154 thoughts on “What 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere looks like

  1. Wow! 400 ppm. Then I better put a warning here. To those of you from southern locations visiting us up north for the first time, those dancing lights in the night sky is NOT the world burning up. Those are Northern Lights. Nothing to panic over. That is very normal.

  2. Dogs RULE!

    Heh, heh, thanks for the chuckle, An–th–y (so won’t go to Spam bin).

    Aaand, What Algore THINKS (vs. merely “says”) it looks like = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  3. A little dated & not a Topher-quality on screen performance, but still valid.

  4. Well, Y2K really DID have the potential for a lot of systems to fail — but people mobilized, lots of old COBOL programmers went to work, “year” fields in databases and software were expanded to four digits, and it ended up having virtually no impact at all (although I did convince my wife to install a 20KVA natural-gas generator in the backyard “just in case” :-).

    CO2 at 400ppm has NO such potential, and so to compare it to Y2K is really giving it more credit than it deserves.

  5. Thanks for sharing the nicely done video — it gets its point across just fine.

    BUT….. those tiny red things are MAGIC BEANS and, well, you know what MAGIC can do. @_@ Mm, hm. Pretty much anything.

    LOL

  6. DavidG says:
    May 7, 2013 at 4:23 pm
    ———————————

    Not sure what you mean, David, but the last glacial advance ended around just 11,400 years ago, although technically we’re still in a glacial period of geologic history. Ppm of CO2 at the last glacial maximum (c. 20,000 ya) was near plant starvation level of 150 (maybe 190 ppm).

    There have been other glaciations since CO2 was as high as 4000 ppm. I wonder if you’re thinking of the Ordovician Glaciation, which may have started with CO2 as high as 8000 ppm. During the Carboniferous/Permian glaciation, it was higher than during the Pleistocene, but by how much is controversial. One estimate is as low as 313-344 ppm.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12235372

  7. Toby Nixon says: May 7, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    …(although I did convince my wife to install a 20KVA natural-gas generator in the backyard “just in case” :-).

    Stroke of genius, that. Did you tell her you needed some tools, to go along with it?

  8. David G

    Any links on that info about co2 4000 ppm at the end of the last glaciation, I haven’t heard that before.

    Thanks

  9. Imagine a square meter (1,000,000mm) one millimeter thick. Now color the square millimeter free space around each of the 400 CO2 molecules so you can see what it looks like to a photon traveling at the speed of light. Also, consider what the probability of that photon actually striking one of those molecules rather than passing through the free space or non-absorbing gas molecules.Then continue the process through the millions of such air thicknesses that are expanding in volumn with altitude. Now introduce water vapor and all those other photons and you may be able to imagine a model that may give you some idea of the possible effect of CO2 on the rate of energy loss to space.

  10. Was that just some random unqualified dog or was that an esteemed member of the Union of Concerned and Bedwetting Scientists?

  11. Looks like warmer weather in Kalamazoo, MI, than in Richmond, VA, leaves bursting from twigs, flowers in bloom, clear water in the lakes and lots of bugs collecting on the front of the car. If that is climate disaster, I’ll take it. If it is just a warm spell, I’ll just enjoy it.

  12. Anthony, it’s worse than I thought. I had a sinus headache when I awoke this morning, and it’s persisted all day. Must’ve been caused by 400ppm. [sarc off]

  13. I believe that for plants the ideal point is around 1,000 to 2,000 PPM depending on the plant. Above that the plant can process any more CO2. Thus as we go above 400 PPM, plants continue to do better in terms of growth. Simple logic says that as we go higher in CO2, the plants create a negative feedback system to lower the CO2 level. After all, increased growth results in more plant material pulling CO2 from the air.

    This does raise an interesting point, IF we go above 2,000 PPM, wouldn’t the increased CO2 avoid the negative feedback increase from plants? Now that we should worry, it would take a long long time to reach that point.

  14. 400ppm!!! Pffft. 450ppm pffft. Here are the devastating effects of over 1,200ppm. This is why those vegetarian dinosaurs of the Jurassic could not find any vegetation to eat. This is why the biosphere is greeningnot. Grrrrr!

    “Effects of Rapid Global Warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundary on Neotropical Vegetation”
    “….We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa, mostly angiosperms, added to the existing stock of low-diversity Paleocene flora. There is no evidence for enhanced aridity in the northern Neotropics. …”

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1193833

    Please avert your eyes.

  15. DavidG says:
    May 7, 2013 at 4:23 pm
    “At the height of the last glaciation Carbon was 4000 ppm, end of story.”

    Wrong.

    The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) was between 26,500 and 19,000–20,000 years ago, and CO2 was not only not 4000 ppm, it was far below today’s value.

    The last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,” according to UCLA’s department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

    JP

    [You are reminded: Use only ONE login_id per email address. Mod]

  16. Co2 at 400ppm or 500ppm or even 900ppm will cause total madness. These people must think we are idiots.

    “…a 30-minute exposure at 50,000 ppm produces signs of intoxication,… ”

    http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/124389.html

    By the way, 10 times the current level of co2 failed to stop the Ordovician ice age.

  17. What does 400ppm look like?

    For many farmers in the Northern Hemisphere, it means one of the coldest and longest winters in recorded history, delayed planting, greatly reduced crop yields, higher crop prices and for consumers, higher food prices.

    It also means record late “Spring” snowstorms in Canada and the US and it means I’m still wearing my winter jacket as of May 08 on the beach south of Tokyo, when I usually need to be running my air-conditioner by this time of the year…..

    When I mention this to friends, they simply mention the old bromide that, “weather isn’t climate”. When I reply that there hasn’t been any statistically significant warming into the 17th year, my friends reply with the new meme, “The last 10 years are ranked the highest in human history! What am I talking about?”

    And so it goes…..until it doesn’t….

  18. Bob Diaz says:
    May 7, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    Bob, Your figures may be right for some plants, but certainly not all. Additionally, plants only do better with more CO2 if there is a concomitant rise in water and sunlight. How plants react to increased CO2 is inextricably related to many climate factors. The University of Arizona has done some great research on the subject that you might be interested in.

    Like all Earth systems, it’s way more complicated than saying plants like more CO2. JP

  19. Three cheers for CO2 – more plant food to help the 2 billion desperately poor and the 1 billion extremely poor to feed themselves.
    US Congress’ mandating corn to fuel is starving the extremely poor. ~192,000 in 2010 and more since.
    Indur Goklany, Could Biofuel Policies Increase Death and Disease in Developing Countries

    The National Academy of Sciences estimated that globally biofuels expansion accounted for 20-40% of the price increases seen in 2007-8, when prices of many food crops doubled. Net-food-importing developing countries were particularly hard-hit. In an earlier paper, we estimated that from 2006-2011 U.S. ethanol expansion cost Mexico about $1.5 billion due to ethanol-related corn price increases. Here we apply the same methodology to estimate the global impacts. We estimate the six-year costs to net corn importing countries at $11.6 billion, with developing countries absorbing more than half of those costs. We examine the negative impacts on the poor in net corn exporting countries. We recommend reforms to U.S. biofuels policies.. . .
    A number of Arab and Northern African countries that have experienced social unrest in recent years – Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Libya – also experienced high ethanol-related costs, perhaps an indicator of the contribution of rising food prices to political instability. . . .
    With poverty rates at 65% and extreme poverty at 38%, there is little question that U.S. ethanol expansion contributes to poverty and food insecurity in this net corn exporting country (Uganda), albeit in ways that are difficult to quantify because of the difficulties associated with estimating price transmission accurately.. . .
    If the U.S. ethanol mandate is effectively taking back the value of U.S. food and agricultural assistance to developing countries, then U.S. biofuels policies are potentially undermining our own aid goals.

    Timothy A. Wise, The Cost to Developing Countries of U.S. Corn Ethanol Expansion, GDAE Working Paper No. 12-02, October 2012

    Conclusion: “Green policy” = Fatten the rich to starve the poor to buy votes.

  20. Here’s another way to look at it.

    Atmosphere = 100%. CO2 = 0.0004% (about as much interest my bank is currently paying on a savings account). It has increased 0.00005% in the last 150 years or an average of 0.00000033% per year.

  21. fhhaynie says

    FH, you don’t need to model every atom of water in a tea kettle to know it gets hot when you put it on the stove. JP

  22. Brian R says:
    May 7, 2013 at 6:19 pm
    “Here’s another way to look at it.”

    And here’s another: Your cup of tea=99.99% H2O, Ricin= .0004%. Your dead. JP

  23. Jumbo, By the way, I personally corresponded with Dr. Berner about the outdated (his words) graph of his that you showed. He said that we have learned that the values shown are far from those of research done since his work years ago. Talk to him yourself. he’s a nice guy. JP

  24. John Parsons wrote;

    “The last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,”

    CORRELATION is such a cool toy, like a Frisbee ™ but so much more powerful, I don’t remember anybody predicting if it will rain tomorrow based on were the Frisbee landed today.

    So far for every day of my adult life the Sun was up within an hour or two (plus or minus a tad bit) of the time I woke up. You should all be grateful I am an early riser. I would hate to see you all in the dark until I woke up. Oh jeeeze what happens if I ever switch to the night shift ? /sarc off

    Cheers, Kevin

  25. atarsinc says:
    May 7, 2013 at 6:24 pm
    Brian R says:
    May 7, 2013 at 6:19 pm
    “Here’s another way to look at it.”

    And here’s another: Your cup of tea=99.99% H2O, Ricin= .0004%. Your dead. JP

    Ricin is a deadly toxin. CO2 is essential for life; lots more is fine. You’re [correct construction] a troll.

    /Mr Lynn

  26. Maybe it could have another box, “what the global thermometer thinks …” showing the IPCC temp models vs data. Perhaps lengthwise, along the bottom.

  27. @David Hagen –
    192,000 dead sounds like mass murder to me (that ain’t all – just 2010 alone).
    The ethanol program proceeds from global warming alarmism.
    Global warming alarmism is mass murder.
    Therefore, the ethanol program is mass murder.
    Global warming alarmists are mass murderers.
    They should be dealt with accordingly.

  28. And what the EU carbon price thinks it looks like, as an exploding bomb, if you need another box to balance.

  29. KevinK says

    I won’t pretend to understand all of your “sarcasm”. But regarding the correlation: THAT was the topic. David brought up the correlation and I showed that THAT correlation was incorrect.

    JP

  30. data doesnt ‘look like’ that. you need from zero on vertical axis to see ‘looks like’

  31. Chad Wozniak says: Global Warming Alarmists are “mass murders” and should be “dealt with accordingly”. Pray tell, Chad, how would you suggest they be “dealt with”? JP

  32. A link I’ve provided before….

    http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

    “Ambient CO2 level in outside air is about 340 ppm by volume. All plants grow well at this level but as CO2 levels are raised by 1,000 ppm photosynthesis increases proportionately resulting in more sugars and carbohydrates available for plant growth. Any actively growing crop in a tightly clad greenhouse with little or no ventilation can readily reduce the CO2 level during the day to as low as 200 ppm. The decrease in photosynthesis when CO2 level drops from 340 ppm to 200 ppm is similar to the increase when the CO2 levels are raised from 340 to about 1,300 ppm (Figure 1). As a rule of thumb, a drop in carbon dioxide levels below ambient has a stronger effect than supplementation above ambient.

    During particular times of the year in new greenhouses, and especially in double-glazed structures that have reduced air exchange rates, the carbon dioxide levels can easily drop below 340 ppm which has a significant negative effect on the crop. Ventilation during the day can raise the CO2 levels closer to ambient but never back to ambient levels of 340 ppm. Supplementation of CO2 is seen as the only method to overcome this deficiency and increasing the level above 340 ppm is beneficial for most crops.

    The level to which the CO2 concentration should be raised depends on the crop, light intensity, temperature, ventilation, stage of the crop growth and the economics of the crop. For most crops the saturation point will be reached at about 1,000–1,300 ppm under ideal circumstances. A lower level (800–1,000 ppm) is recommended for raising seedlings (tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers) as well as for lettuce production. Even lower levels (500–800 ppm) are recommended for African violets and some Gerbera varieties. Increased CO2 levels will shorten the growing period (5%–10%), improve crop quality and yield, as well as, increase leaf size and leaf thickness. The increase in yield of tomato, cucumber and pepper crops is a result of increased numbers and faster flowering per plant.”

  33. 400 parts per million:
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXOXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

  34. Mr Lynn says:

    The point is not that ricin is healthy. The point is: assuming that, because the absolute value of a substance is small, it is therefore inconsequential, is not a good assumption.

    Someone is not a “troll” just because you disagree with their position. I won’t call you names. I would appreciate the same courtesy. JP

  35. Toby Nixon says:
    May 7, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    Well, Y2K really DID have the potential for a lot of systems to fail
    ———————————–
    No, it did not. Countries such as Italy, Russia, and South Korea had done little to prepare for Y2K, but even there nothing happened.

  36. Robert in Calgary says:

    Robert, that was a really interesting post. Thank You for providing useful information without the sarcasm, the name calling and snide remarks. JP

  37. atarsinc says:
    May 7, 2013 at 6:16 pm
    Bob Diaz says:
    May 7, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    Bob, Your figures may be right for some plants, but certainly not all. Additionally, plants only do better with more CO2 if there is a concomitant rise in water and sunlight.

    I thought from reading this site they actually consumed less water, because they could reduce the size of their stomata to capture CO2, thereby lessening the water they transpired.

  38. SAMURAI says:
    May 7, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    When I reply that there hasn’t been any statistically significant warming into the 17th year, my friends reply with the new meme, “The last 10 years are ranked the highest in human history! What am I talking about?

    Reply that while that is true, it is also the case that according to RSS, 3 of the last 5 years were not even in the top 10.

    (2012 at 0.192 was 11th; 2011 at 0.147 was 13th; and 2008 at 0.049 was 22nd.)

  39. Tom J says:
    May 7, 2013 at 5:13 pm

    Tom J, I like your thinking.

  40. All of you are wacko… plain wacko. Flat-Earther wacko. Sea levels are already rising, the Northern polar cap will be gone during the summer before 2100 (or much earlier than that), Greenland is literally melting away, world wide, glaciers are disappearing… the list goes on and on. This website would be as funny as the flat-Earthers’, if you people weren’t so obstructive. I swear, I can see ostrich plumes blossoming out of everyone of your rear ends.

    REPLY: We think highly of you too, Sean Pedersen. – Anthony

  41. Roger Knights says:

    Good point Rodger. The absolute level of H2O increases, but the ratio of H2O to CO2 decreases. But I’m not an expert and these are very generalized statements. As you can see from Robert’s post, different varieties of plants (ie. species) respond differently. Some plants are susceptible to CO2 poisoning. Not all plants even use the same photosynthetic process (C2, C3, C4). And most importantly, CO2 obviously doesn’t just effect photosynthesis. What it does to the climate in its (climate’s) totality is what’s important. We can’t simply say more CO2 is good for all plants under all circumstances. JP

  42. Where do I get the “I survived….” motto on a t-shirt? I would wear it proudly.

  43. atarsinc says:
    May 7, 2013 at 7:21 pm
    Mr Lynn says:

    The point is not that ricin is healthy. The point is: assuming that, because the absolute value of a substance is small, it is therefore inconsequential, is not a good assumption.

    Someone is not a “troll” just because you disagree with their position. I won’t call you names. I would appreciate the same courtesy. JP

    The implicit comparison of the small quantity of a beneficial substance like CO2 to that of a very dangerous toxin is disingenuous to a fault, and typical of trollish provocations, and therefore a reasonable conclusion, not name-calling (besides having a certain symmetry with “your [sic] dead”).

    /Mr Lynn

  44. Moderator,

    I have tried everything to get WordPress to log me in as John Parsons. Ever since WUWT went over to WordPress, sometimes it logs me in as “atarsinc” even though I log in under my name. I used an AKA for quite some time to avoid confusion, and will do so again if you wish. But I simply can’t get WordPress to give up using half my email address as my log in name.

    John Parsons is my real name and ATARS, Inc. is my company’s name. No subterfuge and nothing nefarious. If I can do something more, just let me know.

    Sincerely, John Parsons

    REPLY: Don’t worry about it – Anthony

  45. Totally off topic but since some wild numbers are being thrown around… Ricin is actually not so toxic when taken orally. In the example above you would survive easily.

  46. Okay all, it is important that we all keep ourselves clean. We do not want any hints of a scandal. We constantly reveal the scientific errors of the warmists, so we must stay beyond evaluation.

    Sooooooo, what are these rumors that Anthony’s dog, supposedly named “K..;.”, or something similar. Are the rumors true that “K….” has been named the most knowledgeable scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists?

    Are the dogs taking over at UCS?

    (Oh. it used to be called “Union of Confused Scientists” before K…. joined….)

    Too funny.

  47. Frederick Michael @ 8:35 pm May 7, 2013

    says:

    “400 PPM is 0.04%, not 0.0004%, right?”

    Wrong.

  48. “… [CO2] would take a long long time to reach that point… .” [Bob Diaz at 5:54PM on 5/7/13]

    BUT, if you had that hamburger for lunch today as you promised yesterday…. we are a WHOLE LOT closer! [per Sirota of Salon, May, 2013]

    *************
    You know, a lot of you guys regularly post some devastatingly brilliant arguments resoundingly exposing the Cult of Climatology for the farce it is, but nobody can top the Mountainman. Nobody. LOL

  49. acementhead says:
    May 7, 2013 at 9:41 pm

    Frederick Michael @ 8:35 pm May 7, 2013 says:

    “400 PPM is 0.04%, not 0.0004%, right?”

    Wrong.

    400 ppm = 0.000400. Times 100 to convert to percent: 0.04%.

  50. Higher levels of carbon dioxide also make plants more drought resistant.

  51. “””””…..Toby Nixon says:

    May 7, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    Well, Y2K really DID have the potential for a lot of systems to fail — but people mobilized, lots of old COBOL programmers went to work, “year” fields in databases and software were expanded to four digits, and it ended up having virtually no impact at all (although I did convince my wife to install a 20KVA natural-gas generator in the backyard “just in case” :-). …..”””””

    Surely you don’t imagine that there were enough people and businesses, or infrastructure elements, that were so locked into the day’s date or time on some computer, that anything that was actually “done” about Y2K really made any difference.

    In the Microsoft part of the world, that largest and most unrobust computer virus, known as “windows”, is so buggy, that people are used to it going down daily, and M$ will paste a new layer of band aids on it twice weekly, so nobody actually depends on it to make any critical decisions.

    Y2K was more media hype, than any real threat to anything. My computers are all turned off, unless I am actually typing something, and they are all hardware disconnected from any network, including the internet, unless I am actively searching for something, and I disconnect the moment I find what I want or if I do not.

    The mongrel on the carpet, was more hazarded by fleas in the mat, than by Y2K

  52. atarsinc says:
    May 7, 2013 at 6:24 pm
    And here’s another: Your cup of tea=99.99% H2O, Ricin= .0004%. Your dead. JP

    Maybe you should do more research before you post.
    For an lethal oral dose of Ricin your looking at 20-30 milligrams per kilogram. So for a 180 pound man you would need at a minimum of 1.6 grams of ricin. 1.6 grams is a little less then a ounce of water. So my 6 ounce cup of tea would need to be, well 1/6 ricin to be lethal. That’s 0.16667% or about 416 times more than your 0.0004%. At a ricin concentration of 400ppm I would have to drink about 16 gallons of tea at one sitting. I would die from water poisoning long before the ricin got me.

  53. “theMountinman says:
    May 7, 2013 at 8:15 pm
    All of you are wacko… plain wacko. Flat-Earther wacko. Sea levels are already rising..”

    Sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. There’s no acceleration evident today. Have you taken land subsidence into account? Have you even noticed charts of where it’s slowed?

    You seem utterly convinced that man-made CO2 (still a tiny trace gas in our atmosphere at 0.0397%) is going to burn the planet to hell tomorrow. Of course, when it comes to doomsayers, it’s always tomorrow, next week or in the future. That just continues until the next fearmongering “fad” comes along to be likewise always “predicted” in the future. Some questions for you:

    Every exhalation is around 4% CO2 (40,000ppm – atmospere now 397ppm). How is it you don’t burn your tongue in the sun when you exhale that ENORMOUS 4% of CO2?

    How is it that delicate aragonite corals evolved when CO2 was some 20x higher than today?

    With CO2 so much higher in the past and you expecting a LINEAR scale to CO2 heat trapping effect, why was there never a runaway greenhouse, ever?

    How is it that CO2 was many times higher than today even during deep ice ages?

    You understand that CO2 is necessary for photosynthesis and farmers actually pump CO2 into their greenhouses to increase yields, right?

    Do you know that Viking graves in Greenland now are in permafrost – something you can’t dig without hydraulics? Vikings colonised and farmed Greenland 1000 years ago, why did they leave 300 years later?

    The Little Ice Age is documented in paintings from the 1600’s where the Thames and Hudson rivers froze 10ft thick and the locals held fairs on them. Are you aware of this at all? Are you aware this was caused by the “Maunder Minimum”, a time when very few Sunspots and Solar activity occurred?

    Do you remember when an imminent “ice age” was predicted in the 70’s?

    Are you aware that Global temps reduced between the 40’s to the 70’s?

    Do you understand the cycles of the oceans (PDO, AMO, ENSO) and their impact from warm to cool and back again over regular decadal scales?

    Why is it that in a desert, you can fry during the day and freeze at night, but not in the tropics? What magical atmospheric component is missing in a desert to cause this and therefore, is CO2 actually trapping any catastrophic heat at all? A clue – notice how the night is usually warmer when it’s overcast?

    Have you noticed that CO2 continues to climb but Global temps have flatlined for the last 17 YEARS? Why the disconnect?

    Are you aware that CO2 temp impact is on a logarithmic scale and not a linear one? This means the more CO2 you add, the less impact it has?

    Do you understand that warm water outgasses CO2 – try opening a warm and a cold bottle of soda water. Do you now understand that the oceans could never become “acidic”, considering their pH ranges from 7.9 to 8.3, depending on where you measure it and, that the pH scale is also logarithmic?

    How do you explain the findings of ancient tools and tree stumps under retreating glaciers?
    Have you seen the geological records that show CO2 rising AFTER temp rises by some hundreds of years?

    Have you discovered Milankovich Cycles – how the Earth has cyclical wobbles in its orbit being tugged on by other planets causing major changes in our distance from the Sun?

    Have you discovered that on very regular cycles, the Earth suffers a major ice age about every 100,000 years lasting many times longer than our current interglacial? Do you think that’s connected to my previous question?

    Why is it that some 90+% of species live around the Equator?

    Figures are readily available to show winters kill more people than summers – have you looked into them and why do you think retirees look forward to living in warmer climates?

    Are you aware that the Arctic ice extent is now the same as the 1979 annual mean? Do you really think it’s going to be “ice free” at all this NH summer?

    Does it make sense that “climate scientists”, being largely (if not totally) government funded, need to continue blaming Man for CO2 ills since governments want to tax us on it and, if they say it’s not, they’ll lose their job?

    Mountinman, have a good look around and you’ll find there are more questions that require answering before spouting for certain that Man is to blame for climate change. It’s been doing it for billions of years and will continue to do so. There’s NO peer-reviewed study out there that can scientifically and unequivocally state that they can filter out Man’s warming signal from the natural noise.

    If you keep believing point-blank the government and the lamestream media, you’ll look like a fool (you’re repidly getting there) and have a lighter wallet to boot. Don’t be a puppet or a parrot to them. Remember this:

    “When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic”.

  54. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    May 7, 2013 at 7:18 pm
    That is only 1 part in 2000 :-)

    ——————————
    george e. smith says:
    May 7, 2013 at 10:30 pm

    I was working in IT support back then. Had to stay up all night!
    Great TV. Saw Tony Blair physically grab the Queen and tried to make her dance!
    Talk about auld lange syne.

  55. Ricin (pron.: /ˈraɪsɪn/), from the castor oil plant Ricinus communis, is a highly toxic, naturally occurring carbohydrate-binding protein of the type known as lectins. A dose the size of a few grains of table salt can kill an adult human.[1] The median lethal dose (LD50) of ricin is around 22 micrograms per kilogram (1.78 mg for an average adult, around 1⁄228 of a standard aspirin tablet/0.4 g gross) in humans if exposure is from injection or inhalation.[2] Oral exposure to ricin is far less toxic and a lethal dose can be up to 20–30 milligrams per kilogram.

  56. “””””…..fhhaynie says:

    May 7, 2013 at 5:07 pm

    Imagine a square meter (1,000,000mm) one millimeter thick. Now color the square millimeter free space around each of the 400 CO2 molecules so you can see what it looks like to a photon traveling at the speed of light. …..””””””

    Now imagine an electromagnetic field having a frequency of E/h manifesting one of the two forces of nature (along with gravity) that is infinite in range and extent, that is associated with that roughly 130 meV (mili-electron Volt) photon, that is as you say radiating at the speed of light.

    So you take 22.4 litres of STP atmosphere and you divide by Avogadro’s number to find the volume occupied by one molecule, and multiply by 2500 to find the volume of the 13.6 molecular layers block of atmosphere, that on average will contain one of those CO2 molecules; then you ask how many of those 2500 molecule block fit inside a cube of say 10 microns; the “wavelength” of the EM wave associated with that speeding “photon”, then come back and tell us how many CO2 molecules is that huge photon plowing through, and what is the chance that lumbering giant can dodge any of those CO2 molecules. I believe you will find a collision is almost a certainty.

  57. “””””…..Richard111 says:

    May 7, 2013 at 10:59 pm

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    May 7, 2013 at 7:18 pm
    That is only 1 part in 2000 :-)

    ——————————
    george e. smith says:
    May 7, 2013 at 10:30 pm

    I was working in IT support back then. Had to stay up all night!
    Great TV. Saw Tony Blair physically grab the Queen and tried to make her dance!
    Talk about auld lange syne……….”””””

    So would somebody please put in quotation marks what if anything I actually said, in relation to whatever this post by whoever it was is.

  58. george e. smith says:
    May 7, 2013 at 11:06 pm

    So would somebody please put in quotation marks what if anything I actually said, in relation to whatever this post by whoever it was is.

    Can’t say for sure , but I think he is referring to Y2K night.

  59. Ric Werme at 10:14 pm

    is correct of course.

    Very poor performance on my part and I apologise to everybody.

    As self imposed punishment I shall not post again for a month.

  60. Olaf Koenders says:
    May 7, 2013 at 10:42 pm

    Vikings colonised and farmed Greenland 1000 years ago, why
    did they leave 300 years later?
    ===================================================

    Because it got cold. (Wolf Minimum got going about 1280). Not all
    left; the ones who stayed, died out about 1415, from starvation.

  61. Perhaps the 400 bearier won’t be crossed this year above the margin of error
    – What’s the margin of error on the daily readings ?
    unless the 400 barrier is crossed by that margin of error it doesn’t count.
    -anyway so far it has not crossed the 400 reading on any daily reading .. and there is a good chance that it won’t cross until next year as we will shortly past the annual peak.

  62. The Debunker No 2 BS (@No2BS) says:
    May 8, 2013 at 12:19 am

    Perhaps the 400 bearier won’t be crossed this year above the margin of error
    – What’s the margin of error on the daily readings ?

    The margin of error of the measurements are less than 0.2 ppmv, but the “problem” is the quite huge change over the seasons: from less than +/- 1 ppmv in the SH up to +/- 8 ppmv in the far north (Barrow, AK). Therefore one “corrects” for the seasonal variability (based on the four previous years) to show the average monthly increase. The 400 ppmv of the averaged seasonal corrected trend is not yet reached, but may be reached in a few months.

  63. The Y2K scare was fun.. I actually was there, at Optus, (located in Chatswood, Sydney, Australia)

    I was part of the team that upgraded the WHOLE of Optus from 286’s and 386’s to the first Pentiums, and all because of the Y2k scare..

    We rolled out some 3500 desktops and 1500 Laptops in a 3 month period !!

    Compaq iirc.

    Long, late hours…. but it was……

    Nice while the money lasted :-)

  64. theMountinman [sic] aka Sean Pedersen
    @ May 7, 2013 at 8:15 pm

    Did you know that it’s also a myth that Ostriches bury their heads in the sand?

    1.Ostriches typically live in arid areas.
    2.Arid areas have dry surfaces.
    3.Dry surfaces need significant digging in order to create a depth in which an Ostrich can “bury” its head.

    When an ostrich senses danger and cannot run away, it flops to the ground and remains still, with its head and neck flat on the ground in front of it.
    Because the head and neck are lightly coloured, they blend in with the colour of the soil. From a distance, it just looks like the ostrich has buried its head in the sand, because only the body is visible.

    But they do dig holes in the dirt to use as nests for their eggs. Several times a day, a bird puts it’s head in the hole and turns the eggs (female by day, male by night). So it really does look like the birds are burying their heads in the sand!

  65. And before that, I had a contract to “find” all the computers in CSIRO branch in North Ryde that might be susceptable to the “Y2K bug”. 5 weeks chatting and coffee’ing. And paid very nicely, thankyou. :-)

    286’s and 386’s running specialised user written codes for controlling equiptment.

    Talked to one of the guys a few year later.. They still had their 386 running on the equipment, and were using the Pentium for a mailserver.

  66. @BruceC

    It is only climate scientists that bury their heads in the sand… and their disciples !!

  67. I would recommend ‘When Prophecy Fails’ by Festinger et al, to the doom mongers as it will explain the processes you are about to go through….

  68. We did direct Y2K testing from early 1998 onwards. OK, it was on (mostly) stand-alone IBM clones.

    Press Del to enter BIOS.

    Set clock to 11.56PM Dec 31st 1999.

    Save and exit.

    Wait for machine to boot and watch the clock roll over to Jan 1st 2000.

    Did it fail?

    Reboot.

    Did it fail?

    Every single machine I built in those heady days, and tested, passed this test.

  69. 400 only looks interesting because we use the decimal system (we have 10 fingers).
    In Ducksburg, where inhabitants only have 8 fingers, they use the octal system. Instead of a million m (10^6), they use Duckmillion DM(8^6). So the CO2 concentration there is 105 ppDM, which they write 151 ppDM.
    (151=64+5*8+1)

  70. AHhhh, the upgrade from the 128k 286XT to the 2MB 386DX33.
    Nostalgia isn’t what it used to be, but surely there has not been such a (single) commensurate (cost and flops) increase in personal desktop computing since?

  71. Toby Nixon (4:36 PM yesterday) is right that “Y2K really DID have the potential for a lot of systems to fail”. Essentially, it was a problem that affected “legacy” software, often hidden within millions of lines of code, typically used by large organisations. Fixing it was a massive, boring and unglamorous undertaking. And it was largely, but not entirely, successful. (The idea that some countries – such as Italy and South Korea – did “little to prepare for Y2K” is a myth.)

    See this:

    http://fm2x.com/The_Century_Date_Change_Problem.pdf

  72. Awesome thread…. had me rolling on the floor in a few spots…

    Mountinman takes a prize, or something. Right from misspelling what I assume was intended to be “MountainMan” to swallowing the entire Chicken Little “Sky Is Falling” story hook, line and sinker. Awesome!

    Meanwhile, Olaf Koenders’ post at May 7, 2013 at 10:42 pm could be packaged up and widely distributed as “Why I Am A Skeptic, And You Should Be Too!”

    Meanwhile, the continuous undertones of Y2K, which really worried a lot of people who don’t know much about I.T. had me laughing. I also had some contracts in 1999 that were ridiculously lucrative. My favorite was the company selling a heavily used pharmacy operating system, you know the ones, they type in your prescription and check for interactions and stuff. They wrote it in the 80s as a DOS app, and LOST THE SOURCE CODE! Turns out on Jan 1, 2000 it thought it was 1900 and deleted all records more than 10 years into the future. A 2 year crash development program with 12 coders and they had rewritten it as a Windows app. October of 1999 we were rolling it out in small town and big city pharmacies across Western Canada, bugs and all. I couldn’t help but laugh the whole time I was doing that. They’re gone now. Sad.

    The best part will always be the ones who think that embedded controllers, like the computer that runs my car engine, care in any way whatsoever about the date. Likewise with telephone switches and…. OH… oil pipeline valve controllers… awesome.

    It must be a sad and terrifying existence, to believe that our technology infrastructure is so painfully fragile… like it was anyone other than the most inexperienced amateurs that were blindsided… since anyone writing anything that REALLY matters were always considering something like the date.

    And that brings us to the take home message…. it must also be a sad and terrifying existence when you believe that small increases in CO2 are going to cause mayhem and catastrophe with climate. I sorta pity these people, because they’ve been so effectively and mercilessly pummeled with this story. They can’t help but believe… because, you know, ALL the scientists say it’s so (except those eeeeeeevil oil company jerks).

  73. During the Neoproterozoic era, 750 million years ago, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was at least 30%, or 750 times today’s concentration. In the Cambrian era, 550 million years ago, when the calcite corals first achieved algal symbiosis, it was 1%, or 25 times today’s concentration.In the Jurassic era, 175 million years ago, when the more delicate aragonite corals came into being, it was 0.6%, or 15 times today’s concentration. Now it’s not quite 0.04%. If we carry on business as usual, it will be 0.07% by the end of the century. A little perspective goes a long way.

  74. mogamboguru says:
    could someone put troll atarsinc to rest, please?

    His mind is already well asleep.. what more can one do ?? !!

  75. CodeTech says ……..

    Yep, the problem was only really ever with badly written code. Simple re-writes could have solved basically any Y2K problems that might possibly have existed.

    But the computer industry needed a push.. and what better way than a scare…

    just like the nearly defunk renewable energy industry.

    Expect something soon to try and give it a push !!

  76. I see it as another chance for the CAGW patients to go off their meds and make a new, ridiculous claim of climate catastrophe. Yes, they will do what they do best….make fools of themselves..

  77. “atarsinc says:
    May 7, 2013 at 6:24 pm
    Brian R says:
    May 7, 2013 at 6:19 pm
    “Here’s another way to look at it.”

    And here’s another: Your cup of tea=99.99% H2O, Ricin= .0004%. Your dead. JP”

    And as Ricin de-activates at 80C a tea-born assassination attempt is likely to fail….:-

    http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/ricin/facts.asp

    Some of us like at least 0.004 % fact with our hyperbole….:-)

    Anyone concerned by recent Ricin-flavoured events can go here for an accurate assesment of the issue..:-

    http://dickdestiny.com/blog1/2013/04/30/industry-of-fear-2/

  78. Now that CO2 constitutes .04% of the atmosphere (Yes 4/100ths of 1 percent), when do us here in Michigan get Al Gore’s promised relief from the harsh winters?They keep promising global warming, but after this past winter… borrowing from the old Wendy’s commercial “Where’s the Heat?”

  79. well 1/6 ricin to be lethal. That’s 0.16667%

    Some of the maths leaves alot to be desired. hint; 1/20 = 5%, 1/10 =10% 1/6 = ????

  80. Dear Lord Monckton of Brenchley,

    Sir, would you be so kind as to provide links or references for the CO2 concentration data you summarized so eloquently. I have absolutely no reason to doubt you, but if I use your numbers, I’d like to have an authoritative reference beyond, “Because Lord Monckton said so.”

    Thank you,

    Andy Wehrle

  81. From Richard111 on May 7, 2013 at 10:59 pm:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    May 7, 2013 at 7:18 pm
    That is only 1 part in 2000 :-)

    50 characters/line x 50 lines = 2000 characters?

    Are you suffering a bad attack of New Math, or preemptively figuring in the results of a 20% Internet Tax?

  82. On a more serious note: The Scripps institute’s page trying to answer the topic question of this thread (http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/what-does-400-ppm-look-like/) manages to talk about mid-Pliocene warmth while not mentioning the closing of the Isthmus of Panama at about 3 million years ago, an event that triggered a major reorganization of ocean circulation. The high CO2 levels in the mid Pliocene may have been caused by higher ocean temperatures (and not the other way round as they suggest).

  83. I found out a few months ago my cats did the same thing.

    They were disappointed, the mouse pad was not made out of mice.

  84. 400 ppm C02, to the Mindlessstream media will mean a chance to trumpet Climatists’ claims of doom unless we act immediately, with renewed vigor and urgency. To those in the Climatist industry, it means more $$$$$$. Meanwhile, for the climate, it means little. Cooling will commence apace, with little regard to C02 levels, just as the stagnant temperatures for the last 16 years have done.

  85. george e. smith says:

    May 7, 2013 at 11:00 pm

    George,

    Consider the wave of IR photons as a distribution of particles around a mean light speed. A single photon does not have a wave path or change it’s speed.

  86. Y2K is OT (IYAM) but the salient difference between Y2K and modelled doom from increased levels of CO2, is that the effects of hitting 2000AD on systems that only budgeted 2 digits for the year was almost completely deterministic; generally you can simply wind the clock forward in a sandbox environment, and observe what fails.

    Then you can take an informed view whether the problems this will cause are worth fixing, worth mitigating, or simply ignore them until you come to your next BAU rewrite.\

    There is very little subjective judgement involved; the cost of action / inaction can be determined with a low degree of uncertainty, because the effect can be almost exactly (and trivially) modelled.

    Compare and contrast.

  87. theMountinman says:
    May 7, 2013 at 8:15 pm

    The issue is not whether the ice will all melt. The issue is whether man made CO2 is the cause of catastrophic global warming. Even if anthropogenic CO2 causes some warming, there is zero credible evidence that it will cause catastrophic warming.

    No one here denies that the climate has changed and will continue to do so in the future. Quit putting words in our mouths.

  88. Toby Nixon, I worked in a privately owned communications center (telecom, web host, databasing, software development, etc.) back during the turn of 2000. You were 100% correct in your comment. There was a lot of work and care done to make sure our systems were brought to date. And commenter “guenier” was also correct. It was a lot of boring drudgery. We did have a few minor hiccups during the great fateful day but we fared better than some of our competitors. (Heck, the yearly time changes gave us grief every year.) I know our LEC had issues on 1/1/00, even lost dial tone in places for a time. I agree it was needlessly hyped but it really was an actual event. 99% of America has no idea what goes on behind the scenes in the communications world. My company was plugged into all sorts of carriers and providers, and all of us (and them) worked overtime leading up to Y2K. Reading some responses to your original comment, it was a thankless work. Peace my brother.

  89. “Gary says:

    May 8, 2013 at 8:53 am”

    And yet most of Africa, and the former Eastern bloc countries such as Romania…did not bother. Romania had nuclear power too, and…were ok? We’re all still here after 01/01/2000. Y2K was the second biggest hoax…

  90. “fhhaynie says:

    May 8, 2013 at 6:13 am”

    Consider the wave of IR photons as a distribution of particles around a mean light speed.”

    A mean light speed?

  91. “Stephen Richards says:

    May 8, 2013 at 5:14 am”

    Cannot we just say, rather than fanning around the bush, that 400ppm/v AS REPRESENTED AS A PERCENTAGE *IS* 0.04%?

  92. “”””””……fhhaynie says:

    May 8, 2013 at 6:13 am

    george e. smith says:

    May 7, 2013 at 11:00 pm

    George,

    Consider the wave of IR photons as a distribution of particles around a mean light speed. A single photon does not have a wave path or change it’s speed……..””””””””

    And in MY post, where did you find anything about photons changing speed ? Where does this mean light speed come from? The vacuum velocity of ;light, either as photons or a pattern of orthogonal time varying electric and magnetic fields, following the Hertz-Maxwell EM wave descriptions, has a very well known fixed velocity; very precisely known in fact. “c” is the ONLY fundamental physical constant (along with mu nought, and epsilon nought that define it), that has an EXACT value. Well there is that odd “g”, the acceleration due to gravity, that also has an exact value; but that simply says what “g” means in physics. Pi also has an exact value; but it is not a fundamental physical constant; nor is “g”.

    Your “mean” light speed; presumably it is less that “c” since being a mean, there must be higher as well as lower speeds.

    Now what did you say the size of your single photon was again ?; say a 10 micron wavelength photon at the peak of the earth surface LWIR spectrum.

    • Maybe I’m confusing energy level with velocity assuming the mass of a photon is infinitly small and the 10 micron adsorption band of CO2 has a distribution around it.

  93. “…it must also be a sad and terrifying existence when you believe that small increases in CO2 are going to cause mayhem and catastrophe with climate. I sorta pity these people, … They can’t help but believe… .” [Codetech on 5/8/13 at 0257]

    Typical CO2 Control Freak Cult Member’s Thinking:

    1. I like to control.
    2. Oh, wow, the climate seems to be WAY out of my control, but…
    3. 97% of scientists say human-emitted CO2 controls the climate! Oh, hooray!
    4. I CAN CONTROL THE CLIMATE. I am BACK!
    5. I feel a bit unsure of whether or not this is really true, so….. ANYONE WHO THREATENS MY BELIEF MUST BE DENOUNCED — LOUDLY!
    6. That way, I am still in control (of the conversation, if nothing else).

    LOL

    Pitiful.
    ***************************************************************
    Toward 700ppm… and beyond ! :-)))))) [ANDYg on 5/8/13 at 0111]

    Hey, Andy! That is so cool that YOU are posting here (mighty smart for a little kid). [;)] I just phoned Buzz Lightyear and he says to tell you a hearty “Space Command HELLO! And could you please pick up a new nose for Mr. Potatohead, he lost it trying to explain to a Fantasy Science Cultmember (one of Bo Peep’s sheep) the truth about CO2. Thanks.”

  94. @ Cementhead —

    DO let yourself out of the penalty box early, CH. You admitted your mistake — THAT is all the penalty you need pay. If everyone here stopped commenting after making a mistake, I think there would be about 2 bloggers left. (WUWT bloggers, that is; there would of course be any number of I NEVER MAKE A MISTAKE, WHO ME? pro-AGW types spouting off).

  95. Thanks for the kind words above CodeTech, Frozen In Canada and Sophocles. Very much appreciated.

  96. “””””……fhhaynie says:

    May 8, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    Maybe I’m confusing energy level with velocity assuming the mass of a photon is infinitly small and the 10 micron adsorption band of CO2 has a distribution around it……”””””

    Well I wasn’t aware that photons had any mass at all. Now if you are a particle physicist, you might use a system of units where c = h = 1 , and then Einstein’s two relations become:-
    E = m = nu (f) in which case one might say that the frequency of a photon was its effective mass.

    I understand how waves have frequencies , but why does a photon have a frequency ? Specially if it doesn’t really have a mass either.

    Thermal radiation (EM radiation emitted by an object solely due to its Temperature) has any and all frequencies, and hence photon energies, rather than discreet spectral “lines” as does atomic spectra. Yet many still claim that black body radiation (the best known type of thermal radiation) is quantum mechanics, even though it contains no physical properties of any real physical material, known or unknown. How can that be, unless there is no such thing as black body radiation (that anyone has actually observed.)

    • As I understand it, the wave-particle duality paradox still isn’t settled and it is a difficult problem to measure. We have to go with what seems to work. One proposed idea is that photons travel in a helical path.

  97. I just noted this category in the CIA fact book for countries: the assessments under “Energy” conclude with “Carbon dioxide emissions from consumption of energy.”
    I wonder how much CO2 these bureaucrats expel, and how many more employees driving CO2 emitting cars are required for acquiring this useless fact–our tax dollars at work.

  98. Maybe a third line of pics :
    How the thermometer sees it – a flat line
    How the carbon market sees it – a sinking ship
    How the arctic sees it – a sine wave

  99. Ah Janice has been watching her favourite movie.. for the 50th time.

    Poor little girl is hooked on Buzz lightyear.. Sorry, but he is way too intellegent for you , Janice.

    Never know…. you might get over the disappointment some time in the next 20-30 years.

  100. Poor Janice, the statement that , “I just phoned Buzz Lightyear “… says it all.

    Just like global warming / anthropogenic climate change… he’s a made up character..

    A FICTION .. Does not exist in real life !

    Yet you still phoned him. and have other fantasies about him.

    Please check your mental stability with a shrink.. really soon !!

  101. Dear Andy G 55,

    Please forgive me for offending you (as it appears that I did). Yes, I do love that movie, “Toy Story,” but when I (with an attempt at a wink) called you Andy (the name of the little boy in the movie) I didn’t mean that you are like a little boy in ANY aspect except a delightful playfulness. I mistook “to 700ppm …. and beyond!” to be an allusion to Buzz Lightyear’s “To infinity, and beyond!”

    I respect you for your intelligent posts, Mr. G.. I’m so sorry that my post came off as (apparently) a slam.

    Perhaps, your posts to me around 6:30 PM on May 8, above, were sarcasm. They had too much sting in them for me to detect that you were joking. I guess I haven’t made my position on AGW very clear in my other posts on WUWT, but I am FIRMLY in the anti-AGW (to any climatically significant degree) camp. I don’t think the pro-AGW forces have come up with ANY persuasive evidence that humans cause global climate change.

    I’m on your side (much as that may dismay you, given your low opinion of my mental capacities).

    Your ally in the AGW battle,

    Janice

  102. Yes, I probably mis-interpretted your post too. I also apologise for getting a tad rawkous :-)

    I do like to have a bit of fun, and also tend to bite back too quickly sometimes.

    (Used to be a high school maths teacher, and still have some bad triats even after 16 or so years out of the job)

    Hope all is forgiven on both sides. :-)

  103. pps… the “700ppm and beyond” is a response to weepy Bill’s 350.org.

    I’m hoping he reads it somewhere and gets all huffy about it,.. maybe even starts crying again.

  104. Regarding the video and the 385-400ish ppm: the level of CO2 is important according to the strength of CO2, as with the tea and ricin note above. If CO2 were a powerful heat-trapping element, a small change would be significant. It’s a weak heat-trapper and it gets weaker as you add more of it, so in fact we can forget it as a climate driver, but it’s both factors — the level and the power.

  105. Y2K was way overhyped but it was a real problem. I worked making sure it didn’t effect systems on the mainframe of the company where I worked. If we did nothing, it would have been a nightmare. Systems that we relied upon to do business would have failed and the fixes would have taken time enough to cause significant losses. 2 digit years were often used due to limits on storage – not bad programming. A lot of the problems was math with dates. You have to know the time between events for many types of applications. That time becomes a large negative number when your ending year is suddenly ZERO. If you are waiting for a specified period of time to do something, that time period would never happen – one example. The fact that these types of problems were few is testimate not to a non-problem, but a testimate to a job well done by many man-hours that companies used to make sure code and data was changed where needed, before the problem appeared.

  106. If nothing was done about Y2K imagine a banking program that pays interest. There is a date of the time interest was last paid and the current date. Find the difference to know the period of time to pay interest. What is 5.4% interest over NEGATIVE 99 years 364 days? Every account would end up with a huge negative balance. Banks would have to shut down to apply backups. They would be scrambling to fix all the problems on the processes that run every night. Big problems for the banks. Just one example. It didn’t happen because companies did the work up front.

  107. Mr. Andy G,

    Thank you. I was so hoping I’d hear back from you. Yes, all is forgiven.

    You taught high school math? NO WONDER you were sensitive to what appeared to be smart-aleck remarks! You have my respect and admiration for persevering in that classroom, year after year, getting very little recognition for all your hard work and enduring endless, obnoxious, teen-aged, conceit. I hope that life has many joys for you now and that, with every day that passes, the long, hard, time in the salt mines of academia, is farther and farther behind you, far down the river, the turmoil of that rough patch of water forever replaced by tranquility.

    Take care,

    Janice

  108. John Parsons says:
    May 7, 2013 at 6:08 pm
    —————————————

    Earth has also had major glaciations in the past with CO2 concentrations as high as now, as in the Carboniferous & Permian, & indeed much higher, as in the Ordovician.

    Climate models can’t explain the very warm & equable Cretaceous based upon CO2, even though it was higher then. If you factor in clouds, the models do better.

    CO2 levels are a response to higher mean temperatures, not the main driver of climate, although there is a minor positive feedback effect.

  109. Janice, I actually lecture and tutor at Uni now, in Civil Engineering.. So still teaching !!

    But it is a far far cry from teaching maths at high school.

    Dicipline problems non existent.

    and the students often say things like ….. “Thanks” !!! :-)

  110. John Parsons said on May 7, 2013 at 6:08 pm (in part ):

    >The last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they are today — and
    > were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees
    >Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to
    > 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic
    >and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,” according to UCLA’s
    >department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric
    >and oceanic sciences.

    I suspect this is in reference to some time at least several million years ago,
    when Antarctica was not in its current location and had less ice.

  111. acementhead said on May 7, 2013 at 9:41 pm:
    >Frederick Michael @ 8:35 pm May 7, 2013 says:
    >>400 PPM is 0.04%, not 0.0004%, right?
    >Wrong.

    10,000 PPM is 1%. 100 PPM is .01%. 400 PPM is .04%.

  112. Brian R says: May 7, 2013 at 10:40 pm
    >atarsinc says: May 7, 2013 at 6:24 pm
    >>And here’s another: Your cup of tea=99.99% H2O, Ricin= .0004%.
    >>Your dead. JP

    >Maybe you should do more research before you post.
    >For an lethal oral dose of Ricin your looking at 20-30 milligrams per
    > kilogram. So for a 180 pound man you would need at a minimum of
    >1.6 grams of ricin. 1.6 grams is a little less then a ounce of water. So
    >my 6 ounce cup of tea would need to be, well 1/6 ricin to be lethal.

    I think that’s off by a factor of 10. 1.6 grams is somewhat less than 1/10
    ounce. I think the correct figure for a deadly cup of tea is 1/60 ricin.

    > That’s 0.16667% or about 416 times more than your 0.0004%. At a
    > ricin concentration of 400ppm I would have to drink about 16 gallons
    > of tea at one sitting. I would die from water poisoning long before the
    > ricin got me.

    6 ounces times ratio of 400 PPM to 1/60 (which is 2500/60) is 250
    ounces – close to 2 gallons.

  113. What’s going to happen when CO2 hits 500 PPM by volume, if the world
    is not much warmer than it is now? What’s going to happen when CO2 hits
    600 PPMV, if the world has warmed from the 1998-2010 stretch by less than
    1 or .8 degree C?

  114. Donald L. Klipstein says:
    May 9, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    John Parsons said on May 7, 2013 at 6:08 pm (in part ):

    >The last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they are today — and
    > were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees
    >Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to
    > 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic
    >and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,” according to UCLA’s
    >department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric
    >and oceanic sciences.

    I suspect this is in reference to some time at least several million years ago,
    when Antarctica was not in its current location and had less ice.
    ————————————————————–

    I don’t know to which epoch Mr. Parsons refers, but as recently as the Pliocene Epoch, Antarctica was glaciated under CO2 concentrations of 400 ppm. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet did periodically collapse, but not because of magic gas levels. Climate cooled after ~3 mya, when the Panama Isthmus interrupted tropical-temperate oceanic circulation, leading to the Pleistocene glaciation.

    Warmunistas have recently tried lamely and counter-factually to attribute the onset of Antarctic glaciation at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary to CO2 levels rather than to the opening of deep oceanic channels creating the Southern Ocean, isolating the continent. As usual, they confuse cause and effect.

  115. Perhaps Mr. Parsons is indeed referring to the Pliocene Epoch (5.3 to 2.6 mya). Global average temperature in the mid-Pliocene (3.3 to 3.0 mya) was two to three degrees C higher than now, with sea level over 75 feet higher. Extensive glaciation over Greenland occurred in the late Pliocene after three million years ago, with the closing of Panama Strait (there may previously have been a small ice sheet on Greenland southern tip, due to wetter conditions there than in the Arctic). That CO2 was probably around 400 ppm then doesn’t explain the onset of vast ice sheets.

  116. Andy G, I’m glad to hear that you are currently teaching and that it is so much more rewarding for you. David P. would probably say that if you were teaching a million years ago (or so), you would NOT like it and the students would say, “Get lost,” and life will soon be that way again if you don’t start riding your bicycle to work every day. LOL.

    I think David is just grumpy because his brother Alan’s rock band made the big time and David’s did not.

  117. @acementhead: When you correct someone who correct, by saying they’re wrong, and never come back to comment, could that make you a troll? 400 parts per million is 0.40%.

  118. No Mario

    400ppm is 0.04%

    get a calculator.. type 400 divided by 1,000,000 then times by 100 to change it to a percentage.

    0.04% !!

    like 4c in $100

  119. Need a T-Shirt that has a light blue print at 300dpi. 5×7 print = 1500 x 2100. Amongst the >3M blue pixels scatter around 1200 green pixels. Challenge people to find them.

  120. John Parsons says:

    “The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) was between 26,500 and 19,000–20,000 years ago, and CO2 was not only not 4000 ppm, it was far below today’s value. The last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland… &etc.”

    ==========================================

    So? Are you saying that correlation is causation? Sounds like it. But in reality, all you are showing is a coincidence.

    Look here. CO2 has been up to twenty times higher in the past — when the biosphere teemed with life and diversity.

    Your attempted scare stories are not helpful. They amount to nothing but baseless climate alarmism. There really is no problem with the current 0.04% CO2. The biosphere could use a lot more CO2, and it would still be no problem.

Comments are closed.