Never let a good talking point go to waste
400 parts per million: We’ve reached a climate change “tipping point”
In September, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stayed over 400 parts per million for the first time in thousands of years, a level more than 100 ppm over the atmosphere’s natural variations.
Um, no. Cute fake fact, though.
Four hundred ppm had been labeled as a “tipping point,†at which the climate would begin an unstoppable slide into hotter temperatures.
Yet Jonathan Overpeck Ph.D., co-director of the Institute of the Environment , said the number is more symbolic than scientific, though still a cause for concern.
“We don’t know if the tipping point was higher or lower than this,†Overpeck said. “There are actually many different tipping points.â€
OK, so, despite the headline, it’s utterly bunk scientifically, and this little Warmist is trying to scare people.
The UA may not be planning for sweeping changes, but it’s still a leader in climate research and climate solutions, and has been working to help inform decision makers on human adaptation techniques and the maintenance of natural ecosystems, according to Overpeck.
“We are ground zero for climate change in the U.S.,†Overpeck said. “We have the most urgent reasons to act on climate change.â€
Ground zero? I thought that it was Alaska? Or Tuvvulo? This island or that island? I’m confused.
“We can’t just look for technological or financial solutions,†Martinez-Lugo said. “We need to look for philosophical and moral solutions as well. There is no silver bullet.â€
In other words, we’re back to my talking point, that this is about governmental control. It’s interesting that so many young folks, like the writer, Melissa Hefferman, a student at the University of Arizona, used to be about freedom and liberty and sticking it to the man and such. Now, they’re all about advocating for reducing their lifestyles, increasing their costs of living, limiting their jobs market chances, and increasing the role of government within their own lives. All over this mythical “tipping point.”
This really comes back to a side effect of co2 and the AGW crowd are literally looking in the wrong directions and with the wrong attitude about CO2 and global warming.
We are warming naturally but we also have had a rapid increase in co2 which is left unchecked could indeed at around 600 ppm become a problem for existing vegetation.
What the left is failing to look at is WHY is the co2 actually…I mean truly rising so quickly and the answer is very obvious to anyone who does not have a dog in the fight scientifically……
40 years of clear cutting and BURNING THE RAIN FOREST has depleted a HUGE co2 SINK from this planet…..
Additionally the uses of pesticides, herbicides and GMO’s have altered the soils ability to recover as quickly, mean more release of co2 and less sinking of co2 because of the value of continuing to not rotate crops and let soil remain idle which helps it restore its nutrients and co2 sinking ability.
I could really go on and on and on about this but the AGW crowd only wants to look at the last 40 years and say ITS ALL ABOUT A RAPID RISE IN CO2 and its because of the burning of fossil fuels…..
And while partially true this is not the whole story and never has been….Its about what is happening over the entire planet that is causing this rapid rise….Fueled heavily by BRAZIL, CHINA, INDIA and RUSSIA……
The problem for the AGW crowd is that they cant exactly protest in CHINA or BRAZIL or RUSSIA or INDIA for that point…..so someones gotta pay…that would be the politically correct WEST who can be bullied because profits are more important that scientific truth.
Liam I am unsure of what you mean by “we are warming naturally”? As opposed to what? Supernaturally?
Can you tell us WHY we are warming ? Certainly not because of the Sun which is slightly cooler now than in 1960
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/10/earths-warming-how-scientists-know-its-not-the-sun/
And Teach in the article you cited Martinez-Lugo specifically says that we need to look for philosophical and moral solutions besides technological or financial solutions. Not sure how that ties into more governmental control.
This looks like the 3rd national election in a row where the climate truther candidate loses big.
(The article says he is a senior at ASU.)
We’ve added, what-100ppm of CO2 over the past 100 yrs? Put in perspective, if you took, say, the Rose Bowl and filled it with 100,000 people, the amount of CO2 added over a hundred yrs would be like adding……10 additional people to the stadium. Tipping point, indeed.
4 parts per 10,000…
Time to panic…
Teach copied:
Teach typed: Um, no. Cute fake fact, though.
For at least the past 400,000 years atmospheric CO2 has cycled between about 180 ppm and 280 ppm. Do you deny that atmospheric C02 is higher now than at any time in the last half million years or so?
j,
You’ve tried that math-impaired scam before. If the average high CO2 has been 280 ppm for the past 1 million years and the high is now 400 ppm, that’s a 40% increase. If you started with 100,000 people in the Rose Bowl and added 40% it “would be like adding…. 40,000 additional people to the stadium”. I guess you could argue it’s like adding 400 people per year for 100 years but still you’d end up with 140,000 not 100,010 people.
Can you explain your logic/math arriving at a 40% increase only equaling 10 units per 100,000?
All: 400 ppm CO2 is a tipping point like running a mile in 4 minutes was a “barrier”. Not very real.
On the other hand 400 ppm causes more warming than 280 ppm, all other physical factors being equal.
For the math challenged. 300ppm to 400ppm is 100ppm increase. 100 to 1 million is the same as 10 to 100,000. Extra CO2 is like adding 10 extra people to 100,000. It’s not a scam, its math. The ” climate change is going to be a disaster” is the scam. You’re welcome, J.
We’ll continue with J’s math education with an example in the danger of using percentages. Using easy math: An increase in something of, say, 10 to 20 would be a 100% increase. But an increase of 20 to 30 would only be a 50% increase, even though the total increase is the same-10 units.
j,
You are wrong. Your ratio of 100 to 1 million is irrelevant.
j,
I hate to keep embarrassing you, but good lord man you are practicing some kind of stupid.
Normal serum potassium is about 5 mEq/L (or about 195 ppm). If it increases 40% to 7 mEq/L (273 ppm) people begin to die.
Serum potassium has increased a mere 78 ppm which you would divide by 1,000,000 for some obscure reason and call it a 0.0078% increase. Yet your 0.0078% increase kills people.
So yes, the CO2 increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is more than a 0.01% increase. A 0.01% increase would have no discernible effect on temperature. A 40% increase is causing warming.
No wonder you don’t understand global warming.
You ARE right that percentages can be used to mislead. Look at reporting on cancer incidence. “Compound X causes a 100% increase in magicosarcoma!” But if the incidence is only 2 per 100,000 to start with, a 100% increase yields 4 per 100,000. You need ALL the information.
The earth is naturally warming ….otherwise we would be in a ICE AGE and glaciers would still be 5000 foot thick…..John you are beyond moronic….
Explain to me John…where did 1000’s of feet of glaciers go if the earth did not warm up over the last 18,000 years? Was it because of your imaginary supernatural Warming caused by cavemen driving suvs?
“Your ratio of 100 to 1 million is irrelevant.”The ratio, the math and the verbiage are 100% correct, J. Its totally relevant, obviously, because that’s how scientists describe the increase in CO2. Now who’s stupid? Your semi-desperate potassium gibberish aside, 100 to 1million is the same as 10 to 100,000, so my analogy was correct. For remedial math student J, the measurements are done in “parts per million”, not a “percentage of a million.” Reading comprehension is your friend, J.
Are you really that ignorant or is your goal to mislead?
You’re claiming that the ratio 10:100,000 (Rose Bowl) is the same as the ratio 120:280 (CO2). Your superfluous addition of the 1,000,000 denominator is irrelevant.
No Mr. Remedial Math, I said (2-3times) that the ratio of 100 to 1,000,000 is the same as 10 to 100,000- which it is. So the increase in CO2 (100 ppm) would be the same as adding 10 people to 100,000 people in, say, the Rose Bowl. Again, if you can refute what I said, by all means do so. But you can’t, because it’s simple math. Why keep looking like a fool?
You’re claiming that the ratio 10:100,000 (Rose Bowl) is the same as the ratio 120:280 (CO2).
Where did I claim that, J? Show me. You really are an idiot. Hint: You can’t. As said before, reading comprehension is your friend. You must not have any friends. There’s an old saying “quit while you’re ahead”. For you it’s “quit while your behind.”
You should stop digging. A 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 is not comparable to a 0.01% increase in fans in the Rose Bowls.
Grade school kids get it, why don’t you? Oh, that’s right, you’ve denied the whole thermometer concept until just recently.
CO2: Was 280 ppm, now is 400 ppm. 400-280 = 120. 120/280 = 42.9%
Rose Bowl: Was 100,000, now is 100,010. 100,010-100,000 = 10. 10/100,000 = 0.01%
Your “logic”: The Rose Bowl increased from 100,000 to 140,000 but there are 7 billion people on Earth. 40,000 divided by 7,000,000,000 is only a 0.0006% increase! Trivial!
So Jeffery, show me in my excact words where I compared, or even mentioned, “40% increase vs .01% in fans.” That was you, not me, you fool. Remember, reading comprehension is your friend. You should try it sometime. In the meantime I’ll breathlessness await your evidence of words that were never written.
I’ll take your word for it that you didn’t compare the current increase in CO2 from 280 ppm up to 400 ppm to adding 10 people to a filled Rose Bowl. It’s possible someone hacked your account.
Writing comprehension is valuable too.
But because of your continuing ignorance, we’ll go over it yet again for Mr. Remedial Math. I stated, correctly, that when scientists talk of CO2 increase they invariably mention the ppm increase, as in over the last 100 years or so it’s gone from 300 ppm to 400ppm, a 100ppm increase. Am I going too fast for you? The alarmists keep mentioning “tipping points”, which earlier was 350 ppm, but now seems to be 400 ppm.(that’s another story). Notice the verbiage is in ppm, not percentages. Still following along? I stated, correctly, that adding 100 parts of something to 1 million parts of something else was the same as adding 10 parts of something to 100,000 parts of something else. So, a visual illustration of the increase in CO2 can be seen by imagining adding 10 people to the 100,000 seat Rose Bowl. All true. Still.
jl,
No matter what you write and evidence you produce that little guy will never man up and admit he’s wrong.
Ask him about his service in the army.
And as I pointed out the “one million” is a red herring. You are wrong. Still.
It’s like saying Fred’s income went from $280,000 to $400,000 but that’s not significant since there is $50,000,000,000,000 of income in the world.
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 rising from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is causing the Earth to warm.
The concentration of people in the Rose Bowl going from 100,000 ppb* to 100,010 ppb has no effect. But if it went to 142,000 ppb everyone would notice.
*ppb = people per Bowl
Drowning puppies-you’re 100% correct. What he doesn’t realize is how easy it is to prove he’s wrong. So now Mr Remedial Math is changing the subject matter after being caught not being able to prove something I never said. Surprise. So J, still waiting to see where I compared, mentioned or even wrote about “a 40% increase vs. .01% in fans.” “CO2 rising from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is causing the earth to warm.” Thanks for that assertion, but that was never part of our discussion. Again, I made an 8th grade math problem analogy that you have yet to prove incorrect, hence your moniker of Mr. Remedial Math. You can’t, bcause it’s math-there are no opinions. CO2 went from 300ppm to 400ppm, a 100ppm increase. That’s what I said, and that’s true. An increase in 100 per million is the same as an increase of 10 in 100,000. That’s what I said, and that’s true. Adding 10 people to where there are 100,000 people is a visual illustration of the increase in CO2. That’s what I said, and that’s true.
Wrong.
Actuall, your response to the question “where did I compare, mention, or even wrote about a 40% increase vs 01% in fans”? should be “I can’t answer you”.
Here you go, in case you forgot what you typed. Or were you hacked?
In this typing, you directly compared the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century to adding 10 people to 100,000 in the Rose Bowl.
J once again tries to desperately change the subject. Jeffery: “You’re claiming the ratio 10/100,000 is the same as 120/280….” Again, show me where I ever claimed, mentioned or wrote the numbers 120/280. Hint: You cant, because besides failing 8th grade math you also fail in reading comprehension. If one adds 100 parts of CO2 to 1 million parts of air, which is what has happened, that’s the same as adding 10 parts CO2 to 100,000 parts of air. That’s the only comparison I made, you fool.
Lying fool,
We’ve added 100 ppm to 280 ppm CO2. That’s like adding 42,000 people to 100,000.
Stupid fool, you’re comparing the CO2 increase to itself. Seeing as it’s a concentration issue (we’re told), the comparison to make is between CO2 and the medium it’s being mixed into. In this case, obviously the atmosphere. So adding 100 pparts of anything to to 1million parts if something else is the same as 10 to 100,000. No gray area in math. You’re just upset that the reality of it doesn’t sound so gloom and doom, because it’s not. Another way to look at it that’s probably still over your head is: CO2 was about .03% of the atmosphere. Now it’s about .04% of the atmosphere. It’s been said that the human involvement of that is about 3%. So your evil SUV has added 3% of .03%. Still scary, right, J?