A new record: CO2 levels in the atmosphere hit an all-time high

[Moviefan-2]

Well, so much for the climate bedwetters' hopes that the global lockdown would reduce CO2 in the atmosphere.

https://www.thecanary.co/discovery/...-climate-record-despite-the-global-lockdowns/

Perhaps if we just keep the lockdown going for another 30 years or so. :thumb:

 

[K Douglas]

This is great news. CO2 is plant food, it's a net environmental benefit.

 

[PornAddict]

I wonder how cranky franky going to spin this one by trying to debunk you moviefan!
I hope it get published in nature! But you know how this leftie and libtard work they censor or not allow it to be published unless it agree with their ideology !

 

[canada-man]

science prove climate change aka global warming is a cult

 

[Frankfooter]

Just shows how much we will have to really do to slow climate change.


Although CO2 emissions dropped by 17 per cent in early April, even bigger drops of 20 to 30 per cent would need to be sustained for a year to slow the growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, said the team.

By the end of the year, the Met Office expects concentrations to be up 2.48 ppm on 2019 levels, not that different to the 2.8 ppm expected before the virus outbreak.



May confirmed as warmest on record, CO2 levels hit new high despite COVID economic slowdown

 

[Liminal]

CO2 is plant food.

So will you.

But are you sure you actually read the article?

“essentially, the data reveals that two months of significantly reduced human activity did not make a dent in the damage we’ve done to the planet. It ultimately confirms that nothing short of wholesale systemic change will do – with the rejection of fossil fuels at the heart of that transformation.”

 

[JohnLarue]

So will you.

But are you sure you actually read the article?

“essentially, the data reveals that two months of significantly reduced human activity did not make a dent in the damage we’ve done to the planet. It ultimately confirms that nothing short of wholesale systemic change will do – with the rejection of fossil fuels at the heart of that transformation.”

Climate science is driven by activists, no scientist worth his / her salt would allow a poltical agenda to dictate the scientific conclusions. Yet this has happened
Any scientist attempting to present an opposing view is blackballed, intimidated and has his funding cut off.
Roger Pielke crossed up the activitists when he testified truthfully that there was no credible evidence CO2 cause extreme weather
Afterwards .his contract was not renewed, the activists ensured he could not get work and threatened event organizers who had booked him to speak.
he had to switch careers

The peer review process & the IPCC are controlled by activists and are corrupt

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/about-the-ipcc/

The IPCC was created in 1988 largely due to the efforts of Maurice Strong, a billionaire and self-confessed socialist, as part of a larger campaign to justify giving the United Nations the authority to tax businesses in developed countries and redistribute trillions of dollars a year to developing nations. Strong had previously succeeded in bringing about the creation of the UN Environment Programme in 1972 and served as its first executive director. The IPCC is a joint project of that entity and the World Meteorological Organization.

(Strong was subsequently implicated in corruption surrounding the UN’s Oil-for-Food-Program and has resigned from his UN positions. According to John Izzard writing for the Australian publication Quadrant Online, <1> “Following his exposure for bribery and corruption in the UN’s Oil-for-Food scandal Maurice Strong was stripped of many of his 53 international awards and honours he had collected during his lifetime working in dual role of arch conservationist and ruthless businessman.”<1>)

Strong and his allies at the UN gave the IPCC a very narrow brief by defining climate change in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 1.2, as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” IPCC’s mandate is not to study climate change “in the round,” or to look at natural as well as man-made influences on climate. It is to specifically find and report a human impact on climate, and thereby make a scientific case for the adoption of national and international policies that would supposedly reduce that impact.

The IPCC is also designed to put political leaders and bureaucrats rather than scientists in control of the research project. It is a membership organization composed of governments, not scientists. The governments that created the IPCC fund it, staff it, select the scientists who get to participate, and revise and rewrite the reports after the scientists have concluded their work. Obviously, this is not how a real scientific organization operates.
The IPCC’s first report, released in 1990, admitted that observed climate change was probably due to natural rather than human causes. However, every report since then has claimed with rising certainty that there is a “discernable human impact” on the climate and that steps must be taken to avoid a global climate crisis. There is ample evidence that this level of alarmism and asserted confidence is fueled by political considerations rather than actual science.

For example, in 1996, Dr. Frederick Seitz, one of the world’s most prominent and respected physicists, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: <2>“In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

As for peer review
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2331832

EMAIL

July 8, 2004. From Phil Jones to Michael Mann.

“The other paper by MM is just garbage. [...] I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

THE CONTEXT

The “garbage” report referred to a report done by climate-change skeptics Mr. McIntyre and Mr. McKitrick that Mr. Jones said he did not want in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Mr. Jones also referred to another non-peer-reviewed report that was to be released showing scientists Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai -- who disputed global warming -- were wrong. However, he told Mr. Mann the author did not word the report very strongly because he was close to one of the scientists. He said he was encouraging the author to submit it to other climate-related journals.

Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss

This is quickly turning into the most expensive scientific (propaganda) mistakes of all time


On Ignore: FrankFooter

 

[JohnLarue]

So will you.

But are you sure you actually read the article?

“essentially, the data reveals that two months of significantly reduced human activity did not make a dent in the damage we’ve done to the planet. It ultimately confirms that nothing short of wholesale systemic change will do – with the rejection of fossil fuels at the heart of that transformation.”

Actually it is more likely higher ocean tempatures driving CO2 out of soluability
CO2 soluability in water declines with higher temperatures, so it escapes from the oceans to the atmosphere.
FYI the oceans contain way more CO2 than the atmosphere

Al Gores famous CO2 temperature graph shows the correlation of CO2 & Temperature over time, however he left out the key fact. There was an 800 year lag as changes in COs concentration followed changes in Temperature

These clowns have put the cart in front of the horse, cant figure out why the horse cant gallup, yet declare it a done deal

Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss

 

[Frankfooter]

Actually it is more likely higher ocean tempatures driving CO2 out of soluability
CO2 soluability in water declines with higher temperatures, so it escapes from the oceans to the atmosphere.
FYI the oceans contain way more CO2 than the atmosphere

What was it you said?

Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss

If your theory were correct, would the oceans becoming more or less acidic with less CO2 in them?
Are oceans becoming more or less acidic?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

 

[basketcase]

This is great news. CO2 is plant food, it's a net environmental benefit.

Good news if your brain is plant-like. Sad that you guys cheer bad news because you think it scores you some points.

And sorry to burst your bubble but if you guys read anything about the carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon, you'd realize that it takes years for any human actions to be noticed.

 

[basketcase]

Actually it is more likely higher ocean tempatures driving CO2 out of soluability
CO2 soluability in water declines with higher temperatures, so it escapes from the oceans to the atmosphere.
FYI the oceans contain way more CO2 than the atmosphere...

And that is exactly the point. There are numerous feedback loops that are accelerating the problem which is why people are concerned about the initial warming.

 

[JohnLarue]

And that is exactly the point. There are numerous feedback loops that are accelerating the problem which is why people are concerned about the initial warming.

The whole feedback loop argument is based upon the premise that atmospheric CO2 is the driver for any warming of the oceans. Lots of deep sea effusive (non explosive) volcanic activity going on all the time . How much impact on temperature did our little ozone hole cause? UV radiation is much higher in frequency and energy than Infrared.
Ocean current changes and warming/ cooling cycles have been measured on a decadal scale & the time -scale ocean data is definately limited . It could be changes occur over centuries or even on geological time scales

Your feedback argument is a circular argument without any hard scientific evidence to back it up
You chose to use the word accelerating, but you honestly do not know if net feedbacks are positive , negative , negligible or quite impactful
Yet you allowed your bias to assume they are positive and accelerating

BTW
1. There are both positive and negative possible feedbacks
ie more water evaporating into the atmosphere results in more cloud formation. During the daytime more clouds theortically blocks more incoming solar radiation
During the nighttime theoretically it slows the radiation of IR energy transmission out of the atmosphere
High altitude cloud formation should theoretically be a negative, with lower altitude clouds being a theoretical positive
In addition more water vapour in the atmosphere would lead to more rain which cools the surface down
Changing water vapour in the atmosphere very likely has impacts on convection and turbulent air flows. Convection is one of the primary drivers of thermal energy transfer (Hot air rises)

Who knows what are the net impacts of all of these interactions?
You? I do not think so
Climate modelers? Nope

2. Climate science does not understand cloud formation or the impacts of clouds very well at all
Modelling the dynamics of turbulent flows is one of the outstanding big scientific problems yet to be solved . There has been a million dollar prize available for who ever can solve this . This prize has been available for a couple of decades. So for no takers. Odd how such an important piece of the puzzle remains a mystery ....after all was the science not settled as declared by Pres Obama (a politican!) ?

3. In addition to a poor understanding the impacts of feedbacks, it is impossible to isolate and quantify these feedbacks from any primarly source based upon temperature data sets.


So climate modelers assume positive feedbacks & guess. The guesses have always overshot the actuals.
That is pseudoscience

Climate is extremely dynamic, and extremely complex. Probably the most complex scientific problem man has tried to tackle other than perhaps the complexities of the human brain.

Declaring the science settled and declaring CO2 is the control knob for climate is unbelievable arrogant, huburis and irresponsible.

Furthermore the act of shutting down debate on the issue, silencing critics and opposing views will ensure mans true understanding of climate is held back for multiple generations to come.
With negative impacts on all science in general
i can not emphasise enough how evil and destructive this is

And that is even before considering the massive negative economic impacts and the lives lost due to ill concieved and unattainable energy policies this pseudoscience has resulted in

Roman Inquisition definition of a "Heritic" in 1633 = Global Warming Alarmist definition of a "Denier" in 2020.

Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss

On Ignore: FrankFooter

 

[Frankfooter]

The whole feedback loop argument is based upon the premise that atmospheric CO2 is the driver for any warming of the oceans. Lots of deep sea effusive (non explosive) volcanic activity going on all the time . How much impact on temperature did our little ozone hole cause? UV radiation is much higher in frequency and energy than Infrared.
Ocean current changes and warming/ cooling cycles have been measured on a decadal scale & the time -scale ocean data is definately limited . It could be changes occur over centuries or even on geological time scales

Your feedback argument is a circular argument without any hard scientific evidence to back it up
You chose to use the word accelerating, but you honestly do not know if net feedbacks are positive , negative , negligible or quite impactful
Yet you allowed your bias to assume they are positive and accelerating

BTW
1. There are both positive and negative possible feedbacks
ie more water evaporating into the atmosphere results in more cloud formation. During the daytime more clouds theortically blocks more incoming solar radiation
During the nighttime theoretically it slows the radiation of IR energy transmission out of the atmosphere
High altitude cloud formation should theoretically be a negative, with lower altitude clouds being a theoretical positive
In addition more water vapour in the atmosphere would lead to more rain which cools the surface down
Changing water vapour in the atmosphere very likely has impacts on convection and turbulent air flows. Convection is one of the primary drivers of thermal energy transfer (Hot air rises)

Who knows what are the net impacts of all of these interactions?
You? I do not think so
Climate modelers? Nope

Modelling fluid and cloud dynamics is not key to making accurate climate models.
Try again.

Climatologist have a clear understanding, you couldn't even get the basics correct reading a high school level chart on solar radiation.
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthrea...predictions)&p=6715395&viewfull=1#post6715395

IPCC Clouds and Aerosols

 

[JohnLarue]

Someone does not seem to understand what 'On Ignore: FrankFooter" means

 

[Frankfooter]

Someone does not seem to understand what 'On Ignore: FrankFooter" means

Just testing to see if a scientific theory can stand up to debate or if you have to run away and hide or try to silence your critics.
Its the scientific method at work.

Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss

 

[JohnLarue]

Roman Inquisition definition of a "Heritic" in 1633 = Global Warming Alarmist definition of a "Denier" in 2020.

Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss

On Ignore: FrankFooter

 

[Frankfooter]

Roman Inquisition definition of a "Heritic" in 1633 = Global Warming Alarmist definition of a "Denier" in 2020.

Any scientific theory that can not stand up to questioning, opposing views or debate and instead relies on silencing of its critics is not worth a bucket of piss

On Ignore: science

Clearly someone's attempt at a scientific 'theory' can't stand up to debate.
Obviously one person's theories on this board aren't worth a bucket of piss.

 

[K Douglas]

So will you.

But are you sure you actually read the article?

“essentially, the data reveals that two months of significantly reduced human activity did not make a dent in the damage we’ve done to the planet. It ultimately confirms that nothing short of wholesale systemic change will do – with the rejection of fossil fuels at the heart of that transformation.”

I don't need to read the article to know that CO2 is a net environmental benefit. As such I do not believe we have done any damage to the planet. And I don't care whether the CO2 is man made or natural as long as there's more of it.

 

[Frankfooter]

I don't need to read the article to know that CO2 is a net environmental benefit. As such I do not believe we have done any damage to the planet. And I don't care whether the CO2 is man made or natural as long as there's more of it.

Interesting theory.
I suggest proving through the use of a plastic bag and some duct tape.
Let us know how much you benefit from increased CO2 levels.

 

[basketcase]

The whole feedback loop argument is based upon the premise that atmospheric CO2 is the driver for any warming of the oceans....

Regardless of what you think caused ocean warming in the first place:
it is causing more CO2 to be released from the ocean into the air --> increase atmospheric temperature --> increased ocean temperatures
it is causing sea ice to melt --> changes albedo--> more energy absorbed rather than reflected - atmosphere warms --> increased ocean temperatures

And a couple not based on water
land ice melts --> albedo changes --> land warms --> more land ice melts
permafrost melts --> methane and CO2 released from it --> atmospheric warming --> more permafrost melts.

Who knows what are the net impacts of all of these interactions?

I don't know them all but there are some very knowledgeable people who study it and even though they don't know everything, they know a fair bit. More importantly and despite all of your posturing, ignoring all the science on climate change because there are some things we haven't completely figured out is like dismissing evolution because we can't explain all the mechanism of mutations.