WMO: Carbon Pollution Touched 800,000-Year Record in 2016

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
According to the World Meteorological Organization, concentrations of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere surged to a record high in 2016: the increase was 50% higher than the average of the past 10 years. Researchers say a combination of human activities and the El Niño weather phenomenon drove CO2 to a level not seen in 800,000 years.

2016 saw average concentrations of CO2 hit 403.3 parts per million, up from 400ppm in 2015."It is the largest increase we have ever seen in the 30 years we have had this network," Dr Oksana Tarasova, chief of WMO's global atmosphere watch programme, told BBC News. "The largest increase was in the previous El Niño, in 1997-1998, and it was 2.7ppm; and now it is 3.3ppm. It is also 50% higher than the average of the last 10 years."
 

travisty

Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
815
This is not computer related. Did I log into ocp?

This should be troubling to everyone including tech people.


Just for those who don't watch the video, John Oliver put it nicely in 2017, "Floods are only going to get worse with climate change. I know there are people who will dispute that change but we just don't have time tonight to litigate whether extreme weather events are
exacerbated by climate change. So for now let's just say:" THEY ARE "Yeah. They just definitely are. Sure it is a complicated issue and we may not have difenitive proof until the late 1980's"

 
Last edited:

jnmunsey

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
336
I question the data first of all. Second, so what? The planet will survive this. Its destruction will be from something far more dire. Plus, cold weather kills way more people than hot weather.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
28,158
Considering the IDLH is 40,000 ppm I'm not going to get worried anytime soon.
 

whiz187

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
337
According to Al Gore San Francisco Airport should have been covered by at least 7 inches of water by now. I just left that POS State, I lived in the hills above SFO. Mud flats are still there when the tide goes out, incoming tide has not risen a half inch above normal.

So who was standing out there 8000 years ago to measure the great proclamation? If Carbon Dioxide was higher the trees, plants and greenery would have been very prolific, sucking it up like crazy. It is their food. Where were all the people 8000 years ago that caused this dastardly increase in emissions?

Follow the money people. Oh let us put a carbon tax on that while we are at it.

And now back to HOCP.
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,406
If climate change deniers are right, then we're fine. If they're wrong, then we're not fine. How about erring on the side of caution. You know, just in case.
 

ob1

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
2,274
If climate change deniers are right, then we're fine. If they're wrong, then we're not fine. How about erring on the side of caution. You know, just in case.

Don't even bother here. No one will listen, no one will give sources or facts for their denial, they will just call you names and make light of the situation. Typically I would say they are trolls, but I honestly believe that most of them do not have the ability to even attempt to prove any of the data wrong. It is like their religion, they just believe. So don't waste time posting here about it...
 

spintroniX

Gawd
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
974
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the climate alarmists are correct. What are their proposed solutions?

What I typically see offered is some sort of carbon tax, with the theory that it will act as a deterrent against using dirty energy.

What can we say of the effects of such a tax ?

It will raise the price of energy, of course. What does this do? For the wealthy, nothing really. For the lower income classes who live in a fixed budget, they will be forced to choose between necessities.

They will literally be forced to choose between eating food, paying rent, or paying their utilities. In temperate times of the year and climates, it's not a huge problem.

But for times of the year and regions in which temperatures reach extremes, this will actually kill people as they will choose to keep the roof over their head and the food in their stomachs.

This raises the question, is it better to deliberately kill people through policy, or inadvertently through the status quo?

If the proposed solutions were some combination of the following, I would be more inclined to believe that the climate alarmists are actually dedicated to solving the problem:

1) Accelerated investment in fusion energy, at the expense of the military industrial complex ( unless they want to argue sending thousands of soldiers and munitions across the globe is carbon neutral )

2) reduction in the size and scope of the government to reduce direct carbon footprint from operations and to free up capital in the private sector to invest in solutions to mitigate the effects of climate change

As it stands, the only solution is more government. Given the track record of this line of thinking, forgive me for being skeptical.

War against poverty? More citizens on food stamps than ever. War against drugs? Opioid epidemic. War against terror? More deaths from terror in a week than we used to have in a year.

The outcome of a war against climate change will just be more death and misery, 100% guaranteed.
 
Last edited:

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
Don't even bother here. No one will listen, no one will give sources or facts for their denial, they will just call you names and make light of the situation. Typically I would say they are trolls, but I honestly believe that most of them do not have the ability to even attempt to prove any of the data wrong. It is like their religion, they just believe. So don't waste time posting here about it...
I don't think anyone denies climate change, what they deny is that it's harmful and or 100% man made.
 

Monkey God

Mangina Full of Sand
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
6,723
I don't think anyone denies climate change, what they deny is that it's harmful and or 100% man made.

I just want people to talk more about what the plans are to re-mediate it. I am all for green energy and such (win-win), but what else?
 

ob1

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
2,274
There are no good solutions Monkey, except preparation, because the outcome is certain. There is no going back, there is no changing or reversing the damage, there is only living with the result. We need to put our collective efforts and resources into the fact that it is happening and there really is nothing we can do, unless aliens show up and lend us some space magics.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
28,158
There are no good solutions Monkey, except preparation, because the outcome is certain. There is no going back, there is no changing or reversing the damage, there is only living with the result. We need to put our collective efforts and resources into the fact that it is happening and there really is nothing we can do, unless aliens show up and lend us some space magics.
Our planet hasn't survived 4.5 billion years and supported life for 400 million years to let man's insignificant 120 years of industrialization kill it or the life it supports.
*facepalm*
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr076.pdf
CDC said:
During 2006–2010, 10,649 deaths of U.S. residents were attributed to weather-related causes of death (Table 2). Exposure to excessive natural heat, heat stroke, sun stroke, or all were cited as either the underlying cause or a contributing cause of death for 3,332 (31%) of these deaths, and exposure to excessive natural cold, hypothermia, or both was cited for 6,660 (63%) of deaths. The remaining weather-related deaths were attributed to floods, storms, or lightning.
Over a 5-year period, the number of deaths attributed to the cold was twice as high as those attributed to heat.
 

CombatChrisNC

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
1,140
Our planet hasn't survived 4.5 billion years and supported life for 400 million years to let man's insignificant 120 years of industrialization kill it or the life it supports.

We're not going to go extinct because of man-made climate change. We will however have to deal with some major changes. Sea level rise, ocean acidity, desertification, etc.

EDIT: What I really mean are the things that the 3 mentioned above bring with them.

Sea Level: Losing a LOT of land and infrastructure, being swallowed by the oceans. What % of the earth's population lives ~10ft or less above sea level? More than enough to make this a huge problem.

Ocean acidity: The oceans are a major part of the food chain we and so much of the rest of the planet rely on. Change it's makup in a major way and things get bumpy.

Desertification: What happens with our breadbaskets in the US or Ukraine are pushed a few degrees higher and it drastically changes their yields?
 

Disco_Stu_04

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 18, 2003
Messages
426
Remember how the ozone got a big hole because of human-made chemicals and then we did something about it and things got better.... pretty amazing stuff that we did on a global scale.

Why stop now? Why make this a political position? It defies logic that this has become another argument to fuel tribalism.
 

ob1

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 17, 2000
Messages
2,274
Exactly, nothing in the climate change narrative is going to hurt the planet, and I cannot believe you would even think something like that honestly. The climate has changed more in the last 100 years than the last 20,000, and when I say change, I mean cumulatively more than all previous 20k and the rate of change is increasing. It won't kill the planet obviously, and it won't kill off all humans. But moving people away from coasts that going to get swallowed, instead of paying over and over again when they get flooded, is a good start.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
We're not going to go extinct because of man-made climate change. We will however have to deal with some major changes. Sea level rise, ocean acidity, desertification, etc.
Ocean acidity? Going from a ph of 8.2 to 8.1 doesn't sound like something that should even be talked about. Desertification was ongoing since before the industrial age. Climate change in general has been ongoing before man existed.

As for no good solutions? That's hogwash. There are many plans that need funding if you really want to reverse global warming. But in general, most talk about reversing climate change doesn't exist. What does exist is the desire to tax energy production and increase it's cost. Carbon tax is a ponzi scheme which doesn't do anything substantial. There are others who want people to go back to the stone age because they block the only 0 atmosphere pollution energy production - nuclear. There are others who believe that the planet can only sustain 1 billion people. What's exciting is to see how you go from 7-8 billion people to 1 without massive genocides.
 

DocFaustus

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
2,830
I'm still trying to figure out what this has to do with hardware....... is this an overclocking experiment gone awry?



Another unrelated click-bait article.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
28,158
We're not going to go extinct because of man-made climate change. We will however have to deal with some major changes. Sea level rise, ocean acidity, desertification, etc.

EDIT: What I really mean are the things that the 3 mentioned above bring with them.

Sea Level: Losing a LOT of land and infrastructure, being swallowed by the oceans. What % of the earth's population lives ~10ft or less above sea level? More than enough to make this a huge problem.

Ocean acidity: The oceans are a major part of the food chain we and so much of the rest of the planet rely on. Change it's makup in a major way and things get bumpy.

Desertification: What happens with our breadbaskets in the US or Ukraine are pushed a few degrees higher and it drastically changes their yields?
My larger point was that the planet will recover or adapt somehow as it always has. Volcanic output is a lot more devastating than the manmade carbon dioxide emissions at this point in history. And there was this little asteroid collision event that happened a little while ago where the planet came back from stronger than ever.
 

CombatChrisNC

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
1,140
Ocean acidity? Going from a ph of 8.2 to 8.1 doesn't sound like something that should even be talked about.

Then why are the people who study these things (and know what they're talking about it) talking about it? Not all small things are just 'small things'. Let me put it this way for scale. 14 point range for pH. So a change of 0.1 pH is 0.7% of the scale, 0.2pH is 1.4%. Small numbers, right? How about human body temp. Let's raise you up by 1.4% to 99.98 *F. You've got a fever and something is wrong.


Desertification was ongoing since before the industrial age. Climate change in general has been ongoing before man existed.

Yes, at a natural rate. Kind of like how glaciers move down mountains. Or how rivers can carve canyons. Or wind blown sand carves amazing structures, whittling away soft stone from the harder components. What humans are doing is adding a turbocharger onto already existing processes and speeding them up to where many crucial systems might not be able to adapt.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

You know, I had never noticed the hidden words on this comic before. "[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before."
 

CombatChrisNC

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
1,140
My larger point was that the planet will recover or adapt somehow as it always has. Volcanic output is a lot more devastating than the manmade carbon dioxide emissions at this point in history. And there was this little asteroid collision event that happened a little while ago where the planet came back from stronger than ever.

And I can survive a beating. But why submit myself to one unnecessarily?
 

Gigantopithecus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
1,544
As a veteran of "the evolution issue," I really don't log onto [H] to read how little many computer hardware enthusiasts know about science in general and this "controversial" science in particular.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
Then why are the people who study these things (and know what they're talking about it) talking about it? Not all small things are just 'small things'. Let me put it this way for scale. 14 point range for pH. So a change of 0.1 pH is 0.7% of the scale, 0.2pH is 1.4%. Small numbers, right? How about human body temp. Let's raise you up by 1.4% to 99.98 *F. You've got a fever and something is wrong.




Yes, at a natural rate. Kind of like how glaciers move down mountains. Or how rivers can carve canyons. Or wind blown sand carves amazing structures, whittling away soft stone from the harder components. What humans are doing is adding a turbocharger onto already existing processes and speeding them up to where many crucial systems might not be able to adapt.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

You know, I had never noticed the hidden words on this comic before. "[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before."
It's simple science. 7 is neutral, anything above is alkaline, anything below is acid.
Moving from a 8.2 to 8.1 on the ph scale does nothing chemically. In that range we went from 200ppm to 400ppm of co2. If we went to 600 ppm and the ocean became a ph of 8.0 it still won't change anything.

Your geologic timescale isn't quite accurate.
For example, the indistrial revolution started around 1750. So that would be around 270 years timeframe that man had an impact.

Comparing that to known climate changes in the past, the sahara desert turned from a lush forest to a desert in approximately a 300 year span of time:
https://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/how-earths-orbital-shift-shaped-the-sahara/
 

PaulP

Gawd
Joined
Oct 31, 2016
Messages
776
Sigh, more "carbon pollution" bullshit. First off, CO2 != carbon. It is a molecule that contains a single carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. If you must call it by one of those names, it would be more accurate to call it oxygen. But I suppose "oxygen pollution" does not sound as scary. Second, it is not a pollutant, no matter how you try to twist the meaning of that word.
 

kohl

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
289
This should be troubling to everyone including tech people.
Just for those who don't watch the video, John Oliver put it nicely in 2017, "Floods are only going to get worse with climate change. I know there are people who will dispute that change but we just don't have time tonight to litigate whether extreme weather events are
exacerbated by climate change. So for now let's just say:" THEY ARE "Yeah. They just definitely are. Sure it is a complicated issue and we may not have difenitive proof until the late 1980's"
The only thing troubling is having to endure John Oliver's smarmy face and man made climate change alarmist nonsense.
 

kohl

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
289
My larger point was that the planet will recover or adapt somehow as it always has. Volcanic output is a lot more devastating than the manmade carbon dioxide emissions at this point in history. And there was this little asteroid collision event that happened a little while ago where the planet came back from stronger than ever.

You can't bring up things like that because it makes sense and it also deflates the entire point which is to scare people silly into believing this horse***t, and then falling in line to accept the "solution" which comes in the form of carbon taxes and whatever else it will take to "fix" the "problem".
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
It's simple science. 7 is neutral, anything above is alkaline, anything below is acid.
Moving from a 8.2 to 8.1 on the ph scale does nothing chemically. In that range we went from 200ppm to 400ppm of co2. If we went to 600 ppm and the ocean became a ph of 8.0 it still won't change anything.

Your geologic timescale isn't quite accurate.
For example, the indistrial revolution started around 1750. So that would be around 270 years timeframe that man had an impact.

Comparing that to known climate changes in the past, the sahara desert turned from a lush forest to a desert in approximately a 300 year span of time:
https://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/how-earths-orbital-shift-shaped-the-sahara/
That not how ph works.
 

travisty

Gawd
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
815
My larger point was that the planet will recover or adapt somehow as it always has. Volcanic output is a lot more devastating than the manmade carbon dioxide emissions at this point in history. And there was this little asteroid collision event that happened a little while ago where the planet came back from stronger than ever.

So to put words in your mouth - based off this statement - "No matter what we (humans) to to the Earth it will keep going."

I can agree with you here. The other part which I will add you saying is, "But no humans will be alive to see it."

And that's the problem. We need to amend our ways in order for humans to continue living on it. If you'd prefer to be dead that is one thing anyone can do for themselves. For most everyone else, let's make the effort to clean up our ways. Will we have to make sacrifices? Sure. Is it possible? Yes it is.
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
That not how ph works.
ph is just a measurement of the H ions or the OH ions in a substance.

specifically to ocean acidification: CO2 (aq) + H2O
046b918c43e05caf6624fe9b676c69ec9cd6b892
H2CO3
046b918c43e05caf6624fe9b676c69ec9cd6b892
HCO3− + H+
046b918c43e05caf6624fe9b676c69ec9cd6b892
CO32− + 2 H+.

any questions?
 
Top