Scientists Sound the Alarm: CO2 Levels

[Allybeboba]

Yeah, I wasn't really trying to say "the Dutch are fine and impossible to flood for magical reasons", more just that the dyke system has been built up with the EXPECTATION of flooding, from the beginning, so flood management tools exist to try and mitigate that.

Cities are always going to be at greater risk, it's more that a lot of what's dyked is farmland now, and that's easier to manage flooding on. Though given sea level rise, it may not be long-term sustainable; it may just reach a point where it's not worth the investment to protect.

I'm just comparing the Netherlands preparation and planning to, say, New Orleans, where there was basically none, not just "we can't make this feasibly work".

New Orleans really was not a proper example. Take for example Galveston when Ike hit. Ike was a more powerful storm than Katrina and Galveston faired pretty well all things considered.

[HumbleDuck]

But them jobs!!
Mah truck!!
Freeduum!!

[Allybeboba]

Katrina and other such events were fake news.

Not necessarily "fake", just sensationalized. I volunteered in New Orleans. I also volunteered in Galveston. The storm damage was not nearly as bad as it was in Galveston during Ike.
People had an agenda to push in New Orleans.

[Daelak]

Not necessarily "fake", just sensationalized. I volunteered in New Orleans. I also volunteered in Galveston. The storm damage was not nearly as bad as it was in Galveston during Ike.
People had an agenda to push in New Orleans.

What agenda was that?

[Docturphil]

So CO2 levels have reached a point where they were around ~10,000 years ago. Doesn't seem to indicate we're all doomed. Seems to me the Earth could support life just fine 10,000 years ago.

How long is it going to take to turn the Earth into a raging inferno unable to support life at this rate? 200 years? 500 years? 1,000 years?

As long as we get our CO2 levels under control well before then, who cares?

[Puremallace]

As a guy who has been hoping for an alien invasion to come and cull the herd honestly at this point I hope we fucking fry. Pretty clear idiocracy has overtaken a good bit of the world right now and we have blown our chance. I am just hoping the end comes fast and quick.

[Garnier Fructis]

One has to wonder what caused the drastic drop in those few years.

It wasn't drastic, and welcome to complex systems. You get fluctuations from it being a stochastic system, and you have smaller cyclical effects that can accelerate/dampen warming temporarily. But these variations don't change the long term behavior, which is increase.

The linear thinking behind 'it decreased, climate theory must be wrong' is ridiculously wrong.

[Pterodactylus]

what agenda was that?

benghazi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Garnier Fructis]

So CO2 levels have reached a point where they were around ~10,000 years ago. Doesn't seem to indicate we're all doomed. Seems to me the Earth could support life just fine 10,000 years ago.

How long is it going to take to turn the Earth into a raging inferno unable to support life at this rate? 200 years? 500 years? 1,000 years?

As long as we get our CO2 levels under control well before then, who cares?

Because the relevant thing is how fast that's changing. You change things fast enough, as we're doing, and a lot of shit gets wrecked. Humans can live just fine in a car traveling 70 mph. Humans can live just fine in a parked car. But if you slow down too quickly from 70 to 0 then you get royally fucked up.

That's why it doesn't matter if we had this much CO2 10,000 years ago (if your numbers are accurate). Notice how it took 10,000 years to reach this point, and not 100?

Edit: In light of Endus' post below, your numbers are apparently wrong. But the point still stands, which is that it doesn't matter how much CO2 we had 10,000 or 100,000 or 800,000 or whatever years ago. It didn't change this fast.

[Endus]

So CO2 levels have reached a point where they were around ~10,000 years ago. Doesn't seem to indicate we're all doomed. Seems to me the Earth could support life just fine 10,000 years ago.

Take some time to look into wherever you're getting your information from, because they're either idiots, or they're deliberately lying to you.



Note that the information there's missing the last 15 years or so; we've passed that 400ppm mark.

Hell, maybe you didn't even mean 10,000 years. Let's look at the last 800,000;



It's peaked at around 300ppm, naturally, at most. And we're over 400ppm, currently. We're so obviously outside natural cycles on this that the lie you're perpetuating is blindingly clear.

[Daelak]

benghazi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL. katrinawasliberalsfaultbecausetheyvotedemocratinneworleans-azi!

[pionock]

We've seen a rise in CO2 levels over the past 100-200 years, but in that time, we've also seen a huge growth in population. While fossil fuel consumption is a factor, and we should do what we can to limit our usage of it, could overpopulation also be a factor? Could there simply be too many humans on the planet?

I'm not calling for a mass culling of the herd, but doing what Endus says and be proactive about it. Like educating kids and adults alike to try to not have as many kids on average, proper sex education and access to contraceptive methods to prevent unwanted births. I seem to remember reading a piece about how humans simply being alive has a huge impact on our carbon footprint. If I can find the source I'll edit my post. But does anyone have information or opinions on that?

[JohnBrown1917]

As a guy who has been hoping for an alien invasion to come and cull the herd honestly at this point I hope we fucking fry. Pretty clear idiocracy has overtaken a good bit of the world right now and we have blown our chance. I am just hoping the end comes fast and quick.

The sane part of the world would rather not get fucked over by the likes of China and the US.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL. katrinawasliberalsfaultbecausetheyvotedemocratinneworleans-azi!

Its the evul muslum gay athiest commie facist librul lizard transwoman who are at fault!!

[Fat Mac]

do we even need proof for humans to realize we are shitting on the planet. just open our eyes and look around. maybe cut back a little bit

im no scientist but i dont think shit and garbage floating in rivers is natural

[Endus]

We've seen a rise in CO2 levels over the past 100-200 years, but in that time, we've also seen a huge growth in population. While fossil fuel consumption is a factor, and we should do what we can to limit our usage of it, could overpopulation also be a factor. Could there simply be too many humans on the planet?

I'm not calling for a mass culling of the herd, but doing whay Endus says and be proactive about it. Like educating kids and adults alike to try to not have as many kids on average, proper sex education and access to contraceptive methods to prevent unwanted births. I seem to remember reading a piece about how humans simply being alive has a huge impact on our carbon footprint. If I can find the source I'll edit my post. But does stone have information or opinions on that?

Population levels do contribute, but not THAT significantly. If our technological emissions were under control, we wouldn't be biologically producing enough to tip the balance. Even methane emissions from cattle, which do produce more methane than the wild populations of cud-chewers they replaced, like deer and bison, wouldn't be enough, without the fossil fuel emissions contributing the lion's share. Plus, methane has a much shorter shelf life in the atmosphere; decades, not centuries.

Plus, if you're worried about population levels, I recommend Hans Rosling's TED talks. He's great at communicating this visually. To sum up in very short terms, though; we've already passed the tipping point in population growth. We hit "peak children". Population is still gonna climb as they grow up and have kids of their own, but assuming that patterns remain consistent, global populations will peak around 10-11 billion, and then potentially start to slowly decay (I say "potentially", because at that point patterns may well have changed). The root issue seems to be child poverty/survival; the moment a society can rely on their children surviving to adulthood, they stop having a dozen kids. They start having about two. And with the small rates of child mortality or infertility that come about, that ends up being too low for replacement, and populations slowly decline. Doesn't take much; most developing nations are already hitting these points, there's just the poorest and most poverty-stricken nations that are still really contributing to population growth. Improve their economic lot, and that'll change (and is changing, really).

[Gurluas]

I have to say Endus, it's amazing to see you debunk those climate deniers.
As for your question @Docturphil

Simply put, Life will most likely survive for quite a while. I doubt Humans are capable of pushing us up to a really dangerous point like Venus.
BUT...That doesn't mean all is fine dandy. Worst case scenario is that we move into a Hot house world once more.

Here is a simulated map of the Cretacerous to give you an idea of the sea level back then.


Obviously this would take thousands of years even with our rapid warming, but it will speed up especially once Antarctica melts, which is what scientists believe made us go into this Cold House to begin with.

Now imagine how many lives, species, infrastructure, even countries would be lost when the sea level rise that much.
But even today many people are at risk in low areas near the cost. We could see the sea level rise meters within our lifetime.

[Deleted]

What happened in 1993?

[Docturphil]

Because the relevant thing is how fast that's changing. You change things fast enough, as we're doing, and a lot of shit gets wrecked. Humans can live just fine in a car traveling 70 mph. Humans can live just fine in a parked car. But if you slow down too quickly from 70 to 0 then you get royally fucked up.

That's why it doesn't matter if we had this much CO2 10,000 years ago (if your numbers are accurate). Notice how it took 10,000 years to reach this point, and not 100?

Edit: In light of Endus' post below, your numbers are apparently wrong. But the point still stands, which is that it doesn't matter how much CO2 we had 10,000 or 100,000 or 800,000 or whatever years ago. It didn't change this fast.

Take some time to look into wherever you're getting your information from, because they're either idiots, or they're deliberately lying to you.

Note that the information there's missing the last 15 years or so; we've passed that 400ppm mark.

Hell, maybe you didn't even mean 10,000 years. Let's look at the last 800,000;

It's peaked at around 300ppm, naturally, at most. And we're over 400ppm, currently. We're so obviously outside natural cycles on this that the lie you're perpetuating is blindingly clear.

10,000 years from the last time we were at 400ppm was from OP's OP:

The numbers show that the rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is now at 405.1 ppm, the highest it has been in more than 10,000 years.

If that's inaccurate then idk...

At any rate it's not as if an increase from 300 to 400 ppm means the temperature is going to increase by 33%. There are several other greenhouse gases and if memory serves water vapor is the most significant. I'd guess we have at least a few hundred more years before we really run into a serious issue. But what the fuck do I know?

[Endus]

10,000 years from the last time we were at 400ppm was from OP's OP:

If that's inaccurate then idk...[/quote]

It's accurate. You're just making stuff up, because that statement never said that it was this high 10,000 years ago.

At any rate it's not as if an increase from 300 to 400 ppm means the temperature is going to increase by 33%.

And nobody claimed that. Why are you inventing fantasies and pretending people are arguing that?

There are several other greenhouse gases and if memory serves water vapor is the most significant.

Memory doesn't serve. CO2 is the chief driver.

[Pterodactylus]

I doubt Humans are capable of pushing us up to a really dangerous point like Venus.

It could never happen because the vast majority of our CO2 is sequestered in carbonate rocks like limestone - whereas all of Venus' CO2 is in the atmosphere.

Here is a simulated map of the Cretacerous to give you an idea of the sea level back then.


Obviously this would take thousands of years even with our rapid warming

Actually the greater control on sea level is tied to the rates of seafloor spreading. When new seafloor is created at mid-oceanic ridges, its relatively warm and therefore less dense. This less dense sea floor "floats" higher on the mantle and "pushes" the sea levels up. But the rate of change associated with seafloor spreading is on the scales of millions of years, so for our purpose we can ignore it. It's not really fair to compare sea levels in the Cretaceous to potential sea level changes we see from melting land ice and thermal expansion of the oceans.