4 ms·

For context here's the Earth's level of CO2 over geologic time periods: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif http://www.geocraft.com/W

by avar 10y ago

For context here's the Earth's level of CO2 over geologic time periods: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.g...

_ph_ 10y ago
While this diagram shows, that the current CO2 content is lower than in many historic phases of the earth climate, this has little impact on the seriousness of our current situation. The biggest problem we have with the change of the CO2 content of the atmosphere is the speed by which it changes, and consequently the speed of the warming up. Eco systems change way quicker than they can adapt too. And dying eco systems and their input on our life are the big problem humanity is facing in the next 100 years.
- agumonkey 10y ago
  I can't help but to think that it will solve the problem by putting pressure on its source, aka Humans.
  - briandear 10y ago
    Are humans the primary source? Would love a reputable citation.
    - idlewords 10y ago
      You can prove it to yourself by asking what happened to all the carbon in coal and oil extracted since the 18th century. It tracks the rise in atmospheric CO2, as you would expect, since we burned it.
      - TillE 10y ago
        I've been pointing this out to obstinate nerds for years. This really isn't complicated: human-generated CO2 does not magically disappear, and we know exactly how it interacts with infrared radiation. Just put these two simple facts together.
    - sinxoveretothex 10y ago
      Humans are not the primary source in the tricky sense that someone looking to deny the evidence couldn't deny. But they are the primary source of the net emissions or, in other words, the increase of CO2 levels. It's a bit like if your neighbor produces just enough grain for a year's worth of food for his family of 10 and you steal just enough for yourself. Technically, you aren't the primary source of the decrease in food, but you are the primary (and only) source of the fact that your neighbor's food supply are lower than needed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-emissions http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-e... https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natu... https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2 https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon...
  - sinxoveretothex 10y ago
    Well, if by that you mean that people dying in countries which are low polluters happen to belong to the same species as the biggest polluters, then yes. But in the grand scheme of things, we can't rely on such a mechanism, because the consequences are not proportional to the causal actions. As an example, ask yourself this: what proportion of people would be ready to, say, pay twice as much for electricity if it meant that 1 million people/year less would die in some African country?
    - agumonkey 10y ago
      Worse part is that I knew that. Please forgive my impatient comment.
- z_mollusk 10y ago
  Ecosystems are "greening." The increased amount of CO2 has led to rapid vegetation growth. CO2 is essentially plant fuel. http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fert...
  - the8472 10y ago
    That doesn't mean much if the carbon does not get bound to the soil. If plants just take up CO2, die, release it again then it stairs in the atmosphere. This applies to crops and rain forests, algae. Only few systems tend to fix the CO2 over long periods of time, such as boreal forests or permafrost tundra. And guess which ecosystems are retreating due to global warming and releasing their previously fixed CO2?
    - z_mollusk 10y ago
      New plants will replace the dead plants and utilize the replaced CO2. Binding CO2 to the soil would be optimal, but I fail to see how the lifespan of plants is relevant here.
      - the8472 10y ago
        Because plants are subject to changing climate too. If regions get drier then all that CO2 will get released in a short amount of time. This is like technical debt. It's released CO2 that does not affect the climate yet but could do so in the future due to feedback loops. And even if that doesn't happen, it's only 25% of the released CO2. 50% are still warming the climate and another 25% are still acidifying the oceans. So that's a pretty high cost for a few greener forests. And then there is the issue that increased CO2 levels mostly increase the complex carbohydrate contents in plants. They do not produce more proteins since they need nitrogen for that. Which may actually make things worse for the foodchain. E.g. it decreases the nutritional value of pollen, which is a problem for bees. So there is really not much positive value in there.

by avar 10y ago

For context here's the Earth's level of CO2 over geologic time periods: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.g...

_ph_ 10y ago

While this diagram shows, that the current CO2 content is lower than in many historic phases of the earth climate, this has little impact on the seriousness of our current situation. The biggest problem we have with the change of the CO2 content of the atmosphere is the speed by which it changes, and consequently the speed of the warming up. Eco systems change way quicker than they can adapt too. And dying eco systems and their input on our life are the big problem humanity is facing in the next 100 years.

agumonkey 10y ago
I can't help but to think that it will solve the problem by putting pressure on its source, aka Humans.
- briandear 10y ago
  Are humans the primary source? Would love a reputable citation.
  - idlewords 10y ago
    You can prove it to yourself by asking what happened to all the carbon in coal and oil extracted since the 18th century. It tracks the rise in atmospheric CO2, as you would expect, since we burned it.
    - TillE 10y ago
      I've been pointing this out to obstinate nerds for years. This really isn't complicated: human-generated CO2 does not magically disappear, and we know exactly how it interacts with infrared radiation. Just put these two simple facts together.
  - sinxoveretothex 10y ago
    Humans are not the primary source in the tricky sense that someone looking to deny the evidence couldn't deny. But they are the primary source of the net emissions or, in other words, the increase of CO2 levels. It's a bit like if your neighbor produces just enough grain for a year's worth of food for his family of 10 and you steal just enough for yourself. Technically, you aren't the primary source of the decrease in food, but you are the primary (and only) source of the fact that your neighbor's food supply are lower than needed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWXoRSIxyIU http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-emissions http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/carbon-dioxide-e... https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natu... https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon-storage-faqs/what-are-the-primary-sources-of-co2 https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/carbon-storage/carbon...
- sinxoveretothex 10y ago
  Well, if by that you mean that people dying in countries which are low polluters happen to belong to the same species as the biggest polluters, then yes. But in the grand scheme of things, we can't rely on such a mechanism, because the consequences are not proportional to the causal actions. As an example, ask yourself this: what proportion of people would be ready to, say, pay twice as much for electricity if it meant that 1 million people/year less would die in some African country?
  - agumonkey 10y ago
    Worse part is that I knew that. Please forgive my impatient comment.
z_mollusk 10y ago
Ecosystems are "greening." The increased amount of CO2 has led to rapid vegetation growth. CO2 is essentially plant fuel. http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fert...
- the8472 10y ago
  That doesn't mean much if the carbon does not get bound to the soil. If plants just take up CO2, die, release it again then it stairs in the atmosphere. This applies to crops and rain forests, algae. Only few systems tend to fix the CO2 over long periods of time, such as boreal forests or permafrost tundra. And guess which ecosystems are retreating due to global warming and releasing their previously fixed CO2?
  - z_mollusk 10y ago
    New plants will replace the dead plants and utilize the replaced CO2. Binding CO2 to the soil would be optimal, but I fail to see how the lifespan of plants is relevant here.
    - the8472 10y ago
      Because plants are subject to changing climate too. If regions get drier then all that CO2 will get released in a short amount of time. This is like technical debt. It's released CO2 that does not affect the climate yet but could do so in the future due to feedback loops. And even if that doesn't happen, it's only 25% of the released CO2. 50% are still warming the climate and another 25% are still acidifying the oceans. So that's a pretty high cost for a few greener forests. And then there is the issue that increased CO2 levels mostly increase the complex carbohydrate contents in plants. They do not produce more proteins since they need nitrogen for that. Which may actually make things worse for the foodchain. E.g. it decreases the nutritional value of pollen, which is a problem for bees. So there is really not much positive value in there.