… or, for that matter, from 1939 to 1950…. just sayin’…
Here are the data from NASA.
The allies burned about 7 billion barrels of oil to win the war — about as much oil as the U.S. consumed in 2014 alone.
(h/t Seldon Graham)
… or, for that matter, from 1939 to 1950…. just sayin’…
Here are the data from NASA.
The allies burned about 7 billion barrels of oil to win the war — about as much oil as the U.S. consumed in 2014 alone.
(h/t Seldon Graham)
Instead of using the mount or even the base of an active volcano as the source for CO2 world wide standards what has anyone done to measure at least 1000 different locations for CO2 measurements around the globe? A small sample to say the very least. Is it not absurd to use this measurement for the standard? What am I missing
Look at the CO2 levels around the 2008 recession. I thought CO2 would dramatically go down.
The CO2 production from the firestorms over Hamburg and Tokyo in 1944-45 should have spiked atmospheric CO2 but it didn’t. Why not? Why don’t skeptics challenge the very fishy CO2 data from sources such as the Keelings (father and son), almost exclusive data holders from the extremely unrepresentative upper slopes of Mauna Loa. Why do we give them a pass on the supposed ever-increasing (but trivial) increasing CO2 levels? The headlines when we finally passed 400 were oh so scary! Of course, it could have been reported as 0.04%. It is far more likely that the one degree global temperature increase over the last 150 years caused this slight increase in CO2 than the other way around if there is, indeed, any causal relationship between these two shaky metrics.
Up, down or sideways,, it’s still our fault.