Slashdot Mirror
CO2 Levels Likely To Stay Above 400PPM For The Rest of Our Lives, Study Shows (inhabitat.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A new study from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere are likely to remain above 400 parts per million (ppm) for many years. Specifically, scientists forecasted that levels would not dip below 400pm in "our lifetimes." The CO2 concentrations of "about 450ppm or lower are likely to maintain warming below 2 degrees Celsius over the 21st century relative to pre-industrial levels." However, lead author on the paper Richard Betts said we could pass that number in 20 years or less. In an article on The Guardian, he said even if we reduce emissions immediately, we might be able to delay reaching 450ppm but "it is still looking like a challenge to stay below 450ppm." El Nino has played a significant role in climbing carbon dioxide levels, but it's likely we'll see higher CO2 levels than the last large El Nino storm during 1997 and 1998 because "manmade emissions" have risen by 25 percent since that storm, according to The Guardian. Met Office experts predicted in November 2015 that in May 2016 "mean concentrations of atmospheric CO2" would hit 407.57ppm -- the actual figure was 407.7ppm. The NOAA reported during 2015 that the "annual growth rate" of CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 3.05ppm. NOAA lead scientist Pieter Tans said, "Carbon dioxide levels are increasing faster than they have in hundreds of thousands of years. It's explosive compared to the natural processes."
Well, this will surely be a nice conversation of well considered opinions and knowledgeable people. The sad thing is that this will generate more comments than anything else today. This is what people seem to respond to.
If Trump would shut his trap, CO2 emissions would be reduced dramatically...
The science is in, the numbers are not fake, this is not a hoax. This is going to have serious global repercussions and it will never go away. We can't even yet stop contributing to the acceleration of emissions, they CONTINUE to grow year by year despite much-touted international accords. The science community agrees this will not be enough, and we are failing at this course correction necessity.
At some point, the people being paid and those paying millions to put out the unreasonable position that this all is "no big deal" or "not certain to be a problem" or "not caused by human industry" etc, those people have to be dealt with. I make no suggestions beyond that general observation, that this is untenable.
What I'm intrigued about is how the upcoming Trump presidency will impact climate change.
I think it's pretty clear at this point that Trump will win the presidency. He isn't facing any real competition, and even many Democrats can't bring themselves to vote for either of the potential Democratic candidates. So at least a portion of them will be voting for Trump, in addition to nearly all Republicans who do support Trump. Much of America has become tired and disillusioned after 8 years of leftist rule, and want something different. That gives Trump a win that is nearly guaranteed at this point.
His economic policies will likely turn around sagging American economic fortunes. He would be the first president in nearly 30 years who has at least voiced some concern with the current free trade situation, which does not benefit Americans as a whole. Were he to implement significant change, then America could very easily become an industrial powerhouse again, like it was before the 1990s. This economic success may result in more CO2 emissions, but it would likely also be offset by a decrease in the economic strength of foreign economies that have taken over the industry that America once had.
Allowing the American economy to flourish again will likely result in significant innovation. His economic policies, which benefit all Americans instead of just those who are in a position to exploit third-world labor (whether by bringing in third worlders or offshoring work to them). There will be demand for new technologies, including electric cars and alternative power sources that don't emit as many greenhouse gases.
I suspect that a Trump presidency would actually be the best thing for reducing climate change because his economic policies would get to the root of the problem: a stagnant American economy prevents global innovation, including the innovation that will prevent further climate change.
then we will all be safe!
In other news, life goes on normally.
At levels of about 150ppm, plants start dying rapidly. We're at 180ppm, narrowly avoiding a catastrophe.
All this global warming talk resembles a secular version of the biblical story of The Fall. The Nature (a mythical garden, bountiful paradise) is in some kind of a divine balance and the artificial, technological humans disrupt it and disturb it, twisting its delicate fabric, ruining it forever. Global warming has turned into a secular religion, complete with its own holy book (An Inconvenient Truth), its own version of Original Sin (your carbon emissions that you produce by living), its own infallible dogma (try questioning it), its own heresy (try suggesting it has a reason other than human activity), its own version of Apocalypse (planet-wide floods, tornadoes, and other wild weather phenomena), and we're now seeing the emergence of clergy in the form of "certified" global warming "scientists. It's the new opium for the people. If you consider it anything else than a grotesque, distorted version of a New Age religion, you better think again.
In other news... water is wet, cheese is good, and just breaking: there's a sale at Pennies....
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
The article answered every question except the one impacting my life.
Maybe that means - NO!
CO2 has been this low only once in the past 600+ million years - about 300 million years ago.
It has averaged probably 1,000-2,000 ppm, if not higher, for the past 200+ million years.
Please, everybody, calm down, take a pill, fire up a fatty...The solution is simple. We just have to stop polluting and quit voting for corrupt politicians. Everything else will fall into place. All parameters will return to nominal, all anxieties dispelled, all boredom amused. Paradise can be ours if we truly want it. Show simple respect and live happily ever after.
It is all water at this point. and well... there's no going back. We're here for a good time, not a long time.
And there will be no impact except on vegetation. Let the shitstorm begin!
Now I know why. Oh god!
Carbon is GREAT for the planet.
So the hell what?
an ill wind that blows no good
Plants love CO2 almost as much as liberal tears.
The discussion here actually is quite good. And discussion of politics is not off topic. Climate change is, like it or not, as much of a political issue as it is one of science. The only way to combat climate change is through political means, and hence we must always consider climate change within the greater political context within which it exists.
What I think is most harmful to the discussion here is the awful moderation that we're seeing. I see numerous reasonable comments at -1, while for some reason all of the comments from "riverat1" ended up modded quite highly very quickly, although they're among the least valuable comments posted so far.
I suspect that there may be moderation abuse going on here. At the very least, all of the moderations applied to the comments for "riverat1" should be removed, and the moderators banned from moderating in the future. Even if there wasn't any intentional abuse, something is very fishy about this situation. Resetting the moderations of those comments is the only reasonable thing to do, to prove that there isn't abuse going on.
Slashdot should also consider removing moderation completely for submissions about contentious issues like this. Since moderation is just abused in discussions like this one, then it should be removed completely. Nobody should be able to benefit from abusive moderation, and nobody should be harmed by it. Everybody's comments should be at 1, and visible by default. That's the only way to have reasonable discussion: when nobody can commit persecution, and thus nobody should fear becoming a victim of persecution.
CO2 Levels Likely to Stay Above 400PPM for the Rest of Our Lives
Umm, but Ray Kurzweil told me if I take 200 pills per day and survive to the Singularity (which, apparently, is coming soon to a neocortex near you), then I'll live forever. And so will you.
Does that mean CO2 levels will stay that high forever? Just wonderin'...
Look, the problem is that the opportunity cost (in dollars) is increasing for fossil fuel usage (although it is masked by rapid renewable energy transitions and more efficient buildings, vehicles, appliances, manufacturing, and other transportation).
The sooner you get with the program, the faster the inflection point kicks in. Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels, especially once you remove all fossil fuel subsidies and exemptions. Including fuel in India, China, Phillipines, USA, Canada, Mexico, etc. Including parking and road subsidies for fossil fuel vehicles and low tax airport regimes.
It generally takes the average person or business about three (3) years to convert from a subsidized fossil fuel "lifestyle" to a more efficient and cost-saving renewable energy "lifestyle". The cost savings for building heating/cooling, data center power/cooling, transportation, and process usage depend on the artificial subsidies and exemptions and contract lease rates for fossil fuels. As a personal example, switching to green buildings usually cuts energy costs to about 1/10th fossil fuel methods, and my own personal electric and heating and transportation expenses are about half what they used to be. There's a capital expense cost to switch, but you can regenerate that just from savings in 3-5 years in most locations.
It's not how hard it is, it's just that you hate change. Not changing costs you money, but you're used to wasting that money, like the inefficient communists you are. So buckle down, start switching over, and reap the rewards.
If even half of the world does that, it will only be for a few decades. Which if you're one of those "ooh change is bad" old folks, tough. Do us a favor and get with the program, cause excuses don't cut it no more.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
So...how do we know the historical concentrations of CO2? By measuring trapped air in polar ice?
Doesn't a warmer climate equal more women in bikinis? Doesn't more CO2 equal more plants? I always thought that planting groves of giant sequoias would be a good way to sequestering CO2. I think I remember reading that each sequoia is capable of sequestering like 2,000 tons of CO2 for 3,000 years.
Targeting CO2 emissions has always had a very long-term scope and we should continue to find ways to reduce them. However, in such urgent circumstances, we need to find greenhouse gas emissions that respond quickly to reducing their output. According to a UN report, 51% of greenhouse gases comes from animal agriculture, i.e. meat and dairy production. We don't all need to go vegan but we do need to stop eating such unhealthy and unsustainable amounts of meat.
I'm not a vegetarian or vegan BTW.
https://youtu.be/XM0uZ9mfOUI
"annual growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 3.05ppm": This would mean that annual growth went up from e.g. +2.00 ppm/y to +5.05 ppm/y.
That *would* be dramatic. But I guess what they meant to say is: "Annual growth rose *to* 3.05ppm" or "CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 3.05ppm".
To quote Dan Aykroyd as Jimmy Carter: "We are screwed, blued, and tattooed."
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
El Nino has played a significant role in climbing carbon dioxide levels
Wow, just when I thought I had heard global warming blamed on absolutely everything, and absolutely everything blamed on El Nino. But I never even considered blaming El Nino for carbon emissions.
You read it again, and this time pay attention to which part is actual data.
The text I quoted in italics is verbatim from the link you posted: According to the article, the prediction was 1.25 degrees; the measurement 1.1 degrees.
The 0.6 number is a different number, extrapolated from data that can't be directly compared to the prediction (in fact, it doesn't even include 1958.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
This is great for trees and other plants. More CO2 to breathe and warmer temperatures to foster growth. Maybe vegetation will take over the world if we just stop eating it.
Plants will do better and it'll be a greener world.
Win win.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Huh?
You do know that the "greenhouse effect" is a radiative physics effect, and the physical mechanism of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is not identical to the way a glass greenhouse works (which is by allowing energy in the form of light in, but suppressing convection).
On a greenhouse on the surface of the Earth, heat transfer is in the form of convection and radiation (and to a small extent, conduction). For the Eartt radiating to space, of course, convection stops at the top of the atmosphere.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I wonder if anyone can answer this How much of the current mixture of gas(air) is there on Earth gravitational limit currently? How much can Earth's gravity hold at its maximum limit? I am assuming we are at its maximum and gas seeps into space as it is added if it can escape its orbit.
Point to accurate modeling (with reasonable error bars) of cloud feedback that supports your point. (source)
A good place to start would be the IPCC report. The quick summary: cloud feedback is, indeed, the largest single source of uncertainty in the models. But that is incorporated in the error bars.
Again: the fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean that we don't know anything. The way science progresses is by increasingly more accurate models.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/... if you're interested.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com