The results are in, and it looks like this.
UPDATE: By popular request, our representative to the “Union of Concerned Scientists” has been added to panel #2 at top. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I first read “Alarmists” as “Alchemists”.
Was I wrong?
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 !!
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..
400 ppm… are you kidding? Just cast a look at http://meteo.lcd.lu/today_01.html
The graph of the last 7 days CO2 shows that whenever we have better weather here in Luxembourg, daily CO2 levels peak over 500 ppm… and Luxembourg does survive this!
“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/
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?”
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 = ????
400/1.000.000 , = 4/10000 = 1/2500 == (1/2500)*100 % = 0.04%
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
From Richard111 on May 7, 2013 at 10:59 pm:
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reblogged this on RubinoWorld.
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.
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.
“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…
“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?
“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%?
“”””””……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.
“…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.”
@ur momisugly 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).
Thanks for the kind words above CodeTech, Frozen In Canada and Sophocles. Very much appreciated.