NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, the fourth IPCC report on climate change was released yesterday. It's the world's largest aggregation and synthesis of peer-reviewed science from thousands of experts, and its findings are stark. The report is considered conservative, having left out some of the recent research, which makes projections involving the melting of the Greenland glaciers, and collapse of the Larsen Ice Shelf in Antarctica. It looks like "critics" of climate change have no longer have a leg to stand on (if they ever did). It is no longer deniable that this is happening, and that we are the reason it is happening.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/01/climate.talks.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
The report by a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments contains the most authoritative science on the issue. It was due for official release later Friday morning in Paris. (Watch climate experts discuss the planet's future )

The phrase "very likely" translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man.

What that means in layman's language is "we have this nailed," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who originated the percentage system.

It marked an escalation from the panel's last report in 2001, which said warming was "likely" caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to up the ante to "virtually certain" man causes global warming, which translates to 99 percent chance.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070131.wclimate31/BNStory/National/home
-- Ocean currents responsible for such things as the Gulf Stream will slow, possibly by as much as 25 per cent. The report said it's “very unlikely” that currents will have abrupt changes during the 21st century, but longer-term alterations “cannot be assessed with confidence.”

-- Global temperatures in 2090-99 are likely to be 1.7 degrees to 4 degrees warmer than the period from 1980-1999;

-- Current models suggest global warming of 1.9 to 4.6 degrees would lead to a “virtually complete” elimination of the Greenland ice sheet and a rise in sea levels of about 7 metres, if sustained for millennia;

-- Sea levels will probably rise from between 0.28 metres and 0.43 metres, although there is a chance the increase will be larger if Greenland and Antarctic ice discharges continue to grow.

The IPCC report is the fourth to be issued by the UN-organized group of scientists, and draws on contributions of about 2,000 top experts from around the world, including many from Canada.

So the question is, what should your government do about this? What are you willing to do yourself?

What are you willing to do yourself?
Nothing. If worse comes to worse, at least I was happy now. I'll just kill myself or something if it all goes to hell.

Nothing. If worse comes to worse, at least I was happy now. I'll just kill myself or something if it all goes to hell.Cutting your carbon emmisions is easier than you think. Most of it (with modern technology) has no negative effect whatsoever on your lifestyle. Why *wouldn't* you give a shit? In your lifetime, people will be losing their homes, and ecosystems will be collapsing. We may not be able to prevent the warming htat will happen for the next few hundred years, but we *can* prevent. or at least make less, further long-term damage.

Well, I walk everywhere on campus, turn lights, appliance and my computer off when I'm not using them, I make sure windows are properly shut and I try to recycle as often as possible.

I do what I can with what I've got. Once I graduate, I'm getting a hybrid car and hopefully I will one day be able to get a zero-energy house.

Most of it (with modern technology) has no negative effect whatsoever on your lifestyle.
That stuff is expensive. I'm not rich enough to be a conservationist.
Why *wouldn't* you give a shit? In your lifetime, people will be losing their homes, and ecosystems will be collapsing.
Doubt it.

Well, I walk everywhere on campus, turn lights, appliance and my computer off when I'm not using them, I make sure windows are properly shut and I try to recycle as often as possible.

I do what I can with what I've got. Once I graduate, I'm getting a hybrid car and hopefully I will one day be able to get a zero-energy house.Bio-diesel cars are actually much lower emmiters, and much less expensive than the fancy hybrid cars getting all the media hype. Normal high-efficiency deisel and biodiesel produce far less carbon.

In your lifetime, people will be losing their homes, and ecosystems will be collapsing.

Forget "will."

People already ARE losing their homes and ecosystems already ARE collapsing.

That stuff is expensive. I'm not rich enough to be a conservationist. No, most efficiency measures save you money. Alot of money.

Doubt it.2000 of the world's experts, plus 133 government representatives, based on a huge pool of peer-reviewed science just told you. What, exactly, do you doubt? Or are you more comfortable burrying your head in the proverbial sand (on a beach that, lets face it, isn't going to be around in 100 years)?

Bio-diesel cars are actually much lower emmiters, and much less expensive than the fancy hybrid cars getting all the media hype. Normal high-efficiency deisel and biodiesel produce far less carbon.

That's true, but diesel engines are also a rarity in the US other than in a few types of trucks; it's mainly because pre-2006 most diesel vehicles didn't meet US emissions standards. They're going to become more common in the near future, but they're still a rarity in most sectors of the market.

Ironically, of course, that was due to the fuel being too dirty, not the vehicles themselves.

Of the options currently available, a Prius is my best bet when it comes to environmentally friendly transportation. It runs on gasoline, which is a lot cheaper and easier to find than diesel. Also, at around $25,000 or so, it's also not particularly expensive; of course, there's no guarantee that I could afford to lease one right out of college so I might end up driving something like a Civic or another fuel efficient conventional vehicle.

That's true, but diesel engines are also a rarity in the US other than in a few types of trucks; it's mainly because pre-2006 most diesel vehicles didn't meet US emissions standards. They're going to become more common in the near future, but they're still a rarity in most sectors of the market.

Ironically, of course, that was due to the fuel being too dirty, not the vehicles themselves.

Of the options currently available, a Prius is my best bet when it comes to environmentally friendly transportation. It runs on gasoline, which is a lot cheaper and easier to find than diesel. Also, at around $25,000 or so, it's also not particularly expensive; of course, there's no guarantee that I could afford to lease one right out of college so I might end up driving something like a Civic or another fuel efficient conventional vehicle.I think biodiesel is by far the cheapest. If you make a deal with some restaurant, it's basically free, except for the engine conversion, which I think is pretty reasonable and pays itself off quickly. Doing a bit of research into where regular high-efficiency diesel can be pumped may be worthwhile.

I think biodiesel is by far the cheapest. If you make a deal with some restaurant, it's basically free, except for the engine conversion, which I think is pretty reasonable and pays itself off quickly. Doing a bit of research into where regular high-efficiency diesel can be pumped may be worthwhile.

Biodiesel from algae is going to be going commercial in the near future. Through that process, we can produce enough to meet all of our needs with only a small amount of land needed. As a side benefit, the algae also consume CO2 in the process offsetting the emissions produced from burning the biodiesel.

I would definitely consider buying a diesel vehicle if I could get biodiesel for it; an ordinary mid-sized sedan with a diesel engine would be absolutely perfect.

No, most efficiency measures save you money. Alot of money.
I can't afford any hybrid cars on the market currently, and even if I could, I'd never spend that much on a car.

I can't afford any hybrid cars on the market currently, and even if I could, I'd never spend that much on a car.See above discussion with Vatelia. You could also look inot joining a car co-op, which is much cheaper than owning you own car, if you do not need to use it every day.

Or get this: I spend 0 dollars on a car, because I don't own one, or intend to own one, period. If you live in a city, there isn't much point.

See above discussion with Vatelia. You could also look inot joining a car co-op, which is much cheaper than owning you own car, if you do not need to use it every day.
You make it sound like that's easy.
Or get this: I spend 0 dollars on a car, because I don't own one, or intend to own one, period. If you live in a city, there isn't much point.
Depends which city. You ever been to San Antonio?

it will cost whatever it takes it won't be cheap but we'll adapt to greener lifestyle we have no choice...smaller more efficient homes and cars, geothermal, wind, solar, tidal and probably nuclear energy...hard to picture what the world will be like in 100-200 yrs the stuff of science fiction no doubt...

Maybe peak oil will save us from global warming. Or maybe it will put an end to global dimming and allow global warming to kill us all.

I don't think the scientists got a chance to edit the mistakes out of the article. To say that there's a 90% chance that global warming is caused by humans doesn't mean anything unless you say by how much. The probability that we change the temperature by more than 0.000001 degrees is close to 100%. The probability that we change the temperature by more than 1000000 degrees is close to 0%. A scientist's conclusion will go something like, "There is a 90% chance that humans increase the average temperature of the lower atmosphere by between 1.2 degrees and 2.5 degrees."

Maybe peak oil will save us from global warming. Or maybe it will put an end to global dimming and allow global warming to kill us all. Peak oil is nice and dandy, but htere is an AWFUL lot of coal left in the world. Just hoping that it runs out and we'll have to deal with it then is not an option.

I don't think the scientists got a chance to edit the mistakes out of the article. To say that there's a 90% chance that global warming is caused by humans doesn't mean anything unless you say by how much. The probability that we change the temperature by more than 0.000001 degrees is close to 100%. The probability that we change the temperature by more than 1000000 degrees is close to 0%. A scientist's conclusion will go something like, "There is a 90% chance that humans increase the average temperature of the lower atmosphere by between 1.2 degrees and 2.5 degrees."That *is* what the IPCC report says, meathead. Did you even read what I posted?

That *is* what the IPCC report says, meathead. Did you even read what I posted?I read what you posted. Your quote from the article had the confidence level without a prediction as I pointed out before. It also had predictions with "unlikely" and "probably" instead of confidence levels. It's the kind of reporting that makes people think one mild summer can disprove global warming.

edit: and the same kind of reporting that makes people think the United States has enough coal to last for 200 years as the only energy resource

I read what you posted. Your quote from the article had the confidence level without a prediction as I pointed out before. It also had predictions with "unlikely" and "probably" instead of confidence levels. It's the kind of reporting that makes people think one mild summer can disprove global warming.

edit: and the same kind of reporting that makes people think the United States has enough coal to last for 200 years as the only energy resourceClearly if you read the headlines all you're going to get is headlines. If you go the IPCC site, or look at the articles I linked in their entirety you'll find more details about what, exactly is 90-99% sure to be the result of human activity. It's more complex that just temperatures, there are other effects outlined as well. Remeber that this is an enormous synthesis of many, many individual research projects. The results cannot be outlined the way they would be in a paper with a single method and hypothesis.

Next scientist will prove that humans also caused the ice age and are responsible for the disappearance of the dinosaur

Next scientist will prove that humans also caused the ice age and are responsible for the disappearance of the dinosaur

Well, except for the decades of predictive and empirical evidence, the nearly total consensus of scientists across multiple disciplines worldwide, the support of political leaders in nearly 50 countries from all ends of the political spectrum, and the support of some of the largest energy and manufacturing corporations of the world as well as a number of religious and political groups, you're right.

It's all a lie crafted by environmentalists like the CEOs of GE, BP, and Duke Energy to destroy America's economy. Thank God ExxonMobil and its allies are out there trying to fight this attack on our freedom...after all, they've had our interests at heart forever.

Hi All

I think that while it is of course valid and important to talk about the ways we can be more energy-efficient on a personal level, there is something that is far more worthy of our examination.

What actions should our governments take in light of this report. Certainly some regulation is necessary, but to what extent? What is the economic fallout we face should we force regulation on polluting industries? Are there alternatives to regulation?

What actions should our governments take in light of this report. Certainly some regulation is necessary, but to what extent? What is the economic fallout we face should we force regulation on polluting industries? Are there alternatives to regulation?

I think the situation has changed, however. A lot of industries that are major producers of CO2 are better capable of containing emissions, and their businesses have diversified to include alternatives that are less polluting to begin with. It won't be as difficult now, with the advances in technology we've seen in recent years, as it was in 1998 or earlier to cut emissions.

Personally, I think a carbon tax should be implemented, with companies producing over a certain amount being taxed and those producing less getting tax credits that they can keep or sell to companies producing over their quotas. We could set a goal, perhaps cutting our emissions to 10% below their 2006 levels by 2016, and then 25% by 2026, then 50% by 2036 and then see if additional cuts are needed.

That would be a fairly mild regimen of emissions cuts, and companies presently unable to meet them could buy time by purchasing credits off of companies already ahead of their target.

I think a carbon tax should be implemented, with companies producing over a certain amount being taxed and those producing less getting tax credits that they can keep or sell to companies producing over their quotas. ...

That would be a fairly mild regimen of emissions cuts, and companies presently unable to meet them could buy time by purchasing credits off of companies already ahead of their target.

That is a highly effective and fairly simple suggestion. However, industries such as farming, where producers simply cannot afford to cut emissions without an initial investment that they don't have, may suffer from being grouped in with the larger industries.

That is a highly effective and fairly simple suggestion. However, industries such as farming, where producers simply cannot afford to cut emissions without an initial investment that they don't have, may suffer from being grouped in with the larger industries.

True. Generally, it will be small producers that will be hurt by regulations more than larger ones, so we will probably need ways to help smaller companies afford the investments they need to meet emissions standards. However, agriculture receives extensive subsidies from the government, so perhaps we could chain subsidies and whether they hit their emissions targets together, giving them an incentive to cut emissions in exchange for more favorable subsidy regimens.

For example, a firm that cuts its emissions by 10% more than its target for the year would see its subsidies rise by 10% above the previous year, while a firm that misses by 10% would see them decline by a similar amount, while firms that simply meet their requirements would get a boost by whatever the law's target is for the year, be it 1% or 2% or more. If we wanted to keep costs under more control, we could simply halt increases in subsidies outside of those given as a result of reducing emissions so that firms have even more incentive to cut emissions.

That is a highly effective and fairly simple suggestion. However, industries such as farming, where producers simply cannot afford to cut emissions without an initial investment that they don't have, may suffer from being grouped in with the larger industries.

So? Industries with high costs should have to pay those high costs - they shouldn't be able to externalize them on others.

2 questions.
-What should the temperature be?
-What point in history would you like us to return to?

I think they're fair questions.

2 questions.
-What should the temperature be?
-What point in history would you like us to return to?

I think they're fair questions.

1) not changing rapidly, for a start. there is no ought as far as an actual temperature value goes. but we are in violation of our ethical obligations by knowingly causing dramatic shifts in it.

2) the question is nonsensical

Are there alternatives to regulation?

massive punitive fines for fucking the place up

2) the question is nonsensical
No...it's really not. If you think the world today is going to hell because of us at what point in history do you think everything was hunky-dory? If the end is nigh now but wasn't before then when was it good? To when should we go back?

No...it's really not. If you think the world today is going to hell because of us at what point in history do you think everything was hunky-dory? If the end is nigh now but wasn't before then when was it good? To when should we go back?

The goal isn't so much to cool the planet as it is to stop it from getting warmer. It's clear that warming climate will produce a lot of negative side effects, and we want to stop that from happening or at least allow it to occur at natural rates; once that happens, we can work to either reverse it or prepare ourselves for the future effects of natural warming.

We're simply trying to avoid a disaster brought on by extremely accelerated climate change.

We're simply trying to avoid a disaster brought on by extremely accelerated climate change.
Extremely accelerated? About 1 degree in over a hundred years time is extremely accelerated change?

Whole forests were completely changed in the span of a couple of decades because of no-burn policies, that is what I'd call extremely accelerated change. And that's happened. Real damage done by meddling in things we didn't understand.

Extremely accelerated? About 1 degree in over a hundred years time is extremely accelerated change?

Whole forests were completely changed in the span of a couple of decades because of no-burn policies, that is what I'd call extremely accelerated change. And that's happened. Real damage done by meddling in things we didn't understand.
Well, the extinction rate on earth now is greater than any of the 5 major catastrophic extinctions in the fossil record. Most of these extinctions are directly related to habitat loss or isolation. Some extinctions are caused by climate change. The IPCC report has just determined that climate change is due to human activities. So we are causing very rapid and drastic changes in the environment leading to ecosystem collapse that are unprecedented in history (yes, including the dinosaur extinction). This is percieved as a bad thing. While changes have occured in the past (ice ages, and so forth) they have never occured as fast as now.

No...it's really not. If you think the world today is going to hell because of us at what point in history do you think everything was hunky-dory? If the end is nigh now but wasn't before then when was it good? To when should we go back?

i don't want to go back anywhere. we can do better now than we ever did.

Real damage done by meddling in things we didn't understand.

and therefore you propose to go on doubling atmospheric greenhouse gasses?

and therefore you propose to go on doubling atmospheric greenhouse gasses?

Yeah, I'm thinking that that would qualify as "meddling in things we don't understand"....

Yeah, I'm thinking that that would qualify as "meddling in things we don't understand"....

i, for one, would love to hear how it isn't - dosuun, care to enlighten us?

This is kinda long-winded, but I think the points are valid:

About global warming, there are a number of telling statistics. First, while global temperatures have only increased by 1-2 degrees C, temperatures north of the Arctic Circle (and south of the Antarctic Circle) have increased by roughly 10 degrees. The ice packs of West Antarctica and Greenland have shrunk significantly. Ocean temperature, which is considered the definitive indicator of larger climate trends (since the high heat capacity of ocean water means that much more energy is needed to produce the same change in temperature, meaning ocean temperatures are less capricious), has risen 2-3 degrees over the past two decades, in many regions by an even greater margin. Cold, nutrient-rich deep-water upwelling is decreasing and higher water temperatures in tropical waters is causing widespread coral bleaching. Desertification in subtropical regions is happening at a faster rate than ever before. No one doubts the temperature is rising, but what is really concerning is that it is rising much faster than ever before in the geologic record. The cause for this is undeniably greenhouse gases; the trends of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations and rising temperature are too closely correlating to be mere coincidence.
The idea of "global cooling" is an alternative hypothesis of the effects of global warming, that certain of its effects (increased precipitation and cloud cover from oceanic evaporation, for example) will reduce the solar energy reaching Earth, causing a cooling effect that may put us into another "little" ice age such as the one from 800 AD-1800 AD (approximately). A rather ironic possibility, but Earth's climate is such a complex system that it is difficult if not impossible to predict exactly what will happen. What is clear, though, is that something is happening.
So what can be done about it? This is, unfortunately, not a question with an easy answer. Part of the reason that there has been little meaningful response is that large industrial economies have a substantial inertia regarding change. It's like trying to turn an oil tanker in a narrow passage. Developing nations lack any other model to follow as a sustainable, "ecological" economic model has yet to be implemented in full on any sort of large scale, and so they turn to heavy oil-dependent industrialization as well. This results not only in a fossil-fuel economy doomed by diminishing supply and hegemony by foreign governments and multinational corporations, but also tends to lead those nations into a destructive cycle of boom-and-bust economics and escalating debt. If a sustainable "ecological" economic model can successfully be implemented, it would provide a powerful alternative for developing nations allowing them to become self-reliant and, possibly, to survive after the collapse of the oil economy while traditional industrial economies (such as our own) will not. Costa Rica is attempting this; they have pledged to wean themselves completely from non-renewable energy by next year. They also are pioneering renewable uses of their natural resources, such as ecotourism, permaculture, and recycling.
Unfortunately, significant obstacles still exist to the implementation of such an economic model. Many developing nations face skyrocketing foreign debt due to a broken international financial system designed to keep developing nations dependent upon the industrial nations and the multinational corporations and other monied interests they are represented by. Political corruption, disease, poverty, and ethnic/sectarian violence provide substantial obstacles to proactive efforts to improve things. The given is that the industrial world will eventually lose its power. The question is whether the developing world will be dragged down with us or whether they will find their own way to thrive in the new world order that will result.
The fundamental cause of all environmental problems, however, is overpopulation. The maximum carrying capacity of the planet is exceedingly difficult to estimate, given the sheer number of variables, particularly with climate change stirring the pot, so to speak. The four phases of environmental problems are as follows: first, there are too many people. Second, these people demand limited resources. Third, the exploitation of these resources produces side effects. Fourth, attempts to provide for the demands of phase two or mitigate the side effects of phase three also produce side effects, including exacerbating the scarcity of resources, and so the cycle is self-reinforcing. Virtually all environmental efforts to date have attempted to deal with phases two, three, and four, and yet phase one, overpopulation, the root cause, the 800-pound gorilla in the room, remains virtually untouched within the environmental movement, much less the larger political world. It's not surprising; overpopulation is difficult to contain and treads on all manner of sticky ethical issues. The very concept of trying to limit population growth can seem morally reprehensible to many people. And yet, if all we endeavor to do is treat the symptoms of environmental catastrophe instead of tackling the disease, the fact that there are too many people consuming too few resources too quickly, we will never be able to achieve a stable world.
Right now, we are kicking the planet. Every time we kick the planet, the planet kicks back. And the planet, being a lot bigger than us, also kicks a lot harder. Global warming, natural disasters, oceanic dead zones, toxic pollution, disease pandemics, droughts, famine, resistant pests and pathogens, collapsing fish stocks, coral bleaching, all of these are not merely symptoms of the vast ecological abuse we have collectively heaped upon the world, what they represent is self-correction measures. The planet, as a system in equilibrium, reacts to anything that alters the equilibrium. Right now, we are throwing the equilibrium off and the planet is reacting, trying to remove the source of the disorder (us) and restore the balance. Eventually, the only way for the planet to self-correct will be to eliminate the human race entirely, unless we can cease to be a thorn in the Earth's side.
The deciding factor of humankind's progress will be, barring some unforeseen miracle (faster-than-light transport, for example), our ability to give up the notion of adapting ecosystems to us and instead adapt ourselves back to our ecosystems. It is no coincidence that hunter-gatherer societies and even traditional pastorialists have strong ethical senses of connection to and respect for their environment. In this case, the origin of these ethical senses are entirely pragmatic: those who learned to respect their environment survived. Those who did not learn, did not survive. The moral imperative only arrived later. Now we have been distracted from either the pragmatic survival needs or the accompanying moral imperative, but they have not ceased to be vital. We must rediscover those principles. We must regain our recognition of the importance of sustainability, not as a moral luxury, but as a matter of our continued existence on this planet.

*snip*

And all of this -ish isn't going to reverse itself, either. Ever. Nope. Never happened.

Well, excepting the thousands of times CO2 emissions have increased and decreased. The planet always tries to maintain a state of equilibrium...

And all of this -ish isn't going to reverse itself, either. Ever. Nope. Never happened.

Well, excepting the thousands of times CO2 emissions have increased and decreased.

yes, and the biosphere can recover from a great heaping rock slamming into the planet and killing essentially everything. doesn't in any way imply that we should go about facilitating said impacts.

The planet always tries to maintain a state of equilibrium...

really? in what way, and how?

Okay, it seems we've gone from a brief period of enlightened discussion of subsidies and tax credits to debating THE DANGER OF GLOBAL WARMING. Why? Why are we feeding the trolls? Why are you killing my optimism the very day I begin posting? Now I'm cynical and bitter thanks to you people!

Penalites are not adequate deterrents unless they are so massive they counter the profits that environmentally unfriendly practises generate. And they can't be so big that it forces companies out of business, because if a company does 'slip up' than their bankruptcy is a detriment to our economy.

As for subsidising smaller industry to enable them to afford the changes needed to cut down on emissions...where are we getting that money? Tax credits are expensive. Ideally, large industry doesn't get fined because they go along. I would hate to see funds from the public coffers of health care and social services redirected to reward businesses for not killing the planet.

yes, and the biosphere can recover from a great heaping rock slamming into the planet and killing essentially everything. doesn't in any way imply that we should go about facilitating said impacts.



really? in what way, and how?

1) The atmostphere was clouded with tons of dirt and ash after the asteroid hit. Millions of animals died. Some lived. Then the world went on living again. Funny thing.

2) Because whenever C02 emissions went up, hisorically, they dropped again about 20 years later. This was found after studying cores of ice from the southern pole.

Also, wouldn't global dimming (essentially, particles of matter reflect more sunlight) increase after C02 emissions increase? That's essentially been the trend. Plus, with all of this added heat, water evaporates more quickly, leading to many more clouds and much more global dimming. Added to the fact that plankton species in the oceans multiply more in hotter, sunnier climates and thus use C02 to create oxygen, yeah, I do believe that this isn't irreversible.

Why should I care? We'll use up this planet until we have no further use for it, then move on. That's the way life has worked for billions of years.

Why should I care? We'll use up this planet until we have no further use for it, then move on. That's the way life has worked for billions of years.

Actually, if we continued trends that occurred after the Industrial Revolution 200+ years ago, we'd all have a decreased lung capacity, asthma, and possibly lung cancer from all the soot and ash the factories of that era made.

I think we've kinda changed a bit...

Also, wouldn't global dimming (essentially, particles of matter reflect more sunlight) increase after C02 emissions increase? That's essentially been the trend. Plus, with all of this added heat, water evaporates more quickly, leading to many more clouds and much more global dimming. Added to the fact that plankton species in the oceans multiply more in hotter, sunnier climates and thus use C02 to create oxygen, yeah, I do believe that this isn't irreversible.

Clouds are whacking great insulators, as well as reflectors.

Planktonic species are more likely to crash in a high CO2 world as a result of increased atmospheric CO2 being absorbed into the ocean and acidifying the oceans. Furthermore, any planktonic boom is limited by the amounts of either nitrogen or phosphorus compunds - food - (well except for sulphur eating bacteria - but we really don't want a boom in those).

Clouds are whacking great insulators, as well as reflectors.

Planktonic species are more likely to crash in a high CO2 world as a result of increased atmospheric CO2 being absorbed into the ocean and acidifying the oceans. Furthermore, any planktonic boom is limited by the amounts of either nitrogen or phosphorus compunds - food - (well except for sulphur eating bacteria - but we really don't want a boom in those).

The equilibrium constant at 25°C is Kh= 1.70×10−3: hence, the majority of the carbon dioxide is not converted into carbonic acid and stays as CO2 molecules. (wikipedia.en)

wait... no, you didnt just drop the C02/acid argument on me, did you?! C02 doesnt dissociate fully with water... not even one COx- ion dissociates with water in any really noticable amount to acidify the water (in the ocean, for crying out loud) to kill plankton. the best any CO- ion comes is H2CO3 (carbonic acid) and thats a weak acid.

though phosphorous and nitrogen amounts may be a limit, that limit isnt nearly being stretched now

Why should I care? We'll use up this planet until we have no further use for it, then move on. That's the way life has worked for billions of years.

Where do we go and how do we get several billion people moved there in a reasonable period of time? If you're seriously suggesting we just ditch the planet at some point, you better have a plan other than "they'll figure it out in the future."

1) The atmostphere was clouded with tons of dirt and ash after the asteroid hit. Millions of animals died. Some lived. Then the world went on living again. Funny thing.

2) Because whenever C02 emissions went up, hisorically, they dropped again about 20 years later. This was found after studying cores of ice from the southern pole.


It's very true that life persisted on Earth even after tremendous mass extinctions. However, once a species gets dead, it stays dead. Just because the Earth eventually will recover from and adjust to climate change doesn't mean that the damage will magically never have happened.

I call BS on the 20-year cycles of CO2 changes. Either cite it or it's assumed to be false. Mostly because that's ridiculous, as there have been many sustained periods of time with elevated CO2 levels (the Carboniferous period, for example).

wait... no, you didnt just drop the C02/acid argument on me, did you?! C02 doesnt dissociate fully with water... not even one COx- ion dissociates with water in any really noticable amount to acidify the water (in the ocean, for crying out loud) to kill plankton. the best any CO- ion comes is H2CO3 (carbonic acid) and thats a weak acid.

though phosphorous and nitrogen amounts may be a limit, that limit isnt nearly being stretched now

A weak acid is still an acid. CO2 dissolved in rainwater gives it a pH of 5.6. That's substantially acidic. CO2 dissolving in the oceans would alter their overall pH, and even small changes there would be disastrous for ocean life.

I call BS on the 20-year cycles of CO2 changes. Either cite it or it's assumed to be false. Mostly because that's ridiculous, as there have been many sustained periods of time with elevated CO2 levels (the Carboniferous period, for example).

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/carbon_dioxide.jpg

judging how i had my stupid enviro classes years ago, though the 20year thing was off, i believe that the C02 flux argument still holds.

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/carbon_dioxide.jpg

judging how i had my stupid enviro classes years ago, though the 20year thing was off, i believe that the C02 flux argument still holds.

You're correct in stating that CO2 levels do vary in something of a cyclical fashion. Now look at the most recent spike on that graph. Notice how it's much, much bigger than anything else in the past half-million years? Don't you think that means it isn't the same as those other variations?

And in the longer term, I believe you'll find a number of periods when high CO2 concentrations were sustained for a non-trivial amount of time (again with the Carboniferous).

I call BS on the 20-year cycles of CO2 changes. Either cite it or it's assumed to be false. Mostly because that's ridiculous, as there have been many sustained periods of time with elevated CO2 levels (the Carboniferous period, for example).You shouldn't. It a rubbish argument, but it's not wrong.

The reason it's rubbish, is because CO2 doesn't just vanish. It has to go somewhere, through chemical processes, and how fast that happens depends entirely on where it can go. Possible absorbation rates is what he should be comparing, not how fast something or other happened under circumstances completely & utterly alien to the current ones.

Further, the 'reversible' thing is rubbish as well. It's true there's a theoretical equilibrium & that the systems will eventually reach that state. What isn't true, is that the equilibrium is fixed. It depends entirely on the biosphere, which in turn depends on the climate, which in turn depends on the atmosphere. So offset things long enough & you change the point they can 'revert' to.

Global dimming is no solution to anything, as it introduces the same kind of environmental & climatic problems as increased forcing does. Further, global dimming has to be fucking extreme to result in the kind of drastic forcing needed to counteract the positive ones from GHGs. So esentially it's just piling problems on problems.

A weak acid is still an acid. CO2 dissolved in rainwater gives it a pH of 5.6. That's substantially acidic. CO2 dissolving in the oceans would alter their overall pH, and even small changes there would be disastrous for ocean life.

The acid dissociation constant for one molar (mol/L) carbonic acid is 4.3 x 10^-7... and thats before the second H+ ion deprotonizes.

using this and the 5.6 pH, the % of H2CO3 that dissociates with water is around 6.3 x 10^-8%... and thats in a .1 molar solution.

so, it follows that H2CO3 doesnt want to become seperated, and H2 and CO2 don't want to combine randomly into H2CO3.

(even mild citric acid is more acidic that carbonic acid)

You shouldn't. It a rubbish argument, but it's not wrong.

The reason it's rubbish, is because CO2 doesn't just vanish. It has to go somewhere, through chemical processes, and how fast that happens depends entirely on where it can go. Possible absorbation rates is what he should be comparing, not how fast something or other happened under circumstances completely & utterly alien to the current ones.

Further, the 'reversible' thing is rubbish as well. It's true there's a theoretical equilibrium & that the systems will eventually reach that state. What isn't true, is that the equilibrium is fixed. It depends entirely on the biosphere, which in turn depends on the climate, which in turn depends on the atmosphere. So offset things long enough & you change the point they can 'revert' to.

Global dimming is no solution to anything, as it introduces the same kind of environmental & climatic problems as increased forcing does. Further, global dimming has to be fucking extreme to result in the kind of drastic forcing needed to counteract the positive ones from GHGs. So esentially it's just piling problems on problems.

Good point. I never really said that the equ. was fixed, but that it tended to fix problems in the past, however.

If we die out, then I guess that might be one that happens. But the world isnt on some kind of balance that won't ever come back again.

The biggest problem is that once the icecaps are gone, it's basically over. A huge amount of solar energy bounces off of the ice caps, and if they disappear, all that energy will convert into heat. It's already happening in Greenland. It's also basically irreversible, once it gets to a certain point, short of painting Antarctica white and laying massive white mats over the north pole.

Why should I care? We'll use up this planet until we have no further use for it, then move on. That's the way life has worked for billions of years.
Yeah, thanks for making Agent Smith right about us.

wait... no, you didnt just drop the C02/acid argument on me, did you?! C02 doesnt dissociate fully with water... not even one COx- ion dissociates with water in any really noticable amount to acidify the water (in the ocean, for crying out loud) to kill plankton. the best any CO- ion comes is H2CO3 (carbonic acid) and thats a weak acid.

though phosphorous and nitrogen amounts may be a limit, that limit isnt nearly being stretched now

I'm afraid I did. As you said, CO2 partially disassociates to form carbonic acid.

Photosynthesis actually increases the pH of ocean water - as it removes CO2 and Hydrogen from the surface waters - a normal surface water pH is about 8.1. In biologically productive areas it can be as high as 8.4. This is good for plankton as they often use CaC03 for their skeletons. Deep water can have a pH as low as 7.8 - 8, due to the effect of respiration (which dominates the deeper waters, same as photosynthesis dominates surface waters)

CaCO3 shells dissolve as the fall through the water column - a combination of increasing acidity and pressure - this is why the deepest marine sediments are siliceous, and not carbonaceous. Any significant increase in acidity has a serious effect on the ability of plankton to grow. Now, CO2 levels have not gone up as fast as predicted because the surface waters have been absorbing some of the CO2, but this buffer is now believed to be full.


With regard to limiting nutrients, the global ocean is N limited - because N comes from shore based sources and deep water upwelling - but in local areas it is Phosphorus limited or even Iron limited. Experiments conucted in the Rhodes Gyre in the eastern Med show a P limited eastern mediterranean. So yes; the systems are limited because if they weren't, productivity would increase until they were.

1) The atmostphere was clouded with tons of dirt and ash after the asteroid hit. Millions of animals died. Some lived. Then the world went on living again. Funny thing.

right... your point being?

who cares how badly we fuck things up because in about 10 million years we'll probably have world of diverse ecosystems again? (well, not 'we' as we'll be long extinct by then, but you know...)

2) Because whenever C02 emissions went up, hisorically, they dropped again about 20 years later. This was found after studying cores of ice from the southern pole.

http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert/activitybook/pg09-co2.gif

Also, wouldn't global dimming (essentially, particles of matter reflect more sunlight) increase after C02 emissions increase? That's essentially been the trend.

a trend that has only partially masked anthropogenic warming.

i love when denialists move on to 'counter-balances'
"global warming, that's no problem - let's block out the sun!!1!"

Good point. I never really said that the equ. was fixed, but that it tended to fix problems in the past, however.Fixed? How so. The equilibrium has shifted radically numerous times in Earth's history, most norably during every ice age. I'm pretty sure the critters of the last ice age would be a tad surprised if they saw you claim the current equilibrium 'fixed' their climate problems. Hmm.. Actually, I think they'd be rather offended. I would if you called something that remdered my habitat uninhabitable & my life unsustainable.If we die out, then I guess that might be one that happens. But the world isnt on some kind of balance that won't ever come back again.I dunno where the extinction talk comes in. We'd be hard pressed to achieve something like that through messing with the atmos. But there's no reason to think the equilibruim will revert to the present state, should it change.