Ocean acidifcation .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Way to miss the point.

Snap quiz: if the atmospheric concentration of CO2 around 1900 was about 285 ppm and it is now about 410 ppm, by what percentage has CO2 increased between those points?

first off its not at 410 it is extremely variable from 397 ( the lowest I found today) around the great lakes region. To 490 ppm close to the equator deep in the Amazon jungle .

Which would you prefer to use?
Btw the estimated co2 I would say was 295 ppm
Now as to your question .

1900 about 295 ppm = .0295%
Now about 410 ppm = .0410%
An increase of 115 ppm =.0115%
Which is about 40% increase in a miniscule percentage when you consider the total in actual scientific terms .
The problem is that it is never stated correctly .
As a side note you do realise that co2 is at ir saturation right which means we need An approx 800 ppm to have any measurable additional ir heating from the co2 .

But in the meantime plants love it .

Do you see now with the facts spelled out for you how your bathtub analogy was so wrong and misleading .
Truth is that in your bathtub it would amount to adding about a half cup of water.
But I would not expect any less from a card carrying MMGWC member.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Is a Hunter a Blue Water Boat...

the only correct answer is it depends.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

1900 about 295 ppm = .0295%
Now about 410 ppm = .0410%
An increase of 115 ppm =.0115%
Which is about 40% increase in a miniscule percentage when you consider the total in actual scientific terms .

"Actual scientific terms"

There's nothing miniscule about increasing the pre-industrial level of atmospheric CO2 by 40%. This is huge, in "actual scientific terms".

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

"Actual scientific terms"

There's nothing miniscule about increasing the pre-industrial level of atmospheric CO2 by 40%. This is huge, in "actual scientific terms".

show an actual scientist that is retired now that says that .

I can wait. Meanwhile we are cooling

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

show an actual scientist that is retired now that says that .

What?

Show me ANYONE who passed high school chemistry who doesn't agree that increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% is huge.

[sdowney717]

Barnacles seem especially plentiful, no problems growing big hard shells with all the supposed acidity from co2 in the water.

[geoleo]

Help me out here follks. I want to know who and how and where the atmosphere was "sampled " accurately for CO2 levels 200 years ago??? That be 1819.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

What?

Show me ANYONE who passed high school chemistry who doesn't agree that increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% is huge.

there you go again misleading people
From 295 to 410 ppm is an increase of 115 pars per million of a compound that is necessary for our planets forms of life to exist. Which btw we are just barely above the starvation point where photosynthesis stops . Which means all life on this planet will cease.

[geoleo]

Which then established the :baseline" for the claim that CO2 in the atmosphere "has increased 40% in past 200 years." or is this more BS??

[sdowney717]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Help me out here follks. I want to know who and how and where the atmosphere was "sampled " accurately for CO2 levels 200 years ago??? That be 1819.

Is just an assumption they could or did by idiots who think they could or did.
I doubt the accuracy of even temperature measurements before the last century.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Help me out here follks. I want to know who and how and where the atmosphere was "sampled " accurately for CO2 levels 200 years ago??? That be 1819.

they estimate from ice cores . And that is questionable due to potential out gassing prior to the snow compacting into ice

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by sdowney717

Is just an assumption they could or did by idiots who think they could or did.
I doubt the accuracy of even temperature measurements before the last century.

Why? What makes you think we can't make reasonably accurate determinations of CO2 levels (or temperature) 200 years back, or longer?


Ice core basics

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Meanwhile we are cooling

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Really??? After all the threads on this, you are unsure? CO2 levels have been directly measured since the 50s when scientists started getting really worried about this. They have been reconstructed from the last million years or so from bubbles in ice. We know the record. We know that since man started burning fossil fuels the level of total atmospheric CO2 has jumped 40%. That jump has been correlated to the amount of CO2 injected from the total of amount of fossil fuels burned which is the majority of the new amount on the atmosphere. On this part of the story there is little to no doubt in the science.

I don't think I've been clear about what I've been asking. Faulty wording on my part perhaps.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

you do realize that during ice ages the arctic is thought to have been free of sea ice right.
Warmer ocean means more snow more snow means more ice.

Research it .