1 June 2012: Greenhouse gas levels pass symbolic 400ppm CO2 milestone “The world’s air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.”
21 May 2013: NASA scientists react to 400 ppm carbon milestone “The global concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – the primary driver of recent climate change – has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history…”
29 April 2014: April Becomes 1st Month With CO2 Levels Above 400 PPM “The end of April has arrived, and with it, the record for the first month in human history with an average carbon dioxide level in Earth’s atmosphere above 400 parts per million has been set.”
27 May 2014: Carbon Dioxide Passes Global 400 ppm Milestone “A new carbon dioxide milestone has been reached according to the World Meteorological Agency.”
2 July 2014: CO2 Levels above 400 PPM Threshold for Third Month in a Row “Atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas, which helps drive global warming, haven’t been this high in somewhere between 800,000 and 15 million years.”
6 May 2015: Greenhouse gas benchmark reached “Global carbon dioxide concentrations surpass 400 parts per million for the first month since measurements began.”
20 Nov 2015: Carbon Dioxide Bidding Farewell to 400-ppm Benchmark “On an otherwise unremarkable day last week–November 11, 2015 –a crucial milestone in global climate was quietly transcended.”
19 May 2016: Atmospheric CO2 May Have Topped 400 PPM Permanently “Rising CO2 levels not only break a worrying threshold, ‘I think we’re essentially over for good,’ says Ralph Keeling.”
16 June 2016: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4 Million Years “The most remote continent on Earth has caught up with its more populated counterparts”.
28 Sept 2016: The world passes 400ppm carbon dioxide threshold. Permanently “In the centuries to come, history books will likely look back on September 2016 as a major milestone for the world’s climate.”
24 Oct 2016: ‘New era of climate change reality’ as emissions hit symbolic threshold “CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to be above 400 parts per million on average over 2016 and will not dip below that mark for generations, UN says”.
Climate Scepticism 
Well when you’re flogging a dead horse, it’s important to get your money’s worth 🙂
So scary milestones don’t move the public. The Pope, Obama and DiCaprio don’t move the public. Movies, plays, comedy, music and crap science don’t move the public. So when are they going to stop listening to the psychologists who scratch their heads and advise more of the same? Either the oil companies have perfected the perfect way to influence the public or there’s something more fundamental going on. If the psychologists can’t see what it is, perhaps they’re not the right people to ask.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Oh dear, we’ve passed 400ppm everywhere on Earth now and, supposedly, it’s going to stay that way for generations, so no more Groundhog days, no more milestones, at least until we reach 450ppm, when ‘catastrophic’ warming becomes irreversible. They’re going to be rather bored unless they can come up with some new climate milestones with which to wow the public.
Incidentally, I wonder how Scientific American figures that 400ppm is the highest CO2 level experienced in Antarctica for 4 million years when the ice core record (imperfect as that is) only goes back 800,000 years?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Many more dangerous tipping points are described than just 400 and 450 ppm. Some years ago, when I just started blogging, I did some Google and found loads of them:
https://trustyetverify.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/whats-in-a-number/
It went from 220 until 1120 ppm. There is still plenty of room for alarm, even if we pass above 450 ppm.
LikeLike
97% of scientists agree – no more than 350ppm CO2 is crucial in order to maintain a healthy and happy climate. And don’t forget to brush your teeth kids.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I find 400 ppm to be very nice. I realize this is only anecdotal evidence, but we seem to be getting huge nectarines, the scenery seems greener than before, and we are having a very nice fall. I noticed there’s more birds in the large tree in the yard, probably because it has much denser foliage. Thus far I can’t see much sea level change. It seems to me the beach sand piles up higher a few mm every year or whatever.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Heh!
And don’t imagine that an ever-increasing proportion of the public are unaware of this ongoing buffoonery, and that so far, despite all the hooting and screeching from the ‘Usual Suspects’ not a single one of the much-vaunted apocalyptic events has in fact come to pass.
In fact, some prognostications such as those relating to hurricanes have been diametrically wrong.
The desperation on the part of the Warmies is becoming truly hilarious as they realise that nobody evcept a few zealots believes a single thing they say any more.
LikeLike
Each of those articles describes a DIFFERENT milestone, and they perfectly illustrate the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Some of them refer to 400 ppm at a particular location, or a global average. Some refer to passing 400 ppm temporarily, or for a whole month, or on average over a time period, or permanently. I’ve broken it down for you below, in case you don’t want to read all those articles you linked to:
****************************************
1 June 2012: Arctic CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time
21 May 2013: CO2 levels at the Mauna Loa station surpassed 400 ppm for the first time
29 April 2014: The average CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa station stayed above 400 ppm for a whole month for the first time
27 May 2014: This article refers to the same milestone as the previous article
2 July 2014: The global average CO2 level surpassed 400 PPM for three months in a row for the first time
6 May 2015: Global average CO2 concentration stayed above 400 ppm for a whole month for the first time
20 Nov 2015: The concentration of CO2 at Mauna Loa surpassed 400 ppm, was not projected to ever go back below 400 ppm.
19 May 2016: This article refers to the same milestone as the previous article.
16 June 2016: Antarctic concentration of CO2 surpassed 400 PPM for first time
28 Sept 2016: The global average concentration of CO2 surpassed 400 ppm, was not projected to ever go back below 400 ppm.
24 Oct 2016: The global average CO2 concentration over the course of the whole year was predicted to be above 400 ppm.
****************************************
Now, you can argue that marking that many different 400 ppm milestones is unnecessarily click-baitey, I’d probably agree with you.
However, your assertion that the same milestones is being repeatedly advertised in a fraudulent attempt to mislead the public, then you either
1. didn’t read the articles carefully, or at all, and assumed they validated your preexisting conclusion
2. are attempting to lie about climate science.
I am writing this explanation in the hope that option #1 is the case, and you are a true skeptic. If option #2 is the case, then there’s nothing more we need to say to each other.
LikeLike
Brian, thanks for the summary!
“Each of those articles describes a DIFFERENT milestone”
– except that they don’t, as your list demonstrates.
“your assertion that the same milestones is being repeatedly advertised in a fraudulent attempt to mislead the public”
– where did I make that assertion?
“are attempting to lie”
– I think it’s clear who is attempting to lie here.
LikeLike
“Each of those articles describes a DIFFERENT milestone”
“except that they don’t, as your list demonstrates”
I suppose that’s true – it looks like you accidentally posted two duplicate articles about the same milestone. Other than those two, the eleven articles you picked describe nine different milestones, describing the escalating concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If you read those articles and concluded that the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was not actually rising, I’d like to understand how you came to that conclusion.
“your assertion that the same milestones is being repeatedly advertised in a fraudulent attempt to mislead the public”
“where did I make that assertion?”
I suppose you didn’t “assert” it exactly, but it’s strongly implied by the large picture of Bill Murray at the top. In case you haven’t seen Groundhog Day (you should – it’s a great movie), it involves Bill Murray reliving the exact same day over and over again. I’m finding it hard to understand why that would be the top picture unless you’re implying that scientists have been reporting that we’ve passed the same milestone over and over again for four years. If you’re not trying to imply that, I’m not sure what the point of this post is – I’d appreciate an explanation if you feel like clarifying.
“are attempting to lie”
“I think it’s clear who is attempting to lie here”
This also isn’t quite as clear as you might have hoped. Perhaps you could clarify that too?
LikeLike
Compliments to the El Nino of 2014/15/16 and the Blob for providing climate scientists with such a wonderful opportunity to announce so many new and exciting ‘milestones’ over the last few years and to incorrectly attribute them primarily to GHG emissions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brian, thanks for another pack of lies:
“it looks like you accidentally posted two duplicate articles about the same milestone.”
There aren’t “two duplicate articles” and I didn’t “accidentally” post anything.
“If you read those articles and concluded that the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was not actually rising,”
What makes you think I concluded that? You seem to be making things up again.
I hope it’s now clear even to you who’s attempting to lie.
LikeLike
“…to incorrectly attribute them primarily to GHG emissions.”
How do you know?
LikeLike
Well, well…
President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t take office until 20/01/2017, and already he is influencing the CAGW brigade in the USA.
EPA plans to withdraw pollution regulations for seven Texas power plants
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it plans to voluntarily withdraw a requirement that seven Texas coal-fired power plants reduce pollution, according to a filing with a federal appeals court.
The so-called regional haze rule is part of the Clean Air Act and was proposed two years ago with the goal of cleaning up the air in national parks. The act requires states to craft a plan to address air pollution, or else be forced to implement a plan compiled by the EPA. Texas declined to create a plan, and along with power plant owners took its objections to the EPA’s plan to court.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/11/29/epa-withdraws-pollution-regulations-for-seven-texas-power-plants/
Heh, and he hasn’t even been sworn in yet!
AGW = It’s All Gone Wrong!
LikeLike
Nino,
How do I know? You of all people should know how I know. That’s what major Ninos do – boost CO2 in the atmosphere. Ergo, the recent run of Groundhog Day-like 400ppm milestones, coincident with the build up of Nino and the appearance of the Pacific warm blob, is extremely likely to have been caused by the additional CO2 expelled into the atmosphere courtesy of these natural events. I know because, even though emissions of CO2 have been climbing, the rate of growth of CO2 in the atmosphere has been generally slowing since the start of the century and the proportion of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere has been declining. So it stands to reason, does it not, that the current breathless crop of 400ppm milestones, are as a direct result of the warming caused by El Nino. Incidentally, the Blob has disappeared, eaten up by an even bigger cold Blob in the Pacific.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You seem to be channeling your inner Salby.
“…the proportion of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere has been declining”
Really? Do you have a reference?
LikeLike
“You seem to be channeling you inner Salby”.
Really? Here’s the references:
My most recent post on this very blog (which you have commented on but seemingly not read very carefully).
http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428#methods
“We show that the combined effect of CO2 fertilization and the slowdown in warming has been sufficiently large to decrease the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and slow the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 despite increasing anthropogenic emissions.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
But your Nature quote does not mean that “the proportion of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere has been declining”, which is Salby-esque. The proportion of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. What the Nature article says is that the proportion of each year’s anthropogenic CO2 that remains in the atmosphere at the end of the year has been declining.
LikeLike
“The airborne fraction, AF, is defined as the fraction of anthropogenic carbon emissions which remain in the atmosphere after natural processes have absorbed some of them.”
Purely for convenience, this is measured annually. If AF is decreasing but airborne CO2 is increasing overall, this necessarily implies that natural CO2 is increasing in relation to anthropogenic CO2. To take an extreme example, if AF were to shrink to 0% over 5 years, no anthropogenic CO2 would accumulate in the atmosphere from then on and the proportion of anthro CO2 compared to natural CO2 would decline considerably, assuming a steady increase in CO2 ppm.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If AF is decreasing but airborne CO2 is increasing overall, this necessarily implies that natural CO2 is increasing in relation to anthropogenic CO2.”
No. There was no appreciable anthropogenic CO2 (aCO2) in the atmosphere in 1880, when CO2 was 280ppm. In 2016 there is 120ppm aCO2 of a total CO2 of 400+ppm. These go up annually by 2-3ppm. Whether that number is 2ppm or 3ppm or 1.9ppm or 2.9ppm matters not a jot; it is going up. In no practical sense is aCO2 decreasing.
LikeLike
You’re making no sense whatsoever Nino.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought you were somewhat smarter than that.
LikeLike
This is not a ‘who’s smartest’ contest Nino. If you have a point to make, make it, clearly. All you’ve done so far is wag your finger, saying I’m wrong and that I’m engaging in ‘Salby-esque’ tactics (whatever they are) but providing no cogent explanation of why this is so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One needs little intelligence to understand that anthropogenic CO2 is increasing.
LikeLike
“One needs little intelligence to understand that anthropogenic CO2 is increasing.”
So what if it is?
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Of course, extra atmospheric CO2 also decreases requirement for water.
LikeLike
“One needs little intelligence to understand that anthropogenic CO2 is increasing.”
One needs just a little bit more intelligence to discern the difference between a quantity increasing in absolute terms and decreasing in relative terms when compared to another quantity.
The little bit more seems to have eluded you.
LikeLike
Well, let’s see:
120ppm anthropogenic of 400ppm total CO2 is 120/400 = 0.30
Add 2ppm anthropogenic CO2:
122/402 = 0.303
Add another 2ppm:
124/404 = 0.307
Add another 2ppm:
126/406 = 0.31
Well look at that, the proportion of anthropogenic CO2 goes up, all you need is arithmetic to see it!
LikeLike
OK, this is getting silly. 122/402=0.3035
Along comes El Nino, boosts natural CO2 by 4ppm, AF declines so anthro increase = 1ppm
123/408=0.3014.
Following year, natural CO2 increases 3ppm, anthro 1ppm
124/412=0.3009.
So, during our El Nino, with atmospheric CO2 being boosted by outgassing from the oceans, combined also with a decrease in the rate of anthropogenic carbon remaining in the atmosphere, the proportion of anthro carbon declines. Granted, this is a particular case. Anthro carbon proportion will increase steadily if the only source of extra carbon introduced to the atmosphere is anthropogenic during non El Nino years. This is one of the basic tenets of global warming theory; that the natural carbon cycle is in balance and that all the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to emissions. But as far as I can see, this view is not uncontestable and the carbon cycle has yet to be fully understood. See for instance:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-much-of-atmospheric-co2-increase-is-natural/
So simple arithmetic might not be the final answer I’m afraid.
LikeLike
Sorry, should be 123/407=0.3022
124/411=0.3017
LikeLike
Just look at the CO2 graph: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png
from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
If, after looking at the data, you really think levels exceeded 400ppm because of El Nino, I can’t help you. And if you say that the proportion of aCO2 in the atmosphere is falling because in 2016 the amount of aCO2 absorbed by the ocean fell (i.e. in that year the AF rose, not fell), you misunderstand (what you call ‘outgassing’ is a temporary reduction in how much CO2 the ocean absorbed).
LikeLike