Carbon Dioxide Levels Just Hit Their Highest Point In 800,000 Years

[MindMover]

Last edited Wed Apr 9, 2014, 06:46 PM - Edit history (2)

Source: Think Progress

The concentration of carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that drives climate change, hit 402 parts per million this week — the highest level recorded in at least 800,000 years.

The recordings came from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, which marked another ominous milestone last May when the 400 ppm threshold was crossed for the first time in recorded history.

""

Carbon dioxide (CO2) levels spike every spring but this year the threshold was crossed in March, two months earlier than last year. In fact, it’s happening “at faster rates virtually every decade,” according to James Butler, Director of NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division, a trend that “is consistent with rising fossil fuel emissions.”

400 ppm was long considered a very serious measurement but it isn’t the end — it’s just a marker on the road to ever-increasing carbon pollution levels, Butler explained in an interview on NOAA’s website. “It is a milestone, marking the fact that humans have caused carbon dioxide concentrations to rise 120 ppm since pre-industrial times, with over 90 percent of that in the past century alone. We don’t know where the tipping points are.”

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/09/3424704/carbon-dioxide-highest-level/

---

When are we going to wake up ???????

Where is the USA in this project ... ?????????????????????????????????????????????

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112767754

[CFLDem]

1. So what you're saying is

heating bills will be lower for millions of poor Americans?



Somewhat

[KamaAina]

11. Not necessarily.

The models predict an increase in all sorts of extreme weather events, including ones like the cold snaps and blizzards that pummeled the Northeast, Midwest and even the South this winter. This is why we say "global climate change" instead of "global warming"; the latter causes the peroxide crew at Faux to chortle "Global warming? There's two feet of snow outside!"

[RobertEarl]

34. Global Warming is the correct term

GW causes climate change.

GW is caused by increase in CO2.

Don't allow Fox news to change the terms used to describe the science.

Global Warming is most evident in that the Arctic ice is melting. One reason it is melting is that warm waters from the Atlantic, via the gulf stream current, are now flowing into the Arctic.

See this page for an image of increased warm waters flowing into the Arctic.

http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur

[AAO]

43. No heating bills at all!

In the summer. In the winter, 20 below is the new 0.

[Fred Sanders]

2. Indisputable evidence from the same observatory over 60 years. How have the knuckle draggers

managed to pollute the debate with denials based on fantasies?

[tclambert]

18. The oil companies don't want to have to pay damages.

They saw what happened with the tobacco industry, and they want to delay the inevitable liability phase as long as they can. They even hired some of those tobacco company "scientists" to help frame their denial arguments and throw doubt into the discussion. (Those "scientists" mostly specialize in the science of propaganda.)

They know someday global warming will become absolutely undeniable, and it will cause billions, maybe trillions in property damage and death. Tens of thousands of deaths have already been attributed to this.Inevitably the public will one day seek payback from the industries that caused then denied global warming. All the fossil fuel industries can hope for is to try to delay that reckoning. This is part of the reason the Koch brothers spend money on politics as if running scared. This is what they fear.

However, the momentum in the system means it will be too late by then to remediate the problem. We have to have already started if we want to avoid serious damage. Which means living with the coming climate disaster will cost even more than remediation would have cost ten or twenty years ago.

Still, we should start agitating now for Exxon Mobil and the Koch brothers to pay for their part in the current and growing climate disaster.

[Fred Sanders]

24. The carbon capture tax would be a good start.

[JonGeb]

30. That's Co2

I don't think anyone denies co2 is 400ppm, its temp increases that are denied.

[fasttense]

3. Never, Capitalism has so corrupted our societies

that I don't think humankind will do anything about this until it is too late and millions will die from climate change.

It's as if we are transfixed, like a deer staring at the oncoming headlights. Humankind is too concerned about a few rich fat old white men's profits to clean up the mess or even to stop making a mess.

It is more important that some greedy men make more money than it is to have a livable planet. Enjoy the earth while you can.

I wish I had never had children.

[CFLDem]

4. It's all good.

[Auggie]

9. Well said ...

though I never had children.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

31. Ditto...

... I am loathe to appear fatalistic, but just when it was the time to plan for such, along game Reagan...

[tclambert]

19. Yeah, I just decided to stop using the term "climate change" and move on to "climate disaster."

I think we have passed the point where we can save the Greenland ice sheet. We will likely lose a significant fraction of the Antarctic ice sheet in the next 200 years. Just about every tipping point has been reached, every positive feedback loop has been activated. We won't go the way of Venus, but we will make it to a tropical world with much higher sea levels and much less land area. And we can only guess what effects it will have on precipitation patterns.

[Auggie]

20. Climate Disaster … most excellent!

[Prophet 451]

40. Sadly, I think you're right

The corrupt have convinced too many. I'm glad I never had kids.

[Doctor_J]

44. Corrupted? Try killed

IMO it's already too late.

[The2ndWheel]

49. That's far too small of a view

Capitalism and greedy old white men making money doesn't get to the heart of it. That's the last shingle on the roof, not the foundation of the house.

[GliderGuider]

51. Capitalism resulted from a long period of cultural selection

Especially cultural selection in an environment of growing energy and resource surplus. The world has experienced economic growth far longer than capitalism has been around, so capitalism per se isn't the root cause. Capitalism won out over the other systems that have been tried because it's more effective at generating growth from the planet's resource and energy stocks. Greedy old (not necessarily white) men are just a by-product of that development.

Capitalism and growth are now locked in a positive feedback loop that is unlikely to be broken until either resource availability begins to decline; the climate changed enough to make further growth impossible; or the system begins to disintegrate due to its own size and complexity.

[dipsydoodle]

5. “a single molecule of carbon dioxide can remain aloft for hundreds of years"

Historical emissions,

Since carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere can stay there for centuries, historical emissions are just as important – or even more important – than current emissions. The tricky question of historical responsibility is one of the key tensions in the process of negotiating a global climate deal. The following figures from the World Resources Institute show the top 10 nations as measured by their cumulative emissions between 1850 and 2007. The US tops the list by a wide margin – though Chinese emissions have risen significantly since these data were assembled.

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change

[freshwest]

41. I think is where the *We're #1!* chants begin. n/t

[loudsue]

6. There are those who ARE awake. The rest will either NEVER wake up, or will

finally wake up just in time to be put to sleep indefinitely.

We have reached the point of no return.

Edited to add that this is probably the gloomiest post I've ever posted.

[jeff47]

7. What we must do is clear.

Clearly, the answer is to shut down the Mauna Loa Observatory.

(If you're a Republican)

[7962]

12. Thats the funniest thing I've heard today!!! Good one.

[yuiyoshida]

28. is that the place they

put into cans, Macadamia Nuts? (kidding) I do love my KONA coffee though, YUM!

[Doctor_J]

45. Maybe the head researcher has boxes in his garage

or is gay!!11!

[hlthe2b]

8. I'm sorry to have to admit this, but seeing this ever increasing horrendous climate news,

makes me feel intense relief that I don't have children.

That certainly doesn't mean I don't care about today and tomorrow's youth--nor that I'm not appalled at the world being left when I'm gone. But, feeling so helpless to fight the ignorance + greed that seems pervasive in this country would be even harder to accept with children/grandchildren. I truly empathize with those who do...

[Doctor_J]

46. My kids are ~30 and will likely not see the worst of this, but I fear the grandkids will

I don't know if it will go Mad Max before 2100 but it's going to be bad.

[KamaAina]

10. Learn to swim.

[Aldo Leopold]

13. Haven't you heard?

CO2 has soporific properties.

Gosh, come to think of it, I wonder if I just accidentally hit upon something: human beings are suffering the cognitive consequences of rising CO2 concentrations. We're becoming even more dopey with every ppm increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

In all seriousness, though, this is most unwelcome news. But thanks for posting it.

[CrispyQ]

14. I think we're going into the dustbin of history, all the while partying like it's 1999.

There is no political will to address this issue. The rich are busy pilfering everything they can, to create the biggest cushion they can, cuz they know the fall is coming.

We are consuming our ecosystem for the profit of a few.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

27. Yeah, "The future ain't what it used to be".

[hatrack]

38. Yes, like their money and private islands and gated mansions will keep them safe

Nice try, guys - and who will watch the watchers?

[blkmusclmachine]

15. Pray harder.

[tclambert]

16. It wasn't me. I was holding my breath at the time.

[7962]

17. Any attempt to change anything that doesnt include China and India is just a waste of time

Kyoto didnt. I dont know about any newer proposals, but if it doesnt include all countries equally, then its just window dressing

[xocet]

23. You are incorrect. The point is to start. Later, any approach that works can be

expanded to other countries including China and India. Equal inclusion as a criterion for a beginning program is also wrong - not all countries pollute equally.

It seems that you prefer that nothing be done.

[CFLDem]

25. Well here on planet earth

we know that China and India will not do their part until

A) clean energy is directly cheaper than hydrocarbon energy.

Or B) they mellow out once they reach superpower status.

"A" will happen soon and "B" may never happen.

Either way we are getting all worked up for nothing.

[xocet]

33. Who cares what China and India do? Some country has to start. Since the USA is the "greatest"

country on the planet, why should it not be the USA that starts the shift away from fossil fuels and nonrenewable energy? That would be leadership and would be wise. China and India can be asked to follow suit later.

[daleo]

48. China spent more on renewables than fossil fuel last year

They are keen to reduce pollution and reduce dependence on supplies they can't control.

[7962]

29. Why should any country be exempt from new less-polluting rules? They shouldnt be

Unless you're one who thinks other countries should be allowed to "catch up" to more more developed countries. If this was a virus, wouldnt we be including all countries in an attempt to stop it? When is the last time any US or European cities looked like this???w=720

Our air and water is much cleaner now than it was just 40 yrs ago. Because we changed our way of doing things. There is still a lot to be done, but I'm not willing to force us into making drastic cutbacks while the Chinese pump as much as they want into the air. Which eventually floats over the Pacific to HERE.
And if they were included in carbon restrictions, they likely wouldnt abide by them anyway.

[xocet]

32. The argument you make is a delaying tactic. It demands all or nothing - therefore nothing is done.

The USA needs to show some leadership on this issue. If the USA can find the right technology to move ahead and change things for the better, it will be to our benefit and eventually to the benefit of the world.

[7962]

36. If we can find the right technology. Yes, but it's a big "if"

[Thor_MN]

47. That is conservative style binary thinking.

All or nothing, there can only be two options, no shades of gray.

[Demonaut]

21. we have records going back 800,000 years? unpossible

" the highest level recorded in at least 800,000 years."

it could have been worded differently

[MindMover]

22. well give or take a few centuries ...

let us just say since recorded history began ....

[NickB79]

35. Yes we do

Ice cores, tree rings, ocean sediment layers, fossils, etc.

Added up and it paints a very accurate record of the ancient atmosphere.

[valerief]

26. I think plants will be our planet's next sentient beings. nt

[hatrack]

37. Maybe sentience is overrated?

Kind of looks that way these days . . .

[Doctor_J]

50. my lilacs are already more sentient than Ted Cruz

[valerief]

53. And I'm sure they smell better, too! nt

[Cal Carpenter]

39. Who cares? So did the S & P!!

[joshcryer]

42. This happens every year.

[fujiyama]

52. The whole rhetoric surrounding climate change needs to change...

Let's face it, people around the world want a better standard of living and that will, for the foreseeable future require the burning of more fossil fuels. Does anyone believe Indians and Chinese are going to consume less even if we do cut back (like that's going to happen)?

It's time to learn to adapt to climate change because any attempts to decrease CO2 emissions are pretty much futile. Alarmist rhetoric is starting to have the opposite effect. Many people are simply tuning out altogether. Perhaps people won't be concerned until it's "too late". Well it probably is too late anyways and likely was a while ago.

I'm not saying don't make efforts to cut back emissions. The last thing I want is for our cities to have the air quality as those in China. But cutting emissions is only going to do so much and renewables are not going to replace or even have significant market penetration for at least another several decades (and even then I think it will limited). I'd first look to cutting out or reducing coal, but that requires thinking about expanded nuclear usage, which is politically unpopular.

I think it's time to invest heavily in infrastructure improvements, particularly for coastal cities. Building better and stronger levees would be an important part of this. Former mayor Bloomberg, of whom I'm not a particularly big fan of, actually had some good ideas on this.