CO2 emmissions make largest jump ever in 2010

Narz

keeping it real
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
30,537
Location
Haverhill, UK
Note : wrong year in title, obviously I meant 2010

http://www.alternet.org/news/153092...rth:_the_month’s_biggest_story_you_never_read

Kind of depressing. It seems every time I read an article about climate change it's like "reality of environmental problems worse than scientist's worst-case scenario". Pretty depressing.

Game Over for Planet Earth: The Month’s Biggest Story You Never Read

While you were paying attention to Herman Cain, the Kardashians and the Penn State child sex abuse scandal, the U.S. Department of Energy administered last rites to the planet.

November 16, 2011 |

What's the biggest story of the last several weeks? Rick Perry’s moment of silence, all 53 seconds' worth? The Penn State riots after revered coach JoePa went down in a child sex abuse scandal? The Kardashian wedding/divorce? The European debt crisis that could throw the world economy into a tailspin? The Cain sexual harassment charges? The trial of Michael Jackson’s doctor?

The answer should be none of the above, even though as a group they’ve dominated the October/November headlines. In fact, the piece of the week, month, and arguably year should have been one that slipped by so quietly, so off front-pages nationwide and out of news leads everywhere that you undoubtedly didn’t even notice. And yet it’s the story that could turn your life and that of your children and grandchildren inside out and upside down.

On the face of it, it wasn’t anything to shout about -- just more stats in a world drowning in numbers. These happen to have been put out by the U.S. Department of Energy and they reflected, as an Associated Press headline put it, the “biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases.” In other words, in 2010, humanity (with a special bow to China, the United States, and onrushing India) managed to pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than at any time since the industrial revolution began -- 564 million more tons than in 2009, which represents an increase of 6%.

According to AP’s Seth Borenstein, that’s “higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.” He’s talking about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, which is, if anything, considered "conservative" in its projections of future catastrophe by many climate scientists. Put another way, we’re talking more greenhouse gases than have entered the Earth’s atmosphere in tens of millions of years.

Consider as well the prediction offered by Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency: without an effective international agreement to staunch greenhouse gases within five years, the door will close on preventing a potentially disastrous rise in the planet’s temperature. You’re talking, that is, about the kind of freaky weather that will make October’s bizarre snowstorm in the Northeast look like a walk in the park. (That storm had all the signs of a climate-change-induced bit of extreme weather: New York City hadn’t recorded an October snowfall like it since the Civil War and it managed to hit the region in a period of ongoing warmth when the trees hadn’t yet had the decency to lose their leaves, producing a chaos of downed electrical wires.) And don’t get me started on what this would mean in terms of future planetary hot spells or sea-level rise.

Honestly, if we were sane, if the media had its head in the right place, this would have been screaming headlines. It would have put Rick Perry and Herman Cain and the Kardashians and Italy and Greece and Michael Jackson’s doctor in the shade.

The only good news -- and because it unsettled the politics of the 2012 election, it did garner a few headlines -- was that the movement Bill McKibben and 350.org spearheaded to turn back the tar-sands pipeline from Hades (or its earthly global-warming equivalent, which is Alberta, Canada) gained traction in our Occupy Wall Street moment. Check out McKibben’s account of it, “Puncturing the Pipeline,” and think of it as a harbinger. Mark my words on this one: sooner or later, Americans are going to wake up to climate change, just as they have this year on the issue of inequality, and when they do, watch out. There will be political hell to pay.
 
Maybe things will only start to change in some countries when their exports face a carbon tax.
 
It's not really surprising that without any effective international regulation, people will burn as much fossil fuel as they need and can afford. And some national interests are contrary to such regulation, so it is unlikely that such regulation is implemented in the near future.

The fight against climate change is probably lost, we will have to prepare for the worst case.
 
One of the aspects of climate change which you don't see discussed very often is the implications for insurance.

Up until now, human societies have effectively recieved a free ongoing economy-wide insurance subsidy from Mother Nature in the form of a relatively stable global climate. The loss of this climactic stability due to human-induced global warming means greater frequency and intensity of severe weather events; spreading of diseases; loss of biological resources and productivity in many areas; mass migrations; more military conflicts due to increased water shortages; and possibly even an increase in earthquakes and tsunamis as the melting of ice-caps and glaciers alters the distribution of pressure on the Earth's crust.

These are the sort of events that people and organisations need to insure themselves against so that they can function at an acceptable level of risk in the economy. Climate change will effectively remove the free global climactic stability subsidy which currently keeps insurance prices relatively low - the increase in frequency and intensity of such events means that insurance will become fundamentally more in demand and therefore more expensive. It remains to be seen how we can continue to keep a modern global economy functioning in a much higher-risk world than the one we have thus far become accustomed to.
 
Okay, so... we're dumping more plant food into the air than ever before.

Let me know when this becomes a problem.
 
Okay, so... we're dumping more plant food into the air than ever before.

Let me know when this becomes a problem.

Aren't you the transhumanist libertarian? Of all groups of people, we are the ones who have the greatest moral onus to be informed regarding the science of externalities and long-term consequences. We're supposed to be more informed than others, and we're supposed to be more conscientious of uncontracted (and unconsented to) downstream results of our behaviour.

Specifically regarding plant food and carbon dioxide (and not other CO2 issues), it depends on the plant type. Some plants use the C3 photosynthesis process and some use the C4 process.

Rising CO2 ppm changes the behaviour of these plants. I don't know where your biology knowledge is, so I cannot easily link an appropriate reference. Here's one, though. The upshot, though, is that some of our food grains will produce relatively (and net) less protein per unit of fertilizer, which means that the nutritional value of our grains will decrease even if we increase fertilizer use. Obviously, this is not an insurmountable problem, but it's a negative externality specifically regarding plants. I'm not happy to find more reasons to be concerned about future food security.

Additionally, corals are the 'rainforest of the ocean' and increased atmospheric 'plant food' becomes dangerous to the corals at CO2 concentrations that seem likely in the near future.

So, I've let you know when it becomes a problem. As one of the pro-science/pro-technology people on CFC, I encourage you to ramp up your consumption of primary (or popularized) scientific literature. We need as much scientific literacy in the world as we can get.
 
Aren't you the transhumanist libertarian? Of all groups of people, we are the ones who have the greatest moral onus to be informed regarding the science of externalities and long-term consequences. We're supposed to be more informed than others, and we're supposed to be more conscientious of uncontracted (and unconsented to) downstream results of our behaviour.

Check. I'm still waiting for the day when I don't have to keep my space heater running all the time.

Specifically regarding plant food and carbon dioxide (and not other CO2 issues), it depends on the plant type. Some plants use the C3 photosynthesis process and some use the C4 process.

Considering that most photosynthesis occurs in the oceans, where water-conservation is not an issue, I don't see where you're going with that. Worst-case scenario? We hire Monsanto to add C4 metabolism to all of our crops, or remove it, or whatever is appropriate for the situation.

The upshot, though, is that some of our food grains will produce relatively (and net) less protein per unit of fertilizer, which means that the nutritional value of our grains will decrease even if we increase fertilizer use.

You say that as if grains were a significant source of protein to begin with...

Additionally, corals are the 'rainforest of the ocean' and increased atmospheric 'plant food' becomes dangerous to the corals at CO2 concentrations that seem likely in the near future.

Indeed. It makes me wonder how those critters survived the CO2 concentrations that we had prior to the K-T event.
 
When people like you realize it's a problem, it'll already be too late. :(
Yup.

It's like bad lifestyle. Some people only need to get a little sick to make alterations, some can't/don't want to change even in the face of a cancer scare.

Saying pollution is plant food, so we can't possibly have a pollution problem is like saying calories are energy so no one could possibly have a food problem.
 
onsidering that most photosynthesis occurs in the oceans, where water-conservation is not an issue, I don't see where you're going with that. Worst-case scenario? We hire Monsanto to add C4 metabolism to all of our crops, or remove it, or whatever is appropriate for the situation.

You say that as if grains were a significant source of protein to begin with...
You specifically asked about food. If your solution (for me) for your polluting excess is that I should be enslaved to Monsanto patents in order to maintain my food quality (where grains is a source of protein), then you can see the libertarian dilemma.

I know these problems all have solutions. It's not like we're going to cause a Mad Max scenario. I'm helping point out the costs being imposed upon the unwilling by our activities.

Indeed. It makes me wonder how those critters survived the CO2 concentrations that we had prior to the K-T event.

They were different species, evolved under different conditions.
Look, if you're going to be willfully obtuse in the AGW discussion, then all you're doing is making your opinion (and your ability to make wise choices) worse.

If you actually don't really understand ecology, there's no point about being hostile or dismissive of ecological concerns.
 
You specifically asked about food.

Yes... plant food. As in food for plants. The stuff that plants ingest from the atmosphere.

They were different species, evolved under different conditions.

Well, to my knowledge, evolution hasn't stopped. Carbonic acid-tolerant marine life will make a comeback.

I wonder how rapidly a coral reef would dissolve if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were twice what they are now.
 
plants will survive, insects will survive, but how would you feel when Carbonic + Sulphuric Acid falls with Rain ? one drop and your skin will be burnt !!

no one would like that i hope !!?!
 
Well what's your theory on coral reef situation Alfred E. Newman?

Coral reefs still seem to be there, and haven't changed much in size lately.

how would you feel when Carbonic + Sulphuric Acid falls with Rain ? one drop and your skin will be burnt !!

Acid rain is too dilute to pose a direct threat to humans.
 
ph as low as 2.4 have been known to take place.. good luck to you if you think that is safe.
 
Yes... plant food. As in food for plants. The stuff that plants ingest from the atmosphere.
Due to the fact that we control most of the good growing area for our food production, I thought detailing the effect of CO2 on crops was warranted. We don't know how other plants will deal with increased CO2 ppm. The shifting of biomes is the greatest risk there, because it can cause extinctions as wild plants are forced out of their protected areas into human-controlled areas.
Well, to my knowledge, evolution hasn't stopped. Carbonic acid-tolerant marine life will make a comeback.

True, maybe. But the time needed to replenish a devastated ecosystem can be measured in eons. The extinctions only take decades.

Why do you think you are hostile to the idea that CO2 can cause problems? Mankind is pretty powerful. At some point, we'd be powerful enough to 'accidentally' alter the climate. Why can't that be already? By any metric, we dominate the planet.
 
I'm not denying that CO2 can cause problems, or that humanity is changing the global climate. I'm just saying that I live in California, it's not even winter yet, and I still can't go to an Occupy San Jose rally without hearing at least two people whining about the cold. I can't wait for the effects of global warming to fully kick in.
 
I'm not denying that CO2 can cause problems, or that humanity is changing the global climate.
So this was an honest question:
Let me know when this becomes a problem.
In that case: We've past the "becomes a problem" point a while ago.
I'm just saying that I live in California, it's not even winter yet, and I still can't go to an Occupy San Jose rally without hearing at least two people whining about the cold.
As long as people are whining about the cold, there can't be a problem, is not a really scientific way to look at this situation.
I can't wait for the effects of global warming to fully kick in.
If you can't wait, I've got good news for you :)
 
I'm not denying that CO2 can cause problems, or that humanity is changing the global climate. I'm just saying that I live in California, it's not even winter yet, and I still can't go to an Occupy San Jose rally without hearing at least two people whining about the cold. I can't wait for the effects of global warming to fully kick in.

Just because you can walk around in your shorts in November doesn't mean that the co2 in the atmosphere is not a problem.

To jump from the one idea to the other and pretend that there is some sort of a logical connection between the two gives away the fact that you know absolutely nothing about climate change or its implications.
 
Top Bottom