CO2 Levels Reach 400ppm at Mauna Loa For First Time On Record 497
Titus Andronicus writes "Today, NOAA reported, 'On May 9, the daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, surpassed 400 parts per million for the first time since measurements began in 1958.' For comparison, over the last 800,000 years, CO2 has ranged from roughly 180 ppm to 280 ppm. 'For the entire period of human civilization, roughly 8,000 years, the carbon dioxide level was relatively stable near that upper bound. But the burning of fossil fuels has caused a 41 percent increase in the heat-trapping gas since the Industrial Revolution, a mere geological instant, and scientists say the climate is beginning to react, though they expect far larger changes in the future.' The last time Earth had 400 ppm was probably more than 3 megayears ago."
Re:Stop breathing (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you'll find it to be much easier and just as effective to get people to stop breeding.
Re:Stop breathing (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop breathing. It is the only way to keep the CO2 from rising...
You first. And keep on holding it. When your vision starts to go and you feel like you are about to pass out, that means it's working. If you want to ensure you stop breathing, might I suggest you tie yourself to the bottom of the deep end of the nearest pool.
In the mean time, I'll concentrate on keeping the carbon that has been safely stored in the ground for millions of years, in the ground... instead of wasting my time with silly, not well thought out rebuttals that focus on carbon that is already active in the environment and merely cycled when we breath, grow plants and eat them.
Re:queue the denialists! (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect that these notions are just easier to have floating in your brain than being constantly confronted with an uncomfortable truth about yourself e.g. I'd give up if I could, but I can't.
Climate Change denial arises from the same mechanism. The questioning of objective facts about discernable changes in the concentrations of CO2 and measurable (and predicted) effects on the troposphere arises from the desire to avoid confronting the personal implications: I will need to do something about that and This problem arose, in part, because of me and because of an edifice I believed in. It's very confronting.
Re:queue the denialists! (Score:0, Insightful)
No one denies climate change, but many deny that human contribute to it in a was that's significant enough to cause long-term harm to the planet. Humans won't be here when the Sun dies. And maybe not even 1 billion years from now. It's pretty unlikely that human contribution to changing climate cycles will be the extincting force.
You also sound like an idiot.
Re: Why not? This proves Warmists are wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
. It also may indicate negative feedback loops responding to the changes.
But that's my skepticism in a nutshell. If I light some candles in my apartment it gets gradually warmer, For a while. Then the AC kicks in. The temperature feedback mechanism in my apartment is much larger than the heat source of a candle, or my gaming rig for that matter,
We know there's some sort of 100 k year cycle. Is it a feedback mechanism? Is it a strong one? Is more CO2 just going to kick in the cooling sooner, or overwhelm the cooling?
The one thing we do know is that "stable climate" is an oxymoron. Keeping temps at the same level just isn't one of our choices. So is warmer or cooler going to bring a better standard of living in the long run? And is more CO2 going to make it warmer (the simple analysis) or cooler (due to corrective feedback coming sooner)? And if it's going to get bad, what that cost in $, and what's it cost to avoid some of it in $, and what's the cheaper path?
It amazes my how many people have strong opinions about this, but have never thought about it beyond "man change - man change bad".
Re:queue the denialists! (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you have ANY scientific basis for those statements at ALL? Of course you don't, it was about as fact free as most of the anti-global warming arguments, which is at this point starting to approach the science denial of anti-evolution arguments.
And it doesn't have to cause 100% extinction to be an utter disaster for the human race in the long run, and something we should work to prevent. Rising sea levels, increased weather variability, desertification, deforestation, and changing climate zones (all of which have been linked to human contributions to global warming and other activities) can do huge amounts of damage to many millions of people both directly and indirectly.
Re:queue the denialists! (Score:4, Insightful)
The ones profiting from fucking up the planet are to blame. They have, however, managed to school us into accepting their reality - that we all are in control, individually.
They've taught us, through millions of 30 second tv-spots and with a little help from collaborators, that their world - the "free" market economy is somehow normal and natural, a basic truth and not an ideology of greed and lying and cold blooded disdain for human weakness while every other ideology, of compassion and sharing, for example, is old-fashioned and silly.
"'free' market" you write - so you know that it isn't a free market. As to the ones profiting, do you include teachers' unions? If not, why not? They are just one of thousands of groups (whether a union, business, department, politician) that can be blamed.
Almost half (~40%) of US GDP is spent by the government directly. Of similar magnitude are all the mandated or propped up industries. Regulation compliance, fields with limited competition (doctors/lawyers, anything with government patents or copyright), and mandatory insurance (auto/health) which is really mandatory skimming of the associated costs (I.E., and incredibly dumb fucktarded proposition to force purchase of anything).
Of course, you mention no specifics beyond "eating the rich" and "fucking shit up". I'm not sure how warmongering is going to decrease CO2? As for attacking the rich, same thing.
We make good money manufacturing insulation which is used to DRAMATICALLY decrease CO2 consumption. If we become rich off this... is it OK for you to eat us or fuck up our shit?
As for anarchism, I'm down with it as an anarcho-capitalist (technically also a minarchist/voluntaryist type too - I'm not going to stake a flag in one specific area without better definitions). But I don't advocate murder or fucking people up!!!
Who mod's this interesting, "eating the rich, fucking shit up"??? I hate to Ayn Randian on you, but I have little doubt that the rich are - in your case - morally superior. You set the bar so low, it would be hard to find worse scum.
Re:Stop breathing (Score:3, Insightful)
This brings to mind my favorite George Orwell quote, from his book, "A Clergyman's Daughter:"
"She came up against it all day long--that vague, blank disbelief so common in illiterate people, against which all argument is powerless."
Sums it up for many contemporary public debates, don't you think?
Re:queue the denialists! (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems imprudent to me to speak only of the dogma of one side of a complex discussion while ignoring the dogma of the other side.
Yes of course - science is the same as wishing on fairies, and the current climate swing is caused by phlostigen imbalance because of there are not enough people who believe in fairies. Be sure to remain true to your convictions, and refuse any western medical treatment if you feel ill, and be sure to avoid any other products of the science that you scorn, like electricity, sanitation and the internet. Perhaps you could get a job as a tanner, a stone cutter for a cathedral, or a charcoal maker, and live out your short life in the woods far away from the corruptions of science.
What bothers me is that AGW mitigation advocates have yet to justify their position.
I know that bothers you - because you imagine that they need to justify the need for climate action to you, the guy who previously said that Tuvaluans should be trying to "better themselves". Pro tip: Nobody cares what you think. Enjoy your new career - I hear that stale urine is actually quite good for the toenails, though I won't bother explaining why - the explanation is packed full of that sciencey stuff, and you wouldn't like it.
You seem to have this whole "science" thing (Score:0, Insightful)
backwards.
The people making claims that they can use ice cores as proof of ancient atmospheric conditions (and therefore demand billions of humans change the way they live their lives to avoid a predicted future disaster derived in part from those ice cores) are the ones upon whom the burden of proof falls. They have absolutely NO empirical proof of the reliability of those cores and their accuracy.... no way to prove that the gases they find in those cores in 2013 have anything to do with the atmosphere in what is now Kentucky (or Hawaii, or any other place on Earth) on 1 Jan 50000BC (or any other particular date in the distant past) . The skeptic who points out the lack of proof bears no burden, just as the child in the old tale bore no burden to prove the emperor was "nekkid"... he just needed to call attention to the fact.