Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

hatrack

(64,878 posts) Wed Feb 6, 2013, 09:37 AM Feb 2013

January 2013 Atmospheric CO2 395.55; January 2012 393.14; January 2011 391.25

http://co2now.org/

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

January 2013 Atmospheric CO2 395.55; January 2012 393.14; January 2011 391.25 (Original Post) hatrack Feb 2013 OP

Tick ... tick ... tick ... Nihil Feb 2013 #1

Hey, it didn't go up much. pscot Feb 2013 #2

I think there's a pattern NoOneMan Feb 2013 #3

If you squint really hard NickB79 Feb 2013 #4

Pfft, you just don't understand price trends. joshcryer Feb 2013 #5

Nihil

(13,508 posts)

1. Tick ... tick ... tick ...

Reply to hatrack (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 01:36 PM

Feb 2013

Wonder how many people had picked 2015 for the "Crossing the 400ppm barrier" party?

A mere generation or so after the "safe" level of 350ppm was topped off ...

Thanks for posting the reminder.

pscot

(21,044 posts)

2. Hey, it didn't go up much.

Reply to hatrack (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 02:36 PM

Feb 2013

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)

3. I think there's a pattern

Reply to hatrack (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:56 PM

Feb 2013

NickB79

(20,354 posts)

4. If you squint really hard

Reply to hatrack (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:25 PM

Feb 2013

You can see the teeny, tiny dip when the global economy crashed in 2008.

Wow, so much for that saving our asses from climate change.

It's almost like it's a self-perpetuating cycle at this point or something.........

joshcryer

(62,536 posts)

5. Pfft, you just don't understand price trends.

Reply to hatrack (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 10:12 PM

Feb 2013

They're unequivocal.

Reply to this discussion