Devastating Report On Record Greenhouse Gas Levels

[rtxoff]

The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a new record high in 2013, i wonder if there is any way to prevent the upcoming global disaster.

In 2013, concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 142% of the pre-industrial era (1750), and of methane and nitrous oxide 253% and 121% respectively.

The current rate of ocean acidification appears unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years, according to an analysis in the report.

Good bye planet earth, you will never be the same shiny blue gem in the vastness of space again.

Read the full report here

[Streetwind]

Good bye planet earth, you will never be the same shiny blue gem in the vastness of space again.

You should take a look at this, because it contains an inconvenient truth... *pokerface*

On topic though: This is nothing that hasn't been reported before, and it will be largely ignored just as previous reports. It doesn't affect us yet, and humans don't generally think in timespans larger than a couple years ahead... I can only hope this perception will change soon. But personally? I think it's already been over the line many years ago. The damage has been done, the effect is merely delayed. And even if we wake up suddenly someday and start to throw all our resurces at solving the problem, the resolution will be delayed just as much because that's just how the ecosystem works.

For better or worse, we'll be facing several decades of drastic climate change in this century, and there is nothing whatsoever we can do about it. What we can do, however, is determine with our actions today if that climate change will last a handful of decades... or if it will be permanent and irreversibly deprive us from the environment we need to exist.

Remember the Fermi Paradox. The great filter is out there, and nobody knows if we have survived it already, or if the true test is still to come...

Edited September 9, 2014 by Streetwind

[Scotius]

Guys, seriously - relax. And read a bit about changing levels of CO2 in the past. What we have now is well below CO2 levels before Ice Age started. And way, waaaayyyy below what was in the air during Jurassic ad Cretaceous periods. Most people imagine environmental changes turning Earth into desolate, barren desert baking in the sun. And probably some areas will be desertified - but the same happened to Sahara region several thousands of years ago, without human intervention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Here, read this. It should help you sleep well at night

[Seret]

I think it's already been over the line many years ago. The damage has been done, the effect is merely delayed. And even if we wake up suddenly someday and start to throw all our resurces at solving the problem, the resolution will be delayed just as much because that's just how the ecosystem works.

I agree, but it's important this idea isn't used as an excuse for not taking responsibility for the problem, even if it won't be us that sees the benefit.

[Streetwind]

That's what I attempted to say with my second paragraph, yes.

[Seret]

That's what I attempted to say with my second paragraph, yes.

Indeed. And the point remains that even if you ignore the issue of climate change then sorting our energy systems out is worth doing. Using finite resources to satisfy an open-ended demand isn't a good strategy.

[Jesrad]

Using finite resources to satisfy an open-ended demand

is called economics

[lajoswinkler]

Guys, seriously - relax. And read a bit about changing levels of CO2 in the past. What we have now is well below CO2 levels before Ice Age started. And way, waaaayyyy below what was in the air during Jurassic ad Cretaceous periods. Most people imagine environmental changes turning Earth into desolate, barren desert baking in the sun. And probably some areas will be desertified - but the same happened to Sahara region several thousands of years ago, without human intervention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

Here, read this. It should help you sleep well at night

Again with this fallacy.

Yes, Earth had more CO2 in the past, but it doesn't matter. The rate of increase of CO2 concentration is absolutely bonkers, unprecedented in the geological history.

It has happened in little more of 100 years! Stuff that normally takes hundreds of thousands of years.

But yes, Earth will survive, Earth's biosphere will survive with great losses. We'll probably survive with great casualties.

[Darnok]

Anyone noticed volcanic activity, earthquakes in last 10 years?

Both are caused by additional lava pressure and tectonic plates movement... oceans are also on plate, but maybe they are getting warmed by underwater volcanos?

And lots of CO2 is released from melting ices from poles...

The rate of increase of CO2 concentration is absolutely bonkers, unprecedented in the geological history.

Sir how long do we monitor CO2 levels... 50 years?

Are you sure that in the past CO2 concentration was rising slower?

We can't say what was 6000 years ago, and earth is far older than that, we have no idea does all kind of geological cycles on Earth was discovered.

We have no idea what kind of cycles may occur on Sun.

Guessing that it is our fault and wasting tons of money on something that is not human dependent would be very stupid and costly

[Dominatus]

Anyone noticed volcanic activity, earthquakes in last 10 years?

Both are caused by additional lava pressure and tectonic plates movement... oceans are also on plate, but maybe they are getting warmed by underwater volcanos?

And lots of CO2 is released from melting ices from poles...

Sir how long do we monitor CO2 levels... 50 years?

Are you sure that in the past CO2 concentration was rising slower?

We can't say what was 6000 years ago, and earth is far older than that, we have no idea does all kind of geological cycles on Earth was discovered.

We have no idea what kind of cycles may occur on Sun.

Guessing that it is our fault and wasting tons of money on something that is not human dependent would be very stupid and costly

Ahem. So, to address a few of your points... First, even if we were to have only just started to monitor the CO2 rates this year, we could still get a pretty good idea of levels in the past. When ice freezes, it traps little air bubbles inside of it. These air bubbles contain various gasses, and by examining ice cores retrieved from glaciers we can get an accurate approximation of atmospheric composition back to the formation of said glacier/ ice sheet. So we do, in fact, have records of what the CO2 levels most likely were in the past.

As for solar cycles, well we do know.... Probably. Short term we known what to expect as the solar cycle takes place every eleven years. We have recorded that down ages ago. Long term might be a bit trickier, but like the gasses in ice the earth has records of this somewhere. Records that we have found, and some we haven't. Point is, it seems unlikely that any new activity could take place which we haven't found evidence of in earths history.

Lastly, to address your first point... Maybe??? Not an expert in geology. And most of this is going from what I retained from science classes over the years, so feel free to take it with a grain of salt.

But there is little to no doubt that human activity has a direct result on environmental health. Over the last century average global temperatures have increased alongside ocean acidity. The ice caps are melting and there's a freaking hole in the ozone layer. Industrialization and resistance to change have had major impacts on the environment.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Dominatus

[ZedNova]

But there is little to no doubt that human activity has a direct result on environmental health. Over the last century average global temperatures have increased alongside ocean acidity. The ice caps are melting and there's a freaking hole in the ozone layer. Industrialization and resistance to change have had major impacts on the environment.

My Dad still believes that it's all a big hoax, and that humans, Co2, and pollution don't have any effect on the environment. We'll see if he continues to say that after 30 years.

Edited September 9, 2014 by ZedNova

[Dominatus]

Introduce your dad to science behind it. Not all at once, just "something interesting" here, "this is cool..." There... Science behind global climate change, and then when he's ready drop the bomb and explain it all using the science and experiments you showed him as proof. Plus it could be a fun way to bond.

[Darnok]

Ahem. So, to address a few of your points... First, even if we were to have only just started to monitor the CO2 rates this year, we could still get a pretty good idea of levels in the past. When ice freezes, it traps little air bubbles inside of it. These air bubbles contain various gasses, and by examining ice cores retrieved from glaciers we can get an accurate approximation of atmospheric composition back to the formation of said glacier/ ice sheet. So we do, in fact, have records of what the CO2 levels most likely were in the past.

As for solar cycles, well we do know.... Probably. Short term we known what to expect as the solar cycle takes place every eleven years. We have recorded that down ages ago. Long term might be a bit trickier, but like the gasses in ice the earth has records of this somewhere. Records that we have found, and some we haven't. Point is, it seems unlikely that any new activity could take place which we haven't found evidence of in earths history.

Lastly, to address your first point... Maybe??? Not an expert in geology. And most of this is going from what I retained from science classes over the years, so feel free to take it with a grain of salt.

But there is little to no doubt that human activity has a direct result on environmental health. Over the last century average global temperatures have increased alongside ocean acidity. The ice caps are melting and there's a freaking hole in the ozone layer. Industrialization and resistance to change have had major impacts on the environment.

I do understand what you said Sir, but I always trying to get bigger picture than other people

Look at this one:

Hubble telescope - 24 years

Man on the Moon - 45 years

proto-Neanderthals - 600,000–350,000 years

oldest ice - 1.500.000-800.000 years (since then every 100.000 years we have ice age and climate change, before that there was no ice on poles)

dinosaurs - 231.400.000-66.000.000 years (one of the hypothesis said something about super volcano)

Earth age - 4.540.000.000 years

Sun age - 4.600.000.000 years

Putting this all together you see that even if we will talk about 1.5mln years cycle of releasing CO2 from ice, it is very small range.

And that super volcano that killed T-rex could be more like many smaller volcanos that blew up nearly at same year?

... to finish this volcano hypothesis first lets think for while about Mars... and that 20+ km volcano,

now Mars core is no longer heating planet, but very long time ago it was working like Earth's core.

What if soon we will see ~20km high volcano on Earth?

Or simply same geological cycle that killed dinosaurs is going to repeat after 66mln years, but this time it can be little weaker,

because Earth core no longer generates same amount of heat and lava as it was 66mln years ago.

But it is still possible that this natural process will melt all ice on poles, releasing lots of CO2 from that ice, and while oceans are heating they are releasing even more CO2.

For me saying that we can compare our impact on Earth with powers that created 20+km volcano on Mars is just silly.

[Megalodon 720]

We can't have a 20km volcano on earth, it's impossible, we have super-volcanoes though, they are just flat and barely resemble volcanoes at all. Most famous are Toba, Yellowstone and Taupo.

[Dominatus]

I do understand what you said Sir, but I always trying to get bigger picture than other people

Look at this one:

Hubble telescope - 24 years

Man on the Moon - 45 years

proto-Neanderthals - 600,000–350,000 years

oldest ice - 1.500.000-800.000 years (since then every 100.000 years we have ice age and climate change, before that there was no ice on poles)

dinosaurs - 231.400.000-66.000.000 years (one of the hypothesis said something about super volcano)

Earth age - 4.540.000.000 years

Sun age - 4.600.000.000 years

Putting this all together you see that even if we will talk about 1.5mln years cycle of releasing CO2 from ice, it is very small range.

And that super volcano that killed T-rex could be more like many smaller volcanos that blew up nearly at same year?

... to finish this volcano hypothesis first lets think for while about Mars... and that 20+ km volcano,

now Mars core is no longer heating planet, but very long time ago it was working like Earth's core.

What if soon we will see ~20km high volcano on Earth?

Or simply same geological cycle that killed dinosaurs is going to repeat after 66mln years, but this time it can be little weaker,

because Earth core no longer generates same amount of heat and lava as it was 66mln years ago.

But it is still possible that this natural process will melt all ice on poles, releasing lots of CO2 from that ice, and while oceans are heating they are releasing even more CO2.

For me saying that we can compare our impact on Earth with powers that created 20+km volcano on Mars is just silly.

But that doesn't matter. Yes, I know there are annual cycles throughout the planets history, things such as the Yellowstone super-volcano. Mass-extinctions happen every so-many-million years. Sure, maybe the CO2 release you had mentioned is on a cycle. History repeats. That doesn't change the fact that the records- as far back as they go- indicate gradual, as in slow, changes in CO2 concentrations throughout history.

It's also no secret that a by-product of the combustion engine is Carbon monoxide. Our factories are dumping chemicals into the oceans, garbage is collecting in a mass (I had heard it compared in size to a continent) somewhere in the Atlantic.

With the industrial revolution, things became more efficient and living became easier. The population saw a massive boom, and grew exponentially, is still growing. More nations began to industrialize, more factories and automobiles and power plants were outputting more emissions into the atmosphere, CO2 being a large part of that. We know that a thick, soupy atmosphere traps solar rays and, as a result, excess heat. But the heat wouldn't be concentrated in one place, as the entire climate would react to this and attempt to find some sort of balance through natural processes.

In fact, since the start of the industrial revolution atmospheric pollution has seen exponential growth, that includes CO2. Now tell me, if this really was due to the earth naturally releasing CO2 over time, why has it released more in a shorter time than any period in it's past that we have information on? Is it just coincidence that right when humans began pumping countless toxins into the sky's that the CO2 emissions began to increase?

There are thousands of scientific articles out there supporting what I have just said. Even if not all of my facts are spot on, the general idea remains the same; we are responsible for what is currently happening to our home.

If you really want to debate that, and ignore the facts then go ahead and join the Flat Earth Society.

[Megalodon 720]

The planet itself is completely fine, it's the poeple who live here that will suffer the consequences (There may not even be any major ones) the planet will wipe us off like the surface pest that we are.

[Guest]

It's going up, developing countries are expanding. We can't stop using them. We can't change it.

[Darnok]

But that doesn't matter.

Why?

Our factories are dumping chemicals into the oceans, garbage is collecting in a mass (I had heard it compared in size to a continent) somewhere in the Atlantic.

Don't mix two different things please, global warming and Earth polution are two different things!

That doesn't change the fact that the records-

Yes, we have records, but we doesn't know the cause, we can measure results and only guess

And I haven't even started to talk about the Sun and that it is not a light bulb, even 0.1% energy ejected from Sun can change a lot and cause global warming. We have have summer and winter on Earth and that is natural, but when Sun ejects more or less energy then it can change balance in entire solar system ?

Goldilocks zone change, you know nothing last forever?

Sun is spinning, moving on orbit around galaxy center, well if Earth orbit can cause summer and winter, what can be cause of Sun orbiting?

Most of people heard about "Jupiter great storm", well you should read:

According to Amy Simon of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, recent NASA Hubble Space Telescope observations confirm the Great Red Spot now is approximately 10,250 miles across, less than half the size of some historical measurements. Astronomers have followed this downsizing since the 1930s.

That is because we started industrial revolution too? Something that huge on that HUGE planet can change it's size by 100% during last ~90 year, but Earths global warming has to be created by humans work

There are thousands of scientific articles out there supporting what I have just said. Even if not all of my facts are spot on, the general idea remains the same; we are responsible for what is currently happening to our home.

If you really want to debate that, and ignore the facts then go ahead and join the Flat Earth Society.

That is great argument Sir to proove I am right ... there were times when most people thought that Earth is flat and they have defended their opinion in same way you just did... There are thousands of books and scrolls out there supporting flat Earth it can't be wrong!!!

Most of scientists today is jumping into mainstream because they care about paycheck more than about truth... and global warming is best science bussiness ever!!!

If science for you Sir means agree with majority then, think for while about that flat Earth or why we left caves.

Pro hint: not because most of people back then thought that is is right way!

Edited September 9, 2014 by Darnok

[Dominatus]

... Clearly none of this is getting through to you. Anyone else wanna jump in on this? Not really sure what else I can say from memory to convince you since none of the previously mentioned arguments have. And I have other things I would rather do then spend my time researching and citing facts that prove humans are the cause for climate change, especially since I feel as though you are likely to disregard any of said evidence as something a scientist was payed to claim. Which of course would be opening up a completely different can of worms...

But before I go, I think you should compare the number of scientific papers published which cite human activity as a chief cause for global climate change to the works claiming it is simply natural processes and human activity cannot be considered responsible.

[Megalodon 720]

We have not caused climate change, climate change happens naturally, we are sort of amplifying it.

[Rondon]

Okay Darnok, when light hits off the surface of the planet, the surface emits infrared radiation, which can be reflected back to the surface by a greenhouse gas, and there just so happens to have been billions of kilograms of CO2, a greenhouse gas, produced annually for the last century, how can this not cause global warming?. To put it more concretely how, do you think Venus has twice the surface temperature of Mercury despite receiving under a fourth as much energy?

[Dominatus]

Yes. It is a natural process but nowhere near the current extremes that we are facing. In fact, carbon dioxide levels in earths history measure at around 180-300 ppm. Currently CO2 measures at 400ppm, a 40% higher level than at any other time in the history of the earth. ( http://www.edf.org/climate/human-activity-is-causing-global-warming1 )

In addition to this we can trace the CO2's origins to the burning of coal and oil, which apparently leaves a "unique fingerprint". ( http://www.edf.org/climate/human-activity-is-causing-global-warming1 ). And guess where I got this information? A simple google search. Didn't take very long, and as I am waiting on some DLC I figured I may as well take the time to do this.

[lajoswinkler]

Anyone noticed volcanic activity, earthquakes in last 10 years?

Both are caused by additional lava pressure and tectonic plates movement... oceans are also on plate, but maybe they are getting warmed by underwater volcanos?

And lots of CO2 is released from melting ices from poles...

There have been no significant or alarming increases in global volcanic activity.

There have been huge increases in reporting and distributing information and fearmongering about volcanic activity.

There aren't significant emissions of CO₂ from the poles and permafrost. CH₄, yes. Permafrost, once permanent, slowly, but faster and faster becomes sludge, releasing extremely potent greenhouse gas, methane.

Sir how long do we monitor CO2 levels... 50 years?

Are you sure that in the past CO2 concentration was rising slower?

We can't say what was 6000 years ago, and earth is far older than that, we have no idea does all kind of geological cycles on Earth was discovered.

We have no idea what kind of cycles may occur on Sun.

Guessing that it is our fault and wasting tons of money on something that is not human dependent would be very stupid and costly

Ice cores going like 200,000 years in the past contain bubbles of atmosphere which can be analyzed using spectrometres. That's how we know s*it has hit the fan in the last 100 years. The speed of concentration increase is unbelieveable, unprecedented in the geological history.

We can know all kinds of stuff from the past because of geological layers, whether they're in rocks or ice.

Nobody sane and informed denies that this is mainly our fault anymore. The evidence is overwhelming.

Whether we can do something about that... that's open to doubt. Not the fact there is a problem or whose fault was it.

We have not caused climate change, climate change happens naturally, we are sort of amplifying it.

Climate change happens over vast time spans. If a change that took tens of thousands of years, or even hundreds of thousands of years, appears in 100 years, and it perfectly correlates with measured enormous increase in evidently human emission of the gas, then it's our fault.

Stop watching FOX news.

Edited September 9, 2014 by lajoswinkler

[Dominatus]

Okay Darnok, when light hits off the surface of the planet, the surface emits infrared radiation, which can be reflected back to the surface by a greenhouse gas, and there just so happens to have been billions of kilograms of CO2, a greenhouse gas, produced annually for the last century, how can this not cause global warming?. To put it more concretely how, do you think Venus has twice the surface temperature of Mercury despite receiving under a fourth as much energy?

Ah, the Venus approach. I commend you on that one. (Even though humans had nothing to do with the natural processes that resulted in Venus turning into a furnace... Or did we? )

[PakledHostage]

... Clearly none of this is getting through to you. Anyone else wanna jump in on this?

I'll jump in by pointing out that the "flat Earth" example actually hinders Darnok's argument... Even at the time of the ancient Greeks, people knew the world was spherical. Eratosthenes even made a remarkably accurate estimate of its circumference in ~200 BC. Ptolemy later made a less accurate estimate of the Earth's size (revising Eratosthenes' estimate downward by ~30%) that stood for over 1500 years as the accepted size of the spherical Earth. Contrary to myth, the only people at Columbus' time who believed the world was flat were uneducated hicks who were ignorant of science.