Devastating Report On Record Greenhouse Gas Levels

[Technical Ben]

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

Roll on the giant Sloths! (I may have my pre-historic time periods mixed up!)

[Megalodon 720]

Stop watching FOX news.

I don't XD, if you ask me then most news programs are complete loads of biased bull***t.

[micha]

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

And there we have it. All the sceptics are concerned about is money.

This here is an interesting argument:

Edited September 9, 2014 by micha

[Stargate525]

And there we have it. All the sceptics are concerned about is money.

This here is an interesting argument:

That's a stupid argument, as no one is arguing that grid; we're arguing the contents of those boxes. I have yet to see any evidence that a net warming in the planet will bring doom and destruction. Warmer means wetter, wetter means more fertile, and I find it interesting that this is the first time in our history that a climate getting warmer is seen as a bad thing.

As for money... The IPCC has an annual budget of seven million, and is meddling in the economies of every member nation in the world. EVERYTHING is about money and power, and climate change is a great way for people to accumulate both.

[magnemoe]

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.

Yes, it's not much discussion about the CO2 level is very high, only issue raised is that it should be higher with the current models as far more CO2 is absorbed or captured than they predict.

The link between CO2 and climate is also pretty well known, however the models are even worse.

One good thing is that high CO2 levels is good for plants, if its good for humans is another issue

[magnemoe]

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.

Pretty much this, main argument against Columbus expedition was the distance to Asia going west, the queen liked the idea so he was sponsored,

on the other hand it would be an decent chance that it was something between, am disposable expedition might be cost effective.

Fun note, Columbus had two logbooks one was public for the crew, one was personal, he underestimated the distance traveled for crew, he also overestimated traveling distance for himself so much that the public crew version was more accurate

[Dominatus]

That's a stupid argument, as no one is arguing that grid; we're arguing the contents of those boxes. I have yet to see any evidence that a net warming in the planet will bring doom and destruction. Warmer means wetter, wetter means more fertile, and I find it interesting that this is the first time in our history that a climate getting warmer is seen as a bad thing.

As for money... The IPCC has an annual budget of seven million, and is meddling in the economies of every member nation in the world. EVERYTHING is about money and power, and climate change is a great way for people to accumulate both.

What you're missing about that argument isn't what's in those boxes. It's about which decision will hurt us least in the long run, and that can be decided easily by looking at the worst case scenario both sides present.

Warmer doesn't mean better. A slight increase in global temperature could, according to one hypothesis, trigger the mass-release of underwater bubbles of methane, in such large quantities that a runaway greenhouse effect is triggered, leading to a stage set to replicate the early days of tropical paradise Venus.

As it is, we have reached a certain tipping point, with sea levels predicted to rise as much as seven feet thanks to the large chunk of Antarctic ice sheet sliding into the ocean. You can kiss most of southern Florida, New Orleans, Venice, the coastal cities, numerous islands and many other things good-by. Think about it like this... A drop of water in the ocean isn't much. But when things caused by humans lead to an average seven foot rise globally, well... Clearly something isn't right.

Storms will also occur more frequently, and will be able to hit farther north. New York had best prepare for Superstorm Sandy: Part Two... You know, after they sort out the streets flooding from the seven foot rise in sea level. And because the weather system is a fragile thing, any little change could upset it. Fertile plains won't necessarily stay fertile for long, and they areas in which we farm will be stripped of top soil by winds in a drought. Look at the great American dust bowl, back around the time of (I'm probably off on this) the 1920's. Climate change is as misleading as global warming. We should be calling it global climate destabilization.

More water doesn't mean warmer weather all the time. Flash flooding during rain, storm surges, and snow storms like you wouldn't believe are a definite possibility.

[FishInferno]

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

Yes, it doe happen, but as you said, we are amplifying it. We are amplifying it at an unnatural level that is unhealthy for the Earth.

IMO humanity stops needing to be concerned about money and be concerned about the planet and future generations. We have the technology to accomplish a clean society, but the oil companies are too greedy and we just wanna make money money money.

IMO humans are the stupidest animals on the planet

- - - Updated - - -

and i dont mean that lightly

[Darnok]

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?

Ok, because Venus got something that Mercury doesn't?

Look at this one...

Earth - 0.039% carbon dioxide

Mars - 95.97% carbon dioxide

where is that global warming effect on Mars?

If it occurs on Earth because of CO2 then why not on Mars?

And there we have it. All the sceptics are concerned about is money.

This here is an interesting argument:

That's a stupid argument, as no one is arguing that grid; we're arguing the contents of those boxes. I have yet to see any evidence that a net warming in the planet will bring doom and destruction. Warmer means wetter, wetter means more fertile, and I find it interesting that this is the first time in our history that a climate getting warmer is seen as a bad thing.

As for money... The IPCC has an annual budget of seven million, and is meddling in the economies of every member nation in the world. EVERYTHING is about money and power, and climate change is a great way for people to accumulate both.

Stargate525 is right that grid is plain stupid. This guy forgot to put same amout of money and regulations made by govs in all fields that "do something with global warming",

if you think about this for while then in fields:

1. would be economic, political etc etc catastrophy!

2. ok

3. same as in 1! but with better weather

4 same as in 1 and 3!

That should be simple if we spend bilions of $ in each field we fight with global warming then in each case we have economic and politial problems, because we won't have money for other needs!

As for global warming itself guys little higher temperature means more water vapour, means more rains, means more crops, means less people is going to starve!

How is this bad?

Bad would be global cooling, because most of us would starve!

Storms will also occur more frequently, and will be able to hit farther north. New York had best prepare for Superstorm Sandy: Part Two... You know, after they sort out the streets flooding from the seven foot rise in sea level. And because the weather system is a fragile thing, any little change could upset it. Fertile plains won't necessarily stay fertile for long, and they areas in which we farm will be stripped of top soil by winds in a drought. Look at the great American dust bowl, back around the time of (I'm probably off on this) the 1920's. Climate change is as misleading as global warming. We should be calling it global climate destabilization.

More water doesn't mean warmer weather all the time. Flash flooding during rain, storm surges, and snow storms like you wouldn't believe are a definite possibility.

In my country 500 years ago people cultivated grapes, now it is too cold for them. Maybe it is time to climate change and again it is going to be possible?

But during that change we will have few more storms.

[Roadkill]

So, should we send ourselves back to the dark ages voluntarily, or should we adapt to changes as they occur? That's the important thing in my mind. No one in the world is capable of accurately forecasting the weather for more than 3 days out. My local weatherman is lucky to get the forecast right for today. Anyone that says they know what's going to happen several years down the road is fooling themselves. Should we clean up the air because breathing smog is bad? Yes! There are many ways to do that without shutting down all the coal fired plants. Should we stop burning coal to produce electricity because someone says that if we don't bad stuff is gonna happen? I don't think it's time to sail that ship yet. No one can say for certain that it's gonna make a difference.

[Kryten]

Ok, because Venus got something that Mercury doesn't?

Look at this one...

Earth - 0.039% carbon dioxide

Mars - 95.97% carbon dioxide

where is that global warming effect on Mars?

If it occurs on Earth because of CO2 then why not on Mars?

It does. What effects are you expecting that we aren't seeing?

[Darnok]

So, should we send ourselves back to the dark ages voluntarily, or should we adapt to changes as they occur? That's the important thing in my mind. No one in the world is capable of accurately forecasting the weather for more than 3 days out. My local weatherman is lucky to get the forecast right for today. Anyone that says they know what's going to happen several years down the road is fooling themselves. Should we clean up the air because breathing smog is bad? Yes! There are many ways to do that without shutting down all the coal fired plants. Should we stop burning coal to produce electricity because someone says that if we don't bad stuff is gonna happen? I don't think it's time to sail that ship yet. No one can say for certain that it's gonna make a difference.

+1, that is my point, fight pollution that is real

It does. What effects are you expecting that we aren't seeing?

Celsius −143 °C −63 °C 35 °C <--- it should be much higher!

Edited September 9, 2014 by Specialist290
Slight language cleanup

[lajoswinkler]

That's a stupid argument, as no one is arguing that grid; we're arguing the contents of those boxes. I have yet to see any evidence that a net warming in the planet will bring doom and destruction. Warmer means wetter, wetter means more fertile, and I find it interesting that this is the first time in our history that a climate getting warmer is seen as a bad thing.

Warmer means wetter. Warm and wet = more energy in the system = more pressure differentials = more awesome rain/thunder/snowstorms in some areas and more droughts in other areas.

That's why people are concerned. Plus sea rising, but that will be a huge problem some time after huge and numerous storms and droughts and flora&fauna migrations start messing with out plans.

I live in a town where there weren't any tiger mosquitos 20 years ago. Today, they're taking over because the new climate is beneficial for the little fu*kers.

They spread viruses. Do I need to go futher?

Jellyfish - they like climate change. Young jellyfish eat zooplankton, undermining the whole food net from below. Result - disastrous reduction in fish production and a stab in the back of fishery economy.

They also undermine tourism. Some stupid countries rely on it. I live in one.

Things will get worse in a lot of ways. There is a measurable and proven trend of these, and other things changing and screwing us.

As for money... The IPCC has an annual budget of seven million, and is meddling in the economies of every member nation in the world. EVERYTHING is about money and power, and climate change is a great way for people to accumulate both.

So you're saying that someone is going to make money on something? Wow. I had no idea people did it. Just wow.

Ok, because Venus got something that Mercury doesn't?

Look at this one...

Earth - 0.039% carbon dioxide

Mars - 95.97% carbon dioxide

where is that global warming effect on Mars?

If it occurs on Earth because of CO2 then why not on Mars?

You're kidding, right?

As for global warming itself guys little higher temperature means more water vapour, means more rains, means more crops, means less people is going to starve!

How is this bad?

Bad would be global cooling, because most of us would starve!

No, it does not mean more rains and more crops. It means extreme weather, whether it's a drought or a hurricane. Get your facts straight.

[magnemoe]

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...

Thanks for the cute cartoon, and yes I agree with her.

However its pretty unlikely that we go extinct, few other species thrives in pretty much any ecosystem on land, from small islands to deserts all the way to the arctic.

Note this was during the stone age, current status is a bit larger and includes outposts underwater, at the south pole and LEO.

The great filter is another issue and pretty off topic however I have posted two on topic replies, its unlikely to be pollution, my guess is intelligence or more probably enough

It might be something later, however it can not be far ahead, if technical civilizations is common, remember that some solar systems will have two planets fit for life, if you colonize the other you can lose the home planet and still save the species.

Yes if you are far stupider than humans, have an small population pool or prefer large central controlled empires you are more likely to run into problems.

[Kryten]

Celsius −143 °C −63 °C 35 °C <--- it should be much higher!

Why? There's simply not much atmosphere there, and it's far farther from the sun than the earth is.

[Guest]

Various things over several posts

Are you trolling? Seriously?

[magnemoe]

What you're missing about that argument isn't what's in those boxes. It's about which decision will hurt us least in the long run, and that can be decided easily by looking at the worst case scenario both sides present.

Warmer doesn't mean better. A slight increase in global temperature could, according to one hypothesis, trigger the mass-release of underwater bubbles of methane, in such large quantities that a runaway greenhouse effect is triggered, leading to a stage set to replicate the early days of tropical paradise Venus.

As it is, we have reached a certain tipping point, with sea levels predicted to rise as much as seven feet thanks to the large chunk of Antarctic ice sheet sliding into the ocean. You can kiss most of southern Florida, New Orleans, Venice, the coastal cities, numerous islands and many other things good-by. Think about it like this... A drop of water in the ocean isn't much. But when things caused by humans lead to an average seven foot rise globally, well... Clearly something isn't right.

Storms will also occur more frequently, and will be able to hit farther north. New York had best prepare for Superstorm Sandy: Part Two... You know, after they sort out the streets flooding from the seven foot rise in sea level. And because the weather system is a fragile thing, any little change could upset it. Fertile plains won't necessarily stay fertile for long, and they areas in which we farm will be stripped of top soil by winds in a drought. Look at the great American dust bowl, back around the time of (I'm probably off on this) the 1920's. Climate change is as misleading as global warming. We should be calling it global climate destabilization.

More water doesn't mean warmer weather all the time. Flash flooding during rain, storm surges, and snow storms like you wouldn't believe are a definite possibility.

Earth turning into Venus is totally unlikely, temperatures has been higher in historical times, far warmer if you use the 10.000 year time span, not to talk about geological ones, yes it might result that the huge bread basked areas today become far less productive but that is not an geological issue

IPCC and other states that higher temperatures would not increase the number of hurricanes, rather humans building close the sea even under the sea where the land close to the city center while less expensive is to blame, and yes the 24 hour news cycle who need huge headlines every day to get their clicks.

Yes this surprised me, I expected more violent weather as its more energy in the system.

And yes IPCC predicts 30 cm sea level increase in 2100, the guys who says 7 meter is closer to guy with the "the end is near" sign than real scientists.

Not saying we should not do anything, also as it will have other positive effects like reduce pollution.

[Dominatus]

I honestly think he must be. I haven't seen someone ignore and misinterpret facts like that since the bible thumpers made a stink about evolution (again).

Those of you saying there is no way we can predict the weather accurately... Well, you're right. Kind of. We have trouble predicting weather small-scale, and even large scale is wildly inaccurate. However, there are certain cases of cause and effect that we know of in the weather system. These are the things being predicted.

Do yourselves a favor and try to forget everything you think you know about climate change. Then do the proper research on the subject, from how weather patterns reflect Environmental health to how varying temperatures can have drastically different effects world-wide. I did this myself, tried to be objective about it. And after visiting reliable sites, such as .org or .gov, and listening to people providing sources for information, I made my decision.

And Darnok? Sorry to hear about the grapes where you live, but unless we change something it's probably going to get colder. Especially if you are living in a place where it snows every winter.

Remember: Global. Climate Change. This doesn't mean the earth is just getting warmer, rather it's cause and effect. The global climate will see extreme changes in weather in the future, BECAUSE of an increase in average global temperatures.

[Dominatus]

Earth turning into Venus is totally unlikely, temperatures has been higher in historical times, far warmer if you use the 10.000 year time span, not to talk about geological ones, yes it might result that the huge bread basked areas today become far less productive but that is not an geological issue

IPCC and other states that higher temperatures would not increase the number of hurricanes, rather humans building close the sea even under the sea where the land close to the city center while less expensive is to blame, and yes the 24 hour news cycle who need huge headlines every day to get their clicks.

Yes this surprised me, I expected more violent weather as its more energy in the system.

And yes IPCC predicts 30 cm sea level increase in 2100, the guys who says 7 meter is closer to guy with the "the end is near" sign than real scientists.

Not saying we should not do anything, also as it will have other positive effects like reduce pollution.

"The remaining ice sheet contains enough ice to increase sea levels by an additional 10 to 13 feet, according to the press release for the second study by University of Washington researchers. And while this change wouldn’t be sudden – estimated to occur anywhere from 200 to 1000 years – scientists say this scenario is inevitable." Brianna Elliot

http://oceana.org/en/blog/2014/05/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-calls-for-revised-sea-level-rise-predictions

As for the Venus thing, yeah. Super unlikely, but it is a prime example for the runaway greenhouse effect, and besides, that description served to emphasis my arguments.

[magnemoe]

Yes, it doe happen, but as you said, we are amplifying it. We are amplifying it at an unnatural level that is unhealthy for the Earth.

IMO humanity stops needing to be concerned about money and be concerned about the planet and future generations. We have the technology to accomplish a clean society, but the oil companies are too greedy and we just wanna make money money money.

IMO humans are the stupidest animals on the planet

- - - Updated - - -

and i dont mean that lightly

I think its a decent chance global warming is working against an cooling trend, it would explain most of the probables in the current models.

Good news is that future generations will find it insanely funny.

Money is pretty nice, if not can you send me 100K$? And yes other people has more serious money issues than replacing the 8 year old car.

Chinese leadership has an unofficial mandate to rule, mandate is a promise to bring the Chinese up to western standard of living express speed, no good fallback plan an wall behind and a 10 guys with guns in front is not an good escape system)

[magnemoe]

"The remaining ice sheet contains enough ice to increase sea levels by an additional 10 to 13 feet, according to the press release for the second study by University of Washington researchers. And while this change wouldn’t be sudden – estimated to occur anywhere from 200 to 1000 years – scientists say this scenario is inevitable." Brianna Elliot

http://oceana.org/en/blog/2014/05/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-calls-for-revised-sea-level-rise-predictions

As for the Venus thing, yeah. Super unlikely, but it is a prime example for the runaway greenhouse effect, and besides, that description served to emphasis my arguments.

Again, antarctic ice will collapse into sea regularly this is nothing new except more satellites taking pictures, an increased temperature will probably give more humid air over Antarctica and increase the ice thickness. Unlike glaziers in Europe and America Antarctica rarely get above 0 centigrade even in summer, even with climate change predictions.

And yes ice keeps well, it has been plans to tow icebergs for drinking water, main issue is not melting even if towing to Sidney or cape town but rather extracting without getting too much salt water in the mix at an low enough cost.

[Darnok]

Warmer means wetter. Warm and wet = more energy in the system = more pressure differentials = more awesome rain/thunder/snowstorms in some areas and more droughts in other areas.

You're kidding, right?

No, it does not mean more rains and more crops. It means extreme weather, whether it's a drought or a hurricane. Get your facts straight.

We have that kind of weather on some parts of Earth? And it is not apocalypse?

No I am not kidding. Why Mars isn't boiling yet? If CO2 is the cause.

Extreme weather during short transition, but after that many years of stable weather.

Why? There's simply not much atmosphere there, and it's far farther from the sun than the earth is.

Venus is further from Sun and has higher temp than Mercury?

Not much atmosphere, but 95% and 0.039% is devastating difference!!! There should be like 100C, while max is only 35C.

And more CO2 is good for plants, they can evolve and produce more O2, what would be good for us?

I honestly think he must be. I haven't seen someone ignore and misinterpret facts like that since the bible thumpers made a stink about evolution (again).

This is getting insulting... just because someone doesn't share your view means he is uneducated?

Start talking about arguments instead keep repeating this. And don't call "global warming hypothesis" a "fact", because it isn't.

Those of you saying there is no way we can predict the weather accurately... Well, you're right. Kind of. We have trouble predicting weather small-scale, and even large scale is wildly inaccurate. However, there are certain cases of cause and effect that we know of in the weather system. These are the things being predicted.

There is no "kind of" either you can predict weather or not. If you can't that means your entire knowledge about weather and climate is wrong.

Do yourselves a favor and try to forget everything you think you know about climate change. Then do the proper research on the subject, from how weather patterns reflect Environmental health to how varying temperatures can have drastically different effects world-wide. I did this myself, tried to be objective about it.

If you talk about proper weather patterns just after you admited that there are none, because we can't predict weather, then maybe you Sir should listen your advice first?

And after visiting reliable sites, such as .org or .gov, and listening to people providing sources for information, I made my decision.

.gov reliable please!!! if .gov sites would be reliable you wouldn't had public debt in USA at trylions of $, same in EU countries

I can understand that in single country can be lots of stupid politicias, but in all?

As for proper research what is causing Sun spots every 11 years? I hope it is not CO2 again

Edited September 9, 2014 by Darnok

[Kryten]

Not much atmosphere, but 95% and 0.039% is devastating difference!!! There should be like 100C, while max is only 35C.

That's 95% of about half of a percent of earth's atmosphere; so the figures for actual amounts of CO₂ are about 0.5% and 0.039%. Mars gets about half the radiation from the sun, and the huge quantities of other gases, even with less per-mole warming capability, really add up for earth.

[Darnok]

That's 95% of about half of a percent of earth's atmosphere; so the figures for actual amounts of CO₂ are about 0.5% and 0.039%. Mars gets about half the radiation from the sun, and the huge quantities of other gases, even with less per-mole warming capability, really add up for earth.

What other gases? If on Mars you have 95% you can only have 5% other gases?

[Hal]

Darnok, Mars' atmospheric pressure is, on average, 600 Pa compared to Earth's average of 101,300 Pa. That, combined with being much farther from the sun than the rest of the terrestrial planets, is the reason that its high CO2 concentration doesn't make it boiling, because it actually has very little CO2.

You say there's just extreme weather for a short transition period (I'm assuming you mean while the Earth warms up), but if we keep pumping CO2 into the air the world will keep heating up, and even if it stopped 100 years from now for some magical reason, the weather would still more extreme on average (more energy in the system).

While more CO2 is good for plants, technically speaking, we don't need more oxygen (too much is actually harmful), and the effects of CO2 on the climate are far worse.

You also seem to be getting climate and weather confused. We kind of suck at predicting day-to-day weather (I think a coin toss for rain over the next 3 days is better than our predictions), but we have a pretty good grip on how climate works. While weather is just day-to-day stuff, climate is the general weather of an area over long periods of time (years or more), and is a completely different deal for prediction compared to weather. Climate includes weather, in a way.

Lastly, although this is getting somewhat off topic, governments being in debt is a pretty natural thing (the USA has been for most of its history, and it's done well enough). Also, just because a country has bad economic policies does not mean you should ignore what it says on scientific matters. Being skeptical is good, but ignoring facts from some of the most reliable sources you can find is not.