Slashdot Mirror
Observed Atmospheric CO2 Hits 400 Parts Per Million
symbolset writes "Over the past month a number of individual observations of CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory have exceeded 400 parts per million. The daily average observation has crept above 399 ppm, and as annually the peak is typically in mid-May it seems likely the daily observation will break the 400 ppm milestone within a few days. This measure of potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere should spark renewed discussion about the use of fossil fuels. For the past few decades the annual peak becomes the annual average two or three years later, and the annual minimum after two or three years more."
No it won't. It's not like politicians and the public have been just sitting on the sidelines, waiting util a value about 400 PPM was observed. I don't believe the public really doubts that atmospheric CO2 is increasing, and so a wonky measure of it is pretty irrelevant to public sentiment.
The Muana Loa observatory measures only at night, when air is descending from far up high. That air has come from across the Pacific Ocean, far from any specific CO2 sources.
At night, the volcanic gasses are trapped in a thin layer near the ground by a temperature inversion. The observatory measures the air at several towers at different altitudes and also closer to the volcano so as to get a comparative reading.
You can read more in this report.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
You can't make predictions when a human factor is involved. If we were all controlled by a hivemind and made CO2 decrease our highest priority, stopping CO2 production could be done in 20 years (there's enough nuclear power to sustain our needs, and we have electric vehicles - technologically it's already possible). After that, the oceans would absorb the excess CO2 and bring it below 300ppm in about 300 years (according to a study I sadly can't find now). So absent some miracle like fusion reactors even in a best case scenario it would take at least 150 years to get below 350.
But the most important thing is the human factor which depends on our decisions, and can make that time much much longer.
Once again I am saddened by The depths to which the Slashdot community has fallen. This used to be a technology site. Technology that could not happen without extremely advanced science. And yet here you are, questioning global warming and the effect of human induced rises in CO2 levels. This stuff has been studied for going on 125 years. There is no doubt what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. It's Grade School physics for goodness sakes. We should be the ones leading the charge to shift away from Fossil Fuels before great harm to our civilization becomes inevitable. But here we are, mired in the same ridiculously simplistic arguments about stuff that has been proven or disproven by science over and over. This isn't a matter of science being wrong, it is a matter of society not being allowed to trust a very small subset of scientists because they threaten a very profitable economic paradigm. Eventually, that will turn, I hope not before it is too late to avoid catastrophe.
Once again I am saddened by The depths to which the Slashdot community has fallen. This used to be a technology site. Technology that could not happen without extremely advanced science.
As long as I've been here, it's been a technophile site for advertisting consumer electronics.
This isn't a matter of science being wrong, it is a matter of society not being allowed to trust a very small subset of scientists because they threaten a very profitable economic paradigm.
You've hit the nail on the head. The Slashdot community as a whole touts the virtues of science, unless it's the kind of science that discovers the uncomfortable reality about capitalism and unlimited economic growth. Then they go apeshit and cover their ears as if it makes the evidence go away.
Now THAT is something I'd never considered!
But others have, it's an old canard, yes it's a factor for that site (the oldest continuous monitoring site), but nobody is relying on just that site, we are at ~400ppm global average across all sites. CO2 concentration varies by ~5ppm in sync with the northern seasons (deciduous trees are responsible) so there is some "wiggle room" in the numbers.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Why does rate of increase seem constant. I mean, if it's influenced by human activity (of which I have no doubt), then shouldn't it track closely to the fluctuations in the global economy. Specifically, shouldn't there be a dip or flat corresponding to the Great Recession periods of '08/'09?
Yes but zombies give off methane as they ferment, which is worse than carbon dioxide!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
They have a problem with you asking questions likely because they view it as an assault on their religion. I am not a climate scientist and I leave the debate to them but, as an observer, it is amazing how many people have turned this into their belief system. It is amazing how many people have decided that they understand the science and are qualified to opine on it. It is amazing how many people have come to identify so strongly with a theory that they froth at the mouth even when someone poses a legitimate question. And, worse, it is amazing how many have managed to confuse the difference between political science and climate science.
When I observe people responding it often includes something akin to, "You're not a climate scientist. There is a consensus so leave it to them. The data is infallible."
Then they go on to opine on what the various countries need to do. I'm inclined to point out that, "They're not the political scientists, there's a consensus, leave it to them. The data is irrelevant in political science." (Politicians are pretty dumb, that is my opinion and I'm sticking with it.)
Anyhow, I truly don't hold much of an opinion (one way or the other) concerning AGW though I see no reason why we shouldn't clean up our atmosphere. As such, an agnostic if you will, I don't tend to join in on the debate (though I do wonder, from time to time, about the validity of placing theoretical fixes on theoretical problems and using a lot of guesstimated and massaged data to reach conclusions) very often because I dislike the aggression when people are so passionate about their belief systems. I suppose I don't have anything to debate with either side actually, I simply don't know and am not a climate scientist. Just observing them, however, leaves a "sour taste in my mouth" type of feeling. It's as if some of them are rabid religious fanatics. One can't have a reasoned debate or change the opinions of people like that and that is a waste of time.
From the other side, I'd also offer, you have people on the denialist's side who truly are religious and lay claims down such as it is just the Sun, the Earth will take care of itself (which is true in the long run but not in the manner that they're expecting I imagine), and things like that which don't do much more than muddy the waters further. They also seem to want to tie it into their political views as well and, really, science doesn't care what your political affiliations are - it just is. So, no, they're not really helping. Sometimes I see skeptics who appear to have valid reasons for their skepticism, I've seen reports of various underhanded deals, and have seen the responses and found them lacking but that may be because I'm not a climate scientist and I'm not understanding them. But I mostly see nuts in the denialist camp and that's not very helpful for the science either I suspect.
Either way, I'll be dead and gone before it does much to change life around these parts. I don't know, I don't care to take the time to understand it either, and I have no plans on changing my life further (I'm pretty "green" by default) for this. It is sad to see science bastardized like this though, it is unfortunate that the people screaming the loudest (for either side of the debate) are given the most exposure. The lack of restraint by all involved has made me think that destruction of the human race may be the best thing after all.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I think it's one of the hypocracies of the AGW alarmists that every technology that can help us avoid their worst fears is roundly decried as worse than the global warming itself. The Three Gorges Dam in China was continuously railed against,
as it would cause massive ecological damage, which has in fact been the case. It's even been fingered in heavy seismic activity which has occurred since.
Logically though, anyone who thinks the world would be significantly better off with a lower population should take matters into their own hands and remove themselves from it.
You really don't want people who think the world needs population reducation to take matters into their own hands.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sometimes, trying to remain undecided just isn't an option. At least, not a morally acceptable one. In this case, whatever we do or don't do will have a profound impact on the lives of billions of people. So how do you respond? Well, there are a few options:
1. "This is a really important issue, so I'm going to study the science involved. That'll take a lot of work, but this issue is so important I have a responsibility to do it."
2. "I don't have time to study the science involved and really understand it. Therefore, I'll accept the judgement of the people who do study it."
3. "I don't have the time or interest to study this issue and form an educated opinion, but I don't really want to accept anyone else's opinions either. Therefore I'll just use this as an opportunity to look down on people on both sides of the issue."
I submit that what you are doing is basically #3. I also submit that in this case, that's a morally reprehensible way to respond.
Also note my signature quote, which is remarkably appropriate to this topic.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
OK, without studying the science, you can use other heuristics to guess at the credibility of the people involved.
On one hand, you have people saying "We didn't know this for sure until late last century, here are our methodologies, here are several different lines of evidence and how similar their results are, here are our error bars".
On the other hand, you have people saying
o Global warming is not happening
o The global warming that is not happening is being caused by natural sources.
o The global warming that is not happening that is racing ahead because of unstoppable natural forces ended in 1997.
o The global warming that ended in 1997 is still going on because of carbon dioxide from volcanos.
o The carbon dioxide levels, which are going up because of volcanic activity, are not really going up.
Then read a book like _The Climate Coverup_ and find out which side publishes arguments because they test well in focus groups.