Global carbon dioxide in atmosphere passes milestone level

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Guardian

For the first time in human history, the concentration of climate-warming carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has passed the milestone level of 400 parts per million (ppm). The last time so much greenhouse gas was in the air was several million years ago, when the Arctic was ice-free, savannah spread across the Sahara desert and sea level was up to 40 metres higher than today.

These conditions are expected to return in time, with devastating consequences for civilisation, unless emissions of CO2 from the burning of coal, gas and oil are rapidly curtailed. But despite increasingly severe warnings from scientists and a major economic recession, global emissions have continued to soar unchecked.

"It is symbolic, a point to pause and think about where we have been and where we are going," said Prof Ralph Keeling, who oversees the measurements on a Hawaiian volcano, which were begun by his father in 1958. "It's like turning 50: it's a wake up to what has been building up in front of us all along."

"The passing of this milestone is a significant reminder of the rapid rate at which – and the extent to which – we have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," said Prof Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which serves as science adviser to the world's governments. "At the beginning of industrialisation the concentration of CO2 was just 280ppm. We must hope that the world crossing this milestone will bring about awareness of the scientific reality of climate change and how human society should deal with the challenge."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/10/carbon-dioxide-highest-level-greenhouse-gas

[Javaman]

1. YAYYYY!

[Dustlawyer]

2. I wish I wasn't so pessimistic and cynical, but I don't think we will stop polluting soon

enough to prevent global disaster.

[progressoid]

5. We aren't pro-active. We're reactive.

We won't do anything until after the damage is done.

[tavalon]

24. Considering how many tipping points we've whistled on by, it's pretty much too late now anyway

Does that stop me from conserving personally or having a worm farm or (if I hadn't broken my damn shoulder) having a container garden? No, but I do those things because they are the right things to do, not because I believe I will have any part in saving the non geologics on this earth. Luckily, Earth herself will survive but she will look different. She measures time in epochs so it won't much matter to her.

[GliderGuider]

35. +1

"because they are the right things to do"

[ellisonz]

54. +2

[grahamhgreen]

3. carbon tax now.

[drynberg]

57. I agree

400ppm is terrible, but it's gotta be less disastrous than 500ppm. Better late than never...I'm not Polyannish just a realist dealing with the friggin' cards delt.

[grahamhgreen]

58. Carbon tax, use the funds to build solar, wind, and other renewables. No brainer.

[Zoeisright]

4. It's too late now.

I hope you're happy, all you stupid fucking repukes and deniers.

[closeupready]

8. Correct.

[Gregorian]

15. Careful. That finger pointing can be misleading.

But I probably shouldn't point it out since most people just can't understand. It's too uncomfortable to see the truth. But I'll give you a hint. It isn't someone else.

[RiverNoord]

16. Unless you don't drive or use electricity...

which seems unlikely, as you are using some sort of device to access the Internet, then stop blaming and start conserving. It's so damn easy to blame others for problems that we are all party to. While I agree that businesses that fund denialism in order to preserve their business models have assisted in our delaying of solutions, I also wouldn't expect them to do anything otherwise.

The only chance we've got of a liveable planet in 100 years is for individuals to lead by example. We should be forming community coalitions to institute and promote alternative energy and sustainable living practices. Then we can start productively criticizing - after we've demonstrated alternatives that work.

[tinrobot]

32. It is a societal problem, not just a Republican/Democrat issue.

I would imagine most of us still drive cars, don't have solar, are casual about recycling, still buy into consumerism, and so on...

The solution is not simple, and requires a lot more than just blaming a political party for doing slightly less than your party does.

[AverageJoe90]

36. No it isn't(yes, that is a fact, btw.)....just look at the science. n/t

[ReRe]

6. Might this be the real reason...

... I can't breathe? My asthma has grown increasingly unmanageable over the last three years. I scanned through the entire article but didn't see how this affects those with respiratory issues. Going to mention this to the Dr the next time I go in.

[groundloop]

20. Apparently it might have an indierect effect

http://www.webmd.com/asthma/news/20040429/high-carbon-dioxide-levels-may-up-asthma-rate

[ReRe]

34. Thanks for pointing me to that...

... article. It's a report from 2004, but still as relevant as the day it was written.

[closeupready]

7. "unless emisssions are curbed" - SPOILER: they won't be.

End of thread.

[AverageJoe90]

37. Says who? n/t

[GliderGuider]

40. Malcolm Light, Guy McPherson ... and me!

Seriously, the thermodynamic foundations that underpin the universe, including the origin of matter, life, ecosystems, societies and the shape of human culture since the beginning of time have made this inevitable. According to the operation of the Second Law in open systems, the thermodynamic Prime Directive of all life is to break down both actual and potential energy gradients as quickly as possible, wherever they can be found. This includes energy flows from incoming sunlight and its side effects like wind and water power, and especially all stocks of stored energy, like biomass (wood) uranium and fossil fuels.

Of course we see just the energy side of the equation - more life-giving energy flowing through our systems creates more opportunities for structure and organization to grow, in order to process more energy, in order to create more structure, to process more energy. It's a classic positive feedback loop. It's too bad that we have not been able to recognize the entropic side of that process - as a result we get desertification, deforestation, climate change and ocean acidification.

For our global culture to try to stop this behaviour would be the same as deciding to fall up instead of down when we slip off a cliff.

[AverageJoe90]

41. Not all energy is created equal, though. n/t

[GliderGuider]

44. 87% of the energy the world uses comes from fossil fuels.

That's not going to change much any time soon.

Nobody wants to reduce energy use rapidly, because that would kill civilization. Nobody wants to kill civilization. Instead, we'll keep on nibbling around the edges with windmills and wishful thinking, curly light bulbs and a few electric cars. And end up killing civilization anyway.

There is literally no way out. We can't de-carbonize our energy supply enough to slow CO2 emissions significantly, and we can't reduce our overall energy use enough to matter without damaging or possibly destroying the global economic system.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112743246

I just did a back-of-the-envelope assessment on the impact of completely and immediately de-carbonizing the world’s electricity supply (via renewables or any other means, so long as the replacement source is 100% CO2-free).

Data from teh google indicates that the world uses about 80% of its coal consumption, 67% of its natural gas and 6% of its oil in the generation of electricity.

Data from the BP Statistical Review translates this into 40% of the world’s fossil fuels going to electricity production, with 60% being used in transportation, heating and industrial processes.

The implication is that if we totally de-carbonized our electricity supply tomorrow, we would cut CO2 emissions from fossil-fueled electricity generation by around 40%.

A reduction of 40% would get us back to the CO2 emissions we produced in 1985. In other words we would set the carbon clock back less than 20 years. In 1985 world CO2 levels were already climbing by 1.6 ppmv/year - compared to just over 2 ppmv/year today and rising.

My conclusion is that even shutting down every coal and gas generating plant in the world today wouldn't remove the existential climate threat of CO2. In fact, it wouldn't even reduce the threat significantly.

This is why I’m so dismissive of the potential of renewable energy. Renewable energy works, it is growing fast, and it can be incorporated into electrical grids without too much problem. But it’s just not enough. No electrical source – even if it is 100% carbon-free – can address the carbon emissions of the world's non-electrical uses of fossil fuels. We can and will nibble around the edges with electric cars, but nibbling is all it amounts to, given the rate at which CO2 levels are increasing.

Our civilization has simply outgrown and trashed its home here on planet Earth. Unfortunately, we can’t leave. As our species moves from carefree adolescence into sober, responsible adulthood, collectively we will have to do what each of us has to do as an adult – accept the consequences of our previous actions.

[AverageJoe90]

47. Simply not true(BTW, your conclusion is highly flawed as well.)

There is literally no way out. We can't de-carbonize our energy supply enough to slow CO2 emissions significantly,

Quite a bit of evidence out there suggests otherwise(and no, I'm not going to link to anything, GG, because you probably aren't going to listen....you never have. So why fucking bother.). Solar & wind energy are already growing much faster than people thought perhaps just a decade ago, and there's been an increasing amount of action taken against coal as well.

and we can't reduce our overall energy use enough to matter without damaging or possibly destroying the global economic system.

You do realize that's actually favorite argument of climate deniers, right(along with "Greenwashing" B.S.)? Or do you just not care?
I'm sorry, but this is nothing more than excuses, excuses, excuses. That's all 99% of you climate doomers ever do, is make excuses for your irrational ramblings.

No wonder why we're still having problems.....

[GliderGuider]

48. You know I'm neither a denier nor a greenwasher.

I think climate change is going to do what no amount of planning can accomplish: reduce our population, energy consumption and CO2 emissions.

Note that I say things like "significantly" and "enough to matter". These are obviously my personal assessments, but they're based on 10 years of looking at the data, and accepting what the numbers say - no matter how unpleasant the conclusions might be.

I don't think we're going to go extinct, but I also don't think that any amount of planning can change the energy/carbon trajectory we seem to on, at least for the next 20 years.

If you had any data that would directly counter my arguments I'm pretty sure you'd present it, rather than just throwing up your hands. After all, understanding progresses through robust discussion, doesn't it?

[AverageJoe90]

51. I didn't say you WERE a denier, of course.....

I did, however, point out that a certain argument of yours was also one employed by your seemingly polar opposites, the deniers(in this case, "reducing carbon output will destroy the economy&quot .

I don't think we're going to go extinct,

This would be a pleasant surprise, as this certainly wasn't what I was hearing from you back in the day when I first got involved over at E & E. What convinced you otherwise?

If you had any data that would directly counter my arguments I'm pretty sure you'd present it, rather than just throwing up your hands.

There are several occasions where I have done such with you and certain others, but we all know how it all ended....no progress whatsoever. So I've pretty much given up on that.

[GliderGuider]

55. Reducing carbon output a bit won't destroy the global economy.

I suspect that trying to reduce it by 40% over the next 17 years while retaining a 2% annual growth in overall energy use would be next to impossible, though. That's how long I think we have until AGW really begins to take a bite out of civilization.

I've never actually been a believer in near-term extinction. Humans are far too inventive and adaptable for that. I'd put the chances of extinction before the end of the century at less than 5%.

I think we're at much greater risk of losing civilization, or at least the coherent global version of it we have now. The most probable trigger would be simultaneous partial crop failures in two or three places in the world. I think the chances of something like that happening by 2030 are maybe 20%, by 2040 it might be 30%, and by 2050 perhaps 50%. I also think that we'll continue putting at least as much carbon into the atmosphere as we are today until the breakdown happens.

[n2doc]

9. ...

[Blue_Tires]

13. Meanwhile congress has their hands full with the Benghazi Dinner Theater

[n2doc]

17. And proposing bills that let congress decide what science research topics get funded and published

We are truly screwed.

[blackspade]

10. Thanks to corporate hacks who will fuck over everyone for a profit.

We must hope that the world crossing this milestone will bring about awareness of the scientific reality of climate change and how human society should deal with the challenge.

I hope so too, but at the rate we are going things are going to get pretty shitty.

[Seeking Serenity]

11. Here's the problem

unless emissions of CO2 from the burning of coal, gas and oil are rapidly curtailed

This is not just a first-world problem. Even if the industrialized first-world eliminated all CO2 emissions today (which it won't anyway, since fossil fuels are our primary source of energy), the developing world won't go along. They'll continue burn as much (even more, more likely since, under such a scenario, there would be even MORE FFs to burn then), to try to increase their standard of living.

This is a problem with no easy solution or a solution that could garner much in the way of a global consensus or universal participation.

[Ganja Ninja]

12. This is a problem that is going to solve itself.

It's just that it will be disastrous for almost all the existing species including humanity. The die is cast now and we are going to face the consequences of not acting.

[Gregorian]

14. Except that CO2 emissions are only a part of the problem. It's much bigger than energy.

I won't say what it is, because even on a so-called progressive and intelligent site like this, one cannot mention certain things. Too uncomfortable.

[n2doc]

18. Everything is driven by population

We might not talk about it, but physics, chemistry, and biology don't care (just like the Honey Badger).

[closeupready]

19. Yes, there is the problem of overpopulation, industry-driven

natural resource depletion, entrenched fossil fuel interests corrupting the political process, etc.

Was your counterpoint one of those points?

[Seeking Serenity]

21. I suspect that we (that is, humankind)

aren't going to do anything of substance about trying to reduce CO2 emissions. I suspect that what we will do is try to figure out and develop strategies and technologies for dealing with the effects.

[AverageJoe90]

53. In all likelihood, it'll be both.

Of course, nobody can truly accurately predict the future, but given the concerns that have been raised, it does seem extremely unlikely that no further progress will ever be made against climate change, and it is practically inevitable that technology will be employed to assist the levelling out & lowering, of carbon levels at least to some degree, and certainly, the tipping point for the permanent decline of fossil fuels & increasing deployment of alternative technologies, too, has already been reached.

[tavalon]

22. It's awfully sweet of them to continue to soften this dire situation with the word "unless"

There is no "unless". We've already passed so many tipping points, the "game" is over. It's when not whether anymore.

[Locrian]

23. we had a shot....

We did. We had a chance - as we began ignorantly using the stored energy (stored sunlight) of the fossil fuels, we developed (arguably) an easier life.

And we decided to spend much of that time waging war, developing weapons, fighting - competing for MORE and MORE 'wealth'.

Instead developing the tools, both scientific and humanitarian that we need to now deal with the FACT that we are headed for a (to put it politely) very rude awakening.

Maybe we never had a choice. Don't know. Maybe we still have one, but it's looking like (based on past history) that it isn't likely we are going to suddenly change our stripes.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. The US will start getting serious about this Real Soon Now (tm).

What a joke. We've done nothing for 40 years.

[AverageJoe90]

38. Only because the real serious problems have just started occurring a few years ago. n/t

[NickB79]

43. Global warming is a lot like pancreatic cancer

You generally don't experience bad symptoms until the disease is very advanced, and by then your chances of putting it into remission are really low.

For example, we're gonna lose the Arctic ice cap by the end of this decade, if we're lucky: http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/emergency-climate-meeting-white-house-officials-told-arctic-ocean-could-be-ice-free-within-two-years/

Emergency Climate Meeting: White House Officials Told Arctic Ocean Could Be Ice-Free Within Two Years

Things are about to get bad, really fast.

[AverageJoe90]

45. Not the best analogy, TBH.

And TBH, having studied the trends, and the physics, it now seems that, contrary to my initial beliefs about a year ago, it's far more likely that we won't see an actually totally ice-free period until sometime between 2020-2030(I think 2030's pushing it a little, TBH, but there's been a lot of strange coincidences going on, such as that nasty storm up there in Aug. 2012, that really did make things worse than they would have been). Of course, there is always a very small possibility that some truly strange, unfortunate, and, if I may be allowed, unlucky, combination of events, maybe even something that defies our understanding of physics, perhaps, may result in ice-free conditions as soon as 2016 at the very earliest.

Things are about to get bad, really fast.

No (valid) evidence supports that conclusion, though. We do know that Arctic ice melt is already a bad thing and that ice-free conditions will complicate things somewhat. But we don't have any proof that things are going to get "bad(I assume you meant worse, right?)" "really fast", and TBH, while ice-free conditions will certainly add some additional significant complications(on top of what has already occurred) at some point, I'm not convinced that these will necessarily begin to occur immediately(but rather, probably more gradually).

[NYC_SKP]

26. If we don't take care of this, all the other shit doesn't matter.

Health Care, Assault Weapons Ban, Joani love Chachi, none of it matters.

K&R

[GliderGuider]

27. In that case, all the other shit doesn't matter.

Because it's too freaking late to take care of this, even if we could figure out how.

87% of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels. The only marginally safe level of CO2 that anybody has named is 350 ppm, which we passed 25 years ago. We haven't even started to de-carbonize our electricity yet, let alone the 60% of our energy use that can't be substituted by windmills and wishful thinking. It takes Mother Nature 1,000 years to remove 1 ppm of CO2 from the air. We are now 50,000 years away from 350 ppm, and getting 3,000 years further away every year.

The train has left the station.

Clever, clever monkeys.

[NYC_SKP]

28. Interesting times ahead.

In the sixties and seventies a lot of us in high school didn't have much faith in humanity and felt squeamish about having families.

Just a small number of us, but I was among them and won't have to worry about my kids or their kids suffering.

But, it doesn't look good for the others, and still I spend my professional time trying to bring educators to their senses.

As hopeless as it may seem, we still need to work at it.

NGU.

[pampango]

29. Concerted global action requires some degree of (the dreaded) global government.

That scares the h--- out of conservatives who already see the UN as a form of One-World-Government. National sovereignty ("Nobody is telling my country how to handle our pollution. I'm an American - or a Chinese or an Australian, etc.!&quot means more to many than coordinated, effective global action on a global problem.

[Seeking Serenity]

30. And what happens to those nation-states

that choose not to participate?

[pampango]

31. That's what happen now. Nothing happens to them. In a true 'global government', a 'nation-state'

would have no more option to 'not participate' than Ohio has to 'not participate' with federal laws.

Obviously, 'global government' is not even a topic for discussion (except in right-wing conspiracy circles) much less any kind of viable option being talked about. "National sovereignty" (with its associated right 'not to participate' in the efforts of others to deal with climate change) rules the day and ranks much, much higher in the minds of most people than the need to deal globally with a global problem that will eventually disrupt the societies of all the 'nation-states' that treasure their 'sovereignty' so much.

Why should the US take effective (and expensive) pollution control measure if China does not? Why should China take effective (and expensive) pollution control measure if Russia does not? Why should Russia take effective (and expensive) pollution control measure if India does not?

If Europe acts on CO2 emissions but the US does not; if the US eventually acts on CO2 emissions but China does not ... As long as the 'nation-state' and its 'sovereignty' is paramount, well you can see the likelihood of dealing with climate change.

[ReRe]

33. Hey, there's a question...

... where in the Hell is the W.H.O. on global warming? For that matter, why isn't the CDC & the NIH and the AMA jumping up and down over global warming? These health orgs should be making as much (if not more) noise over global warming as the environmentalists and Democrats.

[raouldukelives]

39. Our top colleges will spare no expense turning out people to tackle this problem.

I just hope its something a linebacker can handle.

[NickB79]

42. If people realized what is truly required to stop this trainwreck

They'd shit bricks. If any US politician ever got on TV and told his or her constituents what measures we'd have to take to avoid the mass extinction event bearing down on us, he/she would be lynched and dragged through the street.

Driving a Prius, riding a bike and replacing a few bulbs with LED's isn't gonna cut it, people. The truth is that we'd have to enact measures so draconian that it would make North Korea look like a bastion of personal freedom and liberty. So, expect more promises to research the issue further, while the climate goes crazy.

Once the Arctic ice cap fully melts by the end of this decade (at best) then the shit will really hit the fan.

[AverageJoe90]

46. "then the shit will really hit the fan." I don't think so, Nick. n/t

[pscot]

49. K&R

[blkmusclmachine]

50. .

[Sunlei]

52. think I'll dome my O2 producing trees and acres and charge admission someday.

We better hope the oceans keep on with the algae blooms that lead to oxygen and krill food or we humans will be in big trouble.

[Selatius]

56. I believe remaining above 400ppm will doom cities like New Orleans to the same fate as Atlantis. nt