We just passed 400 ppm CO2. CO2 levels go UP, they won't go DOWN....

[Junkdrawer]

Not in my lifetime. Not in my son's lifetime.

Carbon isn't like, say. your cholesterol level - something you can lower with diet and exercise. It's more like the amount of plaque in your arteries. And probably just as "easy" to remove.

As Bill McKibbon puts it. Earth is gone. We now live on Eaarth.

It's just a question of HOW unlivable we want to make Eaarth.

[DCBob]

1. its a serious warning sign but nobody seems to care.

its just a matter of time if things continue as they are now.

[Junkdrawer]

3. I think Leaders believe that this is an issue we'll address AFTER we fix the Economy....

They're treating it as if it were your run-of-the-mill pollution issue.

It's not.

[DCBob]

5. Im sure that is the case.

Most in the admin see the economy as highest priority and this can wait. Im not so sure that is correct assumption.

[egold2604]

2. It is a hoax by Al Gore and his cronies

We all know that Al Gore is causing this along with that climate guy from Penn State. If they stop spouting this nonsense, it will go away.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Like the peril-sensitive sunglasses in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy....

It's only a problem if you see it, right?

[rurallib]

6. Wondering just how high it can go?

and what does another 25 PPM mean , or another 50?
While it won't likely go down it most likely will go up, but there seems to be no limit.

[Junkdrawer]

7. Ted Roberts did a talk where he described impacts vs degree Celsius rise...

Last edited Sat May 11, 2013, 12:37 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm sure somewhere there's something that could translate THAT to carbon level rises.

[rurallib]

11. Well, that scared the socks off me - thanks for telling me about it.

You ought to post that in a thread.

[daybranch]

8. too important to mislead people

First off the danger point was never 400, it was 350 ppm and was surpassed awhile back. Second the statement that it will not go down is just flat unknown and probably untrue. Third preaching inability to affect our planet is not helpful, probably wrong, and it certainly helps the fossil fuel lobby.
We have no idea if or when CO2 levels can be reduced but we can start today by electing officials who will standup to the fossil fuel lobby and work for the people. To do this we have to fight Gerrymandering especially as it affects the House of Representatives.
In some way , it is like when we say our children made a bad choice, but unless they have to suffer consequences , they continue to do so. If we want real representation, we have to get rid of Gerrymandering so consequences can occur to the deciders.
Lets unite, stopping global warming, jobs creation, healthcare for all, a more peaceful world, gun violence, and about everything else can be addressed if we first get rid of Gerrymandering. Until we do this global warming will not be addressed.

[Junkdrawer]

9. Tons and tons of science that CO2 levels are persistant....

Some say a hundred years or so AFTER the anthropogenic CO2 stops. Some say thousands of years. It's one of the main reasons CO2 scares the HELL out of people who study the issue.

And, to use my OP's cholesterol vs plaque analogy, best to let the patient know the truth rather than pretty lies.

[Junkdrawer]

12. Here: Read it and weep...

http://onlyzerocarbon.org/carbon_dioxide.html

[former9thward]

37. Gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering could disappear tomorrow and there would be little effect on carbon in the atmosphere. China and India throw more carbon in the air than the U.S. and that is only going to increase. No nation with a lower standard of living is going to 'holdback'. Never will happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

[90-percent]

10. The world is run by treacherous cretins

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017117985

The earth is being run by powerful elites that think like rabid animals.

-90% Jimmy

[redqueen]

13. I was reading about that yesterday.

Those who were paying attention saw it coming. It's terrifying to see how steadily we seem to march, as if in a sleepwalk, towards our doom. Consumerism and materialism is ignored. It's necessary, people rationalize. Because jobs. We need a new economy that isn't based on people zooming around in the effort to crank out more and more junk, and no one is talking about it. Well, very few anyway.

Anyway... the planet will be recover, so there is that.

[Exultant Democracy]

14. Reports of our demise are greatly exagerated,

Is human cause global warming true, of course. Will the temp go up before it goes down, yes. Are we going to continue to lose a good portion of our biodiversity, yes on that too.

In the end will the earth continue to be livable and will civilization continue chugging forward, almost certainly. Geo-engineering technologies for lowering the global temp and removing carbon from the atmosphere are already pretty far along in the development pipeline.

People have been predicting the end of the world and the death of humanity as long as we have had predictions, and of course this prediction is batting zero. The great thing about humanity is that we do not depend on the vast and stupid masses to get us out of trouble. It just takes one Norman Borlaug to change everything we think is true and chart a new fate for our species.

[Junkdrawer]

20. As much as I hate the idea of Geoengineering (what could go wrong?), I acknowledge its necessity....

The big debate now is whether Geoengineering should come before or after SUBSTANTIAL CO2 emission cuts.

From what I hear, the next IPCC report will contain Geoengineering in the out years. They can't make the numbers work without it.

I think we need it NOW - before feedbacks take the possibily of control out of our hands.

[CreekDog]

39. Most of the earth's history did not include human beings

resting on the assumption that humans have always existed and therefore always will is a form of "ignorance is bliss".

enjoy your bliss.

[Exultant Democracy]

42. The period before humans isn't technically history, its prehistory.

Humans have existed for all of history and for an even longer period before history. Over the course of history apocalyptic predictions have always been common and they have always been wrong.

Do you think we will just twiddle our thumbs rather then Geo-engineer the planet?

Based on all the evidence we have on hand about the tenaciousness of humanity, betting on us is like betting cockroaches.

Expecting a people who can make a big bang in a bottle to just fold up and die because of a little bit of man made global warming is pretty silly.

[Buzz Clik]

15. Pray for an ice age.

As Bill McKibbon puts it. Earth is gone. We now live on Eaarth.

That's a tad hysterical.

[Junkdrawer]

17. Nope. Read the book...

http://www.billmckibben.com/eaarth/eaarthbook.html

[Buzz Clik]

19. I'll pass.

I have read a dozen books by journalists and other non-scientists pretending to be scientists, most of them by climate deniers who blow insanity out their ass and put into print.

Telling us the Earth is "over" is equally insane.

No, I won't read his book.

I am, however, reading Michael Mann's fantastic book and William Hay's epic tome, "Experimenting on a Small Planet: A Scholarly Entertainment". Hard core climate science by hard core scientists.

I don't get my science from journalists. Ever. I don't give a shit if he's on the left -- hysteria is hysteria and not helpful.

[Junkdrawer]

22. So you can comfortably condemn a book you've never read....

I see

[Buzz Clik]

23. I said nothing about the book. But, yes, I hammer the author's comment endlessly.

And, no, I will not read his book. The very best he could do is to summarize the scientific findings of others. I don't want this hysterical journalist summarizing anything for me. I can read. I can comprehend science. I can think. He will NOT do my thinking for me.

I've been beating the drum about climate change and it's dangers for two solid decades; but, just because McKibben and I are on the same side of the issue does not mean I have any respect for how he's approaching the topic.

[Junkdrawer]

24. If you're into Climate as an issue, I'd think you'd read the book...

if nothing else, so that you could ACCURATELY characterize his ideas.

You said:

"I have read a dozen books by journalists and other non-scientists pretending to be scientists, most of them by climate deniers who blow insanity out their ass and put into print."

Whether it deserves to be or not, it is one of those "must reads" on the issue - like "Storms of my Grandchildren."

If you have time to read the denier's books....

[Buzz Clik]

25. I'll think about it.

Hay's book is 1000 pages of densely packed historical exploration of the science that led us to where we are today. It's far more meaningful than anything else I could read by anyone.

I'll put McKibben on my list. It's a short list, but I read slowly.

[Junkdrawer]

26. It's a two parter....

The first half is his summary of the science, the second is his suggested program of action and adaption. Some good ideas, some "small is beautiful" wishful thinking.

You see, I too am a critical reader.

[Buzz Clik]

28. $12. 240 pages.

I'll get back to you after I finish it.

[Junkdrawer]

30. I'll be honest. I "read" it as an audiobook.....

I have an Audible subscription and I saw it was available.

Made for interesting rides on the local bike paths.

It's also how I did "Storms of my Grandchildren" - but that was probably a bad idea - too many references to charts to make it a good "listen".

[Cleita]

16. Last chance is to plant trees everywhere we can.

I always hated the amount of concrete we use in our urban areas. It's time to replace the cement and plant many of those areas with trees and shrubs, not only for the benefits of good drainage but for the plants abilities to absorb carbon and we have to stop cutting down and clearing our forests world wide. Then maybe a reverse of the damage we have done might start to happen and in a hundred years we might get Earth back.

[Junkdrawer]

18. THAT'S the spirit. Acknowledge reality - THEN work to change it.

Have you read Eaarth?

http://www.billmckibben.com/eaarth/eaarthbook.html

[Buzz Clik]

21. No. That's a feel good approach that is symbolic and nearly worthless.

There are not enough acres on land to sequester the CO₂ being spewed into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.

Quit driving your car and use mass transit nearly always, even when it's inconvenient. Supplement your energy needs with renewables and become far more efficient in your own home. Support cleaning burning fossil fuels over dirty fuels -- you need to choose between clean burning, least C footprint natural gas and shitty, filthy tar sands petroleum. It shouldn't be a difficult choice.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

27. Not really

You have to do it correctly: plant a bunch of fast growing trees all at once. They absorb a bunch of carbon in their early growing years. Once they've grown they of course settle in and just participate in the seasonal fluctuations in carbon.
One of the weird things I read somewhere (don't remember where) is that growing those forests the wood companies have and then using them for furniture buries a tremendous amount of carbon in the ground right now. Furniture has a useful life of around 20 years or so. So first you get the carbon absorption the tree does when it grows, then it gets used as furniture for a few decades, and then it gets buried in a landfill. Carbon sequestration accomplished! Of course, we'd have to run this cycle a lot faster if we want to sequester a bunch of carbon in a very short time.

[Buzz Clik]

29. Interesting approach.

I like it.

But, it is different than just planting a few more trees in your back yard.

[Junkdrawer]

31. I think Peter Sinclair posted some interesting info on mangrove forests...

a while back.

"Soft" geoengineering.

[Cleita]

33. I took a course in Xeriscape some years ago. Although it's not always practical, many

of the principles are doable and make a huge difference where it's done on a larger scale than one's yard. Done properly you can even trap water to grow edible plants even in desert conditions like in the Southwest. Some communities who have adopted it on a community wide scale have visibly stunning results especially in preserving watershed and maximizing mini-climate changes depending on the contour of the land and what is grown on it.

[Junkdrawer]

34. a little "light" reading for you....

http://www.naun.org/multimedia/NAUN/energyenvironment/20-464.pdf

[Buzz Clik]

36. Vegetation that grows in swampy land will be far better carbon sinks than "upland"

When leaves, branches, or entire trees drop into the water, decomposition is very slow. The abundance of vegetation stacks up the detritus at a rapid rate, and the accumulation of carbon is quite high.

Mangroves would be a perfect place to sequester carbon without little outside input.

[Cleita]

32. So because it's an upward climb we should do nothing according to you.

Even one tree planted and growing is better than no tree. But you go on with your glass half full approach. The rest of us don't give up. When I first moved on this tiny bare slab of land I live on, I planted five trees and several hedges. Fifteen years later, I have shade and the wind has been redirected enabling me to plant and grow things I couldn't before bringing birds, bees and butterflies to what was once a bare edge of a mowed down field. I wish my neighbors would do what I did. It would make a huge difference. Imagine if we all did what we could on the little patch of land many of us occupy?

[Buzz Clik]

35. read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2829117

[CreekDog]

40. Restore wetlands

[Buzz Clik]

41. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022828538#post27

[Duppers]

38. Thank you for this thread.