Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide

Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide05-05-2019 13:48
Tai Hai Chen ★★★★☆ (1085)	https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/
05-05-2019 19:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (19208)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/ Manufactured 'data'. It is not possible to measure the global CO2 concentration. CO2 is not evenly distributed in the atmosphere, and we don't have enough stations. Further, the Maua Loa station has been shown to be cooking their data. It's useless. You can't use cooked data in statistical math. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-05-2019 00:45
HarveyH55★★★★★ (4323)	Into the Night wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/ Manufactured 'data'. It is not possible to measure the global CO2 concentration. CO2 is not evenly distributed in the atmosphere, and we don't have enough stations. Further, the Maua Loa station has been shown to be cooking their data. It's useless. You can't use cooked data in statistical math. Mauna Loa is kind of close to a lot of volcanic activity. They have several active volcanoes, and gasses are vented all over the place. Basically, the CO2 levels they read, would be as accurate as the activity, and wind direction. 0.04% is such a tiny concentration, scattered over a huge planet. Still amazes me that people believe it's of any significance, let alone, the primary driver.
06-05-2019 08:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (19208)	HarveyH55 wrote: Into the Night wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/ Manufactured 'data'. It is not possible to measure the global CO2 concentration. CO2 is not evenly distributed in the atmosphere, and we don't have enough stations. Further, the Maua Loa station has been shown to be cooking their data. It's useless. You can't use cooked data in statistical math. Mauna Loa is kind of close to a lot of volcanic activity. They have several active volcanoes, and gasses are vented all over the place. Basically, the CO2 levels they read, would be as accurate as the activity, and wind direction. 0.04% is such a tiny concentration, scattered over a huge planet. Still amazes me that people believe it's of any significance, let alone, the primary driver. Which is why they are cooking their data. Eruptions of nearby volcanoes are not appearing on their data. It should. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-05-2019 16:47
HarveyH55★★★★★ (4323)	They don't have to erupt, being active, means they are venting gas. Those gasses escape through the most convenient crack or crevice, not constrained to lava flows. There is no actual way to observe CO2, pretty sure, even if they had a device, that could only see CO2, there still wouldn't be a high enough concentration to see much of anything, other than just around the source, briefly.
06-05-2019 18:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (19208)	HarveyH55 wrote: They don't have to erupt, being active, means they are venting gas. Those gasses escape through the most convenient crack or crevice, not constrained to lava flows. There is no actual way to observe CO2, pretty sure, even if they had a device, that could only see CO2, there still wouldn't be a high enough concentration to see much of anything, other than just around the source, briefly. Some of them do vent, others do not. An eruption, however, vents quite a lot in one go. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems	481	26-08-2022 17:20
Satellite Measurements-- Sea Level Rise	71	24-08-2022 01:36
Geneticaly modifying plants and trees for carbon capture?	4	11-06-2022 09:21
Water Vapor And The Climate, Why Carbon Dioxide Is A Very Minor Player	9	03-05-2022 16:54
Forgivable Carbon Sins...	2	24-04-2022 05:52