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

Jefferson23

(30,099 posts)
7. Important OP, thanks. snip*
Sun Sep 1, 2013, 06:52 PM
Sep 2013

The trillion-tonne question

To begin to estimate how much fossil fuels can be burned, one has to begin with a guess about how sensitive the global climate really is to additional carbon dioxide. If you think the climate is vulnerable to even small changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases—as Hansen and others do—then we have already gone too far. Global concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached 394 parts per million, up from 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution and the highest levels seen in at least 800,000 years. Hansen's math suggests 350 ppm would be a safer level, given that with less than a degree Celsius of warming from present greenhouse gas concentrations, the world is already losing ice at an alarming rate, among other faster-than-expected climate changes.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tar-sands-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-impact-on-global-warming

?! blkmusclmachine Sep 2013 #1
I don't understand your question... CaliforniaPeggy Sep 2013 #2
Because the Harper administration does not believe in climate control riverbendviewgal Sep 2013 #3
Even without the picture dipsydoodle Sep 2013 #4
Oh, ABSOLUTELY! CaliforniaPeggy Sep 2013 #5
Exactly. It's not just that the water is used. It is turned into toxic waste. SunSeeker Sep 2013 #11
They boil rocks pscot Sep 2013 #6
Sounds too pretty. Boil em by fracturing rock with gallons of toxic chemicals and then pump that Overseas Sep 2013 #19
That's fracking. Tar sand extraction is a lot worse. pscot Sep 2013 #20
THANK YOU. I just realized that I'd ranted about fracking instead of the tar sands. Overseas Sep 2013 #22
Important OP, thanks. snip* Jefferson23 Sep 2013 #7
Thank you for the link. CaliforniaPeggy Sep 2013 #9
You're very welcome. We have so many up hill battles..it is frustrating as hell. n/t Jefferson23 Sep 2013 #10
K&R - nt Ohio Joe Sep 2013 #8
And a complete waste of finite resources... Billy Love Sep 2013 #12
You got that right! CaliforniaPeggy Sep 2013 #14
Farmers needs to stop selling water to the frackers. That's the problem. Billy Love Sep 2013 #16
Wow, I didn't know that. Thank you! CaliforniaPeggy Sep 2013 #18
Stephen Harper couldn't care less about the environment. SylviaD Sep 2013 #13
I guess he hasn't realized that you can't drink money... CaliforniaPeggy Sep 2013 #15
Kick Scuba Sep 2013 #17
K&R. Tar sands should be a last resort not a quick buck venture. Overseas Sep 2013 #21
and 1 gallon of oil yields less than 1/2 a gallon of gasoline Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #23
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why are the Tar Sands the...»Reply #7