CO2 Levels in atmo set new record

[blindman]

Don't worry, Mr. Gates is workong on it........

[xelasnave]

I have said it before..humans need to grow smaller..a foot tall...think of how we could stretch the resourses...we could drive little cars with 20 cc motors and still do the ton.
House could have many floor added to accomodate more short humans...and a big Mac might do you for a week.
Alex

[KenGee]

mmm this is not the first time life has affected the Earths atmosphere. However, there is little doubt we need to do something but we also need to be sensible.
Oh, and for those who are suggesting its the end of life, for most of the history of complex life on Earth CO2 levels were higher than they are now.

And just so you know, off grid house ride an electric motor bike to work.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by overlord

Exactly. Honestly people are kinda stupid and you've hit the ball on the head with this one. I do wonder about the forum's opinion on climate change. People seem unable to sepparate 'record co2 levels' with 'were all gonna die! argh!'. 1) there is plenty of evidence for the former but they use this as 'evidence' for the latter, and there is none.

Actually we are all going to die.

Probably not directly from an excess of CO2.

But a heatwave/extreme weather event will no doubt hurry a few luckless souls along.

I rather like Lovelock's analysis: it is unlikely climate change will reduce the human population to nil breeding pairs....which is sadly not the case for many other species already.

...but humanity will likely migrate toward the poles....one wonders if Canada will build a "wall"

[sharpiel]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

Democracies are totally unable to do what what must be done for the benefit of all when the available options are unpalatable to some, and there’s is no option acceptable to all.

IMHO ultimately climate change will be solved by famines, disease or wars - not democracies.

Naive young man. Things will only change when the alternative is cheaper. Only money drives change. Follow the money and you'll find your answer.

[pmrid (Peter)]

Originally Posted by KenGee

Oh, and for those who are suggesting its the end of life, for most of the history of complex life on Earth CO2 levels were higher than they are now.

I'm a bit perplexed by this. Given the entire thrust of the article which commenced this thread (i.e. It's Official: Atmospheric CO2 Just Exceeded 415 ppm For The First Time in Human History) and the very compelling graphs accompanying the article, I would be interested to learn your source for such a contrary opinion.

Peter

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by pmrid

I'm a bit perplexed by this. Given the entire thrust of the article which commenced this thread (i.e. It's Official: Atmospheric CO2 Just Exceeded 415 ppm For The First Time in Human History) and the very compelling graphs accompanying the article, I would be interested to learn your source for such a contrary opinion.

Peter

No contrary opinion here. Complex life has been around for much longer than humans. We happen to have evolved during a period of relatively low CO2. So it's not that any warming will 'destroy the planet', it will just change the conditions and push us out of our comfort zone, possibly into a distinctly uncomfortable zone.


The attached graph is from: 'Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years' Daniel H. Rothman,PNAS April 2, 2002 99 (7) 4167-4171

[Retrograde (Pete)]

The other thing about higher concentrations of CO2 in the distant past is that when you go back hundreds of millions of years the difference in solar intensity between then and now is significant.
300 million years ago during the Corboniferous era TSI was roughly 2.5% less than today due to the sun's long-term life cycle (which partly explains why the abundance in atmospheric CO2 then wasn't a huge threat to life).

[xelasnave]

I think plants do better with more co 2 and growing systems exist that inject co2 into the chamber to promote growth.

I think the only way a plant can take up carbon is from co 2 and not thru the soil.

Humans are just setting up the Earth to grow better plants.

I like to follow the money to work out what drives various ideas.


I am suspicious that the real picture may be distorted by those seeking to profit from the falling sky....those who may say things merely to promote their investment choices.

Perhaps the most curious thing is that humans think they can control the climate or that change wont happen or has never happened in the past.

The planet has seen many changes in climate before humans were even thought of...and many forget or are simply ignorant of the historically established fact that extiction is the rule and evolution a minor exception.

Do you know the percentage of life extinction?
I think the estimate by folk concerned with such statistics is that 95% of life forms have become extinct..my recollection may be conservative but the thing to take from history is animals plants and life in general come and go.

There are various events that cause extinctions.

Impacts from space has caused many extinction events, and volcanoes (which can play havoc with the climate and therefore life) ..you can make a list .... I think there are many events that can take us out so it seems curious that our concern is caused to be focused on merely one of many issues of concern.

And perhaps the most funny observation I can make is although we are told we have a problem with co2 we do not see the rich scrapping the v12 for a Suzuki swift, nor do we receive a list of tips on our electricity bill listing the many ways one could reduce their energy consumption.

I recall when in hospital on the Gold Coast how I would look out at 2 to 5 am to see all the lights on and many examples of overkill and wondering why the need to waste so much electricity for the few folk out when they should be asleep.

So our solution is tax the corporations (as if they will keep that cost or any other from reaching the end consumer) and use alternative power...why? So the rich can still have their five engine tractor pulling games, their v12s and their planes and huge boats and various toys that take energy to build and energy to run...so lets be fair and tax that energy hungry family who have to go to bed early in winter cause they cant afford the heater on after dinner.
Hypocracy is the only problem ..certainly not climate change...if you are concerned call in on the pubs and casinos and ask them to turn off their lights, ask v8 supercars if they could drop to four cylinders and use only one set of tyres.
Its not the big corporations polluting and causing problems...it is greedy consumption addicted humans...change their behaviour would be the place to start... or is it politically incorrect to point the finger at scape goating.

Al Gore..look at the big problem we have he says to the world and drives a v12 and uses more energy than many fold other house holds..
Chicken little story with the fox all dressed up using a power point presentation is all we had there.

And if we have caused the problem perhaps realise that such things take about onehundred thousand years to turn around.

..its hard to imagine the human race will even be around then.

And so here we are talking about things we have all agreed via tos that will not be talked about...Who other than me recognises the propensity of humans to indulge hypocracy freely.

Alex

[AndyG (Andy)]

Originally Posted by Wavytone

Democracies are totally unable to do what what must be done for the benefit of all when the available options are unpalatable to some, and there’s is no option acceptable to all.

IMHO ultimately climate change will be solved by famines, disease or wars - not democracies.

Very good point.

Originally Posted by sharpiel

Naive young man. Things will only change when the alternative is cheaper. Only money drives change. Follow the money and you'll find your answer.

In some places, a few 7.62x39 cartridges cost less than a bucket of drinkable water, or a jerrycan of diesel. All you need to do is put them through your neighbour's head. Economics in action. "War" needn't be waxed moustaches and shining sword charges between established nations.


Perhaps Yourself and Wavy are both right at the same time...

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I think plants do better with more co 2 and growing systems exist that inject co2 into the chamber to promote growth...

Alex

I once had a chat with a PHD student doing some plant science thingy. I recalled seeing on ABC's Quantum an experiment on growing plants in an exaggerated CO2 environment, with all other variables kept as equal as possible. Unsurprisingly, the high CO2 plants grew thicker and faster. I asked him how this could relate to the plant kingdom here on Earth - would plants adjust to this increased resource? He had already held this discussion with his PHD supervisor, who's response was "Shut up".

[gary]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I think plants do better with more co 2 and growing systems exist that inject co2 into the chamber to promote growth.

I think the only way a plant can take up carbon is from co 2 and not thru the soil.

Humans are just setting up the Earth to grow better plants.

Hi Alex,

In a study that was published in Nature Communications by
researchers at the University of Cambridge only a couple of days ago,
they found that as the climate warms the thousands of trees they studied
in a variety of areas grew faster but died younger.

Turns out that the length of time the tree can then store carbon for
is then diminished.

Article here :-
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-amount...s-climate.html

Paper :-
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10174-4

[casstony]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

And so here we are talking about things we have all agreed via tos that will not be talked about...
Alex

… which is just another win for the merchants of doubt - confuse the issue and suppress discourse.

Fossil fuels are good for humanity, just like tobacco and DDT were good for humanity.

At least the kids are starting to arc up in defense of their future.

[gary]

Returning to the original post, in Exxon Research and Engineering's internal
1982 memorandum subject, "CO2 Greenhouse Effect", it is
impressive how accurate a forecast they made for CO2 concentrations
and temperature rises today.

In Table 4, page 24, they forecast 409 ppm by 2015.
In fact we reached that in 2016.

Their estimate of a 0.84C temperature rise by then was close to the actual 0.81C in 2015.

The leaked 1982 memorandum, one of several which remained corporately
confidential with limited internal distribution for decades, discusses
the same Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 readings that were started
by Keeling in 1958.

One of Table 4's next forecasts is that cumulative CO2 will reach 450ppm
in 2030 and that the temperature rise by then will be 1.25C.

Memorandum :-
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/...e%20Effect.pdf

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by gary

Returning to the original post, in Exxon Research and Engineering's internal
1982 memorandum subject, "CO2 Greenhouse Effect", it is
impressive how accurate a forecast they made for CO2 concentrations
and temperature rises today.

In Table 4, page 24, they forecast 409 ppm by 2015.
In fact we reached that in 2016.

Their estimate of a 0.84C temperature rise by then was close to the actual 0.81C in 2015.

The leaked 1982 memorandum, one of several which remained corporately
confidential with limited internal distribution for decades, discusses
the same Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 readings that were started
by Keeling in 1958.

One of Table 4's next forecasts is that cumulative CO2 will reach 450ppm
in 2030 and that the temperature rise by then will be 1.25C.

Memorandum :-
https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/...e%20Effect.pdf

No doubt someone already had it all figured out 30 years ago. Costing, projections and contingency.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by Retrograde

The other thing about higher concentrations of CO2 in the distant past is that when you go back hundreds of millions of years the difference in solar intensity between then and now is significant.
300 million years ago during the Corboniferous era TSI was roughly 2.5% less than today due to the sun's long-term life cycle (which partly explains why the abundance in atmospheric CO2 then wasn't a huge threat to life).

Indeed, there are a number of 'boundary conditions' that affect the climate system but only change on geological timescales. Solar energy output is one. Another is the distribution of land masses and their effect on ocean currents. We know, for instance, that the opening of the Southern Ocean and the establishment of the circum-Antarctic current both froze Antarctica and lowered world temperatures. Prior to that warm equatorial water reached to pole and kept Antarctica warm and vegetated. Another possibility is the strength of the magnetic field. If it varies (does it?) then it should affect the solar energy reaching the ground.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by gary

Hi Alex,

In a study that was published in Nature Communications by
researchers at the University of Cambridge only a couple of days ago,
they found that as the climate warms the thousands of trees they studied
in a variety of areas grew faster but died younger.

Turns out that the length of time the tree can then store carbon for
is then diminished.

Article here :-
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-amount...s-climate.html

Paper :-
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10174-4

Thanks for that Gary.
I have yet to read the links which I look forward to doing.
I would be interested to see how the research was put together considering trees last for a long long time I wonder how they made the observation..to controlled groups growing over sixty seventy or maybe one hundred years I expect..or maybe another case of extrapolation☺.
I have three hundred acres of trees all up so I hope that helps with my small carbon footprint..I could log the places but I want to leave them be and give the animals a little place where they wont be turned out.
I do think rather than yry and stop the unstoppable we probably would be better occupied wprking out where the best real estate in the future will be..hopefull still here on Earth.
I recon we all move underground cover the Earths surface with solar panels and put in heaps of airconditioners run by said solar panels...of course room must be left on the surface for tractor pulling and roads where the rich can drive their w16 cars.
I was out today and looking at the city and the extremes of consumption and doing so confirms in my mind no one will stop being energy greedy.
Folk complain about the coal etc but forget that everything you buy is mostly energy..the mining the production the transport etc all cost coal ..who yhinks of that at the summer nats as they butn tyres to the rim.
Stand back and look at just how crazy these ideas of changing behaviour really are...sure folk pay lip service..oh v8 super cars run on ethanol. .are they not so environment conscious. ..mmm smells like , tastes like and well we know what we are testing.

Climate change is and will happen and although humans like to take the blame in some small part I feel the reality is climate change is little more than a business for those who get their pay check via some job related thing...heck if the problem is really serious surely we could expect more than..a tax will fix it or BMWs are more fuel efficient this year.
Dont get me wrong I use minimal energy not because I care about the planet but because I think greedy consumption is wrong.

The hypocracy is too much..on the one hand years ago government was subsidizing planting mono forrests..and one reason was..its good for climate change ameleoration. .sure but on the other side of the range they are laying forests bare...that does not make sense in any other context than someone is full of it..
Now all those tree planting companies seem to have gone bust and the promises of many wonders gone.

Still I like the most obvious fix if there is a problem..and that would be massive culls of humans and government controlled human breeding.
Isnt it funny we control many animals breeding to get a better strain but when it comes to humans nah. Only cage fighting champions and Noble prize winners should be allowed to breed with other cage fighting and Noble prize winners...get the polpulation down to the people in my street and the ones either side.

Alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by gary

Hi Alex,

In a study that was published in Nature Communications by
researchers at the University of Cambridge only a couple of days ago,
they found that as the climate warms the thousands of trees they studied
in a variety of areas grew faster but died younger.

Turns out that the length of time the tree can then store carbon for
is then diminished.

Article here :-
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-amount...s-climate.html

Paper :-
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-10174-4

I read the paper but feel it was perhaps geared to find what it wanted to find so we happily accept that increased carbon produces a negative result.

Its much the same as finding that solar is inferiour to NP because solar panels require so much energy to produce and frankly it seems to end up with a bottom line that NP is the only answer.
It's not... their propaganda is lost on me and I have no plans to roll over anytime soon.
I often think that it is the NP lobby that somehow finds that NP is our only saviour. They have backed off a little because of the "minor" problems in Japan but make no mistake their wagon rolls on.

Heck we are talking big money..do you think we are fed the truth?

They are grinding their axe to show NP is just the only answer..well I dont buy it at all.

Global warming was first presented by the NP lobby ( check the movies of 20 years ago..coal got us started but it so bad for you and so NP is the only answer crap) in an effort to bring the greenies on side which to their credit they have done. How ironic that greenies have been conned to go for NP.

Still NP is far from a solution in my view and they are just another group seeking to profit from the sky is falling mantra.

France sells desalinators on the sky is falling story and I suspect they may sell NP as well.

It should be about greed and greedy consumption not how do we facilitate the greedy consumption to continue by going NP.

As I said if there is a problem it may be more about gluttony than anything else.

The deal put forward is..let the rich have their toys exemplified by tractor pulling and other greedy consumption pursuits but lets keep that in place and find reasons to punish the poor with taxes that only increase revenue rather than bite the bullet and address the real problem...what ever that is.. .but un necessary cinsumptiin could serve as a place holder until we find the real problem.

Well I think its greedyness.
Less tractor pulling and less v8 super cars may be a good start.
Heck get rid of all the toys and maybe we could survive.

Why chase alternate power etc if we do not address the excesses of a privileged few.

Will you miss the absence of tractor pulling or the racing of million dollar cars or the absence of burn outs at the summer nats...perhaps not...after those activities are no more I will listen to the calls for climate action..but not before.
Alex

[sharpiel]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Still I like the most obvious fix if there is a problem..and that would be massive culls of humans and government controlled human breeding.
Isnt it funny we control many animals breeding to get a better strain but when it comes to humans nah. Only cage fighting champions and Noble prize winners should be allowed to breed with other cage fighting and Noble prize winners...get the polpulation down to the people in my street and the ones either side.

Alex

. Let's get rid of those vegan activists while we're at it!

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by sharpiel

. Let's get rid of those vegan activists while we're at it!

Vegan activists???
I dont know but ok its much easier to cull by selecting groups rather than individuals.
I say cull all groups that gets a lot done but then we have to sort thru the individual types..I got it..if you are an individual belonging to no group..automatic cull.
Just dont touch the folk in my street or the next one I dont want to be be brought into contact with the horror I propose.
Alex

[OICURMT]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Do you know the percentage of life extinction?



I think the estimate by folk concerned with such statistics is that 95% of life forms have become extinct..my recollection may be conservative but the thing to take from history is animals plants and life in general come and go.

There have been five extiction level events in earth's history. The worse was at the end of the Permian, where 95% of all life was eliminated. There are plenty of articles and research (with data and evidence) to support each event.


The best summary for the layperson is https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeonto...ve-extinctions