CO2 400ppm

[neptronix]

But with tar sands, oil shale, fracking, etc., the problem is only compounded. High energy costs have resulted in a situation where producers are willing to burn up a great deal of fossil energy just in the process of extracting the pay dirt. So when this stuff is used, it represents carbon emissions much higher than just the carbon it contains.

Well, sort of.
The high energy costs of imported oil are what make domestic production from unconventional sources economically feasible at all. Unfortunately there is a lot of stuff sitting in the ground waiting to be extracted. The advancement of drilling and processing technology, plus government subsidies has made those sources cost competitive.. so we are, unfortunately, further away from peak oil than most folks expected. But the clock still ticks for big oil.

Yes, the carbon emissions are higher than the carbon it contains, for sure. I read somewhere that the canadian tar sands operations basically throw away 1 barrel of oil per 6 barrels produced. It is really awful.

 

[Chalo]

In terms of energy returned on energy invested, I have seen analyses of Alberta tar sands that estimate some fields at less than 1, which is to say they burn more energy as natural gas and diesel for the processing than the extracted oil contains. Industry may like petroleum better than natural gas, and be willing to pay more for it, but that doesn't make natural gas emit less carbon.

 

[friendly1uk]

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".

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.

I denied myself a second. Even sat here now I am doing so. The population needs to drop and we need to change our ways. No point waiting for a miracle, that is just putting your life in someone else's hands. I'm man enough to look after my own affairs.

It is the only way. Government won't force the issue though as more tax payers leads to a bigger retirement fund. I am not so selfish. I think 90% of the population are though. Me not having one is like an excuse for somebody else to.

If we want our genes to carry on, we must stop breeding like it's a competition and accept that more kids actually decreases your families chance of survival.


I think the gov should offer incentives. A way to make not having kids more attractive. It's better than stubbing out unemployed scroungers who do nothing but bang out the next generation of scumbags by the dozen. But hay... if nobody acts soon, extermination might be required, and that would be a chance to get a master race plan in action. Take your pick

 

[Dauntless]

Look, I really can't help it if you want to be a fracking idiot about this stuff. I'm old enough to know that I can not convince anyone of anything (believe me when I say I've tried). People will educate themselves or not on pretty much everything they consider they know.

So I heard one report on the radio today that brought up an interesting possibility: Saying that the highest the water has ever been is 131 feet higher, millions of years ago or whatever. The point is the flatlands of my downtown are called 110 feet about sea level, perhaps that's even out of date. I'm in the hills, I may or may not be 131 feet above sea level. My usually right wing mother is quite convinced the Southern California coastline will be moving inland shortly, while her least right leaning of her children here goes with the scientist on the radio who says not in my lifetime, though there's a small chance it's coming.

The right wing media machine has made a complete hash of this, so that every man's "opinion" matters, as mere belief can make a difference. All I can say is bother to care enough to get the real facts. . . .

You can make that exact same case, being just as right and just as wrong, by changing one word:

The LEFT wing media machine has made a complete hash of this, so that every man's "opinion" matters, as mere belief can make a difference. All I can say is bother to care enough to get the real facts. . . .

Which is why I insist on the truth rather than WHOMEVER's exaggerations. Don't waste my time with 'My lies are GOOOOOOOD lies. . . .'

Did you catch what I said about my RIGHT WING mother believing every word about climate change? One thing you've fallen victim to in this media barrage is the notion that it's left vs. right. You say you're a scientist, then you know the truth about just how many of them are themselves quite conservative politically, yet they lead the charge on this issue. There's really a majority of people who are NOT convinced that any of it isn't true, they're just not going to buy any of it until the people claiming it IS true stop lying, exaggerating, throwing out HIGHLY CONTROVERABLE theories as though they're proven facts, etc.

If it's true, why aren't you just telling the truth about it? Go from there. . . .

 

[HAROX]

Now what am I to do with 550ppm by 2020? Pull the sheet over my head?...struggled through IPCC FAQ's, enough to realize a full curtailment of human caused CO2 would only lower today's rate 10%, after a century, I seem to have read.
Attempted to download PDF of one full report. So the choice was to wait an hour or read an hour and I chose the latter. Arkmundi, what's that report's page count? 400? You tell me. And there are six of them? The FAQ for just one was 35 pp.
So much info, maybe it would be better to just rewrite the Ten Commandments instead, so people could actually quit arguing about it...because it was written in stone.
I'll go back though for five more heaping helpings.
Where's Moses when you need him?

 

[fizzit]

Dauntless, where are the "highly controverable theories" you speak of? The media editorializes things as always, but at the end of the day, you have 98% of climate scientists agreeing that climate change is a problem caused by humans, and you can't use "someone exaggerated!!!" as an excuse for your own ignorance. Most media outlets are happy to paint it as an evenly balanced argument with an actual scientist on one side, and some pundit that's getting paid by oil companies on the other.

 

[arkmundi]

Look, I really can't help it if you want to be a fracking idiot about this stuff....

If it's true, why aren't you just telling the truth about it? Go from there. . . .

Look you left out the most important piece:

So I only point to the central repository of fully vetted research and reports on the subject:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1

Have you, or have you not, read the source material?

 

[Dauntless]

As a "rational" being, he now places his behavior under the control of abstractions. He will no longer tolerate being carried away by sudden impressions, by intuitions.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Look you left out the most important piece:

So I only point to the central repository of fully vetted research and reports on the subject:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1

Have you, or have you not, read the source material?

I didn't "Leave it out," I just didn't say anything to dispute it. Why is that hard to understand? Mostly I can't respond to you because I don't understand. Are you saying that this has always been depicted accurately, that there was never the whole 'Over the Environmental Cliff by 2000' nonsense, that. . . ? You really don't think that everytime the doomsday exaggerations have fallen apart more people have become skeptical?

Did you catch what I said about my RIGHT WING mother believing every word about climate change? One thing you've fallen victim to in this media barrage is the notion that it's left vs. right. You say you're a scientist, then you know the truth about just how many of them are themselves quite conservative politically, yet they lead the charge on this issue.

. . . . at the end of the day, you have 98% of climate scientists agreeing that climate change is a problem caused by humans. . . .

(Sigh.) Yeah, Harox, explain to them why there's obviously no point in me responding any further.

When someone hides something behind a bush and looks for it again in the same place and finds it there as well, there is not much to praise in such seeking and finding. Yet this is how matters stand regarding seeking and finding "truth" within the realm of reason. If I make up the definition of a mammal, and then, after inspecting a camel, declare "look, a mammal' I have indeed brought a truth to light in this way, but it is a truth of limited value.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[arkmundi]

Have you, or have you not, read the source material?

I didn't "Leave it out," I just didn't say anything to dispute it. Why is that hard to understand? Mostly I can't respond to you because I don't understand.

Let me try to rephase that then: Have you, or have you not, read the source material on the subject of Climate Change prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the fully vetted scientific review and the authority on the subject?

So many in the climate change denial community (of which Exxon/Mobil, ALEC, the API, and other extraction industry corporations that profit from business-as-usual are part), believe their data or analysis is better. But the scientific community, which reached consensus on the subject during the 4th Assessment Report, is dependent on the scientific method, so peer-review. There is no other recognized authority on the subject. Even the National Institute of Science ultimately defers to the international body convened under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which the IPCC reports to.

 

[neptronix]

I'm really curious as to why a station at the world's largest and most active volcano is used as a measuring stick for co2.
The measurements have to be 're adjusted' to account for all the smoke coming out of the volcano on a daily basis. There is also winds blowing that volcano's emissions every which way.

I guess it's a government scientist thing, and i wouldn't understand....

 

[fizzit]

I'm really curious as to why a station at the world's largest and most active volcano is used as a measuring stick for co2.
The measurements have to be 're adjusted' to account for all the smoke coming out of the volcano on a daily basis. There is also winds blowing that volcano's emissions every which way.

I guess it's a government scientist thing, and i wouldn't understand....

Because it's as remote as possible from human sources of emissions that would throw off readings, and it's easy to correct for the emissions that come from the volcano using data from sensors placed near the mouth of the volcano.

Or maybe everyone associated with the government is out to get you. USA sucks! Go ron paul!!!!!

 

[HAROX]

(Sigh.) Yeah, Harox, explain to them why there's obviously no point in me responding any further.

Natch. Catch the FAQ. It's like Reader's Digest :wink:

 

[neptronix]

How could you adjust for the intermittent nature of both the winds and the volcano's emissions? how do you get a baseline when there are all sorts of wild variables?

I can think of many other very remote areas, at very high elevations, that aren't near the world's largest and most active volcano, which have steadier conditions, and are very far away from human emissions.

Sorry for not respecting the infinite wisdom of our government. I know they have never lied to us before about anything, i guess i am just being unfairly skeptical, because i am a crazy person

 

[SunCoaster]

The historical reason for the Hawaiian data is that it is where the long-term CO2 monitoring started. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

The data is replicated all over the world - even very far from volcanoes - CO2 mixes well in the atmosphere.

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

 

[neptronix]

Oh! I was unaware that there was a thermal inversion layer near the observatory.
Why that data is considered anything close to reliable now makes a lot more sense.

You get a cookie. :lol:

 

[Hillhater]

Yep..sure is heating up....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX3PkXiYO4k&feature=player_embedded

 

[SunCoaster]

Um, if you looked into the weather conditions for this event, it was caused by high winds...

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/266903/

Thanks for sharing this irrelevant weather item!

Yep..sure is heating up....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX3PkXiYO4k&feature=player_embedded

 

[Chalo]

Most climate change denialists seem to share an infantile intellectual capacity that makes them believe more atmospheric heat would simply make everything uniformly warmer.

Those of us who understand that weather is an engine using heat as the energy source to drive it, thus understand that global warming implies more extreme weather-- including the cold kind in many cases. And there will be changes in prevailing weather patterns, creating disruptions of the natural environment as well as agriculture. These are not things you want, even if you live in some frigid hellhole and you'd like your place to be warmer.

 

[dnmun]

the NOVA special 'earth from space' talked about the global oceanic circulation driven by the deep ocean currents created by the freezing of the antarctic ice shelf that forms the brine river that flows down into the deep ocean canyons to help drive the minerals from the spreading zones up into the regions where it can be used by the phytoplankton blooms in the open oceans to create oxygen and lock the minerals into forms that can later be used by more developed life forms.

i would speculate that as the antarctic ice shelf breaks off and melts and it changes this freezing cycle then the driving force behind the global ocean currents could be interrupted as the antarctic ice sheets no longer freeze as they do now and allow the brine current to flow off the antarctic shelf.

but the real problem will just be the intense social upheaval as billions of people are displaced from the major metropolitan areas around the world as the ocean levels rise and flood the major coastal areas and the economy is crushed by the loss of cheap energy that will have all been consumed by then. you gotta feel for all the kids to come and how hard it will be to compensate for the lack of will on the part of the population now.

to me this is the whole reason for the ebike binge. not for the el motos that everyone is converting their bike to out of adolescent bravado. it offers a solution for transportation without the excess of CO2 we produce now to drive all the cars down the road. we could cut electric use in buildings and lighting by 70% and still survive. people will not survive when the seas are 30 feet higher in 70 years.

we have property in louisiana that is 120 miles from the coast and will be just above sea level then. it is currently at 50 feet. my house here in portland is actually well above the river, but the sea level will cause the columbia to back up to st helens and then when the big tsunami hits it will come all the way up the river into portland and wipe out the mega structures built along the waterfront and halfway up the rise from the river towards my house, all those neighborhoods will be wiped out just like in the boxing day tsunami or the tsunami in japan in 2011. the only way to avoid it is if the big subduction zone magnitude 9 earthquake happens sooner and the tsunami destroys the coast now rather than 50 years from now.

 

[izeman]

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".

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.

sorry, but to i don't like to be called irresponsible just for having 3 kids. what do you want ppl to do? stick the head in the sand and stop moving so you won't produce any carbon oxide?
arkmundi: the video you posted was the most frightning thing i saw in my whole life. and i really mean it. i makes me stay awake at night. every time i think about it my heart feels like a stone. i think how can mankind go on without taking care? if this true, and it is that life will be impossible as soon as co2 reaches 700-100ppm as you mentioned if i remember correctly, and co2 raise was so extremely fast in the last few years, than this would mean that life on earth is over within the next 20-50 years. no matter what.
i will die, my wife will die, and my whole family. and i'm responsible for them. it's my fault that they where born. i didn't know how future would look like. i knew that there are environmental challenges, but end of live within the next decades? wtf...
all i can hope is that you're wrong and there will be a way out for us

 

[friendly1uk]

sorry, but to i don't like to be called irresponsible just for having 3 kids. what do you want ppl to do? stick the head in the sand and stop moving so you won't produce any carbon oxide?

I don't want you to have to change your lifestyle at all. If there was a way, we would be doing it. To lower our impact on the planet, without changing how we do things, the only answer is less of us. You however have taken two people (you and the wife) and turned them in to three. You have made things 50% worse.

Not everyone can see the obviousness of this, and nobody told you. I'm not blaming you in any way. I hope you enjoy the child I deny myself. I can't say I'm happy about it though. I'm making a huge sacrifice, and you just undid it. However I would rather look to mofo's knocking out there 5th and 6th while not even having a job for now. We have to start somewhere though. At four kids I will stop talking to you. At five I would like to take action against people.

Seriously, I have nothing to do with people that have too many kids. They are killing ours

 

[dnmun]

kids are not the problem. it is the excess consumption of the cheap energy sources we have now that contribute to global warming. kids don't make any difference in it of any significance. kids can be transported on ebikes instead of 2 ton SUVs. kids can read with led lighting instead of incandescent lighting used to excess. it is not kids, it is just waste of a valuable energy source we can extract cheaply from the earth now.

if there was a fair price on the energy we use now that reflected the future scarcity and cost to future generations then society could make adjustments over long term periods and solve the problem now. we can get by using 70% less fossil fuels and the solutions will make work for millions of people. it is just greed and selfishness now by those who have control over how our society functions.

they could raise the motor fuel taxes immediately and fix most of the problems that are gonna eat away the future not just of the kids but the present generation as well. we need $12/gallon gasoline and we need it now. we need to turn off the wasted lighting that blinds the night sky. we need to get the useless cars off the road so it is safe to ride a bike. really simple stuff.

it is not just arkmundi cares about this stuff, he is just young and idealistic and not aware of how deep is the ingrained sense of entitlement that our smug middle class lifestyle has engendered in so many small minded people.

 

[Hillhater]

Thanks for sharing this irrelevant weather item!

my pleasure ! :wink:

 

[arkmundi]

Sorry for not respecting the infinite wisdom of our government. I know they have never lied to us before about anything, i guess i am just being unfairly skeptical, because i am a crazy person

I know you're trying hard to have a dialog here, neptronix. I'll try to make this as simple as possible. Its not the "government", its the scientific community. Scientists are usually as pissed off with the government as most of us are, not because the government "lies" but because they don't act when they should and do act when they shouldn't. For instance, the majority of Americans, across the political spectrum, want us to disengage from the perpetual war machine. But that machine is the politico-military-industrial complex, immune to the people's cease & desist order.

So also with Climate Change, but in this instance its not acting when it should. Scientists everywhere are doing their best to present the data, analysis, and summaries upon which the government, or you or anyone might act. The IPCC is a scientific body, convened by the UNFCCC to do all that data collection, analysis and reporting work. The UNFCCC is a governmental body under the auspices of the United Nations. But the latter has no power over the former to pervert the data, analysis or reporting, as the scientists involved maintain their autonomy. They are all associated with reputable academic institutions. Many are here in Massachusetts, with MIT, Tufts, BU, UMass, Harvard, etc. I sometimes go their public lectures on the subject.

Yes, I believe there is a USofA federal government conspiracy! Its to do nothing in the face of the climate change catastrophe.

 

[arkmundi]

... to me this is the whole reason for the ebike binge. not for the el motos that everyone is converting their bike to out of adolescent bravado. it offers a solution for transportation without the excess of CO2 we produce now to drive all the cars down the road. we could cut electric use in buildings and lighting by 70% and still survive. people will not survive when the seas are 30 feet higher in 70 years.

The scientists are all over the map of how much a sea level rise there will be. The IPCC 5th Assessment report due in 2014 is driving a whole lot of research & analysis right now. I'm curious what that report will conclude on sea level rises. Think 3 ft. average around the globe as a likely minimum estimate.
Climate Sensitivity Stunner: Last Time CO2 Levels Hit 400 Parts Per Million The Arctic Was 14°F Warmer!

This period of Arctic warmth “coincides, in part with a long interval of 1.2 million years when the West Antarctic Ice sheet did not exist.” Indeed, sea levels during the mid-Pliocine were about 25 m [82 feet] higher than today!

It is worth noting that a 2009 analysis in Science found that when CO2 levels were this high 15 to 20 million years ago, it was 5° to 10°F warmer globally and seas were also 75 to 120 feet higher.

So, for instance, I'm working with a bunch of folks here in Massachusetts to plan for a human migration from Boston inland. Its interesting to me that when MIT, Tufts, UMass, BU and others built a new super-computer to do climate modelling work, they did not put it in Boston, but way inland & high up, in Holyoke, at the opposite side of the state. In fact, many scientists are already in flight from Boston, moving to the vicinity of Holyoke. Because they are quite certain, as am I, that the rising seas will come far earlier in the change cycle.

Anyway, I'll say it again that I'm here on this forum, having built an ebike, because of, as you said "it offers a solution for transportation without the excess of CO2."