CO2 Levels in atmo set new record

[glend]

Here is a cheery bit of news from the Mauna Loa Observatory:

https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-atmospheric-co2-just-exceeded-415-ppm-for-first-time-in-human-history

It is a worthwhile read. :help:

Humans will destroy this biosphere.

[Ukastronomer]

Listen, NOTHING will be done, you know it I know it, no matter how much bad news there is nothing will be done, people will be looking back on this 20 years from now when it is too late

[casstony]

People are starting to wake up to the corporate con so things should eventually turn around, hopefully before the runaway event.

[Wavytone]

Too late. That curve shows the rate of change is accelerating, and it looks exponential, so its going to get much worse - and faster than it has in recent decades - even if we stopped burning all fossil-fuels tomorrow.

Time to move south.

[pmrid]

Yes. But where? Perhaps we could bunk down at the base the Chinese are building in Australia's Antarctic Territory!

Peter

[gary]

If you are about 60 years old, then in 1958, CO2 levels were measured at about 315ppm.

Today, they are 415ppm.

Video of how CO2 levels are measured :-
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2018/04/12/video/

[Ukastronomer]

People always complain about the wrong thing

In 1958 there were 2,871,952,278
NOW 7,714,576,923

That is an increase of 4,842,624,645

The planet can not sustain the rise in population. FOOD alone

The average human exhales about 2.3 pounds of carbon dioxide on an average day.

[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. :eyepop::lol:

[glend]

I remind everyone that this should be a discussion free of politics, and misrepresentation. The data presented in the opening post is fact. Most of those people alive in 1958 are likely long gone and had no way of knowing what was brewing for their descendents. At some point it has to be taken seriously. We can't just all breath less.

[FlashDrive]

Now lets see .... Yep, I was alive in 1958 .... WOW ...I'm still here :eyepop:

:lol:

[raymo]

I was alive in 1938 and I'm also still here.:)
raymo

[Sunfish]

Thanks Gary,
informative science news.

I deeply apologise for all the breathing I have been doing since birth.
But I have planted a lot of trees.

[FlashDrive]

:lol:

[multiweb]

All this tree planting is probably already offset but all Lewis's Cassoulet consumption.

[xelasnave]

While they allow tractor pulling (five supercharged motors employed to drag an ever increasing load down a course) and places like Las Vegas use greedy ammounts of power to add to light polution..and the various racing etc...I cant see the point in wringing our hands as while that mentality exists there really is no hope. Humans just need to be a little less hypocritical for a start.
And I dont see a solution coming via a tax or NP.
And this fixation upon carbon seems to ignore the other green house gas...mmm like methane or just simple water vapour.
It seems a bit like a chicken little story in so many respects.
Heck if the problem is so bad why is nothing being done other than push energy alternatives.
Alex

[Sunfish]

Mmmmm. Cassoulet.

Must be better for the atmosphere than the Kashmiri dish at our local subcontinental restaurant.

[billdan]

I vote we go to war to fix up climate change and wipe out half of the worlds population, I'm sure the Greenies will agree. ;)

[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.

[LewisM]

C'est pas vrai! La cuisine française a le goût de la morve imprégnée d'ail :rofl:

My nocturnal bovine-style methane emissions are recirculated within the household for all to enjoy before being burnt in the fires of Mordor.

I swear.

[FlashDrive]

Nah .....couldn't happen ....!!

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Very good point.





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...





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]

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-carbon-forests-climate.html

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

[casstony]

… 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/default/files/documents/1982%20Exxon%20Primer%20on%20CO2%20 Greenhouse%20Effect.pdf

[multiweb]

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

[AstralTraveller]

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]

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]

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]

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

[xelasnave]

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]

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/palaeontology/big-five-extinctions

[xelasnave]

Thank you.
And another....
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/younger-dryas-comet-impact-cold-snap

Alex

[OICURMT]

That particular event was not an ELE. It was a very minor hiccup from a paleo perspective.

[xelasnave]

As I understand the event it is possibly responsible for taking out the mega fauna and the Clovis people.

Alex

[pmrid]

I'd like to hark back to the beginning of this thread and look at the correlations between atmospheric CO2 and the Mass Extinction Events in the past 500 million or so years.

The 5 main ones seem to be:
End Odivicial - 444 million years ago;
Late Devonian - 375 million;
End Permian - 251 million
End Triassic - 200 million
End Cretaceous - 66 million

And in each of those, total species losses ranged between 75 and 95%.

These MEE's correlate pretty well to the graph referenced by AstralTraveller(David) in #27 in this thread. A somewhat more detailed plot can be found in the attached which derives from Dr. Peter Ward’s book, “Under a Green Sky.” It reinforced David's basic point pretty well.

However, there is no room for complacency. That plot might be said to show that our current CO2 levels are bouncing along at historical low levels. Another way of looking at it is that MEEs have in the past occured when the CO2 levels exceeded 1 thousand PPM. The most recent 5 MEEs - i.e. in the past 200 million years have all occured when levels were between 1 thousand and 2 thousand PPM. How much comfort can you derive from knowing we are nearly half-way to a possible MEE?

I am quoting now from an article by John Englander (whose Bio can be read at https://www.johnenglander.net/bio-john-englander/ in which he notes, alarmingly, that:

" Dr. James Hansen, a leading climate expert points out in his book “Storms of My Grandchildren” that at the current rate CO2 will increase one hundred ppm in approximately 40 years. During past periods of abrupt change — the most recent one occurring approximately 50 million years ago — it took roughly a million years for CO2 to change by one hundred ppm. Thus it is now changing about 25,000 times faster than in known geologic history."

Now that puts a different spin on the issue, I think and makes it folly to hide our collective heads in the sand. This won't go away.

Peter

[xelasnave]

Thats my point...it wont go away.

We are clever enough to work out that energy consumption comes at what you could call a life and death cost in the long term.

Yet the only responce from most humans is ... I dont care or how do I make a buck from this.

Over the last day I have been looking at the human excess in respect of toys...I find there is a twin v8 trike ( a motor bike with three wheels which cries for a twin v8 instalation) I find dragsters that race in mud..these things cost a fortune and money represents energy expended... I was going to make a youtube viewing list of the waste and sheer stupidity enjoyed by so many humans...all production contributes to the problem but we allow five motors in a tractor to pull a load down a track some simply so someone can boast he was the best. What mindless stupidity which I can tolerate but all these stupid things cost us..we will have to contribute by giving up our childrens future.

And then folk offer this solution or that to provide energy that has no harm factor simply so the tractor pulling and other nonsense can go on...perhaps stop the childish indulgence to stupid non productive toys could be a reasonable place to start.

No way..no one is going to take away my right to run a five motor tractor...

Sure the carbon footprint is evidenced and each year we receive confirmation that we have a problem...sure ok now lets go race our twin v12 mini bike in jelly.

These humans are less than children animals have more sense.

There is only one solution.

I should be put in charge of the new world government ... that is the planets only hope☺.

After the first week in office the only problem would be what to do with all the bodies☺

I predict a world wide collapse as the problem gets to a critical point...and then humans will be back in the stone age and everthing will be alright.

The pity is the message for 80% of the world is a certain entity will fix it...mmm there the most dangerous threat to humans..worse than everything else.
Abdication of personal responsibility...how wonderful.
Alex

[xelasnave]

I am watching the drag races..funny cars...what is the carbon footprint of a drag car? How much coal is burnt to produce one? How much coal is burnt to maintain and race one?

Some dragsters use 60 liters for a run..thirty to warm up and thirty down the short track...and apparently the engine life is under two minutes..so how much coal to build an engine that lives such a short life... so I wonder what their carbon foot print could be...why did they address light globes with filaments before they failed to address racing cars boats and planes.
Why wring our hands about the co2 and turn a blind eye to the wasteful consumption.

Why even bother to take readings each year as to the parts per million of co2...do we need more data to work out that wasteful consumption of resourses is a problem in itself...and so I brand myself a hypocrite..instead of refusing to watch the car racing and the tractor pulling I like so many other hypocrites look on rather than turn away and deny these idiots the attention they crave...so perhaps the first place to work upon the problem is to reject and outcast all those who greedily consume resources that I am sure our futher generations will need to exist.

I am taking the first step by turning off the drags so to deny them at least one little humans support and approval...just imagine if we could get everyone to treat greed with the disgust it deserves.
So lets do nothing other than gather more data and grizzle about a problem we refuse to address by stamping out greedy and wastful consumption.

Alex

[JA]

Hi Peter,

It's not clear what part of that quote is attributable to Hansen and which part to Englander, but one thing that is clear is that it is only partly correct.

Certainly based on extrapolations of the Keeling Curve (Manua Loa CO2 Concentration) it is not unreasonable to conclude that the atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase by 90 to 100 ppmv in 40 years IF the current rate of increase is maintained.

What however is not correct or misleading is that one has to look back 50 million years to see the a 100ppm change in the concentration of CO2 (which incidentally occurred over a time interval of "roughly a million years") in order to calculate the fastest historical rate (for comparison with today's rate of change of CO2 concentration) . This is simply not correct and clearly evident in ice-core data which disproves this.

There are circa 100ppm changes in the CO2 concentration at each of the glacial/interglacial transitions clearly evident as having occurred SEVERAL times in the last 420,000 years in The Vostok Ice Core CO2 Record and at a rate around two orders of magnitude FASTER than proposed in the Englander/Hansen quote. The Vostok record shows an approx 100ppm CO2 change at each of the several glacial/interglacial transitions occurs over a period of something like 15,000 to 30,000 years. The suggestion therefore that the modern day CO2 concentration is now changing 25,000 faster than ever seen in history is therefore not true. It is around two orders of magnitude SLOWER than that. Why the error or exaggeration? Is it poor science or activism?

Anyone that would like to check their (or my) claim, based on the real data, please refer to the CO2 reference raw data from CDIAC and calculate the rate of change of C02 concentration at the (several) glacial/interglacial transitions in the 420,000 year record: https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/vostok.icecore.co2

As an aside- One important additional thing to remember when looking at present day v historical CO2 data stretching back many millennia is that:

Present day CO2 concentration measurements (Manua Loa, etc) are direct measurements of CO2 collected by sampling the atmosphere in a few seconds by sucking it in to an evacuated flask for measurement, versus


Historical CO2 concentration measurements (at least Ice-Core based measurements) which are measurements of the CO2 trapped in ice core samples. This entrapment starts in/towards the bottom of the the firm layer of the ice , somewhere between the snow layer and the solid ice layers anywhere between typically 50 to 100 meters below the surface depending on location. The CO2 gradually becomes trapped over many decades or even centuries depending on the location as the firn layer compacts to become solid ice under the ever increasing pressure of season after season of snowfall.


What this means is that the historical CO2 record will be limited in its ability to measure sharp peaks in the CO2 data, as the CO2 sample is in effect sampled (averaged) over /during this extended entrapment time. Depending on many factors such as snowfall and temperature it takes many decades /centuries as the firn layer compacts to become ice and to trap the CO2. There are also chemical processes at work on the entrapped CO2 which can further smear the temporal resolution. A sort of many decade (or even maybe many century?) average of the CO2 concentration is the result. The time (temporal) resolution is also smeared by this as well. Despite this it is still possible to make some comparisons between past and present as long as care is exercised and the data is not blindly accepted, presented without explanation, or worse still misused.

Best
JA

[xelasnave]

I wonder if you could come up with a rule of thumb that would indicate how much CO2 is generated for each dollar spent...perhaps you would need catagories...
I must look into something I just thought about...surely the area of roads and buildings must hold heat more than a forest ... I often feel how hot a section of cement can be many hours after the Sun goes down. ..I wonder do such things add to the warming issue.
Alex

[JA]

Absolutely right Alex. You've just described the Urban Heat Island Effect. It could easily skew conclusions with temperature data. It is something that needs to be controlled for in any proper analysis.

Best
JA

[xelasnave]

Maybe time to buy a property in Greenland☺
Actually if for no other reason cause light pollution would not be bad.
Actually for lack of light pillution North Korea seems ideal☺
Or move to Turkey into those underground cities..if anyone has not heard about them I suggest look into them...could accomodate 20,000 people and more than one...a mystery as to why..but they went underground with live stock and all.
Why did they do that?
Alex

[xelasnave]

Here is a short introduction...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derinkuyu_underground_city

Alex

[Retrograde]

A quick search shows Hansen was talking about the rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere leading up to past mass-extinction events - the last of which was at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum some 56 million years ago (when the temperature rose 5 deg C in 15-20 thousand years - ie: slower than current temperature rise).
Hansen is completely correct.



There was no error nor exaggeration, no poor science nor activism. Hansen was stating a fact about emission rises leading up to extinction events.
It kind of looks like you have created a strawman here.

The fastest ever rises in emissions from the geologic record are still some 325-750 times slower than current human created rises in emissions. :eyepop:




The low temporal resolution of ice-cores is well-known. I am unaware (I'm no expert of course) of any natural mechanism that could cause short term (< 100-200 year long) sharp "spikes" in atmospheric CO2 that wouldn't subsequently be detected by ice core sampling.

Climate science scepticism is a political campaign - originally funded by Exxon and now by Koch industries - where doubt and misinformation are spread via denialist blogs and amplified by conservative media outlets.
It has little to do with any real issues relating to the science. Science is never completely settled and there is always more that we can be known but the central tenets of greenhouse-gas theory are not in doubt by anyone with genuine credibility.

[casstony]

It's an odd phenomenon that laymen take up arms against their best interests and in support of corporate vested interests.

If I need to treat cancer should I trust the professional medical bodies or someone else?

[JA]

You can't know what you don't know.



You should trust yourself to make the best decision on how to proceed

Best
JA

[N1]

I think it's much simpler: These people are just lazy. Plain old laziness has always stood in the way of change. To call this attitude "scepticism" suggests some sort of reasoned, meaningful, active relation to the subject. The reality is that to deny climate change is to follow the path of least resistance, both in terms of educating oneself (watching youtube vids as opposed to reviewing scientific research, perhaps even using scientific methods), and personal action or lack thereof (driving to the shop instead of walking, for example).

[JA]

I agree on the laziness issue you cited Mirko, just not necessarily unilaterally. That's why I think it's very important to:

work from the raw data where possible for any analysis, as well as take in the relevant scientific literature rather than solely rely on the opinion of others, organisations or governments and


to discuss and argue a case with those who are prepared to do likewise.



To take your last point and to paraphrase: I think it's important to take personal action - kind of like running to the shops instead of walking, for example ;):D

Best
JA

[xelasnave]

I Wonder is anyone building data on the energy that is wasted on Toys�� How many solar powered homes do we need to support tractor pulling and darg racing etc etc.

And it seems that I am the only person who sees a problem the way I see it. I don't hear a cry to reduce wasteful consumption ever...no a tax or NP or alternative energy so a great percentage of it can be wasted...seems most human..

I notice there are some places where they are aware and acting on covering heat absorbing materials yet this approach never seems to make the news...like the government is raising a carbon tax so it can fund covering heat sinks with lawn.
Alex