Page 16 of 25

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Sat 08 Apr 2017, 09:17:59
by Midnight Oil
It's too FUNNY, I can't stop laughing...thanks ROCKMAN!

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Sat 08 Apr 2017, 13:28:21
by Cid_Yama
What is the sock puppet on about? Is it meant to be sarcasm that's not translating?

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Mon 10 Apr 2017, 07:28:18
by Tanada

Week beginning on April 2, 2017: 407.60 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 406.19 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 385.82 ppm

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Mon 10 Apr 2017, 10:21:34
by Newfie
Cid_Yama wrote:What is the sock puppet on about? Is it meant to be sarcasm that's not translating?


Just ignore it and let it be. You have better things to write about. :-D

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Wed 12 Apr 2017, 12:16:52
by Midnight Oil
Yep, just IGNORE my previous post before that one, you got better things to do like post digits.

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Wed 12 Apr 2017, 17:16:43
by dissident
Midnight Oil wrote:Yep, just IGNORE my previous post before that one, you got better things to do like post digits.


Because pptv level measurements of trace atmospheric gases are unknown? To you maybe.

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Thu 13 Apr 2017, 16:36:30
by onlooker
http://www.noaa.gov/news/carbon-dioxide ... aight-year
Carbon dioxide levels rose at record pace for 2nd straight year

Not good

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Thu 13 Apr 2017, 17:36:30
by Squilliam
The reason for the jump is El-Nino. Although it does beg the question about how long the various sinks are going to keep sucking down the CO2 at the current rate. Even as emissions stabilize (not increase) the amount of CO2 increase is continuing to increase. Eventually feedbacks and saturation of the current sinks will have to cause the CO2 increase to accelerate.

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Thu 13 Apr 2017, 17:42:29
by onlooker
Squilliam wrote:The reason for the jump is El-Nino. Although it does beg the question about how long the various sinks are going to keep sucking down the CO2 at the current rate. Even as emissions stabilize (not increase) the amount of CO2 increase is continuing to increase. Eventually feedbacks and saturation of the current sinks will have to cause the CO2 increase to accelerate.

Sqil El Nino yes, but the increasing as been steadily increasing as well documented on this thread

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Thu 13 Apr 2017, 17:46:51
by Squilliam
Yep I know -- and I stated that. The CO2 increase is likely to return to ~2.xppm per year in the short to medium term.

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Fri 14 Apr 2017, 05:27:24
by Tanada
April 12: 409.17 ppm
April 11: 409.14 ppm
April 10: Unavailable
April 09: Unavailable
April 08: 407.78 ppm

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Fri 14 Apr 2017, 10:48:27
by ROCKMAN
d - There you go: an excellent way to communicate a serious situation. Much thanks.

As far as tears (and verbiage) go they don't appear to be accomplishing a f*cking thing. A point easily illustrated by your chart. LOL.

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Sun 16 Apr 2017, 12:14:38
by Tanada

Week beginning on April 9, 2017: 408.85 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 408.81 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 385.82 ppm

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Sun 16 Apr 2017, 12:16:12
by Tanada
We are still below 410 and things are now greening up nicely. We may actually be lower than my expectation for peak level in May at this rate.

April 15: 409.05 ppm
April 14: 409.11 ppm
April 13: 407.80 ppm
April 12: 409.17 ppm
April 11: 409.14 ppm

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Apr 2017, 19:00:02
by onlooker
http://www.johnenglander.net/co2-levels ... on-events/
It is still hard to project the rate of change, due to the extremely fast change of CO2 levels in modern times. Dr. James Hansen, a leading climate expert points out in his book “Storms of My Grandchildren” that at the current rate CO2 will increase one hundred ppm in approximately 40 years. During past periods of abrupt change — the most recent one occurring approximately 50 million years ago — it took roughly a million years for CO2 to change by one hundred ppm. Thus it is now changing about 25,000 times faster than in known geologic history.

PRETTY SHOCKING

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Thu 20 Apr 2017, 01:39:59
by Tanada
April 18: Unavailable
April 17: 409.19 ppm
April 16: 409.52 ppm
April 15: 409.05 ppm
April 14: 409.11 ppm

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Fri 21 Apr 2017, 16:06:34
by dohboi
Soooo, any day now we should get a daily reading of 210 or more (unless that momentous event has already happened and I missed it).

Any guesses/bets when?

I'd say that it looks quite likely within a week or so.

...
meanwhile:
http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/04 ... ng-records

Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards, smashing records

and rs recently noted:

the present annual delta from 2016 to 2017 for the first three months is 2.8 ppm CO2 increase — which is below the 3 ppm annual increase rates from 2015 to 2016. But it is still significantly higher than the past average range of around 2.2 ppm per year


so we do seem to have already kicked into a higher rate of increase, in spite of stories of plateauing emissions.

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Sat 22 Apr 2017, 08:50:59
by Tanada
April 21: 409.66 ppm
April 20: 409.82 ppm
April 19: 409.95 ppm
April 18: Unavailable
April 17: 409.19 ppm

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Sat 22 Apr 2017, 09:35:20
by dohboi
So I guess...since we have determined that a few hundredths of a ppm are not significant...perhaps we should count the figure 409.95 as statistically indistinguishable from 410 and call it a day?

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postPosted: Sat 22 Apr 2017, 09:50:20
by Tanada
dohboi wrote:So I guess...since we have determined that a few hundredths of a ppm are not significant...perhaps we should count the figure 409.95 as statistically indistinguishable from 410 and call it a day?


Historically we still have 3-6 weeks left before we peak for the 2017 year.