400 ppm

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jnpy!$4g3cwk, May 13, 2013.

  1. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #1

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
     
  2. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #2
    Still don't know what logical solution there is to all of this. I'd be fine with going completely nuclear for our power, but there's too many opponents for that to take of widely it seems. Not sure what to do about the cars. They aren't going away and there doesn't seem to be any viable tech out there now to replace the combustion engine.

    We seem to have a whole bunch of square pegs, round holes and nobody in the energy community able or willing to figure out how to shave off the corners.
     
  3. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #3
    Nothing viable to replace a combustion engine yes, but there are a good deal of viable alternative fuels that we could use to power these combustion engines that would be far cleaner than regular old gasoline. Biodiesel is the most widespread one right now.

    With the huge amount of fried food this country eats, there's plenty of used, leftover cooking oil that could be recycled into biodiesel.
     
  4. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #4
    I thinks its important to focus on the fact that it isn't the carbon dioxide per se that is the problem. Its the increase in global average temperatures that is associated with it.

    This is one of those problems that currently lacks any decent solution. Yes - riding my bike to work or switching to LED bulbs helps a tiny bit. But at this juncture, even if every human on the planet started doing those things tomorrow - it wouldn't make a darned bit of difference. The fact of the matter is that just about every human activity imaginable releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and with eight billion or so of us running around, each year turning on more lights, driving more cars, or even cooking more rice, is going to inexorably pump more carbon into the atmosphere.

    Even if, God forbid, we suffered a global pandemic that wiped out three quarters of the humans on earth, global temperatures would continue to increase for another century or so, simply because of the CO2 thats already in the atmosphere.

    What is the answer? Maybe some form of engineered climate change. Pumping small amounts of light-reflecting dust into the stratosphere. Erecting a massive orbiting semi-transparent sun shield. But the problem with those types of solutions is that no one really knows what other, unanticipated consequences might arise.
     
  5. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #5
    It's all a bunch of mumbo-jumbo being pumped out by people like Al Gore who stand to profit from the hysteria these lefty organizations are trying to foment. There is no scientific proof that global warming or climate change is even happening, and all the crap science they post has scientists who disagree! I can't believe people actually think this stuff is proven when it clearly is not!

    /Paul Ryan impression

    (edit) Did I mention that my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather used to have dinosaurs as pets?
     
  6. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #6
    I suspect the tipping point was decades ago, possibly even before any of us were born. It is not even clear whether there is any way to actually fix it. So, the question is, do we try to mitigate (delay humanity's inevitable demise), or is it "gorge, chug and party down, because we're all going to die off anyway" ?
     
  7. DUCKofD3ATH, May 13, 2013
    Last edited: May 13, 2013

    DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #7
    The fact of the matter is that CO2 content in the atmosphere continues to rise while temperatures are increasing at the lowest of the low IPCC scenarios.

    Given that a doubling of CO2 concentrations from what they were at the start of the industrial age can only, by itself, increase temps by 1 ° C, it's becoming clearer that the climate is not as sensitive to CO2 increase as the models have assumed.
     
  8. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #8
    Source?
     
  9. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #9
    And face it, folks, no one can even feel a 1°C difference, right?

    If you are going to throw numbers around so cavalierly, please demonstrate that you understand what they mean.
     
  10. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #10
    Well, I think looking for the "logical solution" is a mistake. Instead, we need solutions.

    So, that means a new energy market that pushes for efficiency over use. We need to use current technologies as well as we can, but also build-out for the future. We also need to push harder on R&D and not just pretend that the current fraking boom has suddenly made us "energy independent," a ******** phrase is there ever was one.

    We need nuclear, solar, tidal, wind. We need efficiency. We need bikes and walkways. We need "green streets" and "smart grids."

    We can shave off the corners, but we can't just use one tool to do so.
     
  11. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #11
    [wild speculation]

    My concern is that everybody is treating CO2 as simply a climate issue. Of course that is a huge risk. However, I wonder about the biological effects. Very small global changes applied the environment of hundreds of billions of organisms is bound to have effects, and I would imagine that out of the 6 billion people or so, that there might be some effect of increasing CO2 on a proportion of individuals. Even if that proportion is small, the number of people involved might be larger than one imagines. I wonder about various diseases that have increasing over the last century: obesity, diabetes, ADHD, depression, etc. We have been attributing these to lifestyle and living longer, but I wonder if some of the increase simply reflects Co2.

    [/speculation]
     
  12. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #12
    Wikipedia

    ----------

    Congratulations! You've won the Non-Sequitur Of The Day Award!
     
  13. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #13

    based on your quote, your previous statement is incorrect.
    the sensitivity also includes feedbacks, positive and negative, direct and indirect. the overall effect is quite different from the direct radiative forcing and -most importantly- it could well be non-linear.
     
  14. DUCKofD3ATH, May 14, 2013
    Last edited: May 14, 2013

    DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #15
    As I stated in my original posting, CO2, by itself, can only raise temps by 1 degree C.

    The quote from Wikipedia (and similar quotes are available in the IPCC TAR, FAR, and other reports) says the same thing.

    The point I'm making is that all we know for sure is that a doubling of CO2 concentration should result in a 1 degree C increase in temps. Everything else is models trying to estimate how that increase will result in feedbacks that further increase temps.

    So far, the modeled climates have been ridiculously over-sensitive given the actual low increase in temps resulting from huge increases in CO2.
     
  15. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #16
    wind, wave and solar need to be continued to potentiated, but i would totally support a strong nuclear push if it was next-generation technology (e.g. thorium-based) and smaller plants.
     
  16. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #17
  17. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #18
    yes, and the part that was incorrect in your statement was "it's becoming clearer that the climate is not as sensitive to CO2 increase as the models have assumed".

    the value is not just 1°C, because we do know for sure that there are other effects on top of the direct one. you are misreading or misrepresenting what the source says, which places the effect of CO2 doubling around 3°C.
    nobody thinks that the value is 1°C.
    and again, a problem is that when you factor in feedbacks, we can't consider the curves as linear anymore, because of various threshold effects
     
  18. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #19
    You understand, of course, that the increase of 1°C is an average, right? It does not mean that every square foot of the earth has become one degree warmer, some areas have seen a much greater increase, some may have seen less of an increase or even a slight decline. This figure matters because temperature changes affect weather patterns (climate), small increases in averages can turn forests and jungles into deserts, result in flooding and droughts, and change the salinity of the ocean. Too little salt (massive ice melts) could cause ocean currents to stall, severely affecting local climates and marine ecosystems.

    What I mean is that you just throw that number out like, oh, look how trivial the change has been, completely ignoring what it actually means. So, no, it was not a non sequitur.
     
  19. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #20
    SMH........a 1degree increase globally can most certainly mean areas (such as over land) where the increase is MUCH greater (think 5-6 degrees C)

    Not to mention that changing these forcings affects the jet streams that govern precip and whatnot which is sorta important kinda in terms of regional climate

    ----------

    Exactly. Should have waited until I read your post before I posted
     
  20. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #21
    The scariest result from rising CO2 levels is the rise in carbonic acid, which is breaking down the shells of coral and mollusks, breaking the global food chain in the oceans—and also for humans.

    From the article:



    From The Economist:

    Also, take a look at this post which talks about the differences in meaning about climate sensitivity and how that doesn't necessarily break the models as much as you are arguing.
     
  21. jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #22
    Exactly. One point in all this in particular that people should keep in mind is that when someone says/writes something like "N CO2 ppm increase" = "X °C temperature increase" they are giving you a local linear approximation to a nonlinear function that is a tiny (but important) part of any huge, complex, nonlinear model.

    What I am trying to say is that just because someone tries to explain something with linear approximation like that, they are trying to help give you some intuition of the relative significance of the magnitudes involved. They are NOT saying that their models are simple, linear models. They aren't.

    Also, as has been pointed out, 1°C may not matter too much in New York (although heat waves can be killers), but, climate-wise, it is what is happening at the poles that matters, because the relative heating is greater and that is where all the ice is. Check out the ice charts for the North Pole on the NASA sites if you don't believe it.
     
  22. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #23
    If CO2 is currently at very high levels, and CO2 causes global warming, I would be interested to know why the current anomaly since 1997 has seen no warming. Surely since CO2 is increasing to 'record' levels, the warming would also be increasing, more rapidly than in the past, too, since by the logic in this thread an increase in CO2 will increase the rate of temperature upward anomalies.

    From the 1940s to 1970s the anomaly was downward and yet CO2 was forever upward. Again, through the fact that the warming due to CO2 is amplified when there is more of it, this surely should not have been the case.
     
  23. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #24
    Are you trying to suggest that an average increase of 1°C would lead to catastrophic changes in climate? Because we've already seen about that much of an increase over the last century and a half, and the impact has been negligible.

    Anyway, as I've said already, I'm not saying we'll only see the 1°C increase in temps from a doubling of CO2 concentration, because there'll be feedbacks. But instead of the hair-trigger climate sensitivity that most CAGW scientists keep promising, it seems our climate is rather insensitive to the levels of CO2 we're discussing.

    The results have been trivial. Reality is trumping climate models.

    ----------

    We've seen about a 1 degree C increase over the last century and a half. Where has the land climate temp increased by "5-6 degrees C"?
     
  24. DUCKofD3ATH Suspended

    DUCKofD3ATH

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Universe 0 Timeline
    #25
    Fascinating article. Now check out this one and this image that goes along with it:

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page