On The Safe Side Of 350

350.org

This is a favourite topic of mine, because it is an idea which is easy to test. Prior to 1988, atmospheric CO2 was below 350 ppm. What was the climate like then? Was it “safe?”

Claims that the Earth would be safer below 350 ppm have no historical basis. A few irresponsible people calling themselves scientists, have made a career shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Is it the attention they crave?

There is no basis for their claims, and they make a mockery of science.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCuGqIhUaJE]

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in 350. Bookmark the permalink.

54 Responses to On The Safe Side Of 350

  1. JohnWho says:

    Hey Steve –

    do you have a link to the souce of that “The Science of 350” graphic?

    Thanks.

  2. Amino says:

    Haiti levels of co2—at least we’ll be safe from “Storms of my Grandchildren”

    http://stormsofmygrandchildren.com/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2h368cNKFQ

  3. Amino says:

    James Hansen, helping 10:10 save the world, 1 ppm at a time. Is it just me, or does James Hansen seem deluded?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLBDVZO-8xM

  4. sunsettommy says:

    Wow!

    This is a terrific post you made, showing how silly a made up number can erase a lot of climate dangers,is in itself absurd.The list you provided is not even a full list of terrible storms that occurred below that made up 350 ppmv threshold.

    Where are those “peer reviewed” science papers that supports the dubious idea that any level above 350 ppmv is dangerous to Human Beings?

    Make it harder for us to breathe in enough oxygen or to change our metabolic rate?

    LOL

    • ChrisD says:

      Where are those “peer reviewed” science papers that supports the dubious idea that any level above 350 ppmv is dangerous to Human Beings? Make it harder for us to breathe in enough oxygen or to change our metabolic rate? LOL

      The issues they raise with 350 have nothing to do with breathing. Why argue straw men? What’s the point?

      • sunsettommy says:

        I was being sarcastic.Because I have yet to read of any rational reason why I should believe in an arbitrary number.

        So far you have contributed zero in this thread,just a bunch of “I am puzzled and thus need answers to my questions”,to clear it all up game.

        Not only that,I DID ask for this question you failed to answer.

        “Where are those “peer reviewed” science papers that supports the dubious idea that any level above 350 ppmv is dangerous to Human Beings?”

        He he…

      • Amino says:

        No more beer and soda too. Both release co2 when you open them.

      • Amino says:

        ChrisD

        Carbon dioxide is an invisible, odorless, harmless gas. It does not cause smog or smoke. Humans breathe out 100 times the CO2 we breathe in…….

      • ChrisD says:

        Carbon dioxide is an invisible, odorless, harmless gas. It does not cause smog or smoke. Humans breathe out 100 times the CO2 we breathe in…….

        None of which anyone disputes…

      • ChrisD says:

        So far you have contributed zero in this thread,just a bunch of “I am puzzled and thus need answers to my questions”,to clear it all up game.

        Here’s the deal. Claims like “Hansen’s 1988 predictions were all wrong” are made, and I suspect that most of the people who make a claim like that don’t really know anything about it. I don’t think you know how far off they were, and I don’t think you know why they were off, and I don’t think you know how the specific sources of the error are significant. In short, I suspect that many of you guys mostly just repeat what you’ve read in blogs and such without really understanding the underlying issues. That’s why I asked the questions. I’m just trying to show that there’s more to it than just repeating “Hansen’s projections sucked” (which they didn’t, by the way). There is knowledge to be had, things that can be learned.

        It’s hard not to notice that I almost never get any answers.

      • Amino says:

        ChrisD says:
        October 10, 2010 at 1:44 am

        Carbon dioxide is an invisible, odorless, harmless gas. It does not cause smog or smoke. Humans breathe out 100 times the CO2 we breathe in…….

        None of which anyone disputes…

        Ya but, dude, it’s mamnade co2. And you have already said ‘we’re all f****d’ because of manmade co2.

        So what should we do about breathing to get co2 down to a 350 ppm atmosphere?

      • ChrisD says:

        So what should we do about breathing to get co2 down to a 350 ppm atmosphere?

        Nothing. Respiration is essentially carbon neutral, since the carbon we exhale into the atmosphere came out of the atmosphere in the first place. Breathing’s got nothing to do with it.

      • Amino says:

        Man exhales 100 times as much co2 as he inhales. That is increasing co2. You are being inconsistent.

        But good thing that increase in co2 is ok or they’d be talking about culling people.

      • Dikran Marsupial says:

        Is there any skeptic canard that Amino hasn’t fallen for? The carbon in the CO2 we breath out comes from the food we eat, which starts in the food chain as carbon dioxide that was taken in by plants for photosynthesis, so there is no net increase in atmospheric CO2 from breathing.

      • ChrisD says:

        Man exhales 100 times as much co2 as he inhales. That is increasing co2. You are being inconsistent.

        No, I’m not being inconsistent, you’re being wrong.

        We can’t create carbon in our bodies, so if we exhale more carbon than we inhale, it had to come from somewhere else, right? Where did it come from originally?

        Plants absorb CO2. They make sugars and such. Then we eat the plants (or the things that ate the plants). We use the sugars etc., creating CO2 from oxygen and the carbon in the sugars etc. (essentially burning them). Then we exhale it back into the atmosphere.

        See? It’s a cycle, and it’s essentially carbon-neutral:

        Atmosphere -> plants -> us -> atmosphere.

        The carbon came out of the atmosphere, and it ends up back in the atmosphere. Living organisms do not increase atmospheric CO2 levels by exhaling.

        I do wish you’d spend just a little more time studying all this.

        Mark Twain: It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.

  5. sunsettommy says:

    Chris D,

    Have you forgotten the one James Hansen made about a road not far from outside of his office.The one that was supposed to be underwater by now.To fulfill his absurdly alarmist large sea level rise belief,that never happened.

    Just one of many showing that James “data fiddler” Hansen is wrong.

    • ChrisD says:

      No, I haven’t forgotten about that. I find it not credible that Hansen actually predicted that the trees and birds of Manhattan would be replaced in 20 years. I don’t think it’s even physically possible. But here’s the really big problem: His actual projection for sea level rise is about a meter per century. It’s been a long time since I was on the West Side Highway, but I’m not sure that’s enough to flood it by the end of the century, let alone by 2008 (the prediciton was supposedly made in 1988). No, something is very much amiss with this story. It doesn’t pass the smell test. Hansen, no matter what you may think of his politics, is no idiot.

      I was hoping for something specific that actually appeared in a peer-reviewed paper rather than a questionable secondhand quote in Salon. Something like his 1988 temperature projections, for example.

    • Amino says:

      Hey sunset,

      don’t cloud the issue with the facts.

      😉

      • ChrisD says:

        This isn’t “fact,” Amino. It’s one guy’s story about a 20-year-old conversation for which there is no contemporaneous record that I can find.

        Pretty thin gruel.

      • Amino says:

        ChrisD says:
        October 9, 2010 at 8:53 pm

        This isn’t “fact,” Amino. It’s one guy’s story about a 20-year-old conversation for which there is no contemporaneous record that I can find.

        I know, James Hansen is right and everyone else is wrong.

    • Amino says:

      sunsettommy says:
      October 9, 2010 at 7:50 pm

      Chris D,

      Have you forgotten the one James Hansen made about a road not far from outside of his office.

      Here’s a story on that:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

      • Jimash says:

        The quote was from a writer who interviewed Hansen,
        and believed everything Hansen told him.
        He ( the writer ) said that he had talked to Hansen in 2001,
        asking him specifically about those quotes,
        and that as of 2001, Hansen still stood by those predictions.
        Considering that they have been widely published, has Hansen
        ever denied making those predictions ?

      • ChrisD says:

        Has he ever confirmed them?

        How does that prediction make any sense if his actual predictions–the ones in the science papers– call for SLR of about a meter per century? Nothing seems amiss to you? It doesn’t seem at all odd?

      • Amino says:

        ChrisD says:
        October 10, 2010 at 2:57 am

        Has he ever confirmed them?

        Cirlce argument.

        Will you wrote to James Hansen and give him your opinion on his predictions? Oh, and ask him to confirm or deny what he said so you can get the confirmation you think is needed.

  6. Pingback: On The Safe Side Of 350 | Global Warming Skeptics

  7. Amino says:

    His 1988 prediction of temperature rise is brimming with success. Certainly all of his predictions are going to happen. Our grandchildren will dig us up from our graves and blows us up 10:10 style for vengeance because of all the “Storms” they are enduring. 😉

    • ChrisD says:

      Have you ever looked into the actual sources of error in his 1988 projections? What do you think about them?

      • Amino says:

        Speaking of science, have you looked at all those 20 graphs yet? Or did you settle on just guessing what the context of that video was from looking at just 1 of them?

      • ChrisD says:

        I already told you that I watched the videos, as well as my thoughts on the matter.

        Now, I asked you a reasonable question. Have you looked at the sources of error in the 1988 projections, and what’s your reaction to them? I’ll make it more concrete if you like: Do the sources of error point to anything seriously wrong with the overall AGW hypothesis?

        This is just a blog, and you have no obligation whatsoever to respond, but neither will I respond to attempts to avoid the question by changing the subject.

      • Amino says:

        Your answer was that you weren’t going take the time to look at all the graphs. So since graph are a vital part of science, shouldn’t we be focusing on what graphs show, rather than our own opinions, or the opinions of others, like James Hansen, show?

      • Amino says:

        So you’re telling me Hansen never made the prediction?

      • Amino says:

        I didn’t change the subject. That is what you have concluded I did.

        What graphs are showing is what matters. And I am pointing out you do not care to look at graphs.

        Graphs show James Hansen’s prediction is wrong. But you appear to be claiming he didn’t predict rise in temperature. Things have taken a turn for the surreal.

      • Amino says:

        ChrisD says:
        October 9, 2010 at 9:03 pm

        I’ll make it more concrete if you like: Do the sources of error point to anything seriously wrong with the overall AGW hypothesis?

        You gotta be kidding me.

      • ChrisD says:

        But you appear to be claiming he didn’t predict rise in temperature.

        Huh? No, I didn’t. Where do you get that? Of course he predicted a rise in temperature. I asked if you knew what the sources of error were. Maybe you could point out where I said anything like what you’re claiming.

    • Chris,

      Your attempts to pin Hansen’s screw ups on readers here, is a little far fetched.

      • ChrisD says:

        Well, it would be, if that what I was trying to do. I’m trying to find out if they know how far off the 1988 projections actually were, and why. So far, no luck.

      • Amino says:

        ChrisD says:
        October 10, 2010 at 3:00 am

        So far, no luck.

        Do you know what his predictions were? Tell us about them. It could be that you are, in reality, the one not knowing what you are doing. It could be that if someone was already telling you about it you didn’t recognize it because you don’t know what it is. That way, you can always be right. You can always say no one is giving you what you are looking for. So if you tell us what his predictions were then we’ll know if you are right. You come to the game assuming others are wrong. But maybe you are just trying to make arguments like you did with the graphs in a previous thread. You didn’t want to look at the graphs but you wanted to tell me what they were about.

        I know James Hansen is the “grandfather of global warming”. So some feel he must always be right—and everyone else is wrong.

        Also, you still haven’t told me about what “hide the decline” was. You didn’t tell me what declined, and you didn’t tell me what was used to hide it. You only say that when other people talk about it that they are wrong, that they don’t know what they are doing. You are doing the same here with James Hansen’s predictions.

      • Chris,

        Again. I have written several articles specifically about that during the last two weeks.

      • ChrisD says:

        Here’s what you’re doing:

        Amino: X!

        CD: Defend X against these questions, please.

        (time passes, no one answers the questions)

        Amino: You never answered the questions!

        Dude, I asked the questions, with the stated intent of finding out whether y’all really understand the facts behind your claims. Complaining that I never answered my own questions is sorta, well, weird.

        So, yes, I know what declined and what was used to “hide” it. I also know what Hansen’s 1988 projections were, and why they were (slightly) off, and what the significance of this is. I’m trying to find out if you guys do.

  8. R. de Haan says:

    AGW is what it is, the biggest fraud in the history of human kind.

  9. Mark Bowlin says:

    ?In the 1500s, 80% of the settlers in Jamestown, Virginia died due to a 25 year drought.

    Jamestown wasn’t founded until 1607.

  10. Mark Bowlin says:

    Amino,
    Am I missing something here? I just noted, without judgemental commentary, that Jamestown (the first permanent British colony in North America) wasn’t founded until 1607….meaning it wouldn’t have been possible for Jamestown to be decimated by drought in the 1500s. Neither a petty point nor unintelligent unless I’m missing something. Help me out, brother….

  11. Pingback: 350.doh! « The Daily Bayonet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *