Posted on 05/31/2012 8:27:32 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (AP) — The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.
Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace. Years ago, it passed the 350 ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.
So far, only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will follow soon.
"The fact that it's 400 is significant," said Jim Butler, global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, Colo. "It's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this and we're still in trouble."
Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and most of it lasts about 100 years in the air, but some of it stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the Industrial Age, levels were around 275 parts per million.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
and I still need to post a Nascar race thread. talk about a disaster in the making. ;-]
Last I heard the “tippping point” was going to come in 2008. Since its too late now anyhow maybe these chicken littles will please just shut up an go away.
We are all gona' die!!!
What’s changed since 2008?
Obama took office, that’s what. We shall all blame Obama, it happened under his watch.
Air bubbles in Cretaceous amber show that CO2 levels then were around 3,200 ppm.
Hey, pal......I’ve got your CO2 home removal kit right here. Don’t crowd...plenty to go around.
Is something carrying CO2 to the arctic, but not to the antarctic? Or failing to absorb it in one locale but not the other? Le Chatelier’s [sp?] principle would suggest that, like chilling a fizzy Coke, you’d absorb more carbon dioxide in the water in the arctic (so long as there was open liquid water available to do so). So there should be less of the stuff in the arctic, not more.
” - - - carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.”
WRONG!
There is no known cause and effect between a change in the CO2 content in the atmosphere and a change in the temperature of the atmosphere.
Yup. “Gaia” has survived far greater atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, and she has come back from it smelling like a rose. The hard question is how can you manage to kill the earth, not how can you keep from killing it.
LOL! Who wrote this, an eighth grader?
IOW.....we’re perpetuating the concocted MYTH....so those RICH countries will forgive those POOR countries their debt and shift $$$$ to them through a ‘Robin Hood Tax’ (i.e. ‘Carbon Exchange’).
Even more to the point CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. All the models require that CO2 merely act as a trigger to up H20 levels which is what actually causes the real temperature change. You can double atmospheric CO2 and get only a 1 C increase in temperature.
The best theoretical (not hyperventilated empirical) principles suggest a weak heat trapping effect from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide that is logarithmic. To double the effect requires far more than twice the amount of carbon dioxide. And other entities such as methane and plain old water vapor vastly dominate the heat trapping effects of the atmosphere.
There is a theoretical cause and effect, but it’s so small that it would get lost in the chaotic noise of normal natural processes.
But they never let facts get in the way.
/johnny
I believe I read or heard a few days ago that a construction project of some kind on Alaska’s north slope had to be postponed due to uncommonly thick ice.
????????????????
But again, as more water vapor gets into the air, there are more clouds, whose tops reflect sunlight away from the planet! So it’s by no means a simplistic issue. Science as we know it has too little data to make anything but SWAGs (slyentific wild arse guesses).
Do these idiots not realize how close .04% is to zero?
As an agent necessary to plant growth, it's an alarmingly low level, especially when compared to 78% for Nitrogen
F-in Yahoo is aptly named. They are also heavily invested in the global warming scam or just plain stupid enviro idiots who just jumped off a Whale War boat.
No, it isn't. It is just a number from an arbitrary numbering system, measuring in arbitrary units. The number has no natural, intrinsic significance whatsoever. However, it does help "sell" the AGW agenda to make it sound "significant."
Some carbon dioxide is natural...
Well, I guess that depends on your definition of "some." To me, I might go with "an overwhelming majority of" instead. You see, as I understand it, 97% of the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources. Yes, 97%, not a typo. We contribute just under 3%... 97%, yeah, that's "some" from natural sources...
It’s all those factories, cars, and CO2 exhaling humans in the ARCTIC causing the levels to rise there. Must be, because that is what they say is the cause of all this, humans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.