Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded - Bad Weather report

Xevious

CAGiversary!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4803460.stm

Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded
By David Shukman
BBC science correspondent


US climate scientists have recorded a significant rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, pushing it to a new record level. BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.
The research indicates that 2005 saw one of the largest increases on record - a rise of 2.6ppm.
The figures are seen as a benchmark for climate scientists around the globe.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) has been analysing samples of air taken from all over the world, including America's Rocky Mountains.
The chief carbon dioxide analyst for Noaa says the latest data confirms a worrying trend that recent years have, on average, recorded double the rate of increase from just 30 years ago.



Mankind is changing the climate
Professor Sir David King,
UK chief scientific adviser
"We don't see any sign of a decrease; in fact, we're seeing the opposite, the rate of increase is accelerating," Dr Pieter Tans told the BBC.
The precise level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of global concern because climate scientists fear certain thresholds may be "tipping points" that trigger sudden changes.
The UK government's chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, said the new data highlighted the importance of taking urgent action to limit carbon emissions.
"Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate".

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4803460.stm

Published: 2006/03/14 00:12:43 GMT

© BBC MMVI
 
[quote name='Xevious']Bush refused to sign the Kyoto agreement. I think he should rethink that.[/QUOTE]

You should get informed about the Kyoto Protocol if you think it would have slowed any signficant amount the level of CO2 being emitted by human sources.

And Clinton never even submitted Kyoto to the Senate for ratification. Why? The Senate, before the negotiations even took place, voted 95-0 to say they would never ratify an agreement that is structured in the insane and duplicitous way Kyoto is. You can credit Al Gore for going to Kyoto with the goal of getting his back slapped by as many people as possible instead of negotiating a real treaty with a real chance of doing something, and therefore a real chance of being ratified.
 
Um....

The President can't ratify binding treaties unilaterally. That's up to the Senate.

Constitution 1, Xevious 0.

BTW, I love that game, always have, always will. Your screen name makes me smile :).
 
There is still no proof of a causal link between mankind's industrial output, carbon dioxide levels, and the greenhouse effect. Even if there were, scientists agree that the greenhouse effect can't be undone, so we might as well enjoy the ride and stop whining about it.


"Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate".

There is no possible way he can substantiate this claim.
 
Ugh, typical response, "enjoy the ride and stop whining", there are plenty things as individuals we can do to clean up our ways, but it's really up to the major corporations, energy plants, governments to start recognizing the problems we've created. We're all too stuck in this convenience is best attitude, economically and as individuals. I don't agree with the attitude that the earth is just here for us too trash, and that the effects won't ever be undone so its OK to continue these wasteful ways. There is no way you can substantiate the claim that the effects can't be reversed...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']There is still no proof of a causal link between mankind's industrial output, carbon dioxide levels, and the greenhouse effect.[/quote]

Most scientists seem to put it in the "everything but absolute" category, just below evolution.

Even if there were, scientists agree that the greenhouse effect can't be undone, so we might as well enjoy the ride and stop whining about it.

That's not true. There are steps, difficult, but there are ways to reverse it. And, even if not, over time it does change. But there's a significant flaw here, undoing and making it worse are vastly different. Even if this would be permanent, that doesn't mean you should continue to worsen it.

There is no possible way he can substantiate this claim.

A lot of it is done through geological evidence.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Most scientists seem to put it in the "everything but absolute" category, just below evolution.[/quote]

Thank you for agreeing with me that there is NO PROVEN CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN HUMANS AND THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

There are steps, difficult, but there are ways to reverse it. And, even if not, over time it does change. But there's a significant flaw here, undoing and making it worse are vastly different. Even if this would be permanent, that doesn't mean you should continue to worsen it.


If it indeed exists, there is no way to reverse the greenhouse effect. If we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow and killed all the cows and animals to reduce co2 output, it would still occurr. Please link me to an article of even semi-reputable research that says it can be reversed. And, since there is no causal link, you cannot tell us with any certaainty that we are making it worse.
 
Bmulligan, i'm interested in reading about reputable research that indicates your statements as being truthful. Seriously, you think that cows are major contributors to global pollution? I really don't think you can say cows farting are anywhere near as close to this...

Maybe you got farted in the face a few times by ol' betsy, and it gave you a bit of a stigma, but comparing a field of cows passing gas too 4 billion cars guzzling gasoline a day, is really a hindsight and probably an attempt to pass the buck along from the real contributors too pollution.

And the next time you want to compare me to a "stiffened finger", maybe you should pull yours out of your own arse.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Bmulligan, i'm interested in reading about reputable research that indicates your statements as being truthful. Seriously, you think that cows are major contributors to global pollution? Haha, back at your uncles farm a few cows farting in your face gave you a stigma about them, but I really don't think you can say cows farting are anywhere near as close to this...


I look at you as a stiffened finger, being shoved directly into its owners ass, and you were sniffing it as you typed that out.[/QUOTE]

Jesus christ, don't you even know anything about the people you associate yourself with? Light reading would be an enormous help in allowing you to appear less unimformed about the moral foundations you cling to out of faith instead of reason.

Suggestions as to means to reduce this production include genetically engineering cattle, the bacteria they carry that produce the methane or altering their feed. Improved management of animals in extensive grazing systems and protected feeds are other suggestions aimed at reducing methane production. The duel aims of all of these methods are to reduce methane production at the same time as increasing production.



Environmental scientist Professor Frank Convery claims cows breaking wind and belching account for 35% of Ireland's green-house gas emissions. These have been linked to global climate change.
 
I can use google for myself...


Don't you think there should be more pressure on companies that create such toxins that pollute your air? We can't go wholesale slaughter cows, but we can force companies to spend a little more to dispose of chemicals and toxins properly. We can research different fuel alternatives and slowly push them into the mainstream. The real issue is the future of our planets ability to support human life, so you might not be affected, are you really going to say it too yourself that it doesn't matter? I assume you don't have children, if you do your attitude is even more shocking.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Thank you for agreeing with me that there is NO PROVEN CAUSAL LINK BETWEEN HUMANS AND THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT.[/quote]

Yes, but your statement is misleading. Little has absolute proof.

If it indeed exists, there is no way to reverse the greenhouse effect. If we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow and killed all the cows and animals to reduce co2 output, it would still occurr. Please link me to an article of even semi-reputable research that says it can be reversed. And, since there is no causal link, you cannot tell us with any certaainty that we are making it worse.

Greenhouse gases have increased and decreased throughout history, playing a significant role in climate change throughout. The issue here is the rapidity of the increase. But, even if we were to erroneously assume that they cannot be reduced, then that serves to only weaken the argument that we shouldn't do anything. If they can't be reduced, then all the focus should be on ensuring we don't permanently damage it even more.

Though the fact that greenhouse gases decrease over time is shown in the article you complained about. It stated that greenhouse gases are as high as they've been in possibly 30 million years. There is no catastophic event that occured around that time equivalent to what we see at the kt boundary. At the time of that mass extinction there were elevated levels of greenhouse gases (impact(s), volcanic eruptions etc.), but eventually they dropped.
 
Yeah I don't think linking natural pollutants like volcanic activity, or cow farts too the kind of pollution humans churn out is really a good argument. I mean, if you want to have a scientific panel evaluate how to stop cows from farting be my guest, but we can focus on fixing the problems we are creating ourselves...
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Yeah I don't think linking natural pollutants like volcanic activity, or cow farts too the kind of pollution humans churn out is really a good argument. I mean, if you want to have a scientific panel evaluate how to stop cows from farting be my guest, but we can focus on fixing the problems we are creating ourselves...[/QUOTE]

In that case you, much like Xevious, need to get informed about this issue. Natural CO2 emissions account for upwards of 98% of total CO2 emissions. Why talk only about the
 
Its quite true that the majority of CO2 is produced naturally. The problem is the fact that the amount of CO2 produced and the amount consumed needs to be roughly balanced, and we humans have thrown the balance all out of whack. Saying that humans only contribute 2% towards the total amount of CO2 produced per year makes it sound like a minor problem - until you realize that that 2% isn't going anywhere. Its building up, year after year after year.

The extra CO2 we're producing wouldn't be TOO big of a problem, if we were careful - over time, the extra CO2 will hep promote plant/algae growth, which would use up the CO2. The big problem is that we're REDUCING the amount of CO2 that the planet can process, by cutting down rainforest and polluting the oceans, so that even the natural CO2 cannot all be used anymore.

Increasing the amount of CO2 produced + reducing the amount of CO2 used = big problem. Its not something that causes major disasters immediately, but as the extra CO2 builds up. This is an imbalance that's been going on on a major scale for decades now, and our planet is getting more and more out-of-balance with every passing year.
 
This is exactly what happened on Mota, with Mother Brain all behind it.

We need to send out a party of four to investigate.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss'] Bmulligan, i'm interested in reading about reputable research that indicates your statements as being truthful. Seriously, you think that cows are major contributors to global pollution? I really don't think you can say cows farting are anywhere near as close to this...

Maybe you got farted in the face a few times by ol' betsy, and it gave you a bit of a stigma, but comparing a field of cows passing gas too 4 billion cars guzzling gasoline a day, is really a hindsight and probably an attempt to pass the buck along from the real contributors too pollution.

And the next time you want to compare me to a "stiffened finger", maybe you should pull yours out of your own arse. [/quote]
[quote name='Metal Boss']I can use google for myself...


Don't you think there should be more pressure on companies that create such toxins that pollute your air? We can't go wholesale slaughter cows, but we can force companies to spend a little more to dispose of chemicals and toxins properly. We can research different fuel alternatives and slowly push them into the mainstream. The real issue is the future of our planets ability to support human life, so you might not be affected, are you really going to say it too yourself that it doesn't matter? I assume you don't have children, if you do your attitude is even more shocking.[/QUOTE]


See here's the problem with your argument. You, like many critics, are blurring the lines between pollution and global warming. That's how the theory of global warming has gained so much popular attention is because people lump it in with pollution. The reason being that pollution is impossible to ignore or deny and therefore by putting it with something that has less hard scientific data (mostly intrepretive) it makes it seem that if you deny that global warming exists that its just as ridiculous as denying that there is pollution when in all reality, they are seperate things.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I read them somewhere some time ago. But Google is your friend:

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2005/08/09/is-co2-a-pollutant/[/QUOTE]

But Metal Boss is now a self-proclaimed google expert. Surely he can find out that his claim of 4 billion automobiles is incorrect by about 3.3 billion. Christ, even when I make shit up I can make it sound more believable than his nonsensical rants. Just to save you some precious time, Bossman, there are over 1.5 billion heads of cattle, each producing 600 litres of methane per day from their arse and their cud. This doesn't even include sheep and goats which bring the total to almost 4 billion.
 
But still, your assertions that humans are producing such a small amount of pollution is obsurd. and yes I have my masters in google.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']But still, your assertions that humans are producing such a small amount of pollution is obsurd. and yes I have my masters in google.[/QUOTE]

Evidently you don't have your masters in reading comprehension. But if assertions made are "obsurd," your Google masters surely should allow you to come up with some contrary nubmers pretty quickly, don't you think?
 
bread's done
Back
Top