16 ms·
We Just Breached the 410 PPM Threshold for CO2
- nwrk 10y agoin plain english (from article): "Right now we’re on track to create a climate unseen in 50 million years by mid-century."
- astrodust 10y agoThe states hit hardest by climate change are the ones cheerleading the burning of more fossil fuels. It's utterly bizarre.
- ceejayoz 10y agoThey've been told by well-funded industry groups and politicians that all their woes are due to excessive regulation.
- astrodust 10y agoI hear a lot of grief about the EPA in places where coal is winding down, and yet it's not the EPA that's killing coal, it's rampant fracking that's shifted the industry to a whole new method of energy extraction. If there was lots of natural gas in West Virginia I bet I wouldn't hear a peep of complaint about the EPA. If we can't smack some sense into people we're doomed as a species.
- gjm11 10y agoThis is very bad (albeit completely unsurprising) news, but I really don't see that the word "threshold" is appropriate. Is there some special bad thing that happens once 410ppm is reached, that's qualitatively different from 400ppm? Nope. The article itself is quite clear about this: e.g., it quotes one climate scientist as saying "These milestones are just numbers, but they give us an opportunity to pause and take stock and act as useful yard sticks for comparisons to the geological record." I suspect it's the usual story: journalist writes reasonable article, sub-editor puts needlessly overexcited headline on it.
- cardamomo 10y agoHow we communicate climate science and its relevance to our world is just as important as the science itself. In my opinion, if labeling it a threshold in media intended for non-scientist audiences captures attention and calls readers to action, great! Frankly, we need to be "overexcited" about CO2 and stop sitting on our assess.
- icelancer 10y agoThis is how you end up overstimulating and oversaturating headlines and making people distrust science.
- btdiehr 10y agoLet me get this straight, you're saying that people should purposefully mislead the public?
- cardamomo 10y agoTo be clear, I'm talking about this specific headline and trying to make a case for using the word "threshold" to capture attention. It's (mostly) a semantic issue. I do not advocate misstating scientific findings.
- btdiehr 10y agoThat's good to hear, because whether people want to admit it or not, journalists misreporting studies constantly is one of the reasons why trust has eroded.
- bsdetector 10y agoI haven't seen any talk about the health effects of rising CO2. I know there are studies finding a difference in productivity between 600 and 1000 ppm with just hours of exposure, so isn't it possible that going from 300 globally to over 400 has had some health impact over a lifetime? Is there a point where lower CO2 has no effect and how do we know that?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- hartator 10y agoThe funny thing O2 is dropping faster than CO2 is rising, but for whatever reasons it's not really a subject of interest.
- mchannon 10y agoThat's because it's easily explained. About half the O2 lost through burning of hydrocarbons becomes CO2. Other half becomes H2O. The latter doesn't increase its percentage in the atmosphere just because there's more of it.
- hartator 10y agoYeah, but my point is that lack of O2 is very easy to explain why it's bad of the health!
- mchannon 10y agoSilly point. O2 shortages are irrelevant- 210,000ppm to 209,800ppm O2 is far less of concern than 300ppm to 400ppm CO2.
- mikeash 10y agoAnd keep in mind that atmospheric pressure (and thus the partial pressure of oxygen) routinely varies by 10% or more due to weather, and people live at altitudes where the pressure is as low as 50% below sea level.
- basicplus2 10y agoIt would be of value to overlay actual global temperatures over the graphs given in this document such as these.. https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_C...
- tajen 10y agoHow do we measure the average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, given all the disparity and local extremums?
- wollstonecraft 10y agoThis article cites a measurement from Mauna Loa Observatory.
- mturmon 10y agoThe article describes an in situ (ground based) measurement, that is sample based. You can get CO2 concentrations from satellite remote sensing, as well. Usually they use spectral analysis of CO2 emission/absorption lines in the infrared. This is a passive measurement, but active measurements with lasers are used in ground based and airborne measurements now. These measurements are of CO2 within a given (vertical) column of air -- where the infrared light came from -- whereas the Mauna Loa measurement in TFA is localized to air moving past the sample station. One starting place for CO2 data is: https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov https://co2.jpl.nasa.gov This summary of Los Angeles area ground based measurements hints at some of the complexities of integrating these different data sources: https://megacities.jpl.nasa.gov/portal/collection-network/ https://megacities.jpl.nasa.gov/portal/collection-network/ . Other pages on that site indicate the extreme spatial and temporal variability of CO2 in an urban setting. That's why the comparatively pristine Mauna Loa site is so important.
- shouldbworking 10y agoSatellite I believe. CO2 absorbs certain bands in the infrared range. You can probably use optical spectrometry to measure relative concentration.
- shouldbworking 10y agoI don't know much about climate science, but won't plants multiply and grow faster until we eventually hit a new equilibrium CO2 level? I guess the only danger is reaching thermal runaway before that happens? Then again, earth CO2 levels have been far higher in the past without signs that it killed off much life on Earth. Is rising CO2 that dangerous? Don't humans already have effective ways to reduce surface heating by injecting dust or chemicals into the upper atmosphere? We've seen that throwing a bunch of dust up there reflects more heat and it sounds like something certainly within our ability to do. I'm not a climate change denier, I'm just skeptical that the rising CO2 level is as dangerous as it's made out to be.
- mikeash 10y agoIncreasing CO2 does not necessarily result in more plants. The feedback cycles are complex and there are other limiting factors. Imagine, for example, if the oxygen concentration was increasing instead. Would you expect humans to multiply faster and reach a new equilibrium because of it? Concentrations have indeed been much higher in the deep past. The concern isn't destroying all life, it's damaging or destroying civilization. There are theoretical techniques for blocking solar heat. It remains to be seen how effective or practical they would be in the real world. There is a lot of potential for unintended consequences.
- shouldbworking 10y agoI read that the era of nuclear testing noticably decreased surface temperatures for some time. If we can't figure anything else out we could probably settle for blowing up a bunch of cleanish lead wrapped nukes out in the ocean every couple months? It sounds terrible but if done right it would have little impact to life on earth
- mikeash 10y agoThat seems unlikely. Nukes are pretty small on the scale of the earth. Things like plutonium concentration went up significantly because the natural level is so low, but I doubt they did much for aerosols. A clean nuke detonated over the ocean would do nothing. The whole point would be to produce vast amounts of dust i.e. be dirty.
- eveningcoffee 10y agoThere is an aspect that is perhaps not very well communicated. Higher the environmental CO2 level, more of it you need to dilute the air in the confined environment (i.e. buildings) to the desired level. This means that you have to move more air that will require more energy directly but also indirectly through higher heating/cooling need. It will also decrease the comfort due to more tangible airflow.
- mtempm 10y agoI'm interested by your comment, but I can't figure out what you are intending to say. Why do you need to dilute CO2?
- eveningcoffee 10y agoMostly because you do not want to die into CO2 poisoning when inside. :) Every building has some designed air change rate with the outside that will keep its habitants alive and comfortable. This can happen through so called natural ventilation or through controlled ventilation. As far I know, the common standard for the commercial buildings is 800 ppm (parts per million (1)) CO2 in the air. It is assumed that this level of CO2 would on average provide environment where people do not loose their productivity due to the air quality. This is what I mean by diluting - part of the CO2 rich air inside is replaced with the less CO2 rich air from the outside. Because habitants are producing CO2 with some rate, you have to replace the air with the rate that can keep up with this CO2 production rate. If the air outside has higher levels of CO2 then more of the replacement air is needed and the replacement rate must be higher to keep the projected inside CO2 levels. Replacing air faster will require more energy. Disclaimer: I am not a ventilation engineer, I just got interested of this topic during the home renovation. (1) Air contains about 21% of oxygen that is 210000 ppm of it. It follows that when the air feels "stuffy", it is not due to lack of oxygen but due to too much CO2 in it.
- mtempm 10y agoInteresting. What would the benefit be of complicating something as simple as ventilation. However, 400000 to 410000 is a very small percentage incresse
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- acabal 10y agoDoes anyone have ideas on how a mid-career software developer can switch gears into the clean energy/climate change industry, to do something to help? I've come to think that climate change will be humanity's defining moment, and that we'll all be suffering greatly come mid-to-late-century. I want to do what I can to put my professional skills to use in helping. But I'm not sure where to even begin.
- Pulcinella 10y agohttp://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
- throwaway29292 10y agoThis is a good link. I particularly liked the ending paragraph about motivation - I think it's all network effect. If my friends and people I look upto were working on environmental engineering then maybe I too would jump into it. Unfortunately, none of my peers work in that area hence I spend time thinking about new buzzwords and technologies instead.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- bjelkeman-again 10y agoI co-founded a SaaS data startup ten years ago, focused on international development. Most of our work is currently climate mitigation related (water, agriculture, poverty reduction) but also used in sustainable energy, like tracking small scale biogas production. The whole international development field is a USD 130 Bn/year industry, and there may be another USD 100 Bn coming in climate mitigation/renewables. They have mostly really poor key indicator tracking, monitoring of projects etc. Most of the work in none-industrialised countries have really poor data tracking systems, so that is where we thought we could make the biggest impact. But some of our tools are even starting to see traction in Europe. There is plenty to do in this field. Unfortunately there is an uphill struggle even educating people that they need to use data to drive decisions, but it is happening. Happy to answer questions.
- crimsonalucard 10y agoJust in time for earth day!
- pb000 10y agoOxygen oxidizes. Ancient breathing methods suggest 1:2 ratio of the inhale/exhale protocol. Pollution component aside, with the CO2 on the rise we will just be living longer ;) Things change, adjust, adapt.
- gshubert17 10y agoAn error in the third paragraph, which states: It stood at 280 ppm when record keeping began at Mauna Loa in 1958. CO2 was 280 ppm at the beginning of the industrial revolution. "The first monthly average carbon dioxide reading at Mauna Loa was 315.7 parts per million (ppm) in March 1958." [0] [0] https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2015/06/02/american-chemical-society-to-recognize-keeling-curve/#more-1297 https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2015/06/02/am...
- crush-n-spread 10y agoThis post is intended for folks upset and concerned about the state of the climate, that are unsure about how to make an impact, but are very interested in doing something; it does not directly discuss the article (sorry dang.) First off, I suggest you disregard politics and convincing your friends: Telling the ignorant masses to change their firmly held opinions and way of life is a waste of time. Do not delude yourself into thinking you'll get 5 billion poor folks (there are about that many) to not use coal power, or to not get gas scooters/cars. They will all do it - unless we provide a better alternatives. So your first action is to help make electric cars, solar power generation, and batteries as good as possible, and that means you go work hard as an engineer at one of these companies. Not an elec/mech/whatever engineer? Stop thinking so small; you have the internet, teach yourself enough to do a thesis level project and start applying. You can do this. The second, more dire action is to help with Carbon Sequestration (taking carbon out of the atmosphere). What you need to do is replicate the Elon Musk model of directing the Human Colossus [0] towards Accelerated Silicate Weathering [1] - That is, crushing and spreading silicate minerals along all coastlines and wet tropical climates. There are two links; the first covers how Elon Musk uses commercially viable businesses to fund research and advanced engineering to create leverage. The second link covers the science behind accelerated weathering; The abstract is that the oceans naturally uptake carbon from the atmosphere by reacting C02 with cations in the water that come from dissolved silicate minerals. This uptake de-acidifies the oceans and produces food for ocean life; for us to collect all the carbon produced in the USA last year, we would need to crush about 60km^3 of silicate rock (which is in abundance) and spread it along coastlines. To successful sequester enough carbon to save the ecosystem, this might one of the best options we have. The way you go about this is you copy Elon's model and make a business crushing rock. Thus, you must make mining machines and get into the mining business. Take a software based approach and use electric vehicles if you can. Vertically integrate, hire more engineers, get more clients and build a lot of machines. I think that's a good starting point. Anyways, I've thought a lot about this and if you are concerned then these are the two things you ought to focus on. Don't try and convince people! We need engineering solutions not talk. [1]http://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html http://waitbutwhy.com/2017/04/neuralink.html [2]http://www.greensand.nl/content/user/1/files/rog20004.pdf http://www.greensand.nl/content/user/1/files/rog20004.pdf
- EGreg 10y agoShow this to any conservative who claims that global warming has nothing to do with human activity. I guess it's just a giant coincidence that we live in the time of the highest CO2 concentration in millions of years? And the highest disappearance of species?
- Turing_Machine 10y ago"Millions of years" is an eyeblink in the history of the earth. In fact, the CO2 level has been much higher than this level in the past (like, orders of magnitude higher). The earth was fine. And no, this isn't the era of the "highest disappearance of species". Not even close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
- Turing_Machine 10y agoModding stuff down doesn't actually change the facts, you know. CO2 levels: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html The sources are all linked from this site. Note that the CO2 level in the Cambrian was around 7,000 ppm, or about 17 times the level that this article is having hysterics about. Note that even during the Jurassic (when there were plenty of large land animals and a flourishing ecosystem) the level was about 3,000 ppm (7 times higher than the articles "threshold"). I repeat: the Earth was fine. 2. Extinction. The Wikipedia article I linked has a chart showing the proportion of species that have gone extinct during previous mass extinction. Note that the currently touted "mass extinction" is just a tiny blip.
- burke 10y ago* A CO2 level of 7kppm is not compatible with human flourishing. * Consensus is that the elevated CO2 levels of the Ordovician-Silurian and Jurassic-Cretaceous periods came on over tens or hundreds of thousands of years, not mere tens or hundreds. This gave life a chance to adapt. * Previous mass extinctions have been caused by things like complete ocean ecosystem collapse and massive asteroid impacts. Despite the fact that most of our current loss of biodiversity is mostly related to our homogenization of our surroundings, and not primarily climate change, it is certainly noteworthy and a little horrifying that it's reached a scale that comparison is meaningful. People talking about worrying about the Earth are just using synechdoche to refer to humanity as we know it. I wish everyone would quit painting a strawman over this. The Earth will obviously be fine; I don't think any reasonable person will argue this point. Humanity's future is somewhat less clear.