Global CO2 Concentration Passes Threshold of 400 ppm -- and That's Bad for the Climate (time.com) 376
The average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere hit the symbolic level of 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in 2015 and has continued to surge in 2016, according to the World Meteorological Organization. From a report on Time:Scientists say humans may need to take some carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to stop global warming. The carbon dioxide concentration is unlikely to dip below the 400 ppm mark for at least several decades, even with aggressive efforts to reduce global carbon emissions, according to the WMO report, which confirms similar findings reported last month. Carbon dioxide can last in the atmosphere for thousands of years without efforts to remove it. "The year 2015 ushered in a new era of optimism and climate action," said WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas, referring to the landmark Paris Agreement to address climate change. "The real elephant in the room is carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years and in the oceans for even longer."
horse has left the barn (Score:3, Insightful)
People need to realize that the effects of global warming are at this point unstoppable. No conservation effort and certainly no carbon dioxide removal program could possibly show an effect for decades. At which point the damage will already be done. Money would be much better spent preparing for sea level rise etc than trying to prevent it.
Not to be a downer but the number of people killed by famine, drought, sea level rise, etc will probably be more effective at curbing CO2 output than any policy measures.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. The biggest problem is government subsidies to live in flood areas.
As for "aggressively tackling" I have to ROFLMAO. Asia continues to build a new coal fire plant every week. I'm more concerned about the pollution they are spewing - there are advisories not to eat fish in USA lakes because of poisoning from Asia energy and manufacturing air pollution.
Re: (Score:3)
So you see the biggest problem is that people live in flood areas, not that the petroleum industry effectively is the most subsidized industry on the planet, and is insulated against the significant costs the use of fossil fuels is producing? Oh no, but we must punish people for living near sea level.
Re:horse has left the barn (Score:4, Insightful)
So you see the biggest problem is that people live in flood areas, not that the petroleum industry effectively is the most subsidized industry on the planet, and is insulated against the significant costs the use of fossil fuels is producing?
I agree with the grandparent. Most oil subsidies come from countries that produce oil. You're not going to guilt them into changing their ways. The second problem is that a good portion of the oil subsidies subsidize consumption. That means that it's not a subsidy for the industry, which usually takes a loss on the practice.
But people who live in flood zones? We can simply just not pay when their stuff gets wet.
Sea level rise isn't the main problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Rising sea levels will be gradual and we have plenty of time to cope with them. Aside from the climate change aspect the more immediate problem is acidifcation and warming of the sea which has already killed off a quarter of the barrier reef and is having serious effects elsewhere with plankton. If the ocean food chain starts collapsing from the bottom up we're in deep deep shit and thats before you consider the reduction of fish stocks by overfishing and the destruction of the ocean floor by drag net trawling.
Re:Sea level rise isn't the main problem (Score:5, Informative)
Some people think it is going to be gradual but there are people who think it could be sudden for a few reasons.
Antartic [npr.org] ice sheets are melting at this time, but it is currently trapped by the ice there.
Most people don't think these sorts of things happen regularly, but glacial floods [wikipedia.org] have been seen in the earth's history (as long as you believe the earth older than 6000 years).
Also, the reason that ocean sea level rise has not been seen everywhere up to this point is because the Arctic ice was over water, which meant that no water was added to the ocean. Antarctica and Greenland's ice are not currently a part of the ocean, so when this makes it to the ocean, things are going to go bad around the world.
Aside from the climate change aspect the more immediate problem is acidifcation and warming of the sea which has already killed off a quarter of the barrier reef and is having serious effects elsewhere with plankton.
And this is the other point, we have no idea what effects we are having on plankton populations. But then again, why do we need plankton, it isn't like we need to breathe.
Slowly, and then all of a sudden (Score:4, Insightful)
Some people think it is going to be gradual but there are people who think it could be sudden for a few reasons.
I am reminded of the quote [azquotes.com] from Ernest Hemingway: "How did we go bankrupt? Two ways. Slowly, and then all of a sudden."
Re:Sea level rise isn't the main problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sea level rise isn't the main problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Archaeologists have found the remnants of ancient Indian villages out in what is now the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Back in the tail end of the ice age, water levels were far lower.
For that matter, a change of sea level of just one foot in the Florida Keys would drastically change the map.
We may see a gradual rise in sea level, but not everything is a straight line. We could see a series of incursions and withdrawals, with each incursion going higher than the last.
Also, not all of the destructive flooding may be oceans rising. Hurricane Matthew, was, thankfully, not as destructive in terms of wind as had been feared (a mere 20 miles further West would have been different, though). However, like many storm systems, the sheer amount of rain caused far more damage inland in North Carolina than the winds or storm surge, as places above sea level flooded.
I understand that one of those "we-make-up-the-news-and-you-believe-us" sites has accused the US Government of "redefining" what a hurricane is "in order to promote the Global Warming Scam, er Scare", but in actuality, weather people started talking about making a distinction between Category 5 windstorms and Category 5 rainstorms several years ago. Sometimes the less windy storms can do more damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:horse has left the barn (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with you the time for conservation is past. We are at least if we want to continue to enjoy the standard of living we do beyond the natural carrying capacity of the globe. The answer is geo-engineering. I don't agree with your assessment we can remove carbon in sufficient quantities from the atmosphere. Do you have any evidence to site? I would argue the opposite, given we have been able to put a sufficient amount of carbon into the atmosphere to account for at least some of the temperature and ocean acidification changes we are seeing, it stands to reason we should be capable of removing it as well.
Technologies exist to efficiently (in terms of volume) remove carbon from air today. It just requires lots of input energy. There are a sources that could provide such energy at hand. Fission as well as that big fusion ball we call the sun could provide a enough power. We just need to get serious about doing it. We should reallocate the resources currently being used on carbon reduction to carbon removal efforts. It would go a long way.
Re:horse has left the barn (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh for fuck's sake. We can still maintain a good standard of living and wean ourselves off of oil.
Re: (Score:3)
Really,
Tell me how do you do enough concentrated agriculture to feed the 8B people without nitrogen fertilizer?
Re: (Score:2)
No, we can't. Airplanes aren't going to be solar powered, wind driven ships are extremely erratic, and delivering food to cities by horse-drawn carts is so last millennium.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you capable of thinking in anything approaching non-sequiturs?
A moose once bit my sister.
Re: (Score:3)
So, up here in Canada, in today's news are some fisherman who (fortunately) failed to get an injunction against an experimental tidal power project, and a bunch of protesters who took over a hydroelectric dam under construction. Don't think that "cleaner" energy does not have huge amounts of opposition. Natural gas infrastructure expansion is undergoing major protests. Wind turbines are noisy and unsightly and subject to lawsuits, and solar thermal kills birds. Don't even mention the word nuclear and ex
Re:horse has left the barn (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh I am fully aware the 'earth' will 'fix' the problem. I am also aware the "earth's solution" will mean the mass death of humanity though starvation and war. No thank you, I consider myself a misanthrope and I still think people deserve better than that!
I'd like to see us at least try.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the majority of people don't want to die.
>Because we, you know, are idiots.
At least you are.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:horse has left the barn (Score:5, Insightful)
Much better to be thinking about buying an iron lung than to stop smoking.
Perspective (Score:5, Informative)
http://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Hockey Stick is NOT the full story (Score:4, Informative)
Just going to note that here's what this means in terms of how the global average temperatures have been changing, and how rapidly so compared to the past:
http://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]
Here's a link to the actual paper [sciencemag.org] the xkcd graph is derived from.
Before drawing conclusions from the graph trend starting at the year 1900, read the journal article more closely. Specifically the part where it notes that the trend from 1900 onwards is graphing the instrumental record, while the period before 1900 is from their proxy reconstruction. As in, before leaping up and declaring human industrial era began at 1900, also note that the SOURCE OF DATA changed at 1900 too.
Re: (Score:3)
Specifically the part where it notes that the trend from 1900 onwards is graphing the instrumental record, while the period before 1900 is from their proxy reconstruction.
They can graph the trend based on a proxy measurement of observations discovered on stone tablets for all I care. What's important is not the source of the measurement (despite what the anti AGW crowd like to claim) but rather the accuracy and repeatability.
Re: (Score:2)
What should be important is the precision. +1C +/- 0.1C is a lot more meaningful than +1C +/- 2C....
Re: (Score:2)
Specifically the part where it notes that the trend from 1900 onwards is graphing the instrumental record, while the period before 1900 is from their proxy reconstruction.
They can graph the trend based on a proxy measurement of observations discovered on stone tablets for all I care. What's important is not the source of the measurement (despite what the anti AGW crowd like to claim) but rather the accuracy and repeatability.
Amen on the accuracy. The original article has the graph data available here [sciencemag.org].
The overall reconstructions show about a 0.4 to 0.5C change in temperature with an error margin +/- 0.2C, so an error margin that's nearly as large as the signal. And that's just for the statistical uncertainty, not any other unaccounted for factors. When the comparison between that and an instrumental record differ, it's a bit less shocking and perhaps that difference in precision is a factor and not solely human activity starting
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, we can't trust any reckoning of temperatures before the "instrumental" temperature record.
Oh wait, they've moved the instrument due to construction on campus and now the temperatures need to be adjusted! OMG IT'S NOT RAW DATA!!!!eleven!!!11!!1!
Now here comes satellite measurements! We can't trust any numbers before 1980-ish! Oh noes! We can't know anything about anything!
Upside to not knowing anything about anything: when Florida sinks, can we just pretend it never existed?
Re:Hockey Stick is NOT the full story (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, we can't trust any reckoning of temperatures before the "instrumental" temperature record.
Oh wait, they've moved the instrument due to construction on campus and now the temperatures need to be adjusted! OMG IT'S NOT RAW DATA!!!!eleven!!!11!!1!
Now here comes satellite measurements! We can't trust any numbers before 1980-ish! Oh noes! We can't know anything about anything!
Upside to not knowing anything about anything: when Florida sinks, can we just pretend it never existed?
The flames from all the straw men makes it hard to hear you.
Nowhere did I call into question any of the data sets. I provided a link to the actual journal article no less so anyone could fact check. What I DID point out is that we have two data sets on the graph, one that is the proxy record and one for the instrumental. That's not undermining, questioning or denying anything, it's a restating of the words of the author's themselves.
The reconstructed data is going to have different accuracy, precision and sensitivity than the instrumental record. The authors of course did their best to account for that. None the less, it's pretty blasted important not to leave that out when analyzing an abrupt change in trend exactly coinciding with a change in data source.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not undermining, questioning or denying anything, it's a restating of the words of the author's themselves.
Then why did you say anything at all?
it's pretty blasted important not to leave that out when analyzing an abrupt change in trend exactly coinciding with a change in data source.
Which you just said isn't a problem because you are not undermining, questioning, or denying anything. So again, why did you say anything at all?
Sorry, I was already worried about sounding condescending by adding the detail I was, but it seems required.
The proxy reconstruction data is the best reconstruction that the researchers were able to produce. It's sensitivity to short term trends is uncertain, we only know so much and have limited data to work with. Within that context, the 100 years of instrumental data is a short term trend. Higher resolution reconstructions by groups like Mann(the original hockey stick author) show temperatures matching t
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying you would prefer a study based on measurements from 1000 years ago? Digital thermometers were so precise back then.
Nope, never said anything stupid like that. Let me repeat myself: ...before leaping up and declaring human industrial era began at 1900, also note that the SOURCE OF DATA changed at 1900 too.
Rather than suggesting a stupid impossibility to the problem of disparate data sets from 1900 onward. Maybe a REAL answer like extending the proxy data forward AFTER 1900 and looking at what THAT shows. Other researchers like Michael Mann, famous for the original hockey stick kick off, have done similar test [pnas.org] as part of
Re:Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
Geologic time scales? Pisshhh. If you weren't such a poser you'd go straight to universal time scales, where the earth averages out to a cloud of dust. So whats the big deal if a supervillian builds a planet vaporizing death ray? The atoms were there before, they'll be there after.
Re: (Score:2)
Geologic time scales? Pisshhh. If you weren't such a poser you'd go straight to universal time scales, where the earth averages out to a cloud of dust. So whats the big deal if a supervillian builds a planet vaporizing death ray? The atoms were there before, they'll be there after.
Finally!! Someone gets it! I was beginning to think you guys would never figure that one out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not surprised that the concentration passed the threshold. I see people who sit in their idling cars who don't appear to be doing anything at all. Parked normally, in a busy (i.e. safe) parking lot, with nice weather, thus no need for AC or heat. I see people who start their big trucks up so they can charge their phones, because, otherwise, they'd have to go 5 minutes without a social media update. I see people who are at the gas station and are pumping gas to their car, which means their car is not going ANYWHERE for the duration of the fill-up, with the vehicle idling.
Please tell me where you see people filling their tanks with the engine running.
I see all these dumb people who think they must let the car idle because they are in the car and it would be a sin for the car to not be running if there is someone inside the car. It doesn't make any sense.
Of course, someone will reply to say that cars aren't contributing that much. Look up what part of the CO2 output now comes from cars. They've become the main source, according to at least one source. The person that replies so will probably also claim humans aren't doing anything that causes warming to begin with. Which means their reply is pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me where you see people filling their tanks with the engine running.
I have here in Minnesota but then that is usually only in January when it is -25F outside but other than that I don't.
Taking CO2 out?? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about not putting it there in the first place? THEN we can start thinking about removing it from the atmosphere. It takes far more energy to take CO2 out of the atmosphere than to not put it there.
Re:Taking CO2 out?? (Score:5, Insightful)
That'd take nuclear - something that intelligent people understand and support, but unfortunately that's a tiny fraction of the voting population.
Re:Taking CO2 out?? (Score:4, Insightful)
That'd take nuclear - something that intelligent people understand and support, but unfortunately that's a tiny fraction of the voting population.
Anti-nuclear power = Climate Change Denier. Or might as well be. We simply do not have the technology to stop or even reduce CO2 emissions in the necessary time frame at the necessary scale without a massive investment in new nuclear power generating capacity. Really there isn't a meaningful benefit in investing in expensive solar and wind alternatives unless there is also a large scale investment in nuclear power right now.
Well there is a benefit to solar and wind power, but it is mostly so rich limousine liberals can delude themselves into feeling good about their role as they change the planet and cause regional wars and famine and are really just as responsible for all that death and destruction like everyone else is.
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-nuclear power = Climate Change Denier.
that may have been true in the past, but not for many many years. its the environmentalists, the global warming supporters who are the ones who have been anti nuke since the 70s
In the last ten years or so, green has gone nuke (Score:3)
In the last ten years or so, many of the leading environmentalists have started to come to support nuclear power. They've realized that if it weren't for their opposition, nuclear would have replaced coal years ago.
Some elder statesmen of the environmental movement from the 1970s have even acknowledged that they messed up when with they exaggerated risks of nuclear. They've admitted they purposely bred confusion long half-cycle waste, which releases a very small bit of energy each year and therefore lasts
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear too expensive and too slow (Score:2)
Bringing a new nuclear plant online safely takes decades, and decomissioning one takes even longer if you include its nuclear waste. Nuclear is not an agile solution. This won't change in the near future, or perhaps not at all until "nuclear" becomes synonymous with fusion, not fission like today.
Nuclear is also an extraordinarily expensive technology which limits its uptake to only the more afluent of nations. Furthermore it is highly regulated for very good reason, and the politics of nuclear power aga
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bringing a new nuclear plant online safely takes decades,
You begin with a false statement, then proceed to spout ignorance and pie in the sky idealistic yet unrealistic things like 'just stop burning fossil fuels'.
http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/... [scmp.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Taking CO2 out?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dare I say it?
Replace coal plants with nukes.
Then replace natural gas plants with nukes.
Then keep on building nukes till we have enough electricity being generated to replace all those gasoline/diesel automobiles (trucks, trains, etc) with electric versions.
And while we're doing that, replace oil-burning ship power plants with nukes.
Note that the steps after "coal plants" can be rearranged to taste. There are good arguments that we'd be better off getting the cars/trucks/trains replaced with all electric versions before we replace gas-fired power plants.
As long as the people getting worried about AGW are chanting "no nukes, no nukes", I'm going to continue ignoring the AGW problem as "not very serious, really"....
Re:Taking CO2 out?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, with excess nuclear power, we can produce eDiesel. We've got new catalysts and high-pressure processes making eDiesel highly-efficient, about 70%; that means pipelines fed from eDiesel plants placed near nuclear and geothermal power plants would come in slightly less-efficient than electric cars at 15% transmission loss and 85% charging efficiency.
We can stockpile eDiesel; we can use it for airplanes (no way to make those battery-powered); we can generate eMethane or otherwise use eDiesel to run fuel cells, creating liquid fuel electric cars (possibly airplanes, but it's a tough job for an electric motor); we can use it to drive factories which need more power than the grid provides.
Newer tweaks to battery technology are targeting high-surface-area electrodes. Lithium ion batteries grow tin whiskers internally, creating more surface area for reaction, thus higher and longer power output; current research targets new structures and new battery chemistries to maximize this, essentially attempting to create an activated-carbon-style surface as the battery consumes itself. The processes in eDiesel similarly use catalyzed hydrolysis, and it's non-consuming: if we can manufacture high-surface-area electrodes using current or improved catalysts, we can raise eDiesel efficiency. The two efforts are semi-parallel, in that efforts in one give insight to the other, yet they're distinct in significant ways and so can't directly translate.
That means more-efficient batteries and more-efficient eDiesel generation in the future. If the overall efficiency exceeds 85%, eDiesel will beat any electric vehicle: transmission loss is 15%. At the same time, low-cost eDiesel will immediately replace more-expensive petroleum, as it's compatible with current, unmodified gas turbine technology; and eDiesel can feed or be modified to feed hydrogen fuel cells, which provide electricity, giving a method of feeding electric vehicles with a liquid or heavy gas (not hydrogen, which has storage and transport issues) fuel tank rather than a battery.
At the same time, plant and atmospheric petroleum (e.g. eDiesel) products such as polyester, rayon, plastic, and lubricating oil (PAO, Group-3) will sequester oil. Recycling carries costs and complexity; cheap atmospheric petroleum, once expended, can be incinerated for power or dumped into expended oil wells. Deep well dumping provides an attractive option: the expended liquid petroleum becomes a feed stock for later mining and refining, while effectively removing the carbon content from the atmosphere.
This is all stuff that will happen naturally, eventually. eDiesel will scale; a reduction in cost of nuclear, geothermal, and solar will outcompete oil; and refining waste oil into recycled stock will be less-efficient than producing new oil at the point where atmospheric petroleum has become cheaper than oil. The only question is when.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just take the money you would have spent building all of those plants deploying solar and wind all over the place. Problem solved in far less time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or just take the money you would have spent building all of those plants deploying solar and wind all over the place. Problem solved in far less time.
Except for the pesky problems of storage, transmission, capacity, and effects on the environment.
The sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow at the right times in all the right places. There isn't enough acreage to lay solar farms to meet our energy needs without affecting the ecosystem, there is no way to efficiently get the energy from point A to point B when they are long distances apart, and lets not forget about how bird kills will affect the bird population if we put wind farms everywhere.
One tec
Re: (Score:2)
Then keep on building nukes till we have enough electricity being generated to replace all those gasoline/diesel automobiles (trucks, trains, etc) with electric versions.
When you look at the chemical properties of diesel it's really, really hard to beat. It doesn't explode. It doesn't even burn at room temp without a lot of coaxing. It carries 46 MJ/kg.
If electricity really is free and plentiful we should have no problem making D2 out of thin air and trash. Fischer-Tropsch got the Germans through WWII. Just start using trash as feed stock and eat the inefficiencies.
Re: (Score:2)
Just start using trash as feed stock and eat the inefficiencies.
Cows do love Styrofoam and packing peanuts.
Re:Taking CO2 out?? (Score:5, Insightful)
That *was* an option, now it isn't for two reasons.
1) lots of distributed application depend on open circuit (in terms of carbon) power solutions. Its cost prohibitive to really fix that. By contrast carbon removal could be centralized at a comparative small number of points.
2) We may be already in a positive feedback loop in terms of global temperatures and so you must break the loop, conservation will not achieve that.
is 400 a special value in nature. (Score:5, Insightful)
We just see it as a round number because we use base 10.
So it is actually nothing special.about 400. It is all numerology crap/superstition.
If we instead of 10 fingers, only had 7 fingers, the number would be ... Oh crap ... 400 in base 7 is actually 1111.
The world will end.
Re: (Score:3)
It's four hundred ppm.
That's 400 ppm.
That's as many as forty tens. And that's terrible.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I'm not going to worry until it reaches 2FF parts per F0000.
Re: (Score:2)
we have researched thresholds for various effects, including irreversibility.
the ppm level required to reach those thresholds was then back-calculated, and that's where the 400ppm comes from (no the calculation didn't result in precisely 400.000ppm).
REAL elephant in the room (Score:3)
Re:REAL elephant in the room (Score:5, Insightful)
Well why is that I wounder? Could it because because most of the leading authority figures and potential candidates are embroiled in scandal after scandal. Could it because by and large authority HAS screwed over the common man. Whatever your politics are at least in the USA the fact is there has been tremendous wealth consolidation over the past 40 years and it has occurred under both left wing and right wing administrations, under both left wing and right wing majority Congresses.
By any reasonably account pretty much all post WWII authorities have 'screwed us over' I don't see why they should be trusted. Technocrats were running the financial centers during the global crisis. Technocrats have overseen what has been the slowest recovery in history. I think its abundantly clear these people ARE NOT in fact any more fit to lead than the usual poster here. Fancy degrees and acronyms don't change that.
The math (Score:5, Informative)
The math of climate change is fairly straightforward. CO2 and methane in the atmosphere cause more heat to be trapped in the atmosphere and oceans. There's a certain amount of carbon that was stored underground over millions of years in the form of oil and coal. That carbon was slowly extracted from the atmosphere by plants over the course of 500 million years and stored underground. During that time, the planet's temperature went up and down for various reasons 1) Earth's orbit and distance from the sun 2) volcanic activity releasing CO2 3) aerosols reflecting light back into space 4) the reflectivity of the surface of the earth from accumulation of snow or melting of snow during those other changes 5) sudden die off or surge of plant life 6) other reasons.
The rate of change for temperature and CO2 levels during all of those changes was gradual, with the changes taking place over thousands or millions of years. When CO2 was released in previous times, it was gradual. What's different about the current climate is that humans have raised the CO2 levels in the atmosphere by 140% in 200 years (280ppm to 400pm). That rate is way faster than any natural change in the history of the planet. That rate is what is so significant about human caused release of CO2 into the atmosphere. There are simply no natural factors to compare the methodical migration of carbon from the ground into the atmosphere.
So, yes this is significant.
Re: (Score:2)
What's different about the current climate is that humans have raised the CO2 levels in the atmosphere by 140% in 200 years (280ppm to 400pm).
So this is "the math?"
Get back to us when you understand percentage increases.
It's not so simple (Score:3)
The math of climate change is fairly straightforward. CO2 and methane in the atmosphere cause more heat to be trapped in the atmosphere and oceans. There's a certain amount of carbon that was stored underground over millions of years in the form of oil and coal. That carbon was slowly extracted from the atmosphere by plants over the course of 500 million years and stored underground. During that time, the planet's temperature went up and down for various reasons 1) Earth's orbit and distance from the sun 2) volcanic activity releasing CO2 3) aerosols reflecting light back into space 4) the reflectivity of the surface of the earth from accumulation of snow or melting of snow during those other changes 5) sudden die off or surge of plant life 6) other reasons.
The rate of change for temperature and CO2 levels during all of those changes was gradual, with the changes taking place over thousands or millions of years. When CO2 was released in previous times, it was gradual. What's different about the current climate is that humans have raised the CO2 levels in the atmosphere by 140% in 200 years (280ppm to 400pm). That rate is way faster than any natural change in the history of the planet. That rate is what is so significant about human caused release of CO2 into the atmosphere. There are simply no natural factors to compare the methodical migration of carbon from the ground into the atmosphere.
So, yes this is significant.
Quick, tell the climate modelling teams how easy the problem is, they've been mistakenly making it much more complicated than required...
Let's try an analogy. We're stuck in a bathtub over top a fire. The water's kind of warm, we aren't freezing and we aren't so hot we need to get out. Simple math does tell us that putting more fuel into the fire beneath us will make things warmer. Same goes for more CO2 in our atmosphere, we equally know that will make things warmer. The more important question is how much
Re: (Score:2)
or maybe because the EU simply isn't perfect, and is not just a democracy of several competing demands, but a collection of them.
seriously, in what world is your comment at all a useful, logical argument, and not false dichotomy that contributes nothing but a distraction?
Point of order. . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Untrue.
We have researched thresholds for various effects, including irreversibility.
The ppm level required to reach those thresholds was then back-calculated.
That's where the 400ppm comes from (no the calculation didn't result in precisely 400.000ppm), and why 400ppm is considered the threshold of irreversibility.
Well it's about time! (Score:2)
From the IPCC's first assessment report [www.ipcc.ch] from 25 years ago we were supposed to hit this point by 2010. Look for the graph in chapter 1 where CO2 concentrations are graphed for various scenarios. The scenario with human emissions increasing every year by 2% hits 400ppm in 2010.
On the whole, that's not a terrible estimation though given the limits folks were working under back then. Doesn't sound as scary though in the papers to declare that we are about 6 years behind early estimates of when we'd hit this poi
Old News (Score:2)
http://www.climatecentral.org/... [climatecentral.org]
climate change deniers (you!) (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no "threshold" at 400ppm; it's just an arbitrary number. In terms of earth's climate history, global CO2 concentrations can go above 1000ppm and we're still fine; arguably, we'd actually be better off. None of that matters, though, because...
It's not "unlikely to dip below the 400 ppm mark", it is impossible for it to dip below the 400 ppm mark for decades even if every human on the planet killed themselves tomorrow. No amount of mitigation or climate change policy or taxes or international treaties is going to change that. And the policies that are being negotiated and proposed are utterly useless; they won't even significantly slow the increase. That's why people who advocate governmental action on climate change are liars and crooks.
Get used to it: the only option we have for dealing with climate change is that humans adapt to it. You can be an optimist about it (like myself) or a pessimist.
But you are a climate change denier if you deny that climate change is inevitable at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
But you are a climate change denier if you deny that climate change is inevitable at this point.
I guess this means that climate change deniers had a winning strategy and they will have a lot of money to show for it. Shareholders will be happy until there are important regional conflicts about water supplies. Then everyone will be unhappy because no amount of money will solve the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should there be conflicts about "water supplies"? Climate change generally leads to more precipitation and a greening of deserts.
http://news.nationalgeographic... [nationalgeographic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
India and China get some of their water from rivers that go across their borders. If these rivers are affected, many millions of people will be affected.
Re: (Score:3)
it is not arbitrary.
We have researched thresholds for various effects, including irreversibility.
The ppm level required to reach those thresholds was then back-calculated.
That's where the 400ppm comes from (no the calculation didn't result in precisely 400.000ppm), and why 400ppm is considered the threshold of irreversibility.
Nor would we necessarily fine, nor would we better off.
We may biologically survive 1000ppm with only chronic nausea and headache, but there many other factors that would dramatically i
Good for the climate (Score:5, Funny)
It's getting way too cold here - I like the (sub) tropical climate that is natural for this planet most of its life and I really hate this aftermath of the destructive ice age we are slowly leaving.
The problem isn't just use (Score:2)
The difference between involvement and commitment is like ham and eggs. The chicken is involved; the pig
Re: (Score:3)
We should've been looking at remediation long ago (Score:4, Interesting)
Thousands of Years (Score:2)
Carbon dioxide can last in the atmosphere for thousands of years without efforts to remove it.
What does that even mean? Besides being a handy quote to invoke panic in math and science illiterates.
Carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere until some process removes it. The amount is based upon the difference in production vs consumption. Atmospheric CO2 varies seasonally due to differences in the amount of plant respiration between the northern and southern hemispheres. This is evident in the sawtooth [climatecentral.org] superimposed on the long term trend. This means that CO2 concentrations will respond quickly to c
It's not bad for the climate (Score:2)
Reminder: CO2 is good, not bad, for environment (Score:2)
What's most sad about the AGW propaganda is how CO2 is made out to be some kind of monster.
A reminder that CO2 in excess causes plant life to flourish, which is beneficial to all life on earth.
The whole point of claiming CO2 was bad was that it was supposed to cause runaway warming. But we know from decades now of high CO2 without correspondingly large temperature rise, that is simply not the case. The Earth's climate is a lot more complex than CO2 in a bell jar...
Instead of being alarmed at the possibly o
Re:Queue the world ending in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... (Score:4, Funny)
Cue the people who can't tell "cue" from "queue". As usual.
Re:Queue the world ending in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Queue the world ending in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
If by that you mean that your dogma hasn't managed to silence all dissent, I consider that a good thing. If you want a place where no one ever doubts the "experts", go somewhere else and the cynics of Slashdot will not chase you down to interfere with your rituals. However, when you bring your dogma here and pretend that people who work in fields of programming, science and physics should abandon all their education and knowledge of the subject matter to join your cult, you should expect resistance.
Re:Queue the world ending in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
As others have pointed out, people here are not keen on following cult like behavior.
Shouting about global warming is just noise, if you want support, tell us want you want to be done instead.
Most likely your suggestions will be shot down immediately because they are either inefficient or they make matters worse.
Some of your suggestions will likely have very little to do with global warming and rather serve some other political agenda.
If you actually manage to suggest something that would help with solving the issue they you might be surprised that several people will chime in with support or improvements.
You want to reduce carbon in the atmosphere? Preserving rain-forests doesn't help as much as hippies would like you to think since they are mostly carbon neutral.
If you want to get that carbon away you need to dig it down. Stop recycling paper and start dumping it in landfills. Plant new trees to create more paper and keep digging the used paper down.
The green political side will scream bloody murder since it goes against everything they have worked for and the recycling industry will lobby to have you stopped but it will do a lot more to reduce carbon in the atmosphere than protesting against nuclear power ever will.
Re:Queue the world ending in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... (Score:5, Informative)
Preserving rain-forests doesn't help as much as hippies would like you to think since they are mostly carbon neutral.
See? That's one of those misconceptions floating around. Yes, rain-forests are mostly carbon neutral. But your conclusion is wrong nevertheless. Because while rain-forests are mostly carbon neutral, cutting them down isn't. Each piece of organic matter that is destroyed adds to the carbon foot print, as long as it is not replaced by a piece of organic matter of the same size.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps using more hemp for paper and less wood pulp may be useful too. Pulp factories are fairly disgusting.
I'm not sure about the economics of recycling cardboard : could be good. But recycling paper is funnily fairly polluting (the chemicals printed on the paper were the main reason to make that paper to begin with). You might burn the paper, if that powers a municipal heat network it's not too bad.
I agree that we need some sort of guiding principles. As a matter of course, industry has the best access t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see the point in posting anything climate-related on slashdot. It's all one big denialist echo chamber.
Global warming is a fact.
Go measure the temperature every day for 13,000 years. Plot your data.
Report back after you have completed your assignment.
Re:Queue the world ending in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh no, AGW is a scientific and technical topic. That some people invent conspiracies or invoke magical thinking to wave away the evidence because they don't like what science has to say is irrelevant to climate change as a scientific and technical problem.
I'm going to be very clear here. There is no actual controversy about anthropomorphic climate change, and there hasn't been for a couple of decades now. The number of actual researchers who disagree about human-caused CO2 emissions altering climate are probably at the same ratio of biologists who deny evolution, geologists that deny a 4+ billion year old Earth and cosmologists who deny a 13.5 billion year old Universe. In other words, the scientific controversy does not exist in any meaningful way.
What politicians, corporate executives, religious leaders, or some guy who drives an SUV thinks about CO2's effects on climate are utterly irrelevant to the scientific question. They are relevant to how society responds to AGW, and that's where pseudo-skeptics strength is. They tell a message that's pleasing to peoples' ears, without ever having to justify themselves to the people whose fields of research they attack almost constantly.
Re:Queue the world ending in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... (Score:4, Interesting)
So what is the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity again?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the statement "Queue the world ending in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... " isn't an incorrect statement, it just doesn't mean what the OP thinks it does or meant to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Great argument against globalization and trade treaties, isn't it! You think China won't get on-board if their major market might disappear due to their manufacturing practices?
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody with a three-figure IQ knows Trump has no intention of walking away from those treaties. If America was stupid enough to elect him, they'd find out fast enough that he would do nothing more than sputter and squeal in fake outrage at the way the other branches of government were tying his hands. Then he'd get down to the business of turning the US government over to his buddy Putin.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Climate change deniers are sick of being "preached at" because they don't like being reminded they're a bunch of selfish, greedy fucktards who are willing to hand a leaky bag of shit to their children in order to keep living their lives without even the slightest little inconvenience.
Re: (Score:2)
I have, and have made it many times. But I wouldn't waste my time on a streak of shit like you.
Now fuck off. Adults are here, and you don't belong.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong on both counts. Now please accept my generous invitation to "go forth and multiply" and quit bothering people with brains.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming you're willing to stop short of wishing extinction on humanity, you're actually right. The planet could support a much smaller human population just fine. We're breeding like rats, though, and that simply isn't sustainable.
Re: (Score:2)
that's not how grant funding works.
Re: (Score:3)
The insurance industry isn't panicking, but it's building the effects into policies; whether it much more expensive flood insurance (if you can get it), or just general increases in premiums.
Just because it's not yet a panic-worthy problem, doesn't mean it isn't a serious problem, or that for some people it already is panic-worthy, or will be soon.
When the North American rain belt starts shifting several degrees latitude northward, I think you may find reason to be concerned.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh shit Oh shit Oh shit Oh shit Oh shit Oh shit Oh shit Oh shit World Ending, Glaciers Melting, Seas Rising,
You're correct, glaciers are melting, seas are rising, and the world certainly is ending for some species and even countries.
WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!
You have that correct.
Re: (Score:3)
The answer to your question is quite simple. The tiny fraction of humanity that actually has a say in how CO2 is handled doesn't care. They know that as long as there's even a few million acres of really nice territory remaining on the planet, they'll be living on it. They'd wipe their bums on your children and laugh at you, because they know Climate Change will have very little impact on them.
Hope that clears up your confusion, Sparky!
Re: (Score:2)
Just keep on pushing the hoax. By the way - are you a dupe, or do you get paid for this?
The irony in your constant projection never ceases to amaze.