Good news Co2

[enginesrus]

So the truth is Co2 has increased by, 0.014% (14 thousandths of 1%) in the last 170 years. LESS THAN 1 THOUSANDTH OF 1% PER DECADE!
Do the research. So we already have net zero. That is the good news.

 

[dik]

Your numbers are wrong... catch the chart... The increase is about 100ppm since 1950, but the increased amount is about 33% in that time. That's the 'not so good news'.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Your numbers may be wrong as well. If there is not ice formation during warm periods how is there record of CO2 concentration during those periods? Remember, you're just as kooky as the guy you're arguing with.

 

[dik]

I'm not arguing with him... just correcting him so that others don't think he's correct.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

You're using a potential major misinterpretation of a chart to make a correction...

Notice the peak ice core CO2 is about the same for each cycle. Does this mean CO2 never rose above those levels? Does it mean new ice formation stopped during high CO2 times so the peaks cannot be observed in ice core samples?

 

[enginesrus]

It was a discovery I found, you can't correct me, I didn't originate the data. I dare not to post links anymore everyone hates them.
So dik the posting data days are gone. You just need to find the true, not the skewed, by the special party, that skews such data to support their agenda.
That is all the data you seem to post here.

 

[dik]

I'm not arguing with him... just correcting his information so that others don't think it's correct.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[SwinnyGG]

I dare not to post links anymore everyone hates them.

Have you ever stopped to think why that is?

I can't speak for everyone, but I can tell you why I respond the way I do. It's because the links you post lean very heavily toward pseudoscience, and almost always contain wildly incorrect 'facts' like this one:

So the truth is Co2 has increased by, 0.014% (14 thousandths of 1%) in the last 170 years. LESS THAN 1 THOUSANDTH OF 1% PER DECADE!

Which is completely, demonstrably wrong. Making wild, inaccurate claims taken from garbage sources is no different than posting the garbage sources themselves. You do it so frequently that honestly, I continue to be surprised that you're still allowed to post here.

While I agree with Tug (mark that down on a calendar, someone!) regarding concerns over our capability to reliably and accurately determine gross atmospheric CO₂ numbers from ice cores, any data after roughly 1960 is not inferred through an algorithmic source like ice cores - it is the result of continuous direct measurement using modern tools.

Google the keeling curve. This is an ongoing measurement experiment. The data is peer reviewed, correlated across multiple sources, and extremely easy to interpret.

Average atmospheric CO₂ in 1960: 315 ppm
Average atmospheric CO₂ in 2020: 420 ppm

That's an increase of 105 ppm in 60 years, or a 33% increase from the 1960 number. Roughly 1.75 ppm, or roughly 0.5% per year.

Your 'truth' number is wrong.

 

[stevenal]

Are folks confusing relative change versus absolute? Either might be expressed as a percentage, but generally an absolute change is expressed in percentage points to keep it clear.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I definitely think it's important to identify the SOURCE of the data. Whether it be ice cores, tree rings, satellite data, weather balloons, Mauna Loa measurements.

The Keeling curve is great from the late 1950s on where it is based (entirely?) on the Mauna Loa data. It shows a clear and undeniable increase in atmospheric CO2 from that point until now of about 33%. I don't seen how anyone can deny that measurement. It's at about the highest point in one of the most remote tropical locations of the world.

https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/

Prior to that, they extrapolate it based on ice cores. I'm not quite as confident in ice core data. I'm not saying it's fabricated at all. Just that it's not a direct observation of atmospheric CO2. So, they have to do correlations to make it relate to the other directly observed data.

 

[dik]

I have some preference for icecore data, when it's one of the only long terms sources for the information. I suspect that it underestimates the conditions, but underestimates them for the entire range of data. Icecore data is consistent (not for CO₂), but climate WRT 'tree ring' data.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik