Nothing... I need a legend.

verslagen1 wrote on 05/02/14 at 13:20:16:



yes its the bottom which is the problem.. could be Feet/depth?  But one would need to correlate  that to years.  

I am currently not "on board" with the common acceptance that humans due to their CO2 is causing global warming, though I admit that could be the case. The earth is certainly seeing global weather extremes (hotter hots, colder colds, wetter wets and drier drys) than in many a year. The sun is seeing the lowest solar minimum ever recorded. I watch about space weather daily, so I figure I have seen as much data on it as most people in the field ( not that I have had training).  It was 47F this morning in Jackson MS... its friggin MAY!

**** I still rode the bike ****        

Antarctic ice "build up" is at record levels while arctic ice is still low. (Antarctic ice levels are still low) Too hot?? too cold?? Cant tell... abnormal definitely.  

Here's the source report...

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/05/will-the-worlds-carbon-dioxide-levels...


While I'll agree that today... co2 levels are rising, we have to be patient and see what the actual levels are going to be.  Historically, we see a peak every 100 years or so.  So Al gore flew over to mauna loa and camped for awhile.  He's gotta go home soon.    and someone take him off the legume and broccoli diet    then the levels will drop again.

Secondly, the data is from 1 source up until 1958 and then from another afterwards.  Is someone comparing the results to see if they're the same?  I'd would be really interested in this data.

And if the fuel from co2 in seawater pans out, it looks like it would be an effective collector of co2 as the concentrations of co2 in water are higher.

So as I read the chart, mauna loa is 100 points higher in 1958 then the ice pack data.  Will that rescale the results or is it linear add 100 points every year?

That data is almost a linear progress from 1958 till now.
Yet the 1st chart shows a plato to about 1980 or so.
Just a scaling issue?

Here is the gist, and some noted quotes and stats from an article I read recently (maybe in “scientific American”?) not sure.

Okay re-looked up some stats, here goes. First, the Co2 is safe myth. Yes I know that some scientists have said this is a safe level. The industry and government backed and funded scientists that make up the IPCC have endorsed this point of view.

If it is safe, ... why at only .8*C is the Arctic sea ice disappearing 80 years ahead of schedule, why are the continental glaciers melting, why is Antarctica emitting methane, why are vast areas of the permafrost in Alaska and Siberia thawing and emitting methane, why do so many scientists say the methane release from frozen sinks is an irreversible catastrophe threatening the survival of humanity?

Fact is 2*C is not safe. As we speak it is being proven that 2*C and still rising will guarantee 4*C, and a 4*C rise that isn't an absolute plateau, will lead to 6*C, which most agree is an end game for humanity. So why such a miscalculation?

Because the government restrained compilation of data from the IPCC has regarded climate change as a lineal equation, rather than a multidimensional interrelated system where the effect on one ecology or subsystem, is in effect realized by others. Where effects of a situation or system, feeds back not just onto itself, but unto the entire system complex.

It is all about thermal equilibrium, and a radiative forcing very near zero, last found pre industrial period at near 270 ppm CO2e. Much above that, and the planet slowly starts heating. At today’s levels near 397 ppm CO2 and 470+ CO2e, most all of the earth's thermal sub systems are in positive feedback. They are all feeding into global heating, which in turn will result in rising mean global surface temperatures. This is a frightening prediction of things to come.

If you don’t have young children or grandchildren sir, you are safe. If however you care about those who will follow you, not so much.