Try again. In any case, it's the Y axis that's messed up. The range of 150 to 400 PARTS PER MILLION should be considered. Properly graphed, the CO2 levels would be a flat line. To put things in economic terms, you might not consider a doubling of the interest rate your bank account earns if it changes from .0000000001% to .0000000002%
Are you saying the x-axis labeling isn't screwed up? It is. By that argument, you could "properly graph" the temperature to be a flat line too. What would be the point of that exactly? In order to make that argument, you need to show that 450 ppm is a negligible amount. You haven't done that. I could graph the amount of arsenic in your body (before and after I poison you) as a flat line, because hey, it is only a tiny fraction. But that flat line will flat line you. barfo
It is a negligible amount. 350 PPM = .000350. Compare, say, to nitrogen which makes up over 78% or .78. It's spit in the ocean, it should be graphed like it is. In any case, PapaG is factually correct in most of his assertions. You can see a major spike in CO2 at the right edge of the graph with no correlating spike in temperature. He was right about it being cooler year after year since 1998, too.
actually it would be .015% to .04% Did you know that table salt is lethal at 3000 PARTS PER MILLION in the human body? that is one order of magnitude greater, than the amount of CO2 you seem unconcerned about. Note my only point of this is that it may seem small, but it can have a significant effect.
That is a very silly argument, as I've already pointed out. You cannot just make the blanket statement that anything with a concentration of 350 ppm can be ignored. Well, you can, but you'd be (dead) wrong. You need to specifically show that 350 ppm CO2 in the earths atmosphere can be ignored. barfo
This is descending into comedy. "It's not even a whole number! That means it's tiny and doesn't matter."
I bet antifreeze is more lethal at fewer parts per million. My point is you're comparing something fatal to something that isn't.
Uh, no. Those who claim it's causing abnormal temperature increases need to prove it. My role is to be skeptical of that whole argument since it doesn't make any sense.
I have to agree with him here. When you make claims that something is different than accepted, you have to give proof.
You are asserting that 450 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is harmless. That's a positive assertion, it is up to you to prove it. I didn't assert that 450 ppm was harmful, or it would be up to me to prove that. I'm the skeptic here, you are the one who is claiming to know the truth. barfo
No, Al Gore and his flock are claiming 350 PPM, which is 2x increase of a very small number, is so significant that the world is going to end. They bear the burden of proof. And sorry, but Gore's silly powerpoint presentation that won an oscar and a nobel aren't proof at all.
For what it's worth, when fossil fuels are burned, it's not just CO2 that's produced. A certain amount of CO will also be produced and CO is also a greenhouse gas. For purposes of legislating carbon emissions, CO would also need to be included in the analysis.
Al Gore aint posting here, you are. If Al Gore were to post here, I think you'd have a perfect right to demand he justify his numbers. I'm not going to do it for him, because among other things, I've never even seen his presentation. But I have seen what you've posted, and you are making specific claims that can be disputed. barfo
Hmmmm. Looks like Al Gore's hometown has broken a low temperature record set over 130 years ago . . . http://www.whnt.com/news/sns-ap-tn--recordcool,0,4032125.story
"Haw, haw, cold day today...so much for global warming!!1!" You, sir, are a true scientist. A citizen scientist. Rebelling against the elitist scientific establishment and doing things your own way. I admire that "can-do" spirit.
