Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
July 2012 Atmospheric CO2 394.49 ppm; July 2011 - 392.59; July 2010 - 390.49 (Original Post) hatrack Aug 2012 OP
A nice steady 2 ppm per year? GliderGuider Aug 2012 #1
Didn't they already record 400 ppm in the arctic circle? truebrit71 Aug 2012 #2
They did, but that was probably part of the annual short-term rise, and regional in nature hatrack Aug 2012 #3
Yes I had also read that it was regional as well...but it is a precursor.. truebrit71 Aug 2012 #6
Some days I think I should have given more thought to having a child. NickB79 Aug 2012 #4
On the other hand, GliderGuider Aug 2012 #5
I feel the same way about my kids. emmadoggy Aug 2012 #9
Yeah, so we are doomed RobertEarl Aug 2012 #7
That's exactly what we SHOULD be doing, at least in the case of China and India. AverageJoe90 Aug 2012 #8
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
1. A nice steady 2 ppm per year?
Tue Aug 7, 2012, 10:44 AM
Aug 2012

Maybe not...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/04/640391/must-read-hansen-climate-change-is-here-and-worse-than-we-thought/

As at June 2012, the US Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre (CDIAC) advises that the present level of atmospheric CO2 amounts to 395.7 ppmv. The figures set out above suggest that by 2035, atmospheric CO2 will amount to 589 ppmv., and a commitment to an associated equilibrium temperature increase of 3.06˚C over pre-industrial values. A simple extrapolation to 2035 of the Mauna Loa data from 1958 to 2012 (f(x)=0.122×2 + 0.7867x + 313) would predict 449.9 ppmv, and an associated equilibrium temperature increase of 1.8˚C. by that date: it is abundantly clear that a much more dangerous track is now in view.

Given that we are seeing at 0.8˚C the changes originally projected for +2˚, what will the changes associated with +1.8˚ be like? Something like what we're projecting for 3-4˚?

According to Mark Lynas:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange

Three degrees alone would see increasing areas of the planet being rendered essentially uninhabitable by drought and heat. In southern Africa, a huge expanse centred on Botswana could see a remobilisation of old sand dunes, much as is projected to happen earlier in the US west. This would wipe out agriculture and drive tens of millions of climate refugees out of the area. The same situation could also occur in Australia, where most of the continent will now fall outside the belts of regular rainfall.

With extreme weather continuing to bite - hurricanes may increase in power by half a category above today's top-level Category Five - world food supplies will be critically endangered. This could mean hundreds of millions - or even billions - of refugees moving out from areas of famine and drought in the sub-tropics towards the mid-latitudes. In Pakistan, for example, food supplies will crash as the waters of the Indus decline to a trickle because of the melting of the Karakoram glaciers that form the river's source. Conflicts may erupt with neighbouring India over water use from dams on Indus tributaries that cross the border.

At four degrees another tipping point is almost certain to be crossed; indeed, it could happen much earlier. (This reinforces the determination of many environmental groups, and indeed the entire EU, to bring us in within the two degrees target.) This moment comes as the hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon locked up in Arctic permafrost - particularly in Siberia - enter the melt zone, releasing globally warming methane and carbon dioxide in immense quantities. No one knows how rapidly this might happen, or what its effect might be on global temperatures, but this scientific uncertainty is surely cause for concern and not complacency. The whole Arctic Ocean ice cap will also disappear, leaving the North Pole as open water for the first time in at least three million years. Extinction for polar bears and other ice-dependent species will now be a certainty.

If we end up with these kinds of changes within 30 years, God help us all. And if we end up with +3˚, not even God Herself will be able to help.
 

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)
2. Didn't they already record 400 ppm in the arctic circle?
Tue Aug 7, 2012, 11:09 AM
Aug 2012

...so the upward trend continues....

Not good.

hatrack

(59,587 posts)
3. They did, but that was probably part of the annual short-term rise, and regional in nature
Tue Aug 7, 2012, 11:51 AM
Aug 2012

The official ppm totals are based on global averages.

Not to worry, though - we'll get to the "official" 400 ppm either next year or by 2013 at the outside. My money's on next year.

 

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)
6. Yes I had also read that it was regional as well...but it is a precursor..
Tue Aug 7, 2012, 12:39 PM
Aug 2012

...rather than an anomaly though...I agree with you though, next year will most likely be the year we hit 400 globally..

NickB79

(19,253 posts)
4. Some days I think I should have given more thought to having a child.
Tue Aug 7, 2012, 12:11 PM
Aug 2012

She's two now, and I love her with all my heart and soul, but it brings me to tears thinking of what kind of future I'll be giving her.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
5. On the other hand,
Tue Aug 7, 2012, 12:22 PM
Aug 2012

If our species is facing an evolutionary selection event, she's probably very well positioned to pass some great wisdom-oriented genetics on down the line. I've caught myself thinking more than once that maybe we need more people, not fewer, so that whatever comes next, genetically speaking, will have the best chance of actualizing. I know it's cold comfort to have to take such a long view.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
7. Yeah, so we are doomed
Tue Aug 7, 2012, 03:31 PM
Aug 2012

What are we gonna do?

Should we get on an airplane and fly to China and Africa and India and tell those people that they need to change the way they live so that we, here in the jet-set America's, can keep our heads above water for a while longer as we 5%ers burn 25% of the fossil fuels?

 

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)
8. That's exactly what we SHOULD be doing, at least in the case of China and India.
Sun Aug 12, 2012, 07:35 AM
Aug 2012

Let's face the facts, Bob, China shares much of the blame for our climate woes, as corrupt industry heads keep shitting out factories at the expense of the environment, and over a billion civilians who'd rather have clean water and food than a crappy job at these slave-driver establishments that make them work 12 hours a day for small pittance, which, btw, is the same thing the GOP is going to want........

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»July 2012 Atmospheric CO2...