Green Group discussion

Climate Change > Carbon parts per million is at a new high

Comments Showing 1-23 of 23 (23 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Jimmy (new)

Jimmy | 1617 comments Mod
When are we going to panic?

message 2: by Jimmy (new)

Jimmy | 1617 comments Mod
And here is a look at the methane rise:

message 3: by Robert (new)

Robert Zwilling | 2249 comments Carbon dioxide levels hitting levels from 50 million years ago. In the early Eocene period 50 million years ago, life was good for the species that lived during that period. The big difference was that there was not one single human being on the planet.

The distortion in the carbon dioxide levels is our signature and only a signature on a much greater book that details our activities. The carbon dioxide is a symptom, getting rid of it is not a cure.

The National Science Foundation and the American Chemical Society funded the research. The study forget to include human activity in their analysis of what the future might look like. Probably wouldn't have been able to come up with any conclusions if they included that monkey wrench in their calculations.

message 4: by Clare (new)

Clare O'Beara | 6810 comments Mod
Thanks Jimmy. I found this interesting moving graph on SA as well. Quite scary.

message 5: by Jimmy (new)

Jimmy | 1617 comments Mod
Thank you, Clare, for the follow-up.

message 6: by Ken (new)

Ken Kroes (ken_kroes) | 69 comments It looks like, overall, CO2 emissions rose in the EU by 1.8% from 2016 to 2017. Britain and a few other countries have done well at cutting emissions, but others, such as Italy and Spain have had big increases.

message 7: by Jimmy (new)

Jimmy | 1617 comments Mod
NASA's carbon monitoring program has been killed by the Trump administration:

message 8: by Robert (last edited May 16, 2018 10:46AM) (new)

Robert Zwilling | 2249 comments I don't think a 2% change either way is going to change the situation at this point in time. As the Earth continues to warm up by itself, all the locked up carbon naturally bound in place at previous cooler temperature levels will be released no matter what we do. Ironically it's like quitting smoking, one less cigarette a day is nothing compared to only one cigarette a day.

message 9: by Jimmy (new)

Jimmy | 1617 comments Mod
Here is an excellent explanation of the science behind science denial:

message 10: by Robert (new)

Robert Zwilling | 2249 comments Everybody has a limit as to how far they will go to change the situation we all find ourselves in. When you start talking about how profit based solutions pollutes the same earth we all live on by allowing the not best possible solutions to be utilized, the people invested in money start saying that is how the system works and it can't be changed, including their own investment schemes and every other financial instrument that legitimizes the theory of investment for profit based solutions for social and ecological situations.

message 11: by Clare (last edited May 14, 2018 11:21PM) (new)

Clare O'Beara | 6810 comments Mod
Plenty of profit to be made fitting a solar panel on every home and selling them, to developing nations.

message 12: by Jimmy (new)

message 13: by Robert (new)

Robert Zwilling | 2249 comments Its hard to know whats going on by looking at just parameter. I am not saying anything good is coming out of anything that is happening. In fact, my writings point to the conclusion that nothing good is happening.

Its not black and white, but a continually shifting line in the sand. Current creatures with sea shells will lose their shells as the acidity of the ocean increases. But at the same time creatures that can build thicker shells at higher acidity levels will push out the ones that can't make thicker shells. More than likely the ones that can operate at higher acidity ratings are not doing so good at the lower ph levels. Might have smaller bodies, smaller shells.

Make no mistake about it, some life is going to disappear. But others will take their place, and there is no guarantee that the replacements will look anything like what they are replacing. No matter how smart mammals are there is no guarantee that the new climate will support life that is supportive of mammals.

One thing people might want to keep in mind, is that if we are going to use single parameters to make conclusions is that the surge in the spike of CO2 means that there had better be a spike in the opposite direction of the production of CO2 right now. Not just a couple of percentage points, but a whole lot, say something that matches the upwards spike itself.

Trying to find a graph for CO2 over the past couple of hundred million years. I figure it can be calculated by the types of minerals laid down in the geologic ages and by composition of fossils and other such things.

I don't think you can figure out what the temperature was in the past to the same degree of accuracy by reading those same parameters. Although people are coming up with graphs showing all kinds of numbers for temperatures to "prove" all kinds of statements.

message 14: by Jimmy (new)

Jimmy | 1617 comments Mod
Scrapping the carbon monitoring system:

message 15: by Clare (new)

Clare O'Beara | 6810 comments Mod
While the EU is being taken to court by citizens who want policy changed in favour of a swifter decline in carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions.

message 16: by Brian (new)

Brian Burt | 463 comments Mod
And here in the U.S., the climate lawsuit brought by 21 young people continues to move slowly through the court system:

Children’s Climate Lawsuit Heads to Trial: Court Rejects Trump Attempt to Block It

The younger generation of Americans gives me hope. Climate action in the U.S. won't be driven by our federal government; it will have to come from states, localities, and grassroots activism.

message 17: by Clare (new)

Clare O'Beara | 6810 comments Mod
Because Trump just loves his children I guess.

message 18: by Jimmy (new)

Jimmy | 1617 comments Mod
Removing CO2 from the air:

message 19: by Brian (new)

Brian Burt | 463 comments Mod
Jimmy wrote: "Removing CO2 from the air:"

Very inspiring. Scientists like Ms. Wilcox give me hope! And I take solace from her common-sense emphasis on a multi-pronged approach, including regulation, carbon taxation, sequestration, etc.

Great to hear how many brilliant people are fighting the good fight for all of us!

message 20: by Clare (new)

Clare O'Beara | 6810 comments Mod
After the recent media highlighting of the track we are on to hothouse Earth, some feedback from the authors of the paper. They reiterate that we can still turn matters around.
In fact,
"Diana Liverman, a climate scientist and co-author of the paper called out the media directly:

“Clearly people aren’t reading the paper we wrote where our point is exactly that Hothouse Earth is not our destiny and that social system feedbacks are starting to move us to the Stable Earth. But media goes for worst case and makes it sound certain.”"

message 21: by Clare (new)

Clare O'Beara | 6810 comments Mod
A nice video which goes to Siberia to look at the methane bubbling out from lakes, collapsing ground and a man determined to bring back large herds of grazers.

message 22: by Clare (new)

Clare O'Beara | 6810 comments Mod
This new process uses liquid metal as a catalyst to turn gaseous CO2 back into a carbon solid, like coal. The scientists involved say this could be useful for secure storage, or it could be a source of fuel.

message 23: by Robert (new)

Robert Zwilling | 2249 comments It might be better to just sequester the stuff until a better way of handling the entire situation can be discerned. Recycling carbon and plastic back into the environment is lowering the overall removal rate at a time when every little piece counts. Enough free carbon has already been released into the environment to last us quite a long time. Plastic is just another form of carbon. While plastic is cleaner than coal, it is still dirty carbon.

back to top