Slashdot Mirror
Global CO2 Concentration Passes Threshold of 400 ppm -- and That's Bad for the Climate (time.com)
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."
Cue the people who can't tell "cue" from "queue". As usual.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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.
"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." The REAL elephant(s) in the room is: 1. Are there any solutions that are REALISTIC. And what I mean by realistic is not hoping that everybody comes together holds hands and voluntarily gives up 5-10% of GDP. 2. Are there any solutions where people don't suspect that the solutions are merely a submarine attempt to consolidate power under aegis of power consolidation among elites. You have to solve these problems. There are MANY People who simply don't trust "authority" to do anything other than screw them over. Climate change is a real problem. Let's see some real solutions other than crossing your fingers that some international body of politicians is going to do the right thing (which means fixing it without a power grab), because if THAT is the solution we are all SCREWED.
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/
Here's a link to the actual paper 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.
I don't see the point in posting anything climate-related on slashdot. It's all one big denialist echo chamber.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
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.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
There is no concentration of any particular gas in the atmosphere that is 'good' or 'bad' for the climate. The climate doesn't care one way or the other, it simply is. Good or bad for US, that's a different matter.
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.
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.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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.
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.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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!
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Its been interesting to watch the climate debate over the years. The talk has always been about reducing emissions and economic measures. If remediation (and clean energy) had been tackled with the kinds of efforts that won WW2 and put a man on the moon, this problem would be orders of magnitude less now (plus my cellphone charge would last weeks and I'd like that.) Instead "climate change" became all about economic rebalancing and geopolitical issues. We already have technologies that would deal with a lot of the CO2 in the atmosphere but they typically need energy and without clean energy (solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, etc) to power them, they don't do much. Now no one is willing to divert the massive amounts of money needed because that might interfere with the bread & circuses everyone wants.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
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.
Your sacrifice is well appreciated, glad to have more resources available for my children. I also want to thank all the Prius drivers that help keep gas prices low for my truck.
love is just extroverted narcissism
well, thats because intelligent people come here
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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/...
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.
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 long period of time, versus short half-life, which releases energy quickly. It's like the difference between gun powder, which releases energy quickly and is therefore dangerous versus a candle, which releases energy slowly and therefore lasts a long time.
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 warmer will it make things, and that is NOT a simple question. Now we need to know how much fuel are we adding, how far is that fuel from the tub, is the fire space beneath enclosed, how much fuel is left, what kind of fuel, how fast does it burn, how much water in the tub, what material is the tub made of, how dense is it, what's it shape and how is it attached to anything around it.
The bathtub analogy is trivial compared to the interactions of all the molecules that compose our planet's surface, oceans and atmosphere. Assessing the degree and speed of warming MATTERS and it's not anywhere as trivially easy as you imply.
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 from Ernest Hemingway: "How did we go bankrupt? Two ways. Slowly, and then all of a sudden."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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 to media and advertising. So "green" solutions tend to be about buying a hybrid car or a 50" LED backlit TV, and we're asked to marvel at the efficiency. Well why the f.. would you need a 50" TV in the first place.
So what is the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity again?
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.