4 ms·

Are atmospheric CO2 levels rising to an extent that currently projected levels would have a noticeable effect in the same way?

dTal 8y ago
We're on track to reach 1000ppm by the end of the century, if levels continue to rise at their present (accelerating) rate. This is about the threshold where cognitive effects become reliably detectable. However, such levels also bring climate change on such an apocalyptic scale (4.5+ degree temperature rise) that industrial activity could well wind down as society collapses.
- chronic739 8y ago
  > We're on track to reach 1000ppm by the end of the century Probably won't be in my lifetime. Not my problem.
  - pizza 8y ago
    Probably still going to be your family's problem..
    - muro 8y ago
      Not with that attitude :)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - dwaltrip 8y ago
    That's an attitude that we can all apsire to.
  - dTal 8y ago
    Why was it so important to you to say something so perversely selfish that you felt compelled to make a throwaway account to do so?
- stale2002 8y ago
  This is absolutely not true. The predicted number is much closer to around 650 ppm, and that's assuming no change. In reality, things like solar technology have massively gone down in price over the last couple decades, and are only continuing to reduce in price. We will likely see 2-3 degrees of warming, but no credible scientist is making the predictions that you seem to be making.
  - dotancohen 8y ago
    > The predicted number is much closer to around 650 ppm, and that's assuming no change. Though solar and other non-carbon energy sources are coming down in price, world energy needs are outpacing them. Out CO2 emissions are increasing, not decreasing. I doubt that we'll see 1000 ppm by the turn of the century, but if the "no change" projection is 650 ppm then by simple matter of inference, due to increasing CO2 output, we should be higher than that.
    - stale2002 8y ago
      What I am saying is, that we will get to the point where it literally doesn't matter if world energy demand is increasing or not. Why? Because if solar power and others, continue to go down in price, as they are doing now, then solar ect will be cheaper than coal. From a purely economic stand point, countries will eventually just stop burning coal, because the alternatives are just flat out cheaper, even when you ignore the costs of global warming. That point in time, when alternatives are just straight up cheaper than coal, isn't too far away.
      - dTal 8y ago
        From a certain level of abstraction, if countries always did the economically rational thing, we wouldn't be in this mess at all. Building out solar capacity requires planning and foresightedness and political will. Hell, America could transition entirely to solar power for a fraction of the price of the Iraq war - in that sense, sustainable power is already cheaper than carbon-based, once you factor in the externalities of middle-eastern instability. If you factor in all the externalities - pollution, environmental destruction etc - then sustainable has been "cheaper" for a very long time. The trouble is that countries are not purely rational, and do not factor in all externalities.
graeme 8y ago
Indoor air co2 only lowers due to outdoor filtration. So, higher outdoor co2 will make us reach higher indoor levels faster. A change of outdoor air to 500 from 400 ppm, for example, means there's 16% less difference with indoor air at 1000 ppm.

dTal 8y ago

We're on track to reach 1000ppm by the end of the century, if levels continue to rise at their present (accelerating) rate. This is about the threshold where cognitive effects become reliably detectable. However, such levels also bring climate change on such an apocalyptic scale (4.5+ degree temperature rise) that industrial activity could well wind down as society collapses.

chronic739 8y ago
> We're on track to reach 1000ppm by the end of the century Probably won't be in my lifetime. Not my problem.
- pizza 8y ago
  Probably still going to be your family's problem..
  - muro 8y ago
    Not with that attitude :)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- dwaltrip 8y ago
  That's an attitude that we can all apsire to.
- dTal 8y ago
  Why was it so important to you to say something so perversely selfish that you felt compelled to make a throwaway account to do so?
stale2002 8y ago
This is absolutely not true. The predicted number is much closer to around 650 ppm, and that's assuming no change. In reality, things like solar technology have massively gone down in price over the last couple decades, and are only continuing to reduce in price. We will likely see 2-3 degrees of warming, but no credible scientist is making the predictions that you seem to be making.
- dotancohen 8y ago
  > The predicted number is much closer to around 650 ppm, and that's assuming no change. Though solar and other non-carbon energy sources are coming down in price, world energy needs are outpacing them. Out CO2 emissions are increasing, not decreasing. I doubt that we'll see 1000 ppm by the turn of the century, but if the "no change" projection is 650 ppm then by simple matter of inference, due to increasing CO2 output, we should be higher than that.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    What I am saying is, that we will get to the point where it literally doesn't matter if world energy demand is increasing or not. Why? Because if solar power and others, continue to go down in price, as they are doing now, then solar ect will be cheaper than coal. From a purely economic stand point, countries will eventually just stop burning coal, because the alternatives are just flat out cheaper, even when you ignore the costs of global warming. That point in time, when alternatives are just straight up cheaper than coal, isn't too far away.
    - dTal 8y ago
      From a certain level of abstraction, if countries always did the economically rational thing, we wouldn't be in this mess at all. Building out solar capacity requires planning and foresightedness and political will. Hell, America could transition entirely to solar power for a fraction of the price of the Iraq war - in that sense, sustainable power is already cheaper than carbon-based, once you factor in the externalities of middle-eastern instability. If you factor in all the externalities - pollution, environmental destruction etc - then sustainable has been "cheaper" for a very long time. The trouble is that countries are not purely rational, and do not factor in all externalities.

graeme 8y ago

Indoor air co2 only lowers due to outdoor filtration. So, higher outdoor co2 will make us reach higher indoor levels faster. A change of outdoor air to 500 from 400 ppm, for example, means there's 16% less difference with indoor air at 1000 ppm.