I survived 400ppm, did you?

[peter grimes]

OP subtext: "I hate science!"

To be fair, he is a YEC. so this sort of profound ignorance should not surprise anyone

 

[Masada]

YECs can believe in AGW which tells us more about the OP than YECs.

 

[El_Machinae]

Borachio's correct, IF economic growth continues as it has previously (IF!), then there're places in the world that will still be wealthier despite AGW. The economic growth will overwhelm the signal, and no one will notice the damages from AGW except as an opportunity cost. We're fairly ignorant of historical counterfactuals. Was Old Age pension a net positive or net loss, economically? I don't know, but people want it.

Now, a reduction in the growth rate (throught AGW-induced damage to economic productivity) will have real effects, in that there're populations that will not rise out of poverty as quickly. These (hopefully) will always be visible to us. Meanwhile, we'll see those who benefited by turning pollution into economic productivity, too.

All this doesn't change the fact that there is non-necessary pollution that can be either reduced or mitigated from the profits of pollution. If the First World cannot afford to mitigate their externalities, then there's obviously a serious problem going on, and we need to work on increasing (vastly) our productivity.

 

[Murky]

Say classy CH.

Oh yeah. We would believe in things like the Earth is less than 6000 years old, people lived with dinosaurs and that prophecy of Revelations is due any day now. We should just take all that on faith. But science? Who cares right? It's just a bunch of greedy people trying to pull one over on us.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I survived the hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. I don't see what all the fuss was about.

 

[Arwon]

Who cares if we destroy the planet it's only like 700 years old anyway right

 

[Borachio]

Similarly, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings have had very little effect on my life.

I don't see what all the fuss was about, either.

What else? The Holocaust, WW1, 9/11,...mental illness, sub-Saharan poverty,... and jam.

 

[Muhammed]

People are so selfish about global warming. We have cold winters here, I call global warming a blessing! Too bad its so slow

 

[cardgame]

I survived 400ppm, did you?

Nope. I died.

 

[Murky]

It's not like 400ppm was some "suddenly the Earth bursts into flames" threshold, but it is a point at which people need to wake up to reality and do something about it.

World has entered new CO2 'danger zone': UN

(AFP) – 2 hours ago

PARIS — The world has entered a "new danger zone" with a record level of Earth-warming carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, UN climate chief Christiana Figueres said Monday.

With a CO2 level of 400 parts per million (ppm) announced last week, the highest in human history, the world "crossed an historic threshold and entered a new danger zone," she said in a statement urging policy action.

The level measured by US monitors has not been seen in three to five million years -- a time when Earth's temperatures were several degrees Celsius warmer and the sea level was 20 to 40 meters (22 to 44 yards) higher than today, experts say.

The 400 ppm threshold had been expected to be breached for some time, but campaigners say it should nevertheless serve as a wake-up call in efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions through fossil fuel use.

"The world must wake up and take note of what this means for human security, human welfare and economic development," said Figueres.

"In the face of clear and present danger, we need a policy response which truly rises to the challenge."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/af...ocId=CNG.0b960c95949c22ca4d1e33f1878b801b.311

 

[Zelig]

Who cares if we destroy the planet it's only like 700 years old anyway right

Pretty sure it's only 70 years old.

 

[Borachio]

You mean 7?

 

[Kaitzilla]

Who cares if we destroy the planet it's only like 700 years old anyway right

Well, if we keep adding 1PPM every year, then in 10,000 years the Earth will be 1% Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

Even I admit that would probably cook us. Venus is what 70% CO2? And it is 700 degrees.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, if we keep adding 1PPM every year, then in 10,000 years the Earth will be 1% Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

Even I admit that would probably cook us. Venus is what 70% CO2? And it is 700 degrees.

Here you go: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

 

[Murky]

Here you go: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

They probably won't click your link.

Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm (see Greenhouse gases hit new high)

So what's going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".

The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.

Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

They probably won't click your link.

So cynical!

I should have mentioned link has picture of silly polar bear though.

 

[Murky]

So cynical!

I should have mentioned link has picture of silly polar bear though.

Yeah, that would probably help. They hate polar bears almost as much as they hate environmentalist.

Yes, I'm cynical about climate change deniers. I don't know how long they can plug their ears and sing "la la la can't hear you." I think it's going to get a lot worse before they open themselves up to the truth.

 

[El_Machinae]

I should have mentioned link has picture of silly polar bear though.

Might be the language barrier, but you misspelled 'adorable'.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Those are synonyms in my vocabulary.

 

[classical_hero]

Yet we have climbing CO² levels but we don't have the corresponding rise in temperature we should have. Why should we respect climate models if they fail to predict the past?
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-models-fail-to-predict-us-droughts-1.12810

The results were puzzling. Although the simulation produced a number of pronounced droughts lasting several decades each, these did not match the timing of known megadroughts. In fact, drought occurrences were no more in agreement when the model was fed realistic values for variables that influence rainfall than when it ran control simulations in which the values were unrealistically held constant. “The model seems to miss some of the dynamics that drive large droughts,” says study participant Jason Smerdon, a researcher at Lamont-Doherty who studies historical climate patterns.

Other climate models tested by the team fared no better, he says. In particular, the models failed to reproduce a series of multi-decadal droughts that occurred in the southwest during the Medieval Climate Anomaly, a period between AD 900 and 1200 when global temperatures were about as high as they are today.

The results were puzzling because the assumptions being made are wrong.