SunCoaster
100 W
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/10/atmospheric-co2-concentrations_n_3253757.html
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
friendly1uk said:That has come a bit earlier than expected. Few people were actually aware of it though. High levels of co2 will hit home for many as there general mood deteriorates due to poor air quality. Hopefully not for some years yet though.
Biggest killer in the UK, Smoking.
Second biggest, Air Quality.
Forget about getting too fat, it won't kill you half as fast as poor air quality will. Your just warned about it as treatment costs can be avoided. Except where eating yourself to death don't cost the government so much. In such countries it is good that slobs eat themselfs to death at an early age.
I'm pondering on a fresh air intake for my home. A carbon and hepa filter perhaps, to keep the place under positive pressure with clean air. It is the best protection my health could ask for, but global carbon prices are very high, even for coir based stuff. Not everyone could do it, Or we would simply run out.
fizzit said:friendly1uk said:That has come a bit earlier than expected. Few people were actually aware of it though. High levels of co2 will hit home for many as there general mood deteriorates due to poor air quality. Hopefully not for some years yet though.
Biggest killer in the UK, Smoking.
Second biggest, Air Quality.
Forget about getting too fat, it won't kill you half as fast as poor air quality will. Your just warned about it as treatment costs can be avoided. Except where eating yourself to death don't cost the government so much. In such countries it is good that slobs eat themselfs to death at an early age.
I'm pondering on a fresh air intake for my home. A carbon and hepa filter perhaps, to keep the place under positive pressure with clean air. It is the best protection my health could ask for, but global carbon prices are very high, even for coir based stuff. Not everyone could do it, Or we would simply run out.
You realize CO2 isn't detectable by humans unless in very high concentrations and it can't be filtered with an air filter?
neptronix said:How does 4 extra degrees kill the planet?
This planet varies from -128F to 134f. The core is something like 10,000F. Outer space is negative hundreds of degrees.
If you believe in the big bang theory, you know that the amazing world we live in came out of a large explosion. And we know that the early earth was highly volcanic.
Can you explain to me how this planet could be dead from just 4 degrees, knowing that?
You talk about extinctions, but you don't mention the fact that we are continually discovering new species. Yes, it's true that there is a limit to how much 'living stuff' can be on this planet at one time, and we are becoming more and more predominant.. but that's happened before, has it not? wasn't this planet mostly inhabited by Dinosaurs, who crowded out all the other species as well, but they had a couple hundred million year long run?
The earth has gone through so many extreme cycles in it's lifespan that cannot even be counted or measured with our instruments. It has had extreme heat peaks, to the point where any water that would have remained frozen for over around 400,000? years cannot be found to be measured or tested. It has had such harsh ice ages that it ended a >100 million year run of life for the majority of the life on it.
Big mama is stronger than you think. Maybe we are meant to be a blip on the radar, a very small chapter in the book of planetary history written by a more advanced race.
But i believe we will run out of fossil fuels and other carbon intensive energy sources before we could ever hit the red line. Look at how much of it we have burned up and blown into the atmosphere, and we are only up something like 0.75F.
Say we have enough fossil fuel to raise the temperature up 4 degrees. Do you think 7 billion ( or 10, 20, 50 billion, by that time ) greedy mammals could be convinced to stop living a life made easy by those fossil fuels?
I can't even convince my liberal friends who complain about climate change to stop driving their SUVs.
Hillhater said:Oh no! ..not the climate change debate again ! :x
Gone for Good said:The three blue spheres represent relative amounts of Earth’s water in comparison to the size of the Earth:
The largest sphere includes all the water in the oceans, ice caps, lakes, and rivers, as well as groundwater and atmospheric water.
The medium blue sphere (over Kentucky) represents the world’s liquid fresh water (groundwater, lakes, swamp water, and rivers) of which 99 percent is groundwater.
Highlighted with the arrow, the smallest sphere bubble represents fresh water in all the lakes and rivers on the planet, and most of the water people and life of earth need every day comes from these surface-water sources.
Credit: Howard Perlman, USGS; globe illustration by Jack Cook, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (©); Adam Nieman. Data source: Igor Shiklomanov’s chapter “World fresh water resources” in Peter H. Gleick (editor), 1993, Water in Crisis: A Guide to the World’s Fresh Water Resources (Oxford University Press, New York).http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/2010/gallery/global-water-volume.html
At 550ppm, it won't matter because the human species will be in serious decline and we will have lost our capability to measure. What I find remarkable is the end-graph that shows the ice core record and that through-out the measurable time frame, CO2 levels did not exceed 280ppm, the starting point for the industrial era. The spread was 185 to 278ppm, about 100ppm. Hence we were in extremes at 378ppm and the 350ppm mandate was liberal, in consideration. At 400ppm, humanity, if sane, would simply STOP with the emissions. I don't credit our collective system of governance capable and am pretty sure that business-as-usual will continue to place us into the IPCC most extreme scenario, meaning we are doomed.HAROX said:Watching the graph, it seems the annual rise hovers around 20ppm, and seems to increase closer to 25ppm. That would put the range higher by 170ppm by 2020, in seven years? Does this trend mean that in an additional 21 years, by 2041 this level could have risen to 1093ppm? And by 2062, it would be around 1643ppm, world wide? It seems probable, can anyone verify this estimate?
fizzit said:friendly1uk said:I'm pondering on a fresh air intake for my home. A carbon and hepa filter perhaps, to keep the place under positive pressure with clean air. It is the best protection my health could ask for, but global carbon prices are very high, even for coir based stuff. Not everyone could do it, Or we would simply run out.
You realize CO2 isn't detectable by humans unless in very high concentrations and it can't be filtered with an air filter?
dnmun said:most of the world's population lives very close to sea level and as the sea level rises over the next century then billions of people and most of the major metropolitan areas on the coasts and seaways inland will be flooded. commerce as we know it will not be possible. the entire global infrastructure will have to be displaced to higher ground which means rebuilding the entire world's major cities in a different location but without the access to cheap and abundant supplies of oil and natural gas which will be mostly consumed by then and access to it will be heavily restricted by the ruling classes.
I don't care that civilization will have to be rebuilt to pre-industrial standards of life, or even about the collapse to sustainable levels of population. I care that the next generation will be faced with extreme weather events, the drying out of forests & grasslands, uncontainable fires, desertification, the loss of biodiversity, and so forth that is now most immanent. It the continued survivability of the human race that is at stake.dnmun said:it doesn't help to argue with the rednecks... most of the world's population lives very close to sea level ... the entire global infrastructure will have to be displaced to higher ground ...
arkmundi said:With a 4-degree warmed world (that's planetary average, accounting for the total recorded temperature variation), we're on a completely different planet than the one we evolved in. At that level, the surface of the planet is all desert. Sure there will be pockets of humanity trying to persist, doing their best to capture water and grow food in a hydrologically contained greenhouses, but we'll be down to less than a million. And forget all the non-humans, the charismatic species we love - their habitat is gone!
Ha, never thought I'd meet another person making this same choice, being consciously child-free. Likewise, I feel its most appropriate, all things considered. That said, I really feel for people who have young children right now.Chalo said:Having children these days is in my opinion irresponsible; having more than two constitutes callous disregard for the welfare of others. If we can't get a handle on our overpopulation, nature will do it for us. Those of us who have been observing reproductive discipline might even live long enough to say "I told you so".
You are wrong. Desertification is already a reality, and growing. The Rio accords not only called for an address to climate change, but also two other really big global issues: Biodiversity and Desertification. All nations are facing these issue on a grand scale. The problem is already grave in the USofA. But also China, Australia and many other nations. If you were a farmer or rancher, then you'd be feeling the pinch. In Texas, ranchers have allowed their herds to die off for lack of water, and are not going to replace them. Many, many examples.neptronix said:Let's say the desert thing is true, and i am wrong. How do we end up in the extreme case where our population starts dwindling...
neptronix said:Would you even entertain for a second, the idea that we will run out of carbon-intensive energy sources before we hit this red line you're talking about? Think about how hard oil is to get these days for example. The vast majority of the low hanging fruit is gone, and in the next 10-20 years, what you will fill your car up with will come from unconventional sources ( tar sands, oil shale, etc ). The price will naturally rise to reflect the increasing scarcity and difficulty of acquiring said carbon based energy source; i do believe this is another scenario in which we will easily run out of carbon energy sources before we could ever hit extreme PPM numbers.