Slashdot Mirror
Unexplained Leap In CO2 Levels
Cally writes "The Guardian is reporting that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have leapt by 4.5 ppm in the last two years. This raises the ugly possibility that the capacity of a large carbon sink (possibly the oceans) has been exceeded, and the worst-case scenario is that a tipping point has been reached and a runaway warming scenario is in progress. Quote from Dr. Piers Foster of Reading University: 'If this is a rate change, of course it will be very significant. It will be of enormous concern, because it will imply that all our global warming predictions for the next hundred years or so will have to be redone.'"
PortlandTribune.com | Rise in CO2 levels is no cause for alarm
This isn't true. I heard an article on NPR the other day that discussed Global Warming's treatment in the media. The man being interviewed thought that the media did the issue a great disservice by trying to be fair and covering both sides of the issue. The fact is, there IS NO OTHER SIDE. The scientific evidence that humans are affecting the climate with CO2 is as clear as day, and scientists who say otherwise are hired by special interest groups or oil companies. That article is true when it says that the effects we will have on climate aren't fully known, but the connection is there in a strong way. All of the research I have read suggests the link. We NEED to be concerned.
David J Hofmann of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration centre, which also studies CO2, was more cautious.
"I don't think an increase of 2 ppm for two years in a row is highly significant - there are climatic perturbations that can make this occur," he said. "But the absence of a known climatic event does make these years unusual.
"Based on those two years alone I would say it was too soon to say that a new trend has been established, but it warrants close scrutiny."
--
Nothing to see here, run along.
You have to take these alarmist predictions with a grain of salt. Remember in the 1978 when we were told that we had less than 10 years worth of oil still in the ground? Since then we have learned quite the opposite. I am not saying we shouldn't address the issues of so-called "greenhouse gases," but we don't have to go at it in a panic-stricken manner. We should do what we can to maintain a clean and stable atmosphere.
http://www.busyweather.com/
How much more evidence do we need before we start to do something about this problem? The problem, IMHO, is that even if we are at the point of seeing the start of run away global warming there is little incentive for our governments to do anything about it as it won't affect the current generation significantly.
If any of the governments of the world were thinking ahead though they would start investing very heavily in alternative power generation technology. In global terms it's not all that long before we run out of fossil fuels or damage the climate to the point where fossil fuels cost more than they are worth. The country that owns the technology to generate clean power will be in a very strong position. Imagine if your country didn't have to rely on the middle east for transport - suddenly your country becomes very powerful.
At the end of the day though while the American sheeple continue to vote idiots into power nothing is going to be done about the problem.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
On a side-note, British scientists have observed that, although they've largely eliminated acid rain causing pollution from power stations, etc, the problem of acid rain is actually getting worse in places. This has now been shown to be a product of marine fuels and an increase in shipping.
Consider, then, the impact this increase will be having on countries that have not put in the time, effort and money to reduce pollution...
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I really think the only thing that recent experiments in HNLC ocean waters has proved is that Fe2+ is the limiting nutrient in phytoplankton production.
There really doesn't seem to be a solid link between increased production and Carbon sequestering. It's definatly worth further study, but as for proven?
Do you have well regarded source you could list that states some hard numbers for Carbon sequestering rates? I wouldn't mind seeing it, as I certainly havn't read every article out there on the subject.
"Nonsense, of course. We know that humans have slightly increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but hard evidence linking that to temperature rises is minimal."
The main problem is that if the tipping point has been reached, then the first time you might get your 'hard evidence' is the entire population of Florida migrating north.
Still, it's fun to see people backpedalling from the 'global warming isn't caused by humans argument'. That was always fun.
"'Global Warming' is a multi-billion dollar a year industry around the world:"
Really? How? Where did you get that figure? Your ass?
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
True we shouldnt panic, and we should always carefully look at the evidence. But the issue has been on and off the political agenda for the last 20 years and we are still all producing more co2 each year. So we can assume that since 78 nobody believes or acts upon warnings with any seriousness anymore, "because in 78 it turned out to be nonsense....".
"We should do what we can to maintain a clean and stable atmosphere." I agree, but must also note that we are not doing that at the moment.
"We know that humans have slightly increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but hard evidence linking that to temperature rises is minimal."
This is insightful?
There's hardly any argument in this statement.
As a climatologist researching on global climate models, I can say, with the risk of losing my job, that global warming due to CO2 gases are definitly happening.
And almost all the climate models in the world will agree with me. Take a look at the Climate model inter-comparison project overview, especially Figure 20. That's a simulation for both the present state of the climate AND the future.
Given the limitations of computer models, the numbers may not be accurate yet, but we are very much sure that this trend is happening RIGHT NOW.
The earth's carbon sinks are not static in capacity. Everything is interlocked feedback cycles. As CO2 goes up, so too does the growth rate of all vegetation.
/ articles/ 2_global_warming.htm
It is the naive simplicity of the mathematics used by many lay-men(and sometimes experts) in their discussions of climate change that cause me to seriously doubt their prediction.
Check out this web page for example
http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal
which tries to use *addition* to predict changes in CO2. We produce X billion tons, the amazon absorbs Y billion tons, net change is X-Y billion tons.
This approach is as hopelessly naive as trying to calculate the flight dynamics of the space shuttle with natural numbers.
That's just not how it works in a real dynamic system and alarmist crap like this only serves to push through ridiculous laws like Kyoto, the funding for which could bring food and water to a huge proportion of the third world instead of affecting some laughable 7% of the annual *human* CO2 output.
Get those people fed and industrialized, and they'll stop cutting down their own forests, start going to school, and add their share of brainpower to the world's thinktank.
In a recent National Geographic they say that the CO2 is rising, but the temperature changes through history (from ice cores and other things studied) show that temp changes over time are also tied to changes in the way the earth orbits and we are in one of those changes in orbit right now...
x .html
Just makes it a little more
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/inde
Some one needs to do a sensitivity analysis on all these two.
Scientists are different. You don't go into science to make money, or to get power. You go into science because you have a fundamental desire to understand the truth about the world we live in.
That's true. That's why you get into science.
But then you're graduated and you are a scientist.
Only a few scientists can stay at university, the others will work for a company.. and then it's the company and the business-people who decide what direction your research goes.
Learn about pinball machines on www.flippers.be
First, there is plenty of hard evidence. Thermometers around the world, satellite data, and much soft evidence like receding glaciers and retreating sea ice points quite clearly to global warming being real.
This is exactly right. Those that say global warming doesn't exist, is living, 100% in a fantasy world. AFAIK, the only question is, is global warming part of a cyclical trend, directly caused by human efforts, or both?
There is certainly some trending which indicates that human's are part of the "cycle". The only question is, are human causing the trend to be above what the "normal" cycle would normally be.
Second, the theory is quite sound. CO2 pushes the energy budget of Earth up. Less energy out means Earth has to heat up.
I personally believe that humans are pushing the trend above the bell curve. Simple fact is, the theory is well supported by physics, as we understand it, and we are able to make observations which support our level of understanding. To me, the only question which remains, how far off the curve are we? And, will the departure be enough to matter in the long run? Those questions, IMO, are the really tough questions to answer. Frankly, I'm not sure we have the ability to answer it unless the environment makes a huge swing, for good or bad.
'global warming' industry
It seems, he considers basic science to be part of that budget. I agree with you, that his numbers appear to be completely baseless.
I agree that sometimes the other side is wrong or lying. Sometimes the other side might take a correlation, and somehow transmute that into a causation. You must be vigilant in watching for such junk science, especially if the other side claims that there's no point in even evaluating the criticism against their claims.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Oh go away! Climate research would carry on whether human CO2 releases are found to be warming the planet or not.
As one example among many, the US National Academy of Sciences, whose leaders have all the grant money they could ask for already, and everything to lose in terms of reputation if they distort their science for any reason at all were asked by the Bush administration to take a skeptical look at global warming. Given the administrations attitude, they could clearly have pleased their lords and masters and perpetuated their influence and funding by reporting that there was no problem, but they did not! They concluded in a detailed study, after considering a huge range of alternatives that the evidence strongly favoured human releases of CO2 as a major cause of the warming which is being observed.
If we don't believe climatologists, who should we believe? oil companies? Ford?
No, I don't think you've done your research. And I am educated enough to tell you 4PPM is big in this instance.
See, it's not that it's a small amount in our eyes. What is small differs greatly from one area of science to another. Some chemicals, if put into your system will be enough to give you cancer. Some, breathed in over the course of a few months, say by being in the atmostphere you have in your office, will make you sick and if you keep going back to the office will kill your at worst or cause permanent damage to your system.
Now, given that fact, is 4PPM small and insignificant. No. It's large and it's bad in those instances. So what makes you so sure 4PPM is insignificant here?
The people that are saying that this is nothing to worry about or okay or even that we are in a minor perturbation (sp?) not a true warming event are 1% of the scientists out there. Plus, I have not heard from one who isn't a paid spokesman for the oil industry in one way or another. And given big industries vested self interest in making us think everything is okay - these "scientists" are not to be trusted. You need independant, real scientists, and you won't find them saying we don't have a problem.
"Agreed, 100%. The "other side" tends to be those causing the pollution. However, that's just how they are, right now, when their ultra-expensive coastal home is above water. If CO2 levels are spiralling rapidly, it's unlikely to remain that way."
This is the unfortunate thing about the so-called neoconservative mindset. Modern conservatism is nothing more than the rationalization of greed, avarice, and self-interest. The only time you see these folks change their mind about issues such as gay marriage or stem cells is when it touches them emotionally such as when Dick Cheny's daughter is gay or Nancy Reagan's husband develops Alzhiemer's. Global warming has not affected them adversely yet, so therefore they will always take the decision that allows them to continue their quest on attempting to collect more shiny things then their neighbors.
Of those who work for companies, most don't work as scientists, and of those that do, most don't work on research which the general public would find remotely interesting... like studying abrasion and powder formation on Cheerios.
A handful, a scant tiny handful might be pulled to be given 6 figure salaries to run long studies countering univeristy and government sponsored research, so as to fortify their company's position in the marketplace. Their agenda is clear, and they're not working as scientists, they're spreading jibberish and they're being paid well to counter the damage to their reputation... but... These might be the scientists which would rather create media circuses and travel the world spreading lies than hanging out in a lab devising new ways to abrade breakfast cereals.
I'm just saying that even if the majority of scientists are in corporate back pockets, it's no worse than the fact that most of the working population is in the back pocket of one corporation or another... we don't all feel such undying corporate loyalty as to irrationally defend our company's policies.
Yeah, maybe none of the global warming scientists know that they are talking about. Perhaps they have all ignored very good evidence you have brought forward. In that case, the skeptics could easily write a paper blowing the lid off the whole deal and get it published in a presigious journal.
However, since that has not happened, and since I am not a climatoligist myself, I choose to believe the experts.
Doesn't this seem like a wise thing to do?
Tipping point? Proof, please?
Do you want proof that the tipping point exists? Do you want proof that the tipping point is a problem? Do you want proof that the tipping point has been reached? Do you want proof that the problem is imminent? Do you want proof that no other affect will appear which counteracts the tipping point?
Or are you just going to change the question until you reach a point where science is forced to answer "we don't have the data", and raise your finger, proclaiming "a-ha! so this is an emotional argument!"
The bottom line is that there is a proponderance of evidence that the vast change in industry and global human activity has impacted our environment. Lakes are poluted, the oceans are polluted, even harmful chemicals are spreading through the arctic. Species are dying, there is no question that these things are real. The only question is... what is going to happen?
There is a personal ethical decision one must make to determine if these things are important to you. I think it is a legitimate decision for a person to say "hey, this is the world I live in, you're talking me destroying a world I won't be living in. I can't say it is important to me."
Now science doesn't have a full handle on what is going to happen. Humanity hasn't destroyed a planet before, so it is tough to tell how bad things might be. We should however, err on the side of caution. If we care about the world we leave behind, we should only be as damaging to the environment as the best of science says we can afford to be be.
Finally, if the majority of humanity feels that the environment is important, then to preserve their interests (the planet), regulations must be established to prevent those who do not share their interests from attaining immense profits from destructively exploiting the planet.
So as long as the scientists are out for debate on global warming, the government should treat it as seriously as if it were real... whether it is real or not.
If you don't care, and again, I think that is a legitimate position, you should not be refuting the science and pretending that it is in the best interest of those who do care, but you should simply state "I don't care!"
How do you prove a tipping point in a complex system? If you're looking strictly at statistical variations from the norm in a complex system the variations in any one element prior to calmity can be quite small initially. It's a little like trying to predict the butterfly effect.
I certainly wouldn't be so quick to dismiss a 4 ppm increase as insignificant because it falls within the range of monthly variations. If that turns out to be a sustainable average increase the previous author's suggestion that our first real indication of trouble could be plans to relocate Miami are not inconceivable.
I'd also remind you that it wasn't that long ago that the suggestion of the scientifically valid possibility that the Earth could experience an extinction event caused by a giant rock falling out of the sky would have not only been ridiculed by their fellow scientists, but the author might well have been burned as a heretic.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Truly informed scientists also recognise that, yes, climates change over time. We're actually in a warm spell, in the middle of an Ice Age. The tempertures should, on average, be going down, not up. The fact that the temperatures are rising at all is significant. The fact that they have sharply risen only since the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s is also significant.
The fact that industrialists aren't keen on paying the costs to upgrade and modernise their rather archaic and inefficient systems is significant only in the amazing naivety of it. Modernising costs, sure, but if you can produce more for less, then you end up the long-term winner from spending that money.
By avoiding responsibility, industrialists not only endanger the environment, they also hurt themselves. So, even if you disregard the environmental aspect, these people are STILL commiting suicide.
Are you sure it's the suicidal lunatics we want to be listening to?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm not saying that this proves anything, but it's worth keeping in mind as you read the article.
Unlike you and many of the American population who demonize science and those who follow it, I trust these scientists to follow the scientific method and monitor the situation of the world.
This is not a joking issue. This is serious. It is not an issue where we should be panicking and running around like chickens with their heads cut off. This needs reasoned thought and we need to listen to the people who are capable of it.
Sadly, most of the population of the United States is incapable of calm reasoning and sound logic (ha, when was the last time that was taught in public schools?)
Just because it tells you something you don't want to believe doesn't make it untrue, or unimportant.
I still find it amazing that science has gone from being worshipped in the '50s to being demonized in the 21st century. It's cool to be the bully, but not to be the geek...
P.S. The Day After Tomorrow was a total flop and no amount of handwaving is going to get people to buy it.
Either that, or else the global-warming advocates are consistently misrepresenting and/or demonizing the careful, considered objections the "anti-global-warmers". Me, for instance. Do I believe global warming exists? Sure I do. Am I in favor of Kyoto? Hell, no.
Even its proponents agree that it would only delay global warming by a handful of months, at a cost of trillions of dollars. Kyoto opponents, such as myself, are generally not opposed to fighting global warming: we're opposed to fighting it in silly non-cost-effective means which are more public relations than results. For a trillion dollars, I'd far rather see Kyoto abandoned and a thousand coal plants converted to nuclear. Think about those carbon savings for a moment--uff da!
On the other hand, do you know how often "global-warming advocates" have heard my alternative to Kyoto, given it consideration, and responded intelligently? Zero. All they hear is I'm anti-Kyoto, and suddenly I'm a crackpot neocon. (I'm neither.)
You're right that "sometimes, you know, the other side is just wrong, or lying, and pointing this out does not constitute demonization."
On the other hand, sometimes the side that's just wrong is your side, when you state what the other person's perspective is.
And as far as measuring radiated heat from satellites, don't they comensate for that?
-Oh and I'd replace every coal plant with a nuclear one for the pollution savings. I haven't been convinced that carbon dioxide is a problem.
I don't read AC A human right
What did I say that had anything to do with liberalism? I am only speaking to the current lot in power. They want us to all live like a bacteria culture in a petri dish which just grows unchecked until it either dies from drowning in its own waste products or from exhausting all of its resources. I am simply saying that greed is negating rational judgement.
Perhaps we need to restate the issue in a way that will resonate with greed: I would imagine many a conservative would find it unprofitable if the surface temperature if the Earth was hot enough to melt lead (like on Venus). Until they figure that out, they will continue on their current course.
The only time you see these folks change their mind about issues such as gay marriage or stem cells is when it touches them emotionally such as when Dick Cheny's daughter is gay or Nancy Reagan's husband develops Alzhiemer's.
One wonders what would have happened had Mr. Reagan needed some medicinal marijuana to relieve his symptoms. Would Mrs. "Just Say No" Reagan have said no?
In my mind, these business people who try to get their way even at the detriment of the planet are among the worst humans ever. A cruel dictator or invader might result in thousands of peoples' deaths. In contrast, the individuals allowing large portions of the forests to be cut down; rare freshwater pollution; and overconsumption of resources to the brink are endangerous the lives of millions, even billions of people in the future.
I don't want to be part of the generation that is looked back on in history and blamed as the group of people Who Finally Fucked It All Up during a period of unprecedented development.