13 thoughts on “Warmist Frustration: Atmospheric CO2 continues down — now only 399.29!”

  1. How long will it be, before the warmists tout this? Something like ‘Wind, Solar Bring CO2 Back From the Brink’ or ‘Climate Barely Misses Tipping Point’.

  2. Does more rainfall overall mean less drought? Does warmer weather contribute to a longer growing season? Aren’t those good things? Too bad they aren’t happening!

  3. When CO2 does finally hit 400ppm is anybody gonna be brave enough to point out its got a lot colder?

    Well yes. But then I knew that!

  4. When will someone start challenging the “Keeling curve”? First of all, it is not much of a curve. It looks close to a straight line to me (i.e. linear, not curvilinear). Second, who decided that Mauna Loa was the most representative site on Earth to do the measuring? It is high up in the sky, but it is also in the center of an island which has seen dramatic growth of CO2-spewing human activity over the sixty-year measurement period (aircraft of all types at all altitudes nearby, cement manufacture for the dozens of luxury hotels being built, increased auto traffic, etc. all contributing to an expected local increase in CO2, never mentioned. As Watts would say, “what’s up with that?” Then there is that phony hockey stick graph pasting ice core data together with Keeling’s. Truly junk science. How do they get away with that?

  5. If human production of CO2 is the primary driver of recent increases, then the continued increase of human CO2 should certainly mean that CO2 would only go up. Any kind of retreat in the level of CO2 calls into question the measurement methodology, the theory that the increase is human driven, or both.

  6. It has to do with the greening of the n hemisphere. Which shows that plants love co2. It will continue down till late summer then go back up reaching a peak in winter. Both say that it has nothing to do with temperature as its colder in the winter for one, hotter in the summer and the plants are more than happy to do their part

  7. Ronhave…uh, you forgot to mention that Mauna Loa sits right besides this thing…what do they call it…oh yeah, an ACTIVE VOLCANO. You mention all the HUMAN activity that could be affecting the readings, what about all the NATURAL activity doing the same? The wind normally blows from the east, so boating on the west side of the Big Island is normally smooth, that’s also why the Hilo side (NE) is rainforest and the west/soutwest (other side of Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea are arid. So…let’s see. human factors: check. asses emitted from Kilauea: check, more CO2 from the eruption of Kilauea burning things like trees, grass, etc: check A perfect setup for the warmers and yet it STILL is going the wrong direction?

  8. You made the “first responders error”. For some reason unknown to me,, people believe that the 9/11 attack filled lower Manhattan with a persistent cloud of toxic gas and provided activist doctors with billions of dollars to monitor and treat first responders. (One guy did traffic duty in December of 2001,)

    It took a few hours for the dust to settle from the collapse of the buildings on 9/11. Then almost all work was outdoors where the air was constantly refreshed. Downtown Manhattan is less than 3 miles in width, so all air is replaced in a hour by a gentle 3 mph breeze.

    Yes, there is industrialization on islands near Mauna Loa, but that area is de minimis compared to the Pacific Ocean, and the site is an ideal place to study CO2 levels.

    The problem with Al Gore’s theory is that CO2 content at the levels on the Earth has too small a forcing effect for temperature. Significant forcing was calculated using questionable computer modeling that is almost certainly wrong.

  9. It is important to discredit the Keeling curve as it considered the trump card by war mists. It has always seemed fishy to me in a number of respects. First of all, Keeling ignored prior measurements, I think on the grounds that his methdology was better. Some prior measurements at other times and places (e.g. 1939 in Germany) showed reading well above 400 ppm.
    Secondly the Keeling measures show no variability whatsoever except seasonal, despite macro events such as volcanic activity or wars or forest fires around the world which spewed massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Thirdly, even though I accept the argument that the local human-footprint effects are likely to be blown away or not impact at the level of the observatory, they are never mentioned at all, and it is these very effects that warmists are constantly screaming about. Fourthly, the argument that Mauna Loa is an ideal spot for measurement of atmospheric CO2 is unsustainable, given other possible confounding factors, human and other, and the size and possible variability of all the other points on the earth’s surface and in its atmosphere which might be measured.
    The most important measurement issue concerns the nature and degree of the carbon sink effect of the oceans. It is thought by many skeptics that the ocean effect is so large that it swamps any possible anthropogenic effect on the CO2 atmospheric balance. I believe we now have floating measurement stations in all the oceans. What do they say? I have tried to google this out, but anyone googling this topic will be met my the massive obfuscations of the warmist majority. The internet is literally seeded with warmist propaganda posing as “science.”

  10. Joe Bastardi ! Good to hear from you. I used to love your horibful jokes on the TV news in DC.

  11. honestly people if no CO2 we would not exist get it
    CO2 levels are going up at every measuring station.
    Perhaps those who think this is some fool idea need to honestly think for a second.
    please stop getting your information from junk outlets ie FOX news etc.

  12. That CO2 levels are rising is not really the argument. The argument, for those who only get their information from junk outlets ie Greenpeace, Al Gore, and MSNBC, is that the climatology models predicting catastrophe dramatically overstate the impact that rising CO2 levels have on temperature.

    The “science” that uses the flawed computer models as a basis for driving policy are no less theocratic than young-earth creationists. Climate “science” has become a religion wrapped around a claim that CO2 is bad. CO2 is the same-gender marriage of the political left.

Comments are closed.