The farce behind liberal, "I'll tax you again" global warming bullshit - volcanoes!

[Dr Kynes]

when you stretch out the tiny, 10,000 year period on this:

to a different x-axis (10k years instead of 800K+ years), it looks smoother. like this.

and if you narrow that graph even further and smooth it, you get this.

note that years before present are rearranged. this should help you in understanding that yo uare saying exactly what i am saying.

just because you are an idiot does not make the graph fake. you are simply too retarded to understand graphs or exponents apparently.

graph 1: specious and irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

graph 2: your usual brand of bullshit.

graph 3: NOT "narrowed"

my graph from noaa covers EXACTLY THE SAME TIME SCALE, (to whit: 10,000 years) as yours.

your skeptical science graph bears no relation to the one from noaa, and yet purports to be based on noaa's numbers.

it's still bullshit.

and since i have demonstrated this many times before, yet you STILL trotted out the skeptical science graph, that would be a LIE.

also, werent you explaining how the IPCC's own numbers are somehow fraudulent? where did that go?

 

[UncleBuck]

as i citerd to pada before in this very thread, co2 doesnt become toxic until ~100,000 ppm, or 10% by volume

at 4000 ppm you wont have any trouble breathing.

http://www.analox.net/carbon-dioxide-dangers.php

2% concentration of CO2 causes shortness of breath, sweating and quickening pulse happen as you get closer to 4 or 5%.

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/cfodocs/howell.Par.2800.File.dat/25apxC.pdf

 

[UncleBuck]

my graph from noaa covers EXACTLY THE SAME TIME SCALE, (to whit: 10,000 years) as yours.

then why does it not go up to 400 PPM of CO2?

are you DENYING that we are at 400 PPM of CO2 now?

it's still bullshit.

NUH UH! BULLSHIT!

 

[Dr Kynes]

2% concentration of CO2 causes shortness of breath, sweating and quickening pulse happen as you get closer to 4 or 5%.

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/cfodocs/howell.Par.2800.File.dat/25apxC.pdf

your own citation states that OSHA considers 5000 ppm safe for a 40 hour week of labour.

5000 is MORE than 4000

or is my math that bad?

 

[Dr Kynes]

then why does it not go up to 400 PPM of CO2?

are you DENYING that we are at 400 PPM of CO2 now?





NUH UH! BULLSHIT!

riiiiight... my graph covers the historical 10000 year period, and that portion bears NO RELATION to your skeptical science twaddle, so now you wish to argue that my graph is wrong because it didnt predict future increases or include measurements from mona loa not in it's purview?

not even a good attempt.

1/10, does not compute.

 

[nontheist]

2% concentration of CO2 causes shortness of breath, sweating and quickening pulse happen as you get closer to 4 or 5%.

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/cfodocs/howell.Par.2800.File.dat/25apxC.pdf

This shit hit you like a ton of bricks didn't it? You can't believe you have been so gullible. What's it feel like to know that co2 will go well over 550ppm?

 

[UncleBuck]

riiiiight... my graph covers the historical 10000 year period, and that portion bears NO RELATION to your skeptical science twaddle, so now you wish to argue that my graph is wrong because it didnt predict future increases or include measurements from mona loa not in it's purview?

not even a good attempt.

1/10, does not compute.

so we've settled the 280 PPM (aka ~273 PPM) issue it seems.

now we're moving to the current 400 PPM issue.

if your 10000 year graph is the same as my 10000 year graph, then why does yours not show the increase to 400 PPM?

here it is again:

or, to put it another way:

[that skeptical science graph which you hate so much but which says the same thing]

i omitted the extra data out of kindness to your sore posterior, rather than out of idiocy, forgetfulness, or dishonesty.

 

[UncleBuck]

your own citation states that OSHA considers 5000 ppm safe for a 40 hour week of labour.

5000 is MORE than 4000

or is my math that bad?

all we need to do then is to figure out how to only breathe for 40 out of 168 hours every week.

pretty simple goal to achieve really. just breathe less. duh.

 

[nontheist]

all we need to do then is to figure out how to only breathe for 40 out of 168 hours every week.

pretty simple goal to achieve really. just breathe less. duh.

 

[Dr Kynes]

This shit hit you like a ton of bricks didn't it? You can't believe you have been so gullible. What's it feel like to know that co2 will go well over 550ppm?

huh?

550 ppm is like 0.055%

we are currently at 0.038%, and despite what bucky claims, we are not as 0.04%, or 400ppm, that was a seasonal spike resulting in a ONE TIME HIGH at ONE research facility.

the global average is lower than mona loa's raw number, but their raw number is still useful as a single data set.

it's dropping again, and next spring it will rise again, probably higher still.

though i must confess i have been saying 0.035%, which was 2012's global average number.

i hope the left doesnt discover the cameroon numbers cuz mona loa will be forgotten if they get a taste of the sweet specious numbers they got goin on there.

 

[Dr Kynes]

all we need to do then is to figure out how to only breathe for 40 out of 168 hours every week.

pretty simple goal to achieve really. just breathe less. duh.

huh... so youre asserting that 5000ppm is safe when youre working, but not for the rest of the day?

read your citation again.

particularly the part about bubbleheads going for months in high co2 environments and not dying.

 

[nontheist]

huh?

550 ppm is like 0.055%

we are currently at 0.038%, and despite what bucky claims, we are not as 0.04%, or 400ppm, that was a seasonal spike resulting in a ONE TIME HIGH at ONE research facility.

the global average is lower than mona loa's raw number, but their raw number is still useful as a single data set.

it's dropping again, and next spring it will rise again, probably higher still.

though i must confess i have been saying 0.035%, which was 2012's global average number.

i hope the left doesnt discover the cameroon numbers cuz mona loa will be forgotten if they get a taste of the sweet specious numbers they got goin on there.

I was referring to the 550 recommended, from the charts it look like we're do another high natural co2 serge.

 

[Dr Kynes]

so we've settled the 280 PPM (aka ~273 PPM) issue it seems.

now we're moving to the current 400 PPM issue.

if your 10000 year graph is the same as my 10000 year graph, then why does yours not show the increase to 400 PPM?

here it is again:



or, to put it another way:

[that skeptical science graph which you hate so much but which says the same thing]

i omitted the extra data out of kindness to your sore posterior, rather than out of idiocy, forgetfulness, or dishonesty.

enpough already i've seen your new favorite flavour, but the old shit still stinks.

look at the skeptical science graph again... see how it's all flat and level with barely a wafer for thousands of years , until suddenly in the 1800's, BAM shit starts goin up!

now look at the noaa graph again.

see how it starts around 270, drops low, then around 7000 years ago starts climbing on a long curve, then around 2000 years ago it dips, then shoots back up, then around 1000 years ago it dips again then shoots up again starting about 500 years ago...

yours doesnt have ANY of that shit, it rides flat and smooth until the 1800's then it's off like a rocket.

cuz it's CRAP.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I was referring to the 550 recommended, from the charts it look like we're do another high natural co2 serge.

550 is recomended?

not by me, thats for sure.

im currently recommending 707.

707 Headband to be specific.

its some OG shit thats making me crazy on the sativa tip.

 

[NLXSK1]

why did CO2 remain at around 280 PPM for tens of thousands of years, right up until the industrial revolution, when it shot up to 400 PPM over a mere century or so?

Do you have a CO2 meter? Go check outside... Your numbers are WAY off...

 

[Doer]

Do you have a CO2 meter? Go check outside... Your numbers are WAY off...

You don't have a meter and you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

This is a direct measurement. And gas samples buried in ice are direct evidence.

401.88ppm = Atmospheric CO2 for May 2014 & Preliminary monthly average as of June 4, 2014

(Mauna Loa Observatory: Scripps CO2 Program)
CO2 Data Set: Original Scripps CO2 data file dated Wednesday June 4, 2014

Measuring Location: Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii


Why is CO2 significant?

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the chief greenhouse gas that results from human activities and causes global warming and climate change. To see whether enough is being done at the moment to solve these global problems, there is no single indicator as complete and current as the monthly updates for atmospheric CO2 from the Mauna Loa Observatory.

What is the current trend?

The concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are increasing at an accelerating rate from decade to decade. The latest atmospheric CO2 data is consistent with a continuation of this long-standing trend.

What level is safe?

The upper safety limit for atmospheric CO2 is 350 parts per million (ppm). Atmospheric CO2 levels have stayed higher than 350 ppm since early 1988.

NOTE: On May 10, 2013, NOAA & Scripps first reported daily averages that temporarily reached 400 ppm.

 

[NLXSK1]

You don't have a meter and you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

This is a direct measurement. And gas samples buried in ice are direct evidence.

401.88ppm = Atmospheric CO2 for May 2014

Preliminary monthly average as of June 4, 2014

(Mauna Loa Observatory: Scripps CO2 Program)


CO2 Data Set:

Original Scripps CO2 data file dated Wednesday June 4, 2014




Measuring Location:

Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii





Why is CO2 significant?

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the chief greenhouse gas that results from human activities and causes global warming and climate change. To see whether enough is being done at the moment to solve these global problems, there is no single indicator as complete and current as the monthly updates for atmospheric CO2 from the Mauna Loa Observatory.




What is the current trend?

The concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are increasing at an accelerating rate from decade to decade. The latest atmospheric CO2 data is consistent with a continuation of this long-standing trend.



What level is safe?

The upper safety limit for atmospheric CO2 is 350 parts per million (ppm). Atmospheric CO2 levels have stayed higher than 350 ppm since early 1988.


NOTE: On May 10, 2013, NOAA & Scripps first reported daily averages that temporarily reached 400 ppm.

So because it is 400 PPM at a volcano means it is 400PPM everywhere???

I certainly do have a PPM meter. You need them to monitor and control PPM levels in an enclosed grow.

The average outside is well below 400PPM on average and usually between 250 & 300 depending upon how urban you are.

 

[Doer]

It is inexcusable to be so un-informed.

http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/

There is politics sure but it all starts somewhere, somehow. You cannot fool all the people all the time. The science began this with the orbital studies. And didn't see what the Math said was there. So, we look more and more, with new techniques.

But, it is also what I said, in Politics. It is a type of panic. It seems to be GUILT.

We are going to spend trillions to try to clean up after ourselves. But, civilization is going to be crushed, any way you look at it,

I am sure the big money is thinking about how can they get the space colonies going in the next 300 years. It may be impossible already. We may have not made it. Close but no Cigar.

This could easily be the peak of tech in the next few hundred years, as we crash all progress inward toward survival of the DNA.

 

[ginjawarrior]

looks like the author has sufficient credentials, and his assertions are plausible.

it's not "science" science, it's an opinion piece, but it's from a scientist and his assertions are good enough for this crowd.

if you had any real substantive challenges to his claims you would have made them rather than simply implying he is unqualified.

Seeing as his opinion piece is lacking in any data there's little to debunk

My original post happily dealt with this specious chainmail

 

[Doer]

So, you go out a measure with your Punk Meter? And you want to tell us the meaurements at 10,000 feet in the middle of the Pacific Ocean are from the volcano.

Hey, maybe Scripps thought of that? I mean it is the job to not be a horse ass, fake.

CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations scattered across 66 countries which all report the same rising trend.
Climate Myth...
CO2 measurements are suspect
"The Keeling curve, which is widely used to show the increase in CO2 emissions, is based on data from the top of Mount Mauna Loa in Hawaii. Mauna Loa is a volcano and it doesn’t seem to me that a volcano is the best place to be taking CO2 measurements"