vegetation CO2 release and re-absorption.

Land and vegetation can release 439 GT of CO2 but re-absorb 450 GT each year. Oceans can release 332 GT of CO2 and re-absorb 338 GT.

Human activities contribute about 30 GT of CO2.

Do you understand why the CO2 levels have been increasing in the earths atmosphere?

The analysis of radio-isotopes relating to fossil fuel combustion confirm where the CO2 in the earths atmosphere is coming from. Add in the de-forestation effects and ocean warming and you have a serious problem for the earths inhabitants going forward

Especially problematic for the earth's young and dependent - the children.

The children lee - we must look after the children and the health of the planet that they will inherit

think of the children lee

the children
http://www.davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/School-Children-Happy-Laughing-Class.jpg

Lee,

Let's see if you are capable of simple maths.  The Earth's atmosphere has a total mass of 5.1480 × 10^18  kg.  The current CO2 concentration is about 401ppm volume. I'll make it easy for you. That translates to about 608ppm by mass.

You claim that there is 750 petagrams of Carbon in the atmosphere. That figure is slightly out of date.

What do the updated figures give you in petagrams? (gigatonnes if you prefer)


Also to make it easier for you:
1 petagram of carbon = 3.67 petagrams of CO2.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 4:18pm:

Notice that the statement says "LONG TERM prediction of FUTURE climate states"?

Ahh, and 10,000 years is not a long term prediction? :D :D :D :D

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 6:12pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 9th, 2016 at 4:18pm: Notice that the statement says "LONG TERM prediction of FUTURE climate states"? Ahh, and 10,000 years is not a long term prediction? :D :D :D :D

Even if you apologised and self banned, you would not be able to extract yourself from the abyss of ignorance and rational contradiction that you youhave been self-dugged into.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 4:52pm:

You claim that there is 750 petagrams of Carbon in the atmosphere. That figure is slightly out of date. What do the updated figures give you in petagrams? (gigatonnes if you prefer)

Come on Lee. Here is a chance for you to shine.

Panther wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:28pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 9th, 2016 at 3:11pm: lee wrote on Feb 9th, 2016 at 1:17pm: The magic is how is how CO2 is the "driver" of climate change at such small levels. you can't define "small levels": you pretend the world has never heard of nomenclature and give me your ass on the internet everytime we meet,... and I'm a friggin' spastic so what does that mean you are  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ? My fruit trees, & other plants are gunna love it!!!! When I first planted my fruit trees the guy said they'd mature in 5 to 8 years.....they only took jus over 3. ;) The more of them, & the better they grow, we get cleaner more abundant oxygen .....cut Carbon Dioxide, plants go retarded, we get less oxygen, & less whatever the plants produce for the dining table. God Bless ......... thank You for Your CO2!

Wow, talk about a logic sandwich  ::)

lee wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 3:51pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 9th, 2016 at 3:13pm: lee wrote on Feb 9th, 2016 at 12:53pm: New paper from Marcott and host. 'Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change' http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html Abstract Most of the policy debate surrounding the actions needed to mitigate and adapt to anthropogenic climate change has been framed by observations of the past 150 years as well as climate and sea-level projections for the twenty-first century. The focus on this 250-year window, however, obscures some of the most profound problems associated with climate change. Here, we argue that the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, a period during which the overwhelming majority of human-caused carbon emissions are likely to occur, need to be placed into a long-term context that includes the past 20 millennia, when the last Ice Age ended and human civilization developed, and the next ten millennia, over which time the projected impacts of anthropogenic climate change will grow and persist. This long-term perspective illustrates that policy decisions made in the next few years to decades will have profound impacts on global climate, ecosystems and human societies — not just for this century, but for the next ten millennia and beyond. << :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D ..and then? Yep. What was it the IPCC said? 'The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.' https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/501.htm

Therefore, you conclude: THAT MORE CO2 IS GOOD  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o ?

(  :o :o Do you expensively educate your kids just to kick them in the head in an indirect fashion?  :-?)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 4:51pm:

lee wrote on Feb 9th, 2016 at 2:03pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 9th, 2016 at 1:30pm: And what makes it a unique driver is the fact that it is anthropogenic in nature. Have you found any historical data that can match the rapid rate of CO2 increase in the Earth's atmosphere that occurred over the past century or so? 1. So ocean outgassing of CO2 is anthropogenic? Contributions by forests and plants generally? The IPCC says that it wasn't until the 2nd half of the 20th century that CO2 had a measurable affect on temperatures. Note 1920-1940 when CO2 was not supposed to have a measurable effect. Note the slope - rate of change. 1. I said that did I? are you deliberately confusing natural CO2 cycle with anthropogenic sources? Its true that CO2 is released by the earths oceans, but the oceans also re-absorb CO2. To do you understand the net effect of Ocean CO2 diffusion? the same applies to land and vegetation CO2 release and re-absorption. Land and vegetation can release 439 GT of CO2 but re-absorb 450 GT each year. Oceans can release 332 GT of CO2 and re-absorb 338 GT. Human activities contribute about 30 GT of CO2. Do you understand why the CO2 levels have been increasing in the earths atmosphere? The analysis of radio-isotopes relating to fossil fuel combustion confirm where the CO2 in the earths atmosphere is coming from. Add in the de-forestation effects and ocean warming and you have a serious problem for the earths inhabitants going forward Especially problematic for the earth's young and dependent - the children. The children lee - we must look after the children and the health of the planet that they will inherit think of the children lee the children http://www.davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/School-Children-Happy-Laughing-Class.jpg

Dear sir, _{lee will answer whatever question he likes and mummykins will threaten to sue the teacher if anything else is allowed to happen ..} ::) ::) ::) ::)

uh oh spaghettios:

http://neven1.typepad.com/

---

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 4:07pm:

uh oh spaghettios: http://neven1.typepad.com/

Definitely an impending Ice Age  ;D
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains


Quote:

Sea ice increases in Antarctica do not make up for the accelerated Arctic sea ice loss of the last decades, a new NASA study finds. As a whole, the planet has been shedding sea ice at an average annual rate of 13,500 square miles (35,000 square kilometers) since 1979, the equivalent of losing an area of sea ice larger than the state of Maryland every year.

I suppose we'll have some genius claiming that the global measurements that show sea ice decreasing are incredibly inaccurate, but the measurements of the increasing Antarctic Ice are very accurate.  Just wait and you'll see  ;D

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 4:25pm:

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-... Quote: Sea ice increases in Antarctica do not make up for the accelerated Arctic sea ice loss of the last decades, a new NASA study finds. As a whole, the planet has been shedding sea ice at an average annual rate of 13,500 square miles (35,000 square kilometers) since 1979, the equivalent of losing an area of sea ice larger than the state of Maryland every year.

That's gunna upset JM. Sea ice increasing in Antarctica. :D :D

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 4:36pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 4:25pm: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-... Quote: Sea ice increases in Antarctica do not make up for the accelerated Arctic sea ice loss of the last decades, a new NASA study finds. As a whole, the planet has been shedding sea ice at an average annual rate of 13,500 square miles (35,000 square kilometers) since 1979, the equivalent of losing an area of sea ice larger than the state of Maryland every year. That's gunna upset JM. Sea ice increasing in Antarctica. :D :D

How's the elementary arithmetic exercise going?

750Gt of carbon in the atmosphere corresponds to about 1990 by the way.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 4:07pm:

uh oh spaghettios: http://neven1.typepad.com/

Summer 2016? Every year without fail. Talk about a cherry pick.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 4:39pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 4:07pm: uh oh spaghettios: http://neven1.typepad.com/ Summer 2016? Every year without fail. Talk about a cherry pick.

So you're going to do an integration and provide multimodal distribution results for all seasons?

Does it show a falling trend too?  I'm looking forward to your graph.  Surprise me.

look above. Not as bad.and still only 35years of data.

What are you talking about? Are you making a point here?

'As you know, it was part of a very much larger piece of work which included a great deal of Russian sea ice data which, for various reasons, had been excluded from the official data compiled in the 1970’s. Part of the modern narrative has been derived from Kinnard et al who has a curious view of historic sea ice levels and does not begin to portray highly variable decadal ice variations in any meaningful fashion.'

https://judithcurry.com/2013/09/08/arctic-sea-ice-minimum/

You're quoting Judith Curry. Hilarious.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 4:54pm:

What are you talking about? Are you making a point here?

Look at 2016 anomaly compared to 2012/13.

Apart from which weather affects ice? Who knew?

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:01pm:

You're quoting Judith Curry. Hilarious.

It beats quoting Hotwhopper. ;D ;D ;D ;D

https://theconversation.com/the-cheapest-way-to-scale-up-wind-and-solar-energy-high-tech-power-lines-53597?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The%20Weekend%20Conversation%20-%204214&utm_content=The%20Weekend%20Conversation%20-%204214+CID_bd288eaf157581a8e3eb0ff2ebdf8a84&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=The%20cheapest%20way%20to%20scale%20up%20wind%20and%20solar%20energy%20High-tech%20power%20lines

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:02pm:

[url]https://theconversation.com/the-cheapest-way-to-scale-up-wind-and-solar-energy-high-tech-power-lines-53597?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The Weekend Conversation - 4214&utm_content=The Weekend Conversation - 4214+CID_bd288eaf157581a8e3eb0ff2ebdf8a84&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=The cheapest way to scale up wind and solar energy High-tech power lines[/url]

Nuke em. ;)

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 4:39pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 4:07pm: uh oh spaghettios: http://neven1.typepad.com/ Summer 2016? Every year without fail. Talk about a cherry pick. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

You're a spastic bro  ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:05pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 5:02pm: [url]https://theconversation.com/the-cheapest-way-to-scale-up-wind-and-solar-energy-high-tech-power-lines-53597?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The Weekend Conversation - 4214&utm_content=The Weekend Conversation - 4214+CID_bd288eaf157581a8e3eb0ff2ebdf8a84&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=The cheapest way to scale up wind and solar energy High-tech power lines[/url] Nuke em. ;)

The market guy needs standing armies and subsidised weaponry complexes to hide his fascist mouth behind now,...  ::) ::) ::) fm  :D

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 4:36pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 4:25pm: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-... Quote: Sea ice increases in Antarctica do not make up for the accelerated Arctic sea ice loss of the last decades, a new NASA study finds. As a whole, the planet has been shedding sea ice at an average annual rate of 13,500 square miles (35,000 square kilometers) since 1979, the equivalent of losing an area of sea ice larger than the state of Maryland every year. That's gunna upset JM. Sea ice increasing in Antarctica. :D :D

,... let us talk multi-year sea ice and we will see some interesting shite!

Bobby is so scared of multi-year sea ice statistics he has pretended for centuries not to know what the term even means  :D :D :D :D :D :D

Show us the data on multi-year sea ice bro!

You won't because you're a child hating coward  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 4:25pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 4:07pm: uh oh spaghettios: http://neven1.typepad.com/ Definitely an impending Ice Age  ;D http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-study-shows-global-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains Quote: Sea ice increases in Antarctica do not make up for the accelerated Arctic sea ice loss of the last decades, a new NASA study finds. As a whole, the planet has been shedding sea ice at an average annual rate of 13,500 square miles (35,000 square kilometers) since 1979, the equivalent of losing an area of sea ice larger than the state of Maryland every year. I suppose we'll have some genius claiming that the global measurements that show sea ice decreasing are incredibly inaccurate, but the measurements of the increasing Antarctic Ice are very accurate.  Just wait and you'll see  ;D

The denialist propaganda will have to be careful which direction it cares to tread from now on as it's all documented on the interwebs.

Interesting times  ;) If trends start to become apparent on this global sea ice statistic then we will see panic stations and resource bottlenecks.

Whilst we've all been complaining abou conservative nature of the IPCC due to many governments having to all agree what goes into it it may be a saving grace... plans need time and i heavily suspect plans will be being put together and the markets all know it!

Resource bottlenecks are coming: it's just a timing thing...

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:11pm:

,... let us talk multi-year sea ice and we will see some interesting shite!

Please show us this interesting shite.

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:05pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 5:02pm: [url]https://theconversation.com/the-cheapest-way-to-scale-up-wind-and-solar-energy-high-tech-power-lines-53597?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=The Weekend Conversation - 4214&utm_content=The Weekend Conversation - 4214+CID_bd288eaf157581a8e3eb0ff2ebdf8a84&utm_source=campaign_monitor_us&utm_term=The cheapest way to scale up wind and solar energy High-tech power lines[/url] Nuke em. ;)

the children?

apologise

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:30pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 5:11pm: ,... let us talk multi-year sea ice and we will see some interesting shite! Please show us this interesting shite.

:o If you need to do your homework then do it!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:41pm:

lee wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 5:30pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 5:11pm: ,... let us talk multi-year sea ice and we will see some interesting shite! Please show us this interesting shite. :o If you need to do your homework then do it!

I don't do "shite". :D :D :D :D

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:40pm:

the children? apologise

Interesting.

'This report documents the hazardous conditions in which artisanal miners, including thousands of children, mine cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It goes on to trace how this cobalt is used to power mobile phones, laptop computers, and other portable electronic devices. Using basic hand tools, miners dig out rocks from tunnels deep underground, and accidents are common. Despite the potentially fatal health effects of prolonged exposure to cobalt, adult and child miners work without even the most basic protective equipment. This report is the first comprehensive account of how cobalt enters the supply chain of many of the world’s leading brands. '
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr62/3183/2016/en/

Yeah. Think of the children. :'(

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 5:57pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 5:41pm: lee wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 5:30pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 5:11pm: ,... let us talk multi-year sea ice and we will see some interesting shite! Please show us this interesting shite. :o If you need to do your homework then do it! I don't do "shite". :D :D :D :D

...interesting: you also don't do multi-year sea ice  :D :D :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 6:01pm:

.interesting: you also don't do multi-year sea ice

Neither do you. ;)

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 6:19pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 6:01pm: .interesting: you also don't do multi-year sea ice Neither do you. ;)

-> ....circle time is it? Go anzacs  ::)

  _{(** Are you from Australia or planet accountant durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr  :o :o :o?? )}

.. people died for this  :'(

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

.. people died for this  :'(

groan  ;D

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 9^th, 2016 at 4:52pm:

Lee, Let's see if you are capable of simple maths.  The Earth's atmosphere has a total mass of 5.1480 × 10^18  kg.  The current CO2 concentration is about 401ppm volume. I'll make it easy for you. That translates to about 608ppm by mass. You claim that there is 750 petagrams of Carbon in the atmosphere. That figure is slightly out of date. What do the updated figures give you in petagrams? (gigatonnes if you prefer) Also to make it easier for you: 1 petagram of carbon = 3.67 petagrams of CO2.

Dog ate your homework?

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 8:45am:

Dog ate your homework?

Do I have homework? You were going to explain the basics of Huang and Karl. Presumably that  means error bars on the noisy ships data? I mean that is the basis for the paper.

And then of course the basics for a significance of 0.10 in the Karl paper.

They do form the basics of the paper. They can't just rely on their citations.

lee wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 10:55am:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 12th, 2016 at 8:45am: Dog ate your homework? Do I have homework? You were going to explain the basics of Huang and Karl. Presumably that  means error bars on the noisy ships data? I mean that is the basis for the paper. And then of course the basics for a significance of 0.10 in the Karl paper. They do form the basics of the paper. They can't just rely on their citations.

I did undertake to explain the basics of radiative forcing, and I asked you to do a simple calculation to check your level of understanding.

That is the only undertaking I made. I'm not here to try to educate you.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 11:05am:

That is the only undertaking I made. I'm not here to try to educate you.

So you distance yourself from Karl and Huang, on the basis of no error bars in their papers? And Karl because a significance of 0.10 is crap?

I distance myself from spending time explaining things to you.

Meanwhile back on Planet Earth, no one seems to be listening to lee.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png