Vivid Daily Display of Atmospheric CO2 on NASA Website

I'll give you a lot of kudos...

 

I built a Straw Bale house for my Moms 70th Birthday.

Pretty damn fun.

 

Actually you might want to take those kudos back. I cut the trees with a gasoline chainsaw, skidded them with a diesel tractor and milled them with my gasoline saw mill. Not only that but horror of horrors I regularly log the dead and dying off my land and send it to the mill in town on log trucks. It makes me money and builds houses for people like you. Also I burn six cords of fossil fuel (firewood) a year to keep my house warm and cozy. Our winters don't get a lot of sun so passive solar is hit and miss around here. The main thing is I have no illusions I'm saving the environment by being off grid solar powered,I just enjoy living very remote and being self sufficient.

 

I looked into straw bales for the insulation factor but you don't use less wood like this. You still need floor joist, wall studs and rafters. It takes five log trucks of lumber and wood products to build the average 1500sq ft house and you don't use any less with straw bales. The only thing you do is replace fibre glass insulation with hay.

 

The data since 1950 is not Ice Core data. The steady increase of CO2 is well established. August data was just added, and CO2 was 406.94 PPM, up from 406.69 PPM in July. In February of 2005, the levels stood at 378.95 PPM. Steady, steady increases; which is to be expected, considering we produce 50 GTons of CO2 per year, and trees can only sequester 1.2 GTons.

 

That's fine but the point is there's no way to put this in historical perspective. We don't know if this is abnormal or not a d for that matter if there is even such a thing as normal in the life of this ancient and ever changing planet.

 

The rate of increase is 2000 ppm per millennium. Ice core data and other proxies suggests this has never happened before. If normal means "has happened before" than the evidence suggests that it's not normal. If normal means "naturally occurring" then just plain old facts (50 Gtons of human produced CO2) say definitively that it's not normal. If normal means "what's best for humans" then we get to decide that subjectively and our determination may change from one era to another as human civilizations evolve over time. Do you think a 2000 ppm per millennium increase in CO2 concentration is best for humans? That's certainly debatable. That's why I'm asking.

 

I worked in a Brewery for many years, so I am familiar with the health effects of elevated CO2. At 2000 ppm, we are screwed. At 400+ ppm, obviously, personal health effects are NOT the current issue with atmospheric CO2. But 100 years from now, it certainly could be...

https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive...gnition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941/
Significantly, the Harvard study confirms the findings of a little-publicized 2012 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) study, “Is CO2 an Indoor Pollutant? Direct Effects of Low-to-Moderate CO2 Concentrations on Human Decision-Making Performance.” That study found “statistically significant and meaningful reductions in decision-making performance” in test subjects as CO2 levels rose from a baseline of 600 parts per million (ppm) to 1000 ppm and 2500 ppm.

 

Just to clarify...when I said "what's best for humans" I meant that in a very general sense. Sure, it was meant to include direct effects on humans from a biological perspective, but more importantly it was meant as a talking point for its indirect effects on humans such as global warming, crop yields, ocean acidification, or pretty much anything you can thing of that would that would either have a positive or negative effect on humans as a whole.

 

Guess you missed the part where I showed ice core data is highly suspect and nothing more than a hypothesis to prove another hypothesis

 

I read the blog you linked to if that's what you are referring to. But, if you're so sure ice core data is flawed then are you saying that CO2 concentrations may not have been very high in the past as the data suggests?

 

I said earlier that It's reasonable to think you may be able to see huge spikes one way or the other with ice core samples it's unreasonable to think you can do anything close to what the charts in the OP claim to do.

 

Sometimes, it's just fine to guess. It isn't real science you know....

 

Had the graph been in thousands of ppm, that change would be almost imperceptible. Fun huh?

 

And the question is, so what? Do you feel like the increased saturation in the atmosphere of CO2 should lead to additional radiation trapping? If so, show your work. The sad fact is that CO2 saturation won't normatively increase warming.

 

That isn't a "sad fact". That would be a very "happy fact". Unfortunately your assessment isn't shared by the experts on the subject. Three hundred scientific experts wrote the National Climate Assessment of 2014, and it was reviewed by peers, and the National Academy of Science. You should review the report.

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/overview/overview
Scientists who study climate change confirm that these observations are consistent with significant changes in Earth’s climatic trends. Long-term, independent records from weather stations, satellites, ocean buoys, tide gauges, and many other data sources all confirm that our nation, like the rest of the world, is warming. Precipitation patterns are changing, sea level is rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events are increasing. Many lines of independent evidence demonstrate that the rapid warming of the past half-century is due primarily to human activities.

 

Which simply doesn't answer the question asked. In fact it quite obviously ignores the question altogether. In truth, much of the current AGW theocracy is derivative of highly questionable assumptions of the ability of molecular absorption in trapping heat. Heat trapping is a function of available inputs and distance not saturation, a fact sadly ignored in so much of the literature. We've known this for just about a hundred years of so, and still, folks ignore the reality to chase their sad CO2 theory. If you'd like, you could demonstrate how the study base that your citation is referring to actually deals with this, or not. We can wait.

 

How do you know?

How do you know?

 

What part of collecting and analyzing ice core data causes it to become nothing more than a guess?

 

It's been known since the 1800's that CO2 produces a greenhouse effect. There are literally thousands of academic publications explaining why that is with countless laboratory experiments confirming our understanding of CO2's EM spectrum behavior. Rational skeptics like Judith Curry acknowledge that CO2 is a GHG. Heck, even irrational and uneducated skeptics like Anthony Watts acknowledges that CO2 is a GHG. It is overwhelmingly undisputed even among the most irrational of skeptics that CO2 is, in fact, a GHG. Your statement that increasing CO2 saturation won't mormatively increase warming puts you in a very small minority even among skeptics.

 

I don't know for sure and neither do you or anyone else. Changing our lives based upon hypothesis built on hypothesis and conjecture based on speculation is not very bright.

 

Or you could say, scientist paid to promote the AGW hypothesis.

 

Which still ignores the observation being made. Yes, we know this, but it is an incomplete knowledge. You know the adage, a little knowledge... Well, this is the premise of the lie. As in, yes, there are aspects that are demonstrably true. They do not, however, substantiate the leap that further saturation increases warming potential. That requires a whole host of additional factors, which frankly are not present.

So, yes, it is a greenhouse gas. There is no dispute. The question is why folks don't ask the right question about additive or incremental heat inducement based on saturation levels.

 

So you know better than the 300 Climatologists and National Academy of Science? You don't like the way they conduct their scientific investigation? Don't take it up with me. Write them, and set them straight.

 

Better idea is to assign them to oblivion and go on with our lives like Trump has done.