Rising Levels of CO2, So?

So, here’s a question. I will grant based on research from Mauna Loa and the South Pole that CO2 levels are rising. In fact,

Precise measurements of atmospheric CO2 at the South Pole have been obtained by Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) researchers since 1957. This record is based primarily on biweekly flask sampling. The SIO CO2 record from the South Pole shows that annual-fitted averages of atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 314.78 ppmv in 1958 to 374.61 ppmv in 2004. This represents an average annual increase of 1.3 ppmv per year.

The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004. The 1997-1998 increase in the annual growth rate of 2.87 ppmv represets the largest single yearly jump since the Mauna Loa record began in 1958. This represents an average annual increase of 1.4 ppmv per year. This is smaller than the average annual increase at the other stations because of the longer record and inclusion of earlier (smaller) annual increases.

I have included the information so we know that Mauna Loa is not a fluke, like some have suggested, measuring CO2 from the top of an active volcano. This is the famous chart we have all seen from Mauna Loa research:

and this chart incorporates the Mauna Loa data and goes back to 1820:

Now notice around 1940 and 1820, CO2 levels rose sharply, just as today. We are currently at approximately 380 PPM, 1940 it looks like about 425 PPM and about the same for 1820. And there was a rapid rise to the high level, again just like today. The advocates of global warming look at the Mauna Loa numbers and see only bad news. How is today unlike 1940 and 1820? Also, please explain to me why Oregon had some of the worst winters in my lifetime in the 1940s when CO2 was so high? Can we infer from this brief history that high CO2 levels will again lead to bad winters? Someone help me out! What’s different this time?

Rising CO2 Levels Global Warming Mover Mike

7 Responses to “Rising Levels of CO2, So?”

  1. Never let facts interfere with a politically driven agenda, that’s the difference.

  2. Easy to refute. You’re wrong Mike.

    As I have pointed out before, which you’ll callously ignore like all loving republicans do, the clearly stated the following:

    – “Recent atmospheric measurements (Mauna Loa) are shown for comparison….The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 280 ppm5 in 1750 to 367 ppm in 1999 (31%, Table 1). Today’s CO2 concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely not during the past 20 million years.”

    – Do you want more Mikey? How about this? “The rate of increase over the past century is unprecedented, at least during the past 20,000 years.”

    – How about this? “Compared to the relatively stable CO2 concentrations (280 ± 10 ppm) of the preceding several thousand years, the increase during the Industrial Era is dramatic. The average rate of increase since 1980 is 0.4%/yr. The increase is a consequence of CO2 emissions. Most of the emissions during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning, the rest (10 to 30%) is predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation.”

    – “Direct atmospheric measurements of CO2 concentrations made over the past 40 years show that year to year fluctuations in the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 are large. In the 1990s, the annual rates of CO2 increase in the atmosphere varied from 0.9 to 2.8 ppm/yr, equivalent to 1.9 to 6.0 PgC/yr. Such annual changes can be related statistically to short-term climate variability, which alters the rate at which atmospheric CO2 is taken up and released by the oceans and land. The highest rates of increase in atmospheric CO2 have typically been in strong El Niño years “

    – OH! This is a nice graph Mikey, it blows your little jpg out of the water. Why don’t you take a look and see.

    But, all of this is a complete waste of my time. Why? Because I’m intimately in tune with how you and yours operates.

    Republican strategy is

    1) Deny,

    2) Attack anyone who questions you or your logic,

    3) Ignore all reasoning and facts presented,

    4) Dismiss facts when ignoring doesn’t work,

    5) Never actually argue or debate, simply present your point and either ignore or shoot holes in your opponents points.

    6) When in doubt, resort to ridicule,

    7) Follow up with a lie to smear your opponent, add Ad Hominem with one to two pounds of Hyperbole, add salt and pepper to taste, then disengage… rinse and repeat with next opponent, add ridicule to your desire as needed.

    I can battle you on this topic for years Mikey. Simply because you’re wrong and you prefer to have your head shoved into the ground instead of actually looking at real data.

  3. Ok.. your stupid blog site is sticky and has some sort of spyware and won’t let me preview the stupid post. Why don’t you use Blogge or WordPress like everyone else.

    The initial link for my source is right here.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/taroldest/wg1/016.htm

    The first paragraph was to have read:

    “As I have pointed out before, which you’ll callously ignore like all loving republicans do, the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC) clearly stated the following:

  4. Now Batman, I don’t know how badly you want to continue to comment on my blog, but the way you have conducted yourself so far, if it continues, will get you banned.

    I am well aware of this study:STUDY

    and You should be aware of this STUDY:

    You went back 20 million years. Well 25 million years ago CO2 was a lot higher and in the last 175 million years CO2 was as high as 2700 ppm. (There are no surviving records that show how many autos were around at the time.) That’s eight times higher than today. Clearly something was at work, and it wasn’t man that caused it to go that high and then that low. While the breakout from the last 650,000 year channel is significant, I remain unconvinced that it is man’s doing.

  5. Oh, thanks the reminder. I forgot one step:

    8) When you’re unable to work with logic anymore, simply ban your oponent.

    Your stance is the same as 18th century Catholics who didn’t want to hear any anti-Catholic Dogma, and I’m the heretic. “Get thee behind me satan! Burn the witch, burn the witch.” They would simply burn you at the stake… but just like today, that still doesn’t change the truth.

    You’ll be doing me a favor if you ban be. It’ll save me time and I can get more work done. As I said, this site has spyware on it, my PC-Cillin anti-virus yells at me every time I come here and actually shuts down IE when I’m here.

    In response to your link… my resource is the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC). Yours is a Verizon personal account.

    Would you like to try again? Maybe you can provide something to actually refute the global warming statement I put forward by the international agency of labcoats.

    You basically resort to, “Global warming does not exist because an Ice Age is happening now and that proves it.” Interesting how you don’t respond to the actual issues that I pointed out in the links.

    Such as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the rate at which CO2 levels grow etc. Or do I have to go back 35 million years to get your attention sice 20 million is obviously not far enough?

    Your argument also is nothing more than, “High CO2 levels? So what, it was much higher 20 million years ago. So what?” As if there is no consequence to increasing CO2 levels.

    You remain unconvinced because you refuse to acknowledge anything put in front of you. Do you actually consider the information in front of you or do you just go for another graph

  6. Dear Batman, do you actually read your s–t after you write it and do you actually read what I write? I wrote in the opening sentence, I will grant based on research from Mauna Loa and the South Pole that CO2 levels are rising.

    My question concerns 1820 and 1940 when using a different way to measure CO2 levels. The IPCC chose to disregard 90,000 data points from 1812 to 1957because it didn’t fit with the IPCC and Keeling global warming mindset. Sure CO2 lwevels are rising and they are higher than at anytime in the last 650,000 years, based on ice core analysis. They are higher than at any time in the last 25 million years, based on our present state of the art methods of analysing our environment. But levels in the last 175 million years were an order of magnitude higher than today. WHY? And … since the connection between CO2 and temperature is broken, CO2 buildup does not lead temperature, what’s the point of this whole discussion?

    And BTW, you little pissant, you are banned from commenting on this website! Boy that feels good.

  7. I know that pissant ‘Batman Tempest’ can’t comment but I would like to make one point, who would you rather believe, a huge politically driven governmental organization under the UN (the most globalist, f&*^&^n deceiving organization out there) or a independant, free thinking researchers. I will never trust anything the UN backs because there whole purpose is a one world government and I’m against that, therefore I’m against anything they push. Also, in the ‘International’ version of the Great Global Warming Swindle, they make the great basic problems with the theory of man-made global warming, you should watch that movie, watch the ABC debate on it and how they don’t answer any conflicting questions and how they mock people whenever they mention how the environmentalist movement was started by the eugenics people like Julian Huxley and Prince Philippe.

Discussion Area - Leave a Comment




Copyright © 2007 Mover Mike. Design by Anthony Baggett.