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.
You mean the world already had these CO2 levels 800,000 years ago and yet life is still thriving? Color me unamused.
The way you can tell CO2 doesn't have the effect on the climate the fear-mongers want you to think it does, is that as CO2 continues to climb climate changes do not track with CO2 increases, much less exhibit any kind of runaway effect which is the whole reason you were supposed to fear CO2 to begin with.
Luckily even for those of you that continue to fear irrationally, CO2 production will inevitably decline in the coming decades as solar and other forms of renewable energy take over for real, now that that are close to actually making more sense than fossil fuels.
I don't think that you understand the meaning of the word rational.
CO2's effect has been demonstrated conclusively.
Face it: Whether or not it's human-caused, there is literally no downside to our species ceasing to dump unnecessary waste gasses and pollutants into our environment. Saying "it costs too much, it's too much of an economic burden!" is about as short-sighted as you can get. We, as a species, keep shitting all over the planet we live on, and through the magic of denial, expect there's going to be no consequences -- or worse, don't care because the consequences won't affect us, immediately, it'll affect future generations ("that's their problem, not ours, why should we care?"); reprehensible. We have the technology to move away from 100-year-old energy sources, why not use it?
Luckily even for those of you that continue to fear irrationally, CO2 production will inevitably decline in the coming decades as solar and other forms of renewable energy take over for real, now that that are close to actually making more sense than fossil fuels.
Luck is the key word there, because despite huge increase in solar and wind, we are see NO improvement in CO2 emissions. As long as so many cling to the oversimplified dream that simply adding solar and wind and EVs will make enough of a difference, we will fail.
We need all the tools in the toolbox, particularly nuclear, to stand a chance. We can't hope for breakthroughs as a strategy. We must consider the socioeconomic aspects of solutions as well. But, unfortunately we'll just hear more of the same 'more solar, more wind, hope for battery storage' mantra... the definition of insanity.
Climate Change is a Threat...
But apparently not enough of a threat to convince the anti-nukes to abandon their irrational fears.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Idiot.
When you attack somebody for asking questions, you aren't doing science. You're doing religion.
Carbon is not pollution. If you think it is, then you should kill yourself because you are a carbon-based life-form.
Why did everything not die then?
Just a guess, but the lack of 7 billion people and their concomitant industrial output probably had something to do with it.
I'll have to say this slowly, so even the Greens will understand.
Parent's question is about the effect on the overall environment last time the CO2 level hit 403 ppm before human existence. Right now, the industrial output of those 7 billion humans have brought us to 403 ppm again. It was not apocalypse then, so why should it be apocalypse, other than for Malibu realtors, now?
CO2 provides raw material for plant photosynthesis, which helps to grow food. Global warming = more food.
Food plants can't tolerate a desert. What we are doing is creating changes to the areas that produce the food. Even India, the greatest food producing nation on earth is suffering from localized seasonal temperature pattern changes that are slowly making areas that once produced food uninhabitable. The Mediterranean climate influenced food producing regions of Spain are also experiencing changes that make areas less productive of food and will kill humans at certain times of the year when temperatures soar to levels over 115f for weeks at a time.
But amongst the climate change deniers there are also those who think that rapid melting of permafrost will open up vast areas of land to agriculture. Little do they understand that the areas they so wrongly think can support agriculture are in reality are mostly the cold northern deserts which do not have the rainfall to support agriculture. In contrast the areas around the equator which have high rain fall are very low in biomass and when the farmers slash and burn the rain forests the land exposed cannot produce food for more than a few years.
The highest food producing areas of Western North America in California, which by and large rely upon water from systems that are slowly but surely being effected by less and less rainfall on the mountains of West Coast. So the water levels in the Colorado at lake Mead and the other dam ridden systems are slowly cycling lower and lower each year. While ironically the lakes behind the dams are filling with sediment at a faster than predicted rate because of sudden snow melts after large snow fall instead of a predictable cycle of sedimentation.
On top of this California which relies almost entirely upon imported water from the greater Pacific water shed is also experiencing what Spain, Portugal and other areas with similar climate parameters is also headed for dangerous ground in terms of losing areas of habitability due to prolonged heat waves.
We are raping the planet and as we reach the tipping point and start to see the serious consequences of our greed and stupidity there will always be those with rose coloured glasses who claim that the good ship earth is unsinkable.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
Luck is the key word there, because despite huge increase in solar and wind, we are see NO improvement in CO2 emissions. As long as so many cling to the oversimplified dream that simply adding solar and wind and EVs will make enough of a difference, we will fail.
To get to zero carbon, we have to eliminate the fossil baseload. Greens can dream of wind-powered unicorns all they want, but any country that has heavy industries and large cities will need a carbon-free baseload to replace the fossil baseload.
There's a simple and logical answer to why the current increase in CO2 might well be worse. When 403 ppm was reached previously, the change in CO2 and the effects on temperature were much more gradual than what we're experiencing now. Life is very resilient. Give it time to adapt to changing climate and it will. However, the present increase in CO2 and the associated warming is much more abrupt, leaving far less time for life to adapt and evolve.
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.
Ooh, libertarian-tainted conspiracy thinkings! The global illuminati/socialist/masonic/Rothschild conspiracy is making its bid for global control, and they're using solar power as their tool! Everybody organize to stop it!
Follow the money.
OK. The fossil fuel industry is a trillion dollar a year industry. Everything else is trivial compared to that number. Money followed: the fossil fuel industry is driving everything.
We should no more be throwing brakes on the economy
OK. To not brake the economy, the best thing to do would be to go rapidly into new energy technologies, which are economic growth areas, and quit supporting antique fossil-fuel plants that haven't been updates since Ford was in office.
than people in 1900 should have to "help" us today...leaving us with 1970 level tech (if that) in 2017.
Coal power is 1920s decade technology. Wind is 1990s decade technology. Low cost solar is 2000s decade technology. High capacity battery night storage is 2010 decade technology. If you're worried about 1970 level tech, that was fossil fuel, allright.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
How about "moderation -1 stupid" instead?
2C makes a huge difference in the timing of spring & fall weather, in the elevations at which certain plants can live (and they can't simply move) and in the ability of pests to survive in different locations.
Whether changes are limited to 2C average remains to be seen, especially as CO2 changes have been happening very quickly (in geological terms) and the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2 and heat has left the atmospheric climate changes to lag, so far.
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.
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding what you're getting at, this is almost completely wrong. The reduction in effect with increasing CO2 concentrations is trivial. Why? Because Carbon dioxide (only) absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (M). In other words incoming sunlight is barely filtered by CO2 at all, it's the light that's reflected from Earth that's 'trapped' by the CO2 in the atmosphere.
those feedback loops are not "basic physics", can't be "demonstrated in a laboratory"
And wrong again! Increased CO2 --> Increased temperature --> Increased evaporation --> Increased temperature (due to water vapour also trapping heat) --> Increased evaporation... Pretty basic, if you ask me.
You also have to assume that there are no additional negative feedback loops to counteract the effects, again something we don't know.
Are you suggesting the burden of proof here (for postulating, and proving these hypothetical negative feedback loops) lies with the people saying Global Warming is a problem?
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.
Since there's no need to invoke speculative feedback loops to say increasing CO2 concentrations are, for want of a better way of phrasing it, fucking up the future standard of life for everyone on the planet I'm not sure we're the ones being dishonest. We're certainly not the ones telling ourselves the biggest porkies!
The way you can tell CO2 doesn't have the effect on the climate the fear-mongers want you to think it does, is that as CO2 continues to climb climate changes do not track with CO2 increases,
The very first numerical integration of the greenhouse effect incorporating real-world IR aborption and convective/radiative heat transfer, Manabe and Wetherald 1967, predicted a 2.4C temperature rise per doubling. (The same as the current IPCC estimate: "in the range 2 to 4.5 C, with a most likely value of about 3 C.") Since then the CO2 has risen by a factor of 1.25 (from 322 ppm to 404 ppm), and the temperature by 0.98 degrees C. Looking at the correlation, yes the temperature has very well tracked with CO2-- the temperature is actually slightly higher than predicted (applying Arrhenius' logarithmic relationship)-- but well within error bars.
So, basically: you're wrong. Temperature does track CO2 increases.
much less exhibit any kind of runaway effect which is the whole reason you were supposed to fear CO2 to begin with.
Citation needed. What "runaway"?
CO2's effect has been demonstrated conclusively.
Really, in what way? How do you "demonstrate" the whole planet will warm into an unstoppable Venus like unlivable atmosphere? Because that's why we were told to fear CO2.
Strawman.. I suppose somebody, somewhere, some time might have talked about a scenario where Earth warms to Venus temperatures, but I don't know who and I've never heard that argument put forth. Actual scientists talk about: 3 degrees per doubling. How has it been "demonstrated conclusively"? Well, by measurements, for one.
Meanwhile in real life even though CO2 increases exponentially, we see only the same slow warming trend we have been seeing for a while.
Yes: carbon dioxide is increasing and the temperature is warming in the exact amount predicted. Your point is?
Even the IPCC now forecasts MAYBE 2C warming over 100 years.
And, remarkably, the IPCC hasn't changed that prediction at all. The 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report estimated that equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling lay between 1.5 and 4.5 C, with a "best guess in the light of current knowledge" of 2.5 C. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated: "Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 C to 4.5 C (high confidence)".
Your comment subject is "Re:Runaway effect? Nope." That's correct. Nope. It's not happening, because it wasn't predicted in the first place. That's a strawman.
When you attack somebody for asking questions, you aren't doing science. You're doing religion.
It's not so much attacking people for asking questions, it's people getting annoyed and frustrated at anonymous cowards making assertions and raising objections that have been answered over and over and over and over again. The people doing this aren't actually asking questions, because they don't actually care about getting answers.