Atmospheric Carbon Levels Pass Point Of No Return

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
We have supposedly passed the carbon tipping point and won’t be seeing levels below 400 PPM ever again. Fun effects may include extinction, food chain disruption, and rising sea levels.

According to a blog post last Friday from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, “it already seems safe to conclude that we won’t be seeing a monthly value below 400 ppm this year—or ever again for the indefinite future.” Their findings are based on weekly observations of carbon dioxide at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory, where climate scientists have been measuring CO2 levels since 1958. What’s so terrifying about this number? For several years now, scientists have been warning us that if atmospheric carbon were allowed to surpass 400 parts per million, it would mark a serious “milestone.”
 
From recent news, I imagine the main point of attack will be methane gas from livestock, and dammed water supplies.
 
Russia wants Trump to win since they stand to benefit from global warming. Just saying. Time to move to Canada no matter who wins. And avoid coastal cities.
 
Remember, these guys also predicted that we would have hit peak oil and would already have entered into WW3 with massive famine in a post apocalyptic wastelands years ago, and today oil prices are so low that the entire oilfield services industry is having massive layoffs and China, who is said to have nearly as massive reserves as the US, hasn't even poked holes in their shale yet.

They weren't just a LITTLE bit wrong with their fear mongering, but rather they were in the upside down world.

Scientists also warn that CO2 levels will not be high enough by 2030 to prevent a mini-ice age due to reduced solar activity: Diminishing solar activity may bring new Ice Age by 2030 – Astronomy Now
The arrival of intense cold similar to the one that raged during the “Little Ice Age”, which froze the world during the 17th century and in the beginning of the 18th century, is expected in the years 2030—2040.
Click to expand...
 
EODetroit said:
Time to move to Canada no matter who wins. And avoid coastal cities.
Click to expand...

nikebrand.jpg
 
If you wanted to prove global warming, why would you look at 0.0000007% of the earth's history (CO2 over past 30 years)? That is statistically insignificant. Even ice core data is a fraction of earth's history and the data implies that temperature increases cause increasing CO2 levels - not the other way around.

If you wanted to prove global warming, you could easily do so by looking at the geological record. ...and it's been done. ...and it shows that CO2 levels lag temperature increases. How is that possible unless CO2 travels back in time?

The simple answer is that solar activity causes increases in CO2 levels. Biological activity outputs more CO2 when temperatures increase. Investigate that and the geologic record and I am sure you will find the truth.
 
Last edited:
Cool. I only need to go another 30 years or so. You don't win a million bucks for hitting 90 or 100.
 
sleepeeg3 said:
If you wanted to prove global warming, why would you look at 0.0000007% of the earth's history (CO2 over past 30 years)? That is statistically insignificant. Even ice core data is a fraction of earth's history and the data implies that temperature increases cause increasing CO2 levels - not the other way around.

If you wanted to prove global warming, you could easily do so by looking at the geological record. ...and it's been done. ...and it shows that CO2 levels lag temperature increases. How is that possible unless CO2 travels back in time?

The simple answer is that solar activity causes increases in CO2 levels. Biological activity outputs more CO2 when temperatures increase. Investigate that and the geologic record and I am sure you will find the truth.
Click to expand...

Not that I believe one way or the other. But are you trying to say all of our industrial and transportation equipment outputs so much less CO2 than we or life in general does that it isn't making any difference what so ever? that is the implications of what you're saying and I find the math behind that to be....extremely suspect.
 
Vercinaigh said:
Not that I believe one way or the other. But are you trying to say all of our industrial and transportation equipment outputs so much less CO2 than we or life in general does that it isn't making any difference what so ever? that is the implications of what you're saying and I find the math behind that to be....extremely suspect.
Click to expand...
What math did you do to arrive at that conclusion?
 
sleepeeg3 said:
What math did you do to arrive at that conclusion?
Click to expand...

Didn't bother yet (Outside loose in my head kind stuff) because figured you have more information on that front and i really don't care enough. I just found the implication both interesting and a bit suspect. Not questioning you in a personal manner mate, relax.
 
What I find funny is that all of the Solar proponents fail to understand it that it isn't free. Most of the surface of the planet has some degree or IR reflectivity, Solar Collectors (solar-thermal, or Solar cells), absorb that and keep it on the planet... Directly resulting in more global warming.
 
There was an episode of "The Newsroom" (season 3 episode 3) that tackled this specific situation where someone working for the E.P.A. was reporting on this exact thing where we reach a point of carbon in the atmosphere that it would be considered a milestone/tipping point and there's no going back so, this ain't really a surprise for me and many others.

And it will just continue to get worse, it's a simple fact.
 
Tiberian said:
There was an episode of "The Newsroom" (season 3 episode 3) that tackled this specific situation where someone working for the E.P.A. was reporting on this exact thing where we reach a point of carbon in the atmosphere that it would be considered a milestone/tipping point and there's no going back so, this ain't really a surprise for me and many others.

And it will just continue to get worse, it's a simple fact.
Click to expand...

 
PhotoBobBarker said:
What I find funny is that all of the Solar proponents fail to understand it that it isn't free. Most of the surface of the planet has some degree or IR reflectivity, Solar Collectors (solar-thermal, or Solar cells), absorb that and keep it on the planet... Directly resulting in more global warming.
Click to expand...

Not even close. Solar panels have a regional cooling effect.

http://wapo.st/1GYZkn9?tid
 
Tiberian said:
And it will just continue to get worse, it's a simple fact.
Click to expand...

No, it's just a simple lie that many people fall for.

CO2 levels have been much higher in the past.
The real fact is that 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually low compared to numbers from millions of years ago.
If the level of CO2 had dropped much lower (like 200ppm) there would be a massive die off of plant life that would result a massive loss of most life on this planet.

Why do plants grow so much better if you double the amount of CO2 in a green house? It's because plants evolved during a time when CO2 levels where much higher.
Why is the OSHA standard for CO2 1000 ppm?
 
Vercinaigh said:
Not that I believe one way or the other. But are you trying to say all of our industrial and transportation equipment outputs so much less CO2 than we or life in general does that it isn't making any difference what so ever? that is the implications of what you're saying and I find the math behind that to be....extremely suspect.
Click to expand...
We output a ton of CO2, no doubt, however, this idea that there can be "runaway CO2 induced warming" with some kind of point of no return doesn't make any sense.

Back when dinos were stomping around, whose remains we use as fuel now, CO2 levels were at least five times higher than they are today and the world was lusciously green, vibrant, and full of life, and we still had glaciation cycles every 100K years or so.

We're also still trying to factor in even basic things like how the earth's wobble impacts the climate: Ice Ages Blamed on Tilted Earth

The point is, no one can really agree on what the effect of industrialization will have on the climate long term, if we will cause continued warming or if human activity ends up slowing the next glacial cycle and just preventing the next mini-ice age and stabilizing temperatures.

So that's what annoys me, is that politicians often talk in such absolutes that CO2 is nothing to worry about or that if we don't all immediately hold our breath and farts in, that we're going to experience the Day after Tomorrow movie nonsense in order to fear monger to gain power.
 
Vercinaigh said:
Didn't bother yet (Outside loose in my head kind stuff) because figured you have more information on that front and i really don't care enough. I just found the implication both interesting and a bit suspect. Not questioning you in a personal manner mate, relax.
Click to expand...
I am not skilled enough in statistics, but someone who is can calculate the sample set that would be required to determine the significance at p<0.05 (95% confidence) that would be required from 30 years of temperature measurements to project the linear trend of 4,530,000,000 of the earth's history. I assure you, that number would be astronomical. You would also have to factor in the inaccuracy of your instruments, time of day, who is measuring them, weather variations and it is almost certainly impossible to draw any meaningful conclusion based on annual temperature/CO2 measurements. Yet some people have concluded based on this data (people who's salary is based on this, I might add) that the earth is warming, because of CO2. In the 60's they were even trying to scare us that the earth was cooling. Go figure.

-PK- said:
This interactive graph on climate change is pretty good at visualizing how all of the contributing factors stack up, and which one is the largest contributing factor of global warming. What's Really Warming the World?
Click to expand...
We can track temperature changes, but there is no way to show causality between CO2 and temperature based on them. The dataset is too limited.

If you compare it to the xkcd oversimplified drawing, try plotting 30 years of data on a Y-axis of 4,530,000,000 years and see what that looks like. I can't even make that graph in Excel with 10,000 year intervals. It's outside of Excel's limit.
 
Last edited:
Kalabalana said:
From recent news, I imagine the main point of attack will be methane gas from livestock, and dammed water supplies.
Click to expand...

This is why vegans / vegetarians are destroying the world. They eat the plants to solve this problem and keep the animals that cause it.

B2BigAl said:
Not saying you're wrong or championing the post you're replying to, but the energy absorbed has to go somewhere, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

That actually sounds like a stupid response is you actually think about it. You are absorbing sun light for power (energy) and you want to know where the energy absorbed goes to. Well how about to power all the stuff that you are collecting it for? I mean that is kind of why the units exist and you are getting power from somewhere right? Which we all should know that energy is not created or destroyed but is just transferred so if you are getting power from the unit, it can't be getting it via magic.
 
nutzo said:
No, it's just a simple lie that many people fall for.

CO2 levels have been much higher in the past.
The real fact is that 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually low compared to numbers from millions of years ago.
If the level of CO2 had dropped much lower (like 200ppm) there would be a massive die off of plant life that would result a massive loss of most life on this planet.

Why do plants grow so much better if you double the amount of CO2 in a green house? It's because plants evolved during a time when CO2 levels where much higher.
Why is the OSHA standard for CO2 1000 ppm?
Click to expand...
You are forgetting about ocean CO2 acidification. You'll get algae blooms, fish die offs and even worse loss of life. Humans weren't alive millions of years ago and there were tropical forests everywhere to process that CO2.

OSHA limits for short term work exposure have nothing to do with global limits and their effects.
 
Megalith said:
We have supposedly passed the carbon tipping point and won’t be seeing levels below 400 PPM ever again. Fun effects may include extinction, food chain disruption, and rising sea levels.

According to a blog post last Friday from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, “it already seems safe to conclude that we won’t be seeing a monthly value below 400 ppm this year—or ever again for the indefinite future.” Their findings are based on weekly observations of carbon dioxide at Hawaii’s Mauna Loa Observatory, where climate scientists have been measuring CO2 levels since 1958. What’s so terrifying about this number? For several years now, scientists have been warning us that if atmospheric carbon were allowed to surpass 400 parts per million, it would mark a serious “milestone.”
Click to expand...

The Earth's not going anywhere, we are! Pack your shit folks!

 
Exavior said:
That actually sounds like a stupid response is you actually think about it. You are absorbing sun light for power (energy) and you want to know where the energy absorbed goes to. Well how about to power all the stuff that you are collecting it for? I mean that is kind of why the units exist and you are getting power from somewhere right? Which we all should know that energy is not created or destroyed but is just transferred so if you are getting power from the unit, it can't be getting it via magic.
Click to expand...

Law of energy conservation.
Also, efficiency. Solar panels are extremely inefficient for their job. The goal is light to electric, but ends up mainly being light to thermal with a little bit of electric. I wouldn't think it's enough to make a difference though.
 
Great! Now that it's too late to do anything about it, can we stop with this global warming nonsense now?
 
Last edited:
Well, guess it's time for humanity to head to the stars. Otherwise, we're dooming ourselves to Soylent Green in the near future, and zyvomeal and protoveg sometime in the far future.
(props to those who get the references)

;):D
 
tungt88 said:
Well, guess it's time for humanity to head to the stars. Otherwise, we're dooming ourselves to Soylent Green in the near future, and zyvomeal and protoveg sometime in the far future.
(props to those who get the references)

;):D
Click to expand...

Head to the stars so we can find another planet to fuck up? This is probably the reason why aliens haven't visited us yet. We don't even know how to take care of ourselves or one another as a whole. How are we supposed to take care of a Planet? Why should we any way? We are not the caretakers of this Blue Green ball, we were never meant to be.
 
Krenum said:
Head to the stars so we can find another planet to fuck up? This is probably the reason why aliens haven't visited us yet. We don't even know how to take care of ourselves or one another. How are we supposed to take care of a Planet? Why should we any way? We are not the caretakers of this Blue Green ball, we were never meant to be.
Click to expand...
Actually we were EXACTLY the caretakers of the Earth and the creatures as the Vegetation was to take care of us. But that all got fucked up. As did our selfishness.
 
Krenum said:
Head to the stars so we can find another planet to fuck up? This is probably the reason why aliens haven't visited us yet. We don't even know how to take care of ourselves or one another as a whole. How are we supposed to take care of a Planet? Why should we any way? We are not the caretakers of this Blue Green ball, we were never meant to be.
Click to expand...

Heh, that was basically the subplot of this (somewhat) famous sci-fi novel (which inspired the Stalker movie and PC games): Roadside Picnic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
DrLobotomy said:
Actually we were EXACTLY the caretakers of the Earth and the creatures as the Vegetation was
to take care of us. But that all got fucked up. As did our selfishness.
Click to expand...

How exactly does that work? The Earth was here billions of years before Mankind. It did fine without us, and will do fine with us as well. If not, the Earth has ways of culling the herd & will balance itself out.
 
B2BigAl said:
Not saying you're wrong or championing the post you're replying to, but the energy absorbed has to go somewhere, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

I assume it will go into electricity form... from there it will go into kinectic or light energi and yes heat again, but only a fraction off it. Or am i i missing the point of using solar panels here and they are just to store heat for no purpose ?
 
Hmmm,sendme your monies and I will solve this. We can call it a "carbon tax"! Oops, too authoritarian. Use "carbon offset", it's more marketable.
 
SvenBent said:
i always have a hard time whne some "magic" tiping point is always on an exact nicel ooking Human made arbitrary number. the universe doesnt work in base10

anyway

---Big Picture---
Click to expand...

It's cute and humorous and gets the hockey stick message across. But it doesn't seem to match any other picture I can find.

Also what is the granularity of these pre-history temperature samples? Can you measure with <very> high certainty the exact temperature 48,678,342 years ago? Or is it an average over a course time of, say, 1000 years?
 
PhotoBobBarker said:
What I find funny is that all of the Solar proponents fail to understand it that it isn't free. Most of the surface of the planet has some degree or IR reflectivity, Solar Collectors (solar-thermal, or Solar cells), absorb that and keep it on the planet... Directly resulting in more global warming.
Click to expand...
Well what is your comparison? people who put solar panels on top of BLACK asphalt roofing shingles? In that case I'd say you're very wrong. Now if you're talking about someone who has a very smart roof setup with a very reflective roof than sure, you're right but most people don't, so unless you're talking about huge solar farms then it's probably a wash with the edge going to solar. Now there's also the CO2 emission done by not using that power, on the grand scheme of things it's small, but then so is a few 10s of square meters of solar panels.
 
westrock2000 said:
It's cute and humorous and gets the hockey stick message across. But it doesn't seem to match any other picture I can find.

Also what is the granularity of these pre-history temperature samples? Can you measure with <very> high certainty the exact temperature 48,678,342 years ago? Or is it an average over a course time of, say, 1000 years?
Click to expand...

Source and method are mentiond in the picture if you want to dig deeper. and i would assume some kind of geological measurements. I don't know what you consider very high certainty. Subjective term and all
 
sfsuphysics said:
ahh... the infamous "these guys" because there is a small cadre of scientist who are just trying to fuck with the economy any way they can!
Click to expand...

or at least the small cadre of scientists that get paid money to research claims from the Government that continue to pay those grants if their is "science" to fit their bias, and lets be honest, globalists don't really care about the environment, they only are about being able to control every facet of society and industry to further their own machinations and schemes to gain more power. /tin_foil
 
nutzo said:
No, it's just a simple lie that many people fall for.

CO2 levels have been much higher in the past.
The real fact is that 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually low compared to numbers from millions of years ago.
If the level of CO2 had dropped much lower (like 200ppm) there would be a massive die off of plant life that would result a massive loss of most life on this planet.

Why do plants grow so much better if you double the amount of CO2 in a green house? It's because plants evolved during a time when CO2 levels where much higher.
Why is the OSHA standard for CO2 1000 ppm?
Click to expand...

not saying you are wrong but it does seem to be that that Past is very long ago

Climate Change: Climate Resource Center - Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide
24_co2-graph-021116-768px.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top