6-6-16: The Designated Day of the Climate Tipping Point

Will that 400PPM CO2 wilt my Banana tree?
Will that 400PPM CO2 threshold wilt my Banana tree?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Good news – we’re finally about to hit a tipping point. The only problem is, nobody will be able to tell the difference.

Climate change ‘tipping point’ could be reached in four weeks

6.6.16 is almost the devil’s number, but it might be much more than that if a leading scientist’s prediction on climate change is correct.

CSIRO fellow Dr Paul Fraser has earmarked June 6 (“plus or minus a week”) as the day when carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere will hit the point of no return, 400 parts per million (ppm).

The atmospheric measuring station at Cape Grim in Tasmania has recorded the current C02 levels in the atmosphere at 399.9ppm.

Dr Fraser said the difference between 399 and 400ppm was trivial, but when it does hit 400ppm mark it would be a “psychological tipping point”.

“Once it reaches 400ppm at Cape Grim it’s very unlikely to drop below 400 again,” Dr Fraser told ninemsn.

Cape Grim’s stable environment offers a clearer forecast for the world’s climate change.

“When you get away from the cities and into the background air, that’s the one that really drives climate change, that’s in terms of representing the entire globe,” Dr Fraser said.

To put the 400ppm into perspective, Dr Fraser said if you stood near a highway with cars going past, you could be hit with 500ppm of CO2.

At the higher end of the scale, a smoggy day in the densely polluted cities of Beijing or Shanghai could see carbon figures as high as 600ppm to 700ppm.

When 400ppm becomes the norm in country air, the cities will feel the pain a whole lot more.

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/05/12/17/05/carbon-and-climate-change-levels-to-hit-critical-point-at-tasmania-research-station

The part the authors leave out, with all this talk of “cities in pain”, is that 400ppm CO2 will have no noticeable health impact on people. According to US government documents, navy personnel in charge of US submarines, including nuclear submarines charged with delivering the final response to a nuclear first strike, typically live for months on end at an average CO2 level of 3500ppm, ranging up to 11,300ppm. If 400ppm had any health impact whatsoever – how could sick people be trusted to be in charge of nuclear weapons, at CO2 levels an order of magnitude higher than normal air?

I know its easy to poke fun at climate scientists, for their endlessly embarrassing pronouncements of impending doom which never manifest, but at least the scientists who make such outrageously wrong predictions show real commitment to their ideas. Calling this non event a “tipping point” trivialises the drama of all those other efforts to entertain us.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 14, 2016 7:32 am

..The only “tipping Point” that will happen anytime soon will be when President Trump cleans house at NASA, NOAA…etc……Then America can get back to REAL science…

Jeff Mitchell
Reply to  Marcus
May 14, 2016 2:07 pm

I thought the tipping point was at the end of the meal when you leave a gratuity for the server.

Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
May 14, 2016 3:10 pm

In climate ‘science’ they get the.money before they provide a result (just in case there is none)

Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
May 14, 2016 5:20 pm

Nah isn’t it the same as the date of “Peak Oil”? Could that explain why oil prices have dropped recently? 😉

Reply to  Jeff Mitchell
May 15, 2016 11:19 am

CO2 is plant food and and in long ago ages they had higher CO2 and plants and fauna did very well.

Reply to  Marcus
May 14, 2016 3:18 pm

The POTUS does not act as a dictator. It is necessary to get the cooperation of the other branches of the government.
Some folks have made have made comparisons between The Donald and the former mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford. He got smacked down pretty hard by city council when he got too extreme.
Another comparison would be with Brazil’s president, Dilma Roussef. She went after corruption and the corrupt turned around and impeached* her.
Mr. Trump will not have carte blanche and he knows it. Get ready to be disappointed.
(* I realize that she’s not convicted yet but she does have to step down until then.)

ken h
Reply to  commieBob
May 14, 2016 4:28 pm

“The POTUS does not act as a dictator.”
Of course he does…he simply issues another Executive Order to bypass Congress.

Reply to  commieBob
May 14, 2016 7:44 pm

The Donald may not be able to “fire” excess and unwanted “Civil Servants” (How did they ever get that name? They are both uncivil and act like masters.) but he could round them up and give them nothing to do— and dare Congress to keep funding them.

Reply to  Marcus
May 14, 2016 5:58 pm

Perhaps we can use sunspots to predict the chances of a Trump victory.
Alexander Chizhevsky did work correlating sunspots with revolutionary activity. Here’s similar work.
What does it mean? I have no clue.

Reply to  Marcus
May 14, 2016 6:29 pm

The Dust Bowl called…they want their hottest year evah awards back!

Andrew D Burnette
Reply to  Marcus
May 14, 2016 6:31 pm

Right. President Trump is going to clean house. Okay. My guess is he will send someone else to “clean house,” and their last name will be hispanic. And they won’t be worried about scientists.

Reply to  Marcus
May 14, 2016 10:11 pm

Please save the political comments for another site. One make think AGW is exaggerated without favoring either candidate. There are many issues up for debate in this or any election. Climate theories are only one.

bill johnston
Reply to  hornblower
May 15, 2016 6:58 am


Reply to  bill johnston
May 15, 2016 7:04 am

One set of climate theories calls for coercion. There’s that.

May 14, 2016 7:33 am

Dont we exhale 40.000ppm with every breath lol

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Mark
May 14, 2016 8:00 am

Ah, the continental 40,000. I had to think about that one :^)

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
May 14, 2016 9:32 am

Human’s Baseline Annual CO2 Emission

[T]he low end of the CO2 exhaled per person (.23 ton/yr), which equals over a billion and a half tons of CO2 (1,682,834,489.85).

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
May 14, 2016 5:11 pm

Yikes! – A global population of 7 x 10^9 people giving off .23 ton/yr. – (not to speak of all the flatulent methane) – and add to that: all the other living creatures giving off their waste products – why did God burden poor Gaia with all of this when it could have been a pristine moonscape?

Reply to  Mark
May 14, 2016 10:44 am

Maybe that’s why it takes ~40,000 ppm to be fatal. In addition, inside houses/buildings, is routinely ~1000-1500 ppm so the remark “To put the 400ppm into perspective, Dr Fraser said if you stood near a highway with cars going past, you could be hit with 500ppm of CO2” as if disaster is upon one by standing beside a rode, is ludicrous. As for the “smog” it’s sulfur & nitrogen oxides that cause the problems, not CO2.

Reply to  BFL
May 14, 2016 3:10 pm

BFL, those numbers are not correct. Human exhaled breath usually has a CO2 concentration of around 6% – that is 60,000ppm. That level is still perfectly useful for CPR.
For humans, CO2 toxicity starts above 7%, ie above 70,000ppm. Loss of consciousness occurrs in 10-15 minutes at concentrations of around 10%, and any concentrations above 15% are usually lethal. Yep, that 150,000ppm.
So, if I can act like an alarmist climate scientist for a few seconds, extrapolating our current rate of CO2 increase (1958: 315ppm; 2016: 400ppm) at a linear trend of 1.46ppm/year, we will all start feeling the effects of CO2 toxicity in approximately 47,491 years.
As Elmer Fudd would say, “Be scared. Be very scared!”

Reply to  BFL
May 14, 2016 4:28 pm

Pauly says: May 14, 2016 at 3:10 pm
… As Elmer Fudd would say, “Be scared. Be very scared!”

He would not say that. He would say, “Be afwaid, be vewy afwaid.” link

Reply to  BFL
May 15, 2016 5:25 am

Beijing’s more disturbing factor is the spittle to sidewalk ratio. Watch your step!

Reply to  Mark
May 14, 2016 5:46 pm

I’ve measured 25,000 ppm in my car with the ac on recirculate…..

Reply to  WBWilson
May 14, 2016 8:39 pm

Careful, with that much CO2, the heat of your engine will hide in the bottom of the window washer bottle

David Smith
Reply to  WBWilson
May 15, 2016 8:34 am

Peter – you’ve just covered my phone screen with beer.

Reply to  WBWilson
May 15, 2016 8:42 pm

Peter – +1000
I just put my cup down, so no damage done to the hardware. You did make me laugh though – Best comment of the day IMHO. Thank you. 🙂

Reply to  WBWilson
May 15, 2016 8:43 pm

Oops! That dash is a dash, not a minus sign! 🙂

May 14, 2016 7:34 am

That’s 3 reasons to celebrate on 6th June then – the anniversary of D-Day, my birthday, and more plant food in the air and so less famine in the world.

Reply to  soarergtl
May 14, 2016 7:36 am

Happy birthday in advance.

Reply to  TRM
May 15, 2016 3:15 am

Thanks 🙂

South River Independent
Reply to  soarergtl
May 14, 2016 9:06 am

And my 47th anniversary.

Reply to  South River Independent
May 14, 2016 11:17 am

That’s odd that you would get married onsoarergtl’s birthday.

Reply to  South River Independent
May 14, 2016 12:19 pm

unless onsoarergtl is 47 on 6th june!

Reply to  South River Independent
May 15, 2016 3:16 am

Congratulations. I’ll raise a glass to you & yours on my birthday. I’m happy to share. 🙂

John Harmsworth
Reply to  soarergtl
May 14, 2016 9:07 pm

My birthday I June 7. Good bye cruel world!

May 14, 2016 7:35 am

All PR and the message is Always centered on Fear/Doom when striving to attain your bite of the Gov’t apple (funds).

Reply to  kokoda
May 14, 2016 3:00 pm

Isn’t it close to the day when CSIRO are sacking hundreds of scientists ?

Reply to  kokoda
May 14, 2016 4:08 pm

It’s not based on real science. It’s a “psychological tipping point”. One hopes these people psychologically tip themselves into a more useful occupation.
NASA showed las year that this idea of a uniform “background” level of CO2 is complete bunkum.

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  AP
May 14, 2016 11:37 pm

Definitely an inconvenient truth, and the interesting thing is that the OCO-2 project has more or less fallen silent since publishing this.

Reply to  AP
May 15, 2016 12:40 am

…and interestingly Tasmania shows as light green which I’m guessing looks to be close to 395 ppm. The tipping point of 400 ppm should be rather red. At that rate they’ll be ultra-violet by Christmas.

Sal Minella
Reply to  AP
May 15, 2016 7:14 am

Looks pretty uniform to me. The variation, over land, is about is about 4 ppm – around 1%.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  AP
May 16, 2016 12:16 pm

It appears that the Hawaiian Islands are in the light aqua zone across the Pacific Ocean, nominally at 400 ppm, where Mauna Loa is located. Could we be “there” already? (*gasp* “Horrors!”).
Perhaps we need a bumper sticker along the lines of “Climate No-Change for 20 years.” Then the observant ones would come up and say beligerantly “Hey, that sticker is wrong. It’s only 19 years.” To which we might answer, “And your point is…?”

May 14, 2016 7:36 am

“Once it reaches 400ppm at Cape Grim it’s very unlikely to drop below 400 again,” Dr Fraser told ninemsn.
I guess they don’t have seasons at Cape Grim. The Hawaii monitor clearly shows seasonal drops.

Reply to  TRM
May 14, 2016 7:38 am

His tipping point must refer to increasing temperature, not CO2 content.
CO2 was 7000ppm in the past and no tipping point lol

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Mark
May 14, 2016 9:12 pm

Not true! It tipped over and dove to 280ppm

Reply to  TRM
May 14, 2016 3:16 pm

” … they don’t have seasons at Cape Grim … ”
They don’t seem to bother with diurnal variation either. Ok there won’t be much of a surge through land-based photosynthesis shutting down, as there isn’t much there apart from grass. The oco2 (satellite) stuff doesn’t show much seasonal variation either. Seems to indicate that the process might be largely natural, but they won’t see it that way.
As I’ve said before, anyone who has a few dollars to spare and wants to do their own co2 monitoring can get a better perspective, eg 400+ occurs at my place (19°S) every day by about 7pm, max 425-450 at 9pm, back to about 380 at sunrise.
Single car going past upwind at 6m distance – no change
10 tonne diesel truck idling upwind at 6m distance – +20
AGW fanatic spluttering furiously 1 metre from co2 meter – +25
Living room AC switched from “cool” “medium fan”, 440, to “auto” (eg autumn setting) 550
Kitchen usually minimum 800
Two guys engaged in capillary pipe jointing in a confined space – 2500

May 14, 2016 7:37 am

Claiming a tipping point reveals a clear case, that they do not know what they are talking about.
A small change in the water cycle can negate all of the warming ever caused by any CO2 in the last 150 years.
It’s clear Dr Paul Fraser is an academic hack, an idiot.

Reply to  Mark
May 14, 2016 4:23 pm

Had it not occurred to anyone else? If ever there was an iron clad justification for getting rid of these climate astrologers at the CSIRO it is this kind of dogmatic superstitious nonsense.
Worse than that, “Dr.”
Fraser must realise that his prognostications are absolute drivel. That means that it is blatant propaganda.

May 14, 2016 7:40 am

The worst part of life on a submarine are the methane releases from the crew.

Reply to  Michael Cook
May 14, 2016 7:45 am

Nah. We used to have contests on whose fart smelled the worst.

James Francisco
Reply to  SMC
May 14, 2016 12:19 pm

Some of the fellows I worked with in the USAF around 1972 had a similar contest but with four catagories.
1. Aroma
2. Tonal quality
3. loudness
4. Duration
Same fellow won all catagories at one event.

Reply to  SMC
May 14, 2016 7:15 pm

But it is a FAIL if you follow through.

Ian L. McQueen
Reply to  Michael Cook
May 14, 2016 8:17 am

It’s unfortunate that methane is odorless. Farts are malodorous because of sulfur compounds.
Ian M

Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
May 14, 2016 8:54 am

Did you have to take the fun out of it…sheesh 🙂

Flyover Bob
Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
May 14, 2016 10:28 am

Party Pooper!

Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
May 14, 2016 10:44 am

Every party needs its pooper.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
May 14, 2016 2:56 pm

The major stink element is skatole.
The smell of that chemical is memorable.
Once, some grad students of my acquaintance left a crystal of skatole in a corner of their advisor’s office. It sublimed away and stank the place up.
Since the crystal couldn’t be removed, the good prof. made these guys wash down his entire office — walls, floor, ceiling, book shelves, everything — with dilute hydrochloric acid. A good time was had by all.

stan stendera
Reply to  Ian L. McQueen
May 14, 2016 6:21 pm

But you can light methane. I wish I had a video. Wouldn’t even get snipped because you can even light up through clothes. On second thought, I just might get snipped.. .

Reply to  Michael Cook
May 15, 2016 1:52 am

And yet the galley regularly serves three-bean salad.

May 14, 2016 7:42 am

Here are some “tipping points”. Pseudo science.
The above link contains lies aplenty

Greg Woods
Reply to  Mark
May 14, 2016 8:27 am

There are tipping points and then there are Tipping Points – but we are all waiting the Mother of All Tipping Points, which may, if not might or possibly, happen any day now or in the future….

Andy Espersen
Reply to  Greg Woods
May 14, 2016 9:21 am

Considering tipping points – if you really think about it here may indeed be “tipping points” in climate : The enormously sudden changes we have seen during the last 2 million years between the cycles of the ice ages are real. There may inded be some (as yet unknown) factor which makes the climate switch between warm and cold periods.
The trouble is that as we now are in a warm period the next sudden change will of course switch us to the ice age. Perhaps reaching 403.67 parts per million of CO2 will be that decisive point!! That would be fun.

Reply to  Greg Woods
May 14, 2016 12:26 pm

talking og tipplng points, i’m off to the pub – opps I thought you said tippling points

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Mark
May 14, 2016 9:18 pm

It’s a psychological tipping point. I hit one when I started reading about this AGW nonsense!

Bruce Cobb
May 14, 2016 7:46 am

While the carbonophobic life-hating ideologues whinge, cry doom, and go on a hand-wringing binge, sane, rational people will rejoice along with plants and all life on earth that life-giving CO2, which was at dangerously-low levels for so long is finally getting back to where it needs to be for life to flourish.
400 ppm! Woo hoo!

May 14, 2016 7:46 am

If liberal claims of CAGW causing massive new storms and ” unprecedented ” sea level rise, do you really believe the Chinese would build man-made island only 10 feet above sea level ? Do liberals really think the Chinese are idiots ? And why is the Liberal Green world not screaming at the top of their lungs about the total destruction of these reefs that is happening TODAY, not 100 years from now ? I am not an “Eco-Freak”, but even I find this blatant destruction appalling.. So many questions, so few answers !

Reply to  Marcus
May 14, 2016 8:57 am

Ah, the Chinese example is the ideal to which we must aspire to… according to the most ardent of the CAGW faithful.

Flyover Bob
Reply to  Marcus
May 14, 2016 10:37 am

The Chinese are not idiots, they are Communists! They will do just fine like the USSR.

Ray Boorman
Reply to  Marcus
May 14, 2016 2:10 pm

Yes, Marcus, I wonder about that too. The green activists here in Australia have not even whispered “boo” about what is happening in the Sth China Sea – but they have plenty to say about the purely natural, & regular, coral bleaching that occurs on our reefs.

Reply to  Marcus
May 14, 2016 2:17 pm

Because it isn’t about the environment?
Did they insist we capture, try and execute the worst environmental terrorist in history – Saddam Hussein?
I don’t recall any cries for retribution for his crimes – but they sure went after Exxon and Hazelwood didn’t they?

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Marcus
May 14, 2016 9:34 pm

Hallelujah! Just watch the Chinese. They are happy to build coal fired power plants and nod sagely while we wail about AGW while they scoop up our industry. They have 200 million people in coastal cities that they are still building. The difference is the absence of loony environmentalists.

Reply to  Marcus
May 15, 2016 4:47 pm

The Chinese States have engaged in plenty of dumb enterprises over the years. Whether calculating that seizing territory and resources in the short term outweighs potential loss of capital to carry that out through some unknown future sea level state may or may not be one of them, irrespective of whether the State actors are actually believing the AGW predictions or not.

May 14, 2016 7:46 am

the great thing about tipping points is that once you get there the future is decided. there is nothing you can do to change that. so just go into red meat and wine and fossil fuel emissions overdrive and have fun. we’re toast anyway.

May 14, 2016 7:46 am

Why Cape Grim?
Did not Mauna Loa hit 400 ppm a few years ago? So what does Mauna Loa get up to now? Or has the CO2 level stopped rising there?
And why should 400 ppm be a tipping point? With, as I understand it – I may be, and probably am, wrong – the section of the spectrum where CO2 absorbs infra red radiated from the earth’s surface is pretty well saturated, and the only new absorption is in the regions either side where hotter or cooler infra red can be absorbed where the atmosphere may be warming. And on the edges there is not much room for more absorption as the earth is not hot enough or cold enough to radiate in the right frequency.
So in effect the CO2 in the atmosphere could continue to rise, and rise, and the temperature would hardly move. Somebody has remarked on the curve being an exponential or a log curve – if so, which, and what is the rate of change of temperature against increase of CO2 known to be at the current level? Is this by calculation based on theory, or by experiment at different levels of CO2 in a test rig?
We ( that means me!) really do need a proper scientific explanation of the physics of this, such that we (I!) could then explain it to others.

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
May 14, 2016 1:06 pm

Mauna Loa , elevation 3,400meters, on 13 May 2016 CO2 average = 407.8 ppm. From http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html … “Last Month” entry is where see previous day’s average & hourly plot using UTC time.

Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
May 14, 2016 3:21 pm

Is just beside a volcano really the best place to measure the world’s CO2?

Reply to  Jon
May 14, 2016 3:23 pm

Why not measure the world’s temperature instead?

stan stendera
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
May 14, 2016 6:26 pm

Hang around WUWT and you will get the needed information!

Jeff L
May 14, 2016 7:47 am

Of course, the average Joe will say – “Well, if we have hit a point of no return , then who cares – let’s go on with business as usual as there is nothing we can do about it”.
The author clearly doesn’t realize how self-defeating his article is to his “cause”.

Reply to  Jeff L
May 14, 2016 7:51 am

Yes! That’s my response, too. If we’re past the tipping point, then who cares?
Note that is says it’s a “psychological tipping point”, not real, scientific, factual one.

Reply to  Reality check
May 14, 2016 9:20 am

It’s like one of Obama’s “new red lines” that you’d better not cross, else he will draw a new red line you’d better not cross. So the CO2 tipping point now is 400 PPM, and the new one, sometime in the glorious future if lucky, may be 500 PPM, and like Obama red lines, have no effect.

Flyover Bob
Reply to  Reality check
May 14, 2016 11:08 am

Since it’s a “psychological tipping point”, does that mean all of the climate quakes are certifiably insane?

Reply to  Reality check
May 14, 2016 3:04 pm

Ahhh, yes. The old “I-reject-reality-and-substitute-my-own” people who wish to have government compel others to follow their orders. We have to find a way to identify this type of people early and keep them away from the rest of society.

Tom Halla
May 14, 2016 7:51 am

I still wonder what the attraction is for dread predictions. The climate is going straight to Hell–send money! Paul Ehrlich was, after all, a best-selling writer.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 14, 2016 3:36 pm

It’s the same mental pattern behind Christian gloom and doom. Flood famine fire and pestilence (plague) and war too of course. For some reason it strikes a resonant chord in the Westen psyche, removing reason and compelling fear and panic. It’s interesting that non-westerners don’t have the same pathology.
Who knows?

May 14, 2016 7:52 am

Sigh, for years I’ve been looking for exactly what tips over. It’s obvious what tips when you push the handle on a spring loaded toggle switch past its tipping point, but no one seems able to describe what tips in the climate.
Besides, I thought we passed the tipping point at Hansen’s 350 ppm. Is Dr. Fraser saying Hansen and everyone at 350.org are wrong?

Reply to  Ric Werme
May 14, 2016 7:56 am

wasn’t it guam?

Reply to  gnomish
May 14, 2016 10:38 am

Heh – took me a second. Okay, let’s make that be the tipping point.

Javert Chip
Reply to  gnomish
May 14, 2016 7:41 pm

For those who wish to relive this golden moment…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA

Paul of Alexandria
Reply to  Ric Werme
May 14, 2016 3:39 pm

Presumably when the climate goes into irreversible, exponential ride and we turn into Venus. Unless, of course, the Earth tips from the current interglacial to the next glaciation.

stan stendera
Reply to  Ric Werme
May 14, 2016 6:59 pm

Guam tips over.

stan stendera
Reply to  stan stendera
May 14, 2016 7:02 pm

Drat, beat me to it.

May 14, 2016 7:52 am

CSIRO fellow Dr Paul Fraser has earmarked June 6 (“plus or minus a week”) as the day…
At least he provided a margin of error, something sorely lacking in their previous predictions. It’s a start, anyway.

May 14, 2016 8:01 am

Since this all about climate change, and it is May, it is currently 39 F. It must be global warming because Tuesday is a forecast for snow. I just want to know when we will start seeing an earlier arrival of spring and a later arrival of winter.? Twelve years ago, we could sleep with windows open in May and some nights in April. Now because of climate change, the heartbreaking images of heaters running all over the city. I know national headlines ” Winters Last Hurrah !” . (Is a sarc necessary here) tipping point indeed! Snow was suppose to be a thing of the past let alone in late May.

Reply to  rishrac
May 14, 2016 8:29 am

Letting us know where here is would greatly improve our understanding.

Reply to  DCS
May 14, 2016 9:27 am

‘Here’ is probably like where I am in upstate NY: bitter cold spring and it is going to snow in two days.

Reply to  DCS
May 14, 2016 9:50 am

Colorado at the moment.

Reply to  DCS
May 14, 2016 10:05 am

Not that unusual, except that is becoming the norm. If it was one event, it could be considered, it happens. The high temperatures are different too. They come later in the day and don’t stay there very long. …. and climate isn’t where you are, that’s just weather. We will have no blueberries this year, that foot of snow we had 2 weeks ago killed off the blooms, along with the other fruit trees. There are anomalies, but if there truly was global warming, this would not be happening. It’s too late in the season.

Billy Liar
Reply to  DCS
May 14, 2016 3:13 pm

Right now (according to NEXRAD) it is snowing in the UP of Michigan and it’s not looking good for the cherries in Traverse City, they’re about to get some snow.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  rishrac
May 14, 2016 2:23 pm

rishrac May 14, 2016 at 10:05 am
Not that unusual, except that is becoming the norm.
It is not just here in the States, Europe seems to have suffered a lot of losses in their berry-grape crops this year.
Agricultural damage due to cold and freezing temperatures up more threatening than 1.5 degrees of alleged warming.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
May 14, 2016 9:51 pm

I live in Saskatchewan in Western Canada. About 1 1/2 weeks ago we had a high of 32C. 4 days later we had an overnight low of -1 and snow SW of us. I’ve lived here almost 60 years and this is not really remarkable.

May 14, 2016 8:03 am

I suppose the author really believes 400ppm is a tipping point. Don’t know what the author bases that on, but he seems convinced.
Just another exaggerated claim pertaining to the CAGW theory.
Alarmists have cried wolf too many times. All you get for your effots now is a lot of skepticism and yawns.

Paul Coppin
Reply to  TA
May 14, 2016 2:49 pm

97% of climate scientists told him it was so. How could he go against that collected wisdom? (/s really necessary?)

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  TA
May 15, 2016 2:46 am

They are off 9.5%. The real poiint is at 438 ppm which is 666(octal). So in about 20 years…

May 14, 2016 8:14 am

I wish someone would overlay these two….just for the hell of it
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_gl.pngcomment image

Reply to  dbstealey
May 14, 2016 9:04 am

nah db, the 10th scale makes it look like it’s something….

South River Independent
Reply to  dbstealey
May 14, 2016 9:21 am

Can we plot the daily high, low, and medium terms at Cape Grim to show the trend there? How about all of the other measurement stations around the globe to eliminate the averaging issue? Seems like looking at changes at specific locations would tell us if the world is getting warmer, where it is getting warmer, and how fast it is warming. Then by comparing other factors at each location we can get a better handle on what might be causing the warming.

South River Independent
Reply to  dbstealey
May 14, 2016 9:23 am

Terms = temps

Reply to  dbstealey
May 14, 2016 2:22 pm

There are lies, damn lies, statistics – and scaling.

John W. Garrett
Reply to  Latitude
May 14, 2016 9:12 am

See http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif
It’s from Dr. Ole Humlum’s website ( http://www.climate4you.com/ ) where he overlays GISS, RSS, HadCrut and other purported global temperatures against Mauna Loa CO2 levels.
I find it extremely useful.

Reply to  Latitude
May 14, 2016 10:43 am

Shouldn’t you be replotting the CO2 graph from a zero axis to be consistently bogus?
And since when does Fahrenheit start at -40?

Ian Macdonald
Reply to  Ric Werme
May 14, 2016 11:47 pm

Real scientists use degrees Kelvin

Reply to  Latitude
May 14, 2016 12:02 pm

Guys you’re missing the point….
Graphs that show temps in 1/10th of degrees is useless from a practical sense…even more when they claim accuracy to 1/100th degree..
We can’t “feel” 10th degree…..we can’t even feel 1 degree
That’s why thermometers register on a scale of 10 whole degrees……and most of the time we can’t even feel that
I wish someone would overlay the CO2 graph on to the thermometer graph…
….just to show how ridiculously incredibly over the top stupid this all is….

R. Shearer
Reply to  Latitude
May 14, 2016 6:52 pm

Yes, the error is ~ +/- 1C.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Latitude
May 14, 2016 7:44 pm

It would really pop in Kelvin

Robert O
May 14, 2016 8:17 am

Why Cape Grim? Located on the NW tip of Tasmania it receives frontal systems coming unimpeded from S. Argentina. It was part of Woolnorth estate of the Van Diemens Land Co. and part of a land grant during the reign of Queen Victoria.

May 14, 2016 8:20 am

I know its easy to poke fun at climate scientists, for their endlessly embarrassing pronouncements of impending doom which never manifest, but at least the scientists who make such outrageously wrong predictions show real commitment to their ideas

One problem with various “tipping points” is they are never really described exactly. For example, will this fool says that the cities will “feel the pain” a whole lot more. What the hell does that mean? How much hotter will it be when CO2 is at 500 ppm? It has been much higher than that in the past and life went one.
Another point; the crazies told us early on that warming would occur mainly at night in the lower latitudes and in the day and night in the higher latitudes. That does not sound very scary to me: and is likely the reason we don’t hear that much anymore out of the alarmists.
Think for a moment; if the average temperature of the planet went up 6 degrees, what would that mean? I don’t think it would be anything but good. You can argue that if you want, but I have seen no proof that 6 degrees would be any problem.
And lastly; I have seen no proof that the “sensitivity” of CO2 in not a negative number. All things considered — the CO2 hysteria is one of the most stupid delusions mankind has come up with.

Reply to  markstoval
May 14, 2016 8:35 am

Whatever it is, CO2 CAGW is not a “stupid delusion.” It is a different thing to many different classes/group of people.
For the political class on the Left, with the rent-seeking assistance of like-minded partisan ideological psuedoscientists, CO2 alarmism is a well-crafted, multi-decadal, internationally coordinated, intentional deception.
An Illusion is what it is to the unscientific masses.
For countries like the BRICs, it is the Western 1st World economies cutting their own throats. Why stop them; and better still, enable them, is their leaders attitude.
But most of all, it is a means to a desired end.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 14, 2016 8:48 am

Climate scientists with their lanterns held high, looking for that mysterious, elusive tropical hot spot, or deep ocean heating.. surely it must be here, no wait over there! Any day now we can expect the treasured findings of the mighty intrepid climate scientists just going about their normal everyday business as usual, it’s worse than we thought day. Searching the globe, surely climate can’t change where you are. It has to be be someplace else, not where you are. But someday, maybe or could be, it might affect you.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 14, 2016 9:13 am

The pseudoscientist class will continue to Karlize the climate data, be it temperature, sea ice, glaciers, ocean pH to keep the deception running as long as possible for their political class masters who control their paycheck and prestige positions.
Thus the elusive, theory-predicted, mid-upper tropospheric tropical hotspot becomes ever more the casualty of surface temp Karlizations, but that finer point is too technical for the masses being Grubered by the Left.
Silencing of vocal dissent is becoming evermore prominent in the CO2 alarmist toolbox as the Karlizations become ever more noticeable, if one bothers to look. Look for the free speech attack to begin extending to blogs like this here WUWT and their blogmasters. Here in the US, the Left is clearly no longer shy about using the police and tax powers of the state as a stick.
My advice to the skeptics, keep your taxes in good order, your financial records organized and secure, and your “nose clean.”

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
May 14, 2016 12:30 pm

You can never loose for being straight up. I would be wrong, knowing what I know, not to argue against CAGW.
To allow CAGW to go unchecked would wrong. They go on about the millions of potential lives that could be lost due to global warming. I think about the millions that will be lost if there is global cooling. And I do think that global cooling could be an issue.

Reply to  markstoval
May 14, 2016 12:11 pm

There are days when I wish we could edit our stupid typos. 🙁

Reply to  markstoval
May 16, 2016 3:28 am

If it helps, we all have ’em.

Reply to  A.D. Everard
May 16, 2016 6:59 am

You do know why spell check was invented? Because most guys can’t spell. Sometimes it does alter/altar the meaning. I herd that sound, it was allowed one.

Coeur de Lion
May 14, 2016 8:22 am

Looks even less impressive in Kelvin.

Bruce Cobb
May 14, 2016 8:30 am

And of course, we have the de rigeur Alarmist tactic of conflating actual pollution, like what we would get “hit” with if standing by a road with cars going by, or smoggy cities, with their faux pollution, CO2.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 14, 2016 9:06 am

The average person gets hit with more methane in their own bathroom than they ever expereince away from home, you don’t hear the Greens bring that one up…

May 14, 2016 8:31 am

..so, to sum it all up….Global Warming means less people will be cold ? Oh the horror ! LOL

michael hart
May 14, 2016 8:32 am

It’s Grim down south.

Greg Woods
May 14, 2016 8:35 am

Didn’t those folks at that to-do in Paris promise that if I like my temperature, I can keep my temperature, just like that Barrackk character up north somewheres….

Greg Woods
Reply to  Greg Woods
May 14, 2016 11:42 am

I just figured it out: 6-6-16 is a formula for a fertilizer mix, and the 16 is for the percentage of BS.

May 14, 2016 8:40 am

So in other words, these Ivory tower climate scientists are saying that when CO2 is low humans prosper and when CO2 is high humans die off. Which paleoarcheologist would agree with that one????

Flyover Bob
Reply to  Pamela Gray
May 14, 2016 11:21 am

It is not required to make sense. These are REAL sicentists we’re talking about here.

Flyover Bob
Reply to  Flyover Bob
May 14, 2016 11:23 am

that was supposed to be scientists, although it may make no difference.

May 14, 2016 8:42 am

The bigger problem for these AGW “scientists” is their psychological trauma….that they will not be able to see or experience the ppm decrease in their life time in any way possible even when actually if they really rely in the proper scientific method they could “see” and to a degree “experience” beyond their expiry date and realize that at some point the ppm will drop naturally as it increased naturally……….but that sadly enough will require a departure from their firm and indisputable belief in the AGW and the anthropogenic forcing effect………
It is really a big problem, psychologically, for any scientist when trying to play as a priest and vice versa……
No wonder why quite a few of them behaving like loonies (whole range :)) lately and more often than not……

Reply to  whiten
May 14, 2016 8:53 am

Or if the level of co2 levels of at 420 ppm. ( despite the increased use of fossil fuels) OMG what will they do!!?

May 14, 2016 8:44 am

Peek ridicule?

Flyover Bob
Reply to  simple-touriste
May 14, 2016 11:25 am

That’s way off yet.

May 14, 2016 8:49 am

That’s 190 in hex . Doesn’t sound so special .

Pat Smith
May 14, 2016 8:52 am

Willis’s analysis on WUWT a few weeks ago stated that, even if ALL the fossil fuels in the world (according to IPCC figures and using the Bern model to calculate re-absorption) were burnt this century, CO2 levels would only rise to between 450 ppm and 650ppm by the end of the century. CO2 levels would begin to fall in the next century (there being no more oil, gas, coal to burn); with a half life of approx 30 years, CO2 should be down below 400 ppm by mid next century, even from the highest levels, never to go up again as a result of man’s actions.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  Pat Smith
May 14, 2016 10:14 am
May 14, 2016 8:57 am

Everyone should plant a tree in celebration.

Mark from the Midwest
May 14, 2016 9:04 am

6.6.16 will not be a tipping point. We will be in-transit for the annual visit to the homeland, and I will be resting the ole liver. It will be hard enough keeping up with the tipping with my reprobate cousins in Zurich and Bavaria, not to mention the 3-bottles-of-wine-with-dinner at my wife’s family down in Geneva, (for those of you unfamiliar with the practice, it’s one bottle before, one bottle during, and one bottle after).

Ted beacher
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
May 15, 2016 1:11 am

That’s why I live in Geneva, Mark!! The wine practice you describe helps me overlook the fact that my compatriots have drunk the global warming coolaid like the rest of Europe. When I installed a heated jacuzzi, the authorities made it expressly conditional on agreeing to switch to “GREEN” electricity (which is not at all green, just grossly more expensive!!)

John W. Garrett
May 14, 2016 9:16 am

From Dr. Ole Humlum’s website-
Mauna Loa CO2 v. HadCrut temperatures since 1960:
The website contains a wealth of useful climate data.

Reply to  John W. Garrett
May 14, 2016 9:52 am

Just saying…

Reply to  Janus100
May 14, 2016 2:47 pm

Message, ever so simple, was still garbled .
So again:
“Have you noticed that nobody cares about your post?
Just saying…”
Is it clear now?

Reply to  John W. Garrett
May 14, 2016 2:34 pm

The original data they deleted showed a much steeper cooling curve in the 60s and 70s.
GISS completely wipes it out
on Giss the 1930a 40s warming and the cooling thereafter were both significant. It’s now a flat trend from 1940 to 1978\79
Also NOAA have ice data pre 1979
and GISS starts their record in 1880, a la nina after the 1877\78 El Nino.
Such cheeky cheaters.

Reply to  Mark
May 14, 2016 2:36 pm

Nice cherry pick, that Ed Hawkins fancy gif actually highlighted
Start in La Nina and flattens the curve to match CO2 growth (getting rid of the blip Climate gate)

Reply to  Mark
May 14, 2016 2:37 pm

Nick Stokes likes starting with La Nina’s and ending at El Ninos too. Must be a thing with these guys lol

May 14, 2016 9:17 am

..Liberals are still trying to create the perfect Human ! Not sure where I stand on this issue..
..Lots of quality input from WUWT readers would be interesting ..Of course, if this is possible, it would destroy the Creationists argument that life cannot come from nothing !

Reply to  Marcus
May 14, 2016 2:49 pm

Ironically Astrophysicists repeatedly safe life came from nothing when the big bang happened, in fact they say everything came from nothing, see science is not so void of religion as you might think.

Billy Liar
Reply to  Mark
May 14, 2016 3:28 pm

As long as there is the same amount of matter as anti-matter in the universe then it all adds up to exactly nothing.

Reply to  Mark
May 14, 2016 5:16 pm

then it all adds up to exactly nothing.
how about mass? are you saying that anti-particles have negative mass? that they weight less than nothing?

Billy Liar
Reply to  Mark
May 15, 2016 10:16 am

Ferd, nope, after the bright flash there will be nothing (except maybe some neutrinos?).
In particle physics, antimatter is a material composed of antiparticles, which have the same mass as particles of ordinary matter but opposite charges, as well as other particle properties such as lepton and baryon numbers. Collisions between particles and antiparticles lead to the annihilation of both, giving rise to variable proportions of intense photons (gamma rays), neutrinos, and less massive particle–antiparticle pairs. The total consequence of annihilation is a release of energy available for work, proportional to the total matter and antimatter mass, in accord with the mass–energy equivalence equation, E = mc².

Reply to  Marcus
May 14, 2016 2:51 pm

The big bang is creation dude, it was cooked up by a priest “creation out of nothing”

CC Reader
May 14, 2016 9:19 am

Since I have spent 4yrs of my life underwater on submarines does this mean I can sue the US Government for endangering my life?

Bubba Cow
Reply to  CC Reader
May 14, 2016 10:16 am

only if you were denied your preferred bathroom …

Flyover Bob
Reply to  Bubba Cow
May 14, 2016 11:30 am

I am reasonably sure he preferred the one at home.

May 14, 2016 9:22 am

this tipping point is propaganda – not science – an attempt to create a sense of urgency – however – that could backfire – when the tipping point is exceeded and nothing dramatic happens – it becomes just a number – like turning 40

Steve Fraser
Reply to  jeyon
May 14, 2016 9:56 am

For me, more like the ‘four-minute mile’…

Javert Chip
Reply to  jeyon
May 14, 2016 8:01 pm

Well here’s some good news.
The renowned climate scientist, Prince Charles, issued a “100 month tipping point in 2009.
Didn’t happen.
So in 2015 he extended it another 35 years. http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/28/prince-charles-gives-world-reprieve-on-global-warming-extends-100-month-tipping-point-to-35-more-years/
This is the kind of thinking that gets you promoted head of state for 90 million people in the 21st century.

Reply to  Javert Chip
May 14, 2016 11:41 pm

Population of the UK is currently estimated at 65, 061,260 by Worldometers. Though the site does not say if that is as of 1 Jan or today. But it is definitely not 90 million.

Reply to  Javert Chip
May 15, 2016 12:02 am

At least the yanks can vote their idiot head of state out, we Brits have ours imposed for life !!

May 14, 2016 9:24 am

400ppm is only a psychological tipping point for those who need serious psychological help.

Reply to  Logoswrench
May 14, 2016 3:51 pm

Exactly, it’s psychological, afflicts those who are more psycho than logical!

Smart Rock
May 14, 2016 9:26 am

Well that’s it then. The science is settled, the tipping point is here, irreversible warming is on us, and we’re all going to die.
A big thank you to all the dedicated Climate Scientists for your work. You can all go home now and save your governments a load of cash, that they can use for something else. Like health care, education, beefing up defence forces, things that will make our last years on earth more tolerable.

A C Osborn
May 14, 2016 9:34 am

For a scientist he has not got a clue, houses quite often have rooms up to 2000ppm, most health and safety regs say 5000ppm is a working limit with up to 35000ppm for short periods (15 minutes).
Very sad to think that they are teaching our young.

chris y
Reply to  A C Osborn
May 14, 2016 10:11 am

I agree.
“The researchers noted that typical carbon dioxide concentrations outside are approximately 380 parts per million, while inside office buildings, the concentrations usually aren’t any higher than 1,000 parts per million. However, in classrooms, researchers found that carbon dioxide concentrations can go be as high as 3,000 parts per million, or more. (Federal occupational exposure guidelines for carbon dioxide concentrations are 5,000 parts per million for eight hours.)”

Reply to  chris y
May 15, 2016 8:20 am

With co2 levels so high, shouldn’t there be a greenhouse effect and there would be no need to heat those places? And in a closed area too! Not like an open atmosphere where it could be debatable whether the heat is retained or not.

chris y
Reply to  A C Osborn
May 14, 2016 10:20 am

This bit from the remarkable Dr. Fraser seems to be confused-
“At the higher end of the scale, a smoggy day in the densely polluted cities of Beijing or Shanghai could see carbon figures as high as 600ppm to 700ppm.”
Everyone who works in an office, school, store, etc. experiences much higher CO2 concentrations every day, even in the cleanest-of-the-clean cities of the world.
CO2 is not carbon.
Smog and CO2 are separate issues. Mashing them up in a sentence is silly.

May 14, 2016 9:34 am

Actually, I’m more concerned about Guam. Has Guam reached its tipping point yet? I’d hate to see it “tip over and capsize” from housing too many Marines.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  BobM
May 14, 2016 10:02 am


Reply to  BobM
May 14, 2016 10:11 am

..That comment from a liberal Senator clearly showed that some people should not be allowed to vote !

Javert Chip
Reply to  Marcus
May 14, 2016 8:05 pm

It was April 1, 2010, and Congressman Hank Johnson (D-Ga).

Bruce Cobb
May 14, 2016 9:35 am

We skeptics have known it for years, and now the climageddonists are finally admitting it; their climate fears are all just in their heads! And now, with 400 ppm they have reached their “psychological tipping point”. Their CO2-obsessed irrational fears will now be sending hoards of them into psychiatric treatment and group therapy sessions. It will be a veritable bonanza for the mental health industry.

David Kreutzer
May 14, 2016 9:40 am

Of course Dr Fraser tries to link CO2 to smoggy days and dense pollution. Totally deceitful.

May 14, 2016 9:45 am

In infrared spectroscopy, there are two common scales commonly used, wavelength in um, and energy in cm-1.
CO2 has a relatively weak weak absorption band at 15 um is officially given as 665 cm-1. It did not take people long to unofficially round that up to 666 cm-1. 666 is the mark of the Beast and therefor CO2 is the molecule of the Beast. (Interesting that the weak line at 666 cm-1 is the one that all the fuss is about)
And now you know.

May 14, 2016 9:47 am

In critical editions of the New Testament, it’s noted that some manuscripts have 616 as the Number of the Beast. 6/6/16 has both variants!

Reply to  Akatsukami
May 14, 2016 4:56 pm

Irenaeus of Lyons decided on the change, probably because of a previous association of 666 with the Sun and God.

Reply to  ulriclyons
May 14, 2016 8:04 pm

The sum of the first 144 digits of pi is 666.

May 14, 2016 9:53 am

Oh noes! We hit an arbitrary number which is significant only due to some quirk of our base digit!. If only we had had the foresight to choose a different arbitrary number then things would have been better…

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Scott
May 14, 2016 10:20 am

If only we had just 8 fingers instead of ten, then the psychological breaking point wouldn’t be reached until 620 ppm. Oh well.

Flyover Bob
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 14, 2016 11:42 am

I see where the error is they counted the thumbs and not just the fingers.

Mike the Morlock
May 14, 2016 10:07 am

“CSIRO fellow Dr Paul Fraser has earmarked June 6”
CSIRO,,, hmmm. I recall hearing something about impending “LAYOFF” there.
Is he going on about CO2 and June 6 because that’s when the first of the “pink slips” go out.
I can dream right?

May 14, 2016 10:10 am

“To put the 400ppm into perspective, Dr Fraser said if you stood near a highway with cars going past, you could be hit with 500ppm of CO2.”
Who cares!? If the person standing next to you on the street or wherever exhales in your general direction, you could be hit with 40,000ppm of CO2, so big deal! Sometimes the things people get alarmed about make me laugh.

May 14, 2016 10:10 am

They seek it here, They seek it there,
Those Alarmists seek it everywhere.
Is it in the Sky? — Is it in the Sea?
That damned elusive Delta Tee….
For they are dedicated followers of fashion…
(with apologies to Baroness Orczy, and of course, the Kinks)

Reply to  Leo Smith
May 14, 2016 3:25 pm

L. O. L. – eh!

Martin Hertzberg
May 14, 2016 10:18 am

There is only one tipping point involved. It is the point at which the global warmers tip their glasses to their lips so that whatever they drink causes them to hallucinate.

Dave O.
May 14, 2016 10:27 am

Got pretty close to record low temperatures last night. Global cooling?

May 14, 2016 11:02 am

How could 400ppm possibly have an effect on human health when exhaled air contains 4% CO2 ? That’s 40, 000ppm.

Reply to  richardbriscoe
May 14, 2016 3:33 pm

Not quite correct. The amount of CO2 in exhaled breath is a function of the partial pressure of CO2 in the blood – measured as 45 mmHg.
Since at sea level, the atmospheric pressure is 1013.25 Pa, 14.696 psi, 29.92 inHg or 760 mmHg, then the concentration of CO2 in exhaled air is actually 6% – 60,000ppm.

Reply to  Pauly
May 14, 2016 11:58 pm

But that is only with normal breathing. If you are panting as after running a mile in 4 minutes 11 seconds, then you are taking in an awful lot of air with very little time to swap the oxygen for CO2, so surely the CO2 concentration will be low. But if you hold your breath for 40 seconds the CO2 concentration can be so high as to blow the alarm on a gas meter.

May 14, 2016 11:07 am

Well, if that is a “tipping point”, why are we trying to reduce our carbon footprint? Further “resistance is futile”.

May 14, 2016 11:08 am

over the past 550 million years
1,000 to 2,000 ppm: The level of CO2 at which plant growers like to keep their greenhouses 40,000 ppm: The exhaled breath of normal, healthy people.
8,000 ppm: CO2 standard for submarines
2,500 ppm: CO2 level in a small hot crowded bar in the city
2,000 ppm: The point at which my CO2 meter squawks by playing Fur Elise
1,000 to 2,000 ppm: Historical norms for the earth’s atmosphere
1,000 ppm: Average level in a lecture hall filled with students
600 ppm: CO2 level in my office with me and my husband in it
490 ppm: CO2 level in my office working alone
390 ppm: Current average outdoor level of CO2 in the air
280 ppm: Pre-industrial levels in the air, on the edge of “CO2 famine” for plants
150 ppm: The point below which most plants die of CO2

Reply to  Russell
May 14, 2016 1:53 pm

20,000 ppm when chest heaviness/deeper respiration & 30,000 doubles rate breathing ( 50,000ppm breathing 4 times more). (2012) “Is CO2 an indoor pollutant? Direct effects of low-to-moderate CO2 concentrations on human decision-making performance”, by Satish,et.al correlated “basic activity, applied activity,focused activity,task orientation,initiative,information orientation,information utilization, approach breadth & basic strategy” under 600/1,000/2,500 ppm CO2. Information orientation & focused activity were only dynamics where level of c CO2 was irrelevant; initiative & strategy were very poor at 2,500ppm.
Unless I have outside air exchange when in bedroom CO2 builds up over 1,000 while sleep, even with door to rest of house open or ceiling fan on. Pet dogs have always preferred to be covered up even in tropics. I think they use tactic to shut off sense of smell distracting them & more than that think like the higher CO2 making them drowsy.

Susan Corwin
May 14, 2016 11:10 am

I am still trying to see if there is any
……..”cheese at the bottom of this rat hole”
as Albert Yu use to ask.
CSIRO fellow Dr Paul Fraser claims several trite or indeterminate things
…1. “psychological tipping point”. – yes, well, there are good doctors for mental problems
…2.”… when I started measuring CO2 in the atmosphere in the 1970s…” a newbie,
…..tell me about the Minoan and Roman warm periods.
…3. “…unlikely to drop below 400..” so what?
…..Very limited data being rudely extrapolated?
So, he is here now, he measures something, “world ended, details at 11”
=> how much of his salary is he willing to bet and on what?
I really disliked folk I hired who were the “center of (their) universe” and were always whining about how the “world will end” if we don’t promote them.

May 14, 2016 11:28 am

..We are about to hit PEAK stupidity, then the world will come to it’s senses and put these people back in their “Little White Rooms”, padded of course !

Bruce Cobb
May 14, 2016 11:39 am

We’d better hope there won’t be triffids.

May 14, 2016 11:55 am

“but when it does hit 400ppm mark it would be a “psychological tipping point”.”
There it is folks. There’s no real physical tipping point. It’s nothing more than a figment of alarmists’ imaginations. They’re coming right out and saying it yet all the useful idiots still believe it’s real.

May 14, 2016 11:56 am

I’ll make sure to grill some steaks and chicken on my Weber charcoal grill on 6-16-2016 after I fill my car up with gasoline.

Reply to  katphiche
May 14, 2016 12:35 pm

Oh, that would drive the green nuts crazy,… we’ll have an annual “stuff the atmosphere with co2” event.

Tom in Florida
May 14, 2016 11:56 am

I think he is wrong on the tipping point. I believe it is probably more like 401.5 or maybe 402.3.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
May 14, 2016 4:01 pm

Better get some funding to study that one!

Leon Brozyna
May 14, 2016 12:21 pm

Yet another boy crying “wolf!” … again.

May 14, 2016 12:43 pm

This explains everything ethical and scientific about this whole mess 😀

May 14, 2016 12:55 pm

So now the crazed fraudsters go for Christian symbolism?

Reply to  Pat Ch
May 15, 2016 12:08 am

Don’t get cross

May 14, 2016 12:59 pm

At our nearby university here is a part course outline for environmental studies. Also I cannot find any climate scientists but can find atmospheric scientists, interesting.
ENSC 201 – Weather and Climate
This course explains the fundamental processes of weather and climate, and leads the student toward an understanding of how the atmosphere works and how to interpret the weather. Topics introduced include: atmospheric energy, solar and terrestrial radiation, the “Greenhouse Effect”, and climate change, air quality and stratospheric ozone, humidity, clouds, precipitation, storms and weather systems, hurricanes and tornadoes, stability and thunderstorms, wind and atmospheric dynamics, and weather forecasting.
The chair of, Chemistry, Environmental Science and
Environmental Engineering, writes a science column in the local paper which can be quite good but he goes off the rails when it comes to climate, he is a big supporter of AGW, CAGW and being the chair well there is bias.
Also this university in partnership with the city just renewed a four year lease on a Nisson Leaf. Now we are in a northern climate which in the winter degrades the performance of the car. The uni is up hill from city hall with a total distance of about 15 k, flat and uphill combined. Now in the winter that car will only make it oneway to the uni but with the heater off, and wipers off. In the last four years the car has low mileage as hardly driven and not useful especially in winter, but lease renewed anyhow.

May 14, 2016 1:13 pm

Another tipping point blather,whoopie doooo!!!
Yawn….. Zzzzz……

May 14, 2016 1:16 pm

Just 3 million years ago CO2 levels were greater than .04% yet no climate tipping point was encountered. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate.

Reply to  willhaas
May 14, 2016 1:20 pm

And compelling evidence that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
May 14, 2016 5:32 pm

So let me add a little more to what I have posted.
Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water. Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Man has no control.
The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.
Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.
The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.
This is all a matter of science

Reply to  willhaas
May 14, 2016 1:39 pm

There’s no evidence that salt or saturated fat cause illness, either, but that doesn’t prevent millions from parroting the “facts” that “everyone knows.” I agree we’re about to hit “Peak Stupid.”

Reply to  Goldrider
May 14, 2016 5:37 pm

For me there is such evidence since too much salt and too much fat makes me feel bad. As I have posted above, there is plenty of scientific reasoning that also supports the idea that CO2 has no effect on climate.

May 14, 2016 1:35 pm

Should the EPA regulate CO2? At what level?
Of course the EPA must regulate CO2. Just look at the dangers of Hypercapnia.
At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy. Carbon dioxide concentration must be over t 2% (20,000 ppm) before most people are aware of its presence unless the odor of an associated material (auto exhaust or fermenting yeast, for instance) is present at lower concentrations. Above 2%, carbon dioxide may cause a feeling of heaviness in the chest and/or more frequent and deeper respirations. If exposure continues at that level for several hours, minimal “acidosis” (an acid condition of the blood) may occur but more often is absent. Breathing rate doubles at 3% CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% CO2. Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. [At lower levels we may see the effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen and not direct toxicity of CO2.]
So I guess the EPA should monitor the CO2 levels, and when they reach 10000 ppm they will have to regulate it. (I am only half-way kidding, indoor concentrations can reach these levels).

Bob Burban
May 14, 2016 1:38 pm

CSIRO mission statement: … Carbon Sequestration In Rear Orifice … ?

May 14, 2016 1:47 pm

Time for Champagne. The more CO2 the better -> more plant growth.

May 14, 2016 1:57 pm

Traditionally, the Australian banana industry (large scale) stopped at Stuarts Point, a bit north of where I live on the mid-north coast of NSW.
And the Australian banana industry still stops at Stuarts Point, a bit north of where I live on the mid-north coast of NSW.
Because nothing in our local records (late 1800s for rain, early 1900s for temps) gives cause to believe that we are living in anything but the same old mid-coast climate. (All months set their record average max here between 1910 and 1919, except August, hottest in 1946. Driest year was 1902, hottest was 1915, wettest was 1950. Heaviest rain occurred over a couple of freaky days during the 1963 flood, which was not, however, as bad as the flood of 1949. Figures for neighbouring regions are wildly different, of course, except all copped the drought of 1902 and the drenching of 1950.)
Mind you, Bananageddon could come to the Cavendish via disease…but then us resourceful humans will just grow and eat something else, won’t we?
Next tipping point!

May 14, 2016 2:07 pm

I cant wait until I visit the woods tonight, I thought I seen a group of students go up to the old log cabin, been sharpening my knives all day, happy coincidence, some say! Oh like man made climate change is more realistic ffs, “tipping point”? seriously???

Bruce Cobb
May 14, 2016 2:12 pm

For (at least) 800,000 years CO2 has been frighteningly low, and yet climate has been all over the map, from ice ages to interglacials and everything in between. But carbonophobes will look at that and see DOOM.comment image

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
May 14, 2016 2:57 pm

Good point. Thanks for making it.
Those of us who don’t think CO2 has any effect (or so small you can not measure it) on average temperatures in the real world have noticed your point. It is evidence for our contention.

May 14, 2016 2:21 pm

This must the day when this “scientist” runs out of money and needs another federal grant.

May 14, 2016 2:22 pm

CO2, is it “Carbon Pollution?” A Limerick.
So, it happened again. Global warming was the word, then it became climate change, then it was briefly global climate disruption. Since we have not had any global warming at all for the last 17 years and the latest sign is that we will enter a new little ice age, Obama and the EPA are desperately trying to change the alarmists catchphrase again. This time they came up with “carbon pollution.” It is true, chimney sweeps know all about carbon pollution. Chimneys must be swept, or else we may have a chimney fire. Is that what they mean? It must be, for CO2 is a totally clean gas. It has an effect on humans in large concentrations. Nuclear submarines try to keep the CO2 levels below 8000 ppm for breathing air , or about 20 times current levels. Recent research indicate levels should be kept lower, maybe being capped at around 1500 ppm (see fig at link: https://lenbilen.com/2013/08/15/co2-is-it-carbon-pollution-a-limerick/ )
The results are interesting. CO2 levels seem to affect initiative and strategic decision making the most. So it is because of all the people full of hot air in congress nothing gets done! However, it is to be noted that this test was performed without allowing for the test subject to accommodate to their new environment. When you climb mountains you have to adjust for weeks before you react normally again. This test is therefore very suspect. While it is true that the people is the subs do not like the air they are forced to breathe, it is not because of CO2, but regular body odor and other pollutants. They get used to it, and their decision making process is not negatively affected except for an occasional cabin fever.
On a serious note, the 17% increase in CO2 the last 30 years has made the earth about 10 % greener, and we can support another one billion people on earth without starvation, increase wildlife and plant life by about the same amount. Why could that be called “carbon pollution?”
Obama, why carbon pollution?
Ban coal is no real solution.
CO2, it is clean,
Makes our earth much more green.
Now that is the green revolution.

Gunga Din
May 14, 2016 2:25 pm

I thought we’d already passed several projected tipping points? ….and nothing has happened except to change the “tipping point” to some later date.
How many failed tipping points does it take for them to realize the whole CAGW theory has toppled?

Proud Skeptic
May 14, 2016 2:25 pm

“but it might be much more than that if a leading scientist’s prediction on climate change is correct.”
Luckily they haven’t been right about anything so far. I shall rest easy…and chuckle a little.

Chris Hanley
May 14, 2016 2:27 pm

“… a smoggy day in the densely polluted cities of Beijing or Shanghai could see carbon figures as high as 600ppm to 700ppm …”.
The good residents at the US embassy in Beijing seem to be completely oblivious to the serious health risks caused by atmospheric CO2 pollution:

James Fosser
May 14, 2016 2:51 pm

Weather is a bit warm lately here in Brisbane.Most days around max of 82 F and just over 5 weeks until winter solstice. Average for May is 76 F.

May 14, 2016 3:01 pm

AGWism is cresting a wave right now, it’s at the height of it’s power, and is only going to decline from here because apart from the fact most of their argument is based on complete guesswork, with 2 legs knocked firmly from under the AGW hypothesis, there is also cultural encroachment.
The lefties have invaded our homes almost, speak directly to our kids through education, ruining movies (I cant watch a movie if it has AGW propaganda in it in any form) and created a generation of safe space bed wetters, the push back by people who were not even interested is because of the completely over the top left’s antics.
People are sick of the left, even non political types like myself. The National Socialists were far left, not right.
Obama is a socialist who talks about American Exceptionalism, tell me how he is not a National socialist?
His use of executive orders, his not needing congress to have war, he’s made himself a dictator essentially as much as he can.

May 14, 2016 3:04 pm

The left is never satisfied with the power it has. never. The left is about looking for something they do not yet control.
There are not enough bigots and racists to go round, the left have had to broaden the meanings of those words.
They will call hundreds of caterers and when they eventually find someone who wont cater for a lesbian wedding the Liberal media makes this huge conspiracy theory up that America is racist.

David S
May 14, 2016 3:17 pm

I wish the warmists would agree on a once and for all no going back tipping point so that when it is reached we can stop all this global warming rubbish. In theory once the tipping point is past then any attempts to reverse the trend is futile. Maybe then we can use the cost of those wasted climate dollars on things like education, health and other useful endeavours.

Reply to  David S
May 14, 2016 3:31 pm

don’t worry- when you tire of this rubbish, there’s plenty more where that came from
hundreds of millions of citizens have generously endowed the institutions that produce it.

May 14, 2016 3:36 pm

“Almost without exception, every reef we flew across showed consistently high levels of bleaching, from the reef slope right up onto the top of the reef. We flew for 4000 kilometers (2,485 miles) in the most pristine parts of the Great Barrier Reef and saw only four reefs that had no bleaching. The severity is much greater than in earlier bleaching events in 2002 or 1998.”

Reply to  Mike
May 14, 2016 3:55 pm

Yes coral bleach when El Nino raises water temperatures. Coral in areas that get upwelling do worse than corals that dont, corals that dont get regular cooler water upwelling can take 2c sustained increase.
All corals suffer from sudden sustanied increases, like positive ENSO, and sudden sustained decreases like Negative ENSO also stress coral populations. It depends on how warm or cool and how fast.
Great barrier reef temperatures ENSO driven
Corals in Tahiti from literature.comment image
Also isn’t the northern section of the Great barrier Reef the part that is damaged.
UV I might add fluctuated over 1000 joules dosage in that area between April and May, strong positive ENSO also shifts around Ozone. So there is that too, if El Nino redistributed ozone temporarily corals may be getting far more UV, more than pre ENSO stable UV dosage.
Note where the Barrier Reef is on this map, the north part of the reef is the area suffering worstcomment image

Reply to  Mark
May 14, 2016 3:57 pm

Click the UV map to see May’s value, that is April

May 14, 2016 4:11 pm

There are no reputable reports of mass coral bleaching events before 1980. This year’s El Nino and historically high water temperatures have combined to completely devastate northern sections of the reef.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Mike
May 14, 2016 4:23 pm

“There are no reputable reports of mass coral bleaching events before 1980.”
Mike: Are you suggesting that all the reports of mass coral bleachings prior to 1980 are not reputable? What makes those reports disreputable but the ones after 1980 reputable?

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 14, 2016 4:26 pm

I’m saying there are no reports of mass coral bleaching events before 1980.

Reply to  Mike
May 14, 2016 5:58 pm

“There are no reputable reports of mass coral bleaching events before 1980.”
You are either utterly misinformed or very mendacious.
Probably both.

Reply to  catweazle666
May 14, 2016 7:04 pm

Got any evidence for mass bleaching events before 1980? That deafening silence would be a nooooooooo…

Reply to  catweazle666
May 14, 2016 7:14 pm

What is your point?

Reply to  catweazle666
May 14, 2016 7:32 pm

Mike says:
I’m saying there are no reports of mass coral bleaching events before 1980.
A 10-second search found this statement:
Mass coral moralities in coral reef ecosystems have been reported in all major reef provinces since the 1870s.
catweazel says about Mike:
You are either utterly misinformed or very mendacious.
No doubt he’s both.

Javert Chip
Reply to  catweazle666
May 14, 2016 8:24 pm

Got any more to say on the subject? That deafening silence would be a nooooooooo…

Reply to  catweazle666
May 15, 2016 12:02 am

Mike corals bleach every positive ENSO.
Corals are in different places with different conditionscomment image?w=700
We just dont have records pre 1982 of any useful extend. To you that means “it didn’t happen” I have seen this logic before.
MWP is detected in Europe Asia the US, but not the tropics and SH because we have no data, and obviously you warmers compute that has not happening.
Phil Jones at the CRU said “we cant say it was global due to lack of data” he never said it didn’t happen, that was the Hookeyshtick, the discredited junk study.

Reply to  catweazle666
May 15, 2016 6:24 am

You’re such a chump stealey. If youd bothered to actually read your link youd see that it supports exactly what ive been saying. What a chump you are.
“Prior to the 1980s, most mass coral moralities were related to non-thermal disturbances such as storms, aerial exposures during extreme low tides, and Acanthaster outbreaks. Coral bleaching accompanied some of the mortality events prior to the 1980s during periods of elevated sea water temperature, but these disturbances were geographically isolated and restricted to particular reefs zones. In contrast, many of the coral bleaching events observed in the 1980s occurred over large geographic regions and at all depths.”

Reply to  catweazle666
May 15, 2016 10:29 am

No mike that was another part of the study, I simple used the data to make my own case for ENSO, I did not post the link to the paper the chart comes from to support an argument.
Authors reach their conclusions, not everyone who looks at their data agrees with their conclusions.
It seem such simple things escape you.

Reply to  catweazle666
May 15, 2016 10:46 am

‘Mike” says:
“I’m saying there are no reports of mass coral bleaching events before 1980.”
‘Mike” can’t handle the truth. Here is the quote from the link once again, verbatim:
Mass coral moralities in coral reef ecosystems have been reported in all major reef provinces since the 1870s.
‘Mike” stated that there were no known coral bleaching events before 1980. Now that he’s been debunked, he’s name-calling. That’s all he’s got now.

Reply to  Mike
May 14, 2016 6:14 pm

Hey Mike, there are also no reputable reports of cyclones in northern Australia before the early 1900s, so obviously cyclones never happened before then – unless you can show me a reliable report from an earlier time. Get the point?
There are no reports of coral bleaching because no one was given a government grant to look for them. These days if your income depends upon finding something wrong with the reef, you’ll find it no matter what. How many aerial surveys of the entire reef were conducted prior to 1980 and how many show a totally unbleached reef? How many scientists were out over the reef in choppers in the 1930s looking for bleaching when the world really was burning up? Your reply will be enlightening I’m sure.
We see the same recycled scare stories from the same recycled quack scientists every couple of years. The reef is always at death’s door, then magically it is OK again ready for their next prediction of doom. Go back through the records and see for yourself just how many times the reef is already supposed to have died – yet it is still there as big as ever.
Bleaching is a natural event that rejuvenates the reef. Reefs grow by dying off then being re-colonised with a greater diversity of species – always to the astonishment of the “scientists” who witness the sudden regrowth. The corals do not die off forever. Go and do some research instead of swallowing the global warming swill dished up by the ABC.

Reply to  beowulf
May 15, 2016 10:31 am

Poor mike cant see how moronic his arguments are.
No evidence for Bleaching pre 1982 = It didn’t happen.
When you point out a lack of records does not support his position either, he goes full rtrd, never go full rtrd

Reply to  Mike
May 14, 2016 7:09 pm

So, what’s your point?
If I pay another 10% for energy production/use will the reef corals thrive into the future … will the “bleaching” cease?
Maybe they should reduce the chopper flights, airplane tours, and even eliminate the future boat surveying tours of the corals to do their part. Maybe not … since it wouldn’t make a bit of difference in the overall scheme. Maybe everyone else should reduce their co2 output … and by June 6th of this year.

Reply to  Mike
May 14, 2016 11:53 pm

I see you ignore the salient points Mike and keep repeating the same ill informed nonsense.
The El Nino in 1878 would certainly have caused coral bleaching.

Crispin in Waterloo
May 14, 2016 4:20 pm

“To put the 400ppm into perspective, Dr Fraser said if you stood near a highway with cars going past, you could be hit with 500ppm of CO2.”
It is not unusual for continental cities in winter, experiencing an inversion in windless or low wind conditions, to exceed 1000 ppm CO2. The idea that 400 or 500 means anything is silly. The floor-level in a jungle, just before dawn, also has a peak well above the global average.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 14, 2016 4:27 pm


Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 14, 2016 7:15 pm

My tropical farm is in a semi-arid region at the base of tree covered low mountains; we get a seasonal rainy season. This data from a “dry” tropical Mexico forest seems to reflect tropical variation. I am not parsing field crops, which tend to have diurnal
CO2 fluctuation.
In cited dry tropical area in Mexico prior to seasonal rains during May 23 gr C02/sq.m. got put out since leaf area had been reduced (& arid). June exponentially put out 200 gr. CO2/sq.m in the same area due to arrival of rain, which started soil microbial activity & vegetation ramped up respiratory cycle. However, June’s heavier rainfall caused plant leaf canopy to start filling out & in that stage 70 g CO2/sq.mt was removed from the same area’s ecosystem. As the rains started to taper off in August the leaf canopy growth peaked at maximum expanse & an impressive 395 g. CO2/sq.mt. was taken out of the air. As the rains declined by half from their high 213 g.CO2/sq.m in that area was taken out of the air in Sept. Apparently leaf sennesence
began to occur in Oct & the vegetation could only take 83g.CO2/sq.m out of the air; leaf loss beginning means less gas exchange.
Data from (2010)”Carbon dioxide and water vapour exchange in a tropical dry forest as influenced by the North American monsoon system”, by Perez-Ruiz, et.al. My point is that we will be breathing different levels of CO2 depending on the stage of moisture & the age of vegetation even if all we know is that we are in the same nature area; the vegetation could be sucking up the CO2 around us, or conversely not.

David Chorley
May 14, 2016 4:30 pm

CO2 concentration in the lungs is about 50,000ppm

Reply to  David Chorley
May 14, 2016 4:39 pm


Javert Chip
Reply to  Mike
May 14, 2016 8:28 pm

Hey Mike!
What ever happened to your comments about no known reports of coral bleaching before 1980? Have you just decided to troll forward (so to speak)?

James of the West
May 14, 2016 4:52 pm

Maybe the psychological tipping point for climate scientists is when they realise it’s not as bad as they thought. Warmists become Luke warmers etc?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Mike
May 14, 2016 5:21 pm

It constitutes a giant red herring, and your continued pathetic trolling.

Reply to  Mike
May 14, 2016 5:27 pm

Not sure a rational person would agree with you Brucey boy.

Reply to  Mike
May 14, 2016 6:02 pm

Mike: “Not sure a rational person would agree with you Brucey boy.”
As if you would know what rational persons agree with…
On yer bike!

Javert Chip
Reply to  Mike
May 14, 2016 8:33 pm

I am assuming Mike has dropped the coral bleaching stuff and switch to some really impressive name calling like “Brucey boy”.
Jeeze – even his mama would be embarrassed.

Reply to  Mike
May 14, 2016 9:59 pm

Actually, it constitutes normal for a strong El Nino year. It happens all every time and is 100% natural (Non-man made).

Reply to  Mike
May 14, 2016 11:03 pm

“Actually, it constitutes normal for a strong El Nino year. It happens all every time and is 100% natural (Non-man made).”
Still waiting for someone to provide one instance of a mass bleaching event before 1980?

Reply to  Mike
May 14, 2016 11:55 pm

You are not rational Mike, you keep denying science and pasting the same link. irony

May 14, 2016 5:19 pm

Well, can somebody explain why CO2 is rising in the atmosphere?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Joel
May 14, 2016 5:28 pm

Man is most likely responsible for most of it, especially the past half-century or so, for which Gaia is very thankful.

Reply to  Joel
May 14, 2016 6:54 pm

Joel in warm times, like the end of last century, a lot more CO2 is liberated from the oceans. In comparison the human induced variety is fairly small.
As you know CO2 will warm dry air in a controlled environment, but temperatures remain the same if the air is wet.
In the real world we see the largest and driest continent on the planet getting cooler and I’m inclined to believe CO2 does not cause warming.
Remember the AGW mantra, cool dry regions will warm faster than the tropics, its a massive fail.

Reply to  ironicman
May 14, 2016 7:46 pm

From your link, the temperature was measured at…
…the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula…
That’s not even in the Antarctic. Look at a map.
…glaciers farther inland on the continent are actually growing.
“That has not been satisfactorily explained,”…

As usual, their opinions are not based on any credible evidence. So why would anyone assume they know what’s causing this, or whether it’s anything unusual?
Answer: they don’t. The bandwagon is going in their direction, and they’re on it. Science has nothing to do with it.
Here’s the location (at the tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, next to the Shetland Islands) that got so ‘warm’:
Pretty close to Argentina. But the implkication is that the South Pole is melting.
Typical alarmist propaganda — and Mike fell for it!

Reply to  ironicman
May 14, 2016 7:53 pm

Mike, the headline – ‘Antarctica May Have Hit Highest Temperature on Record’
Records of Antarctica are sparse. Most seem to stem from 1951.
‘Much of the original version of this dataset was obtained from the World Weather Records (WWR) volumes (1951-1970)’
You did not read the “MAY” in the headline?

Chris Hanley
Reply to  ironicman
May 14, 2016 8:47 pm

“Scientists have measured what is likely the highest temperature ever on Antarctica: 63.5 degrees Fahrenheit (17.5 Celsius) …” (National Geographic).
Absolute nonsense, it may have been the highest temperature ever measured but so what?
Anything like comprehensive meteorological data from the Antarctic goes back to only 1957 and shows no trend whatsoever: