http://www.forbes.com/work/feeds/afx/2005/11/24/afx2353574.html Carbon dioxide levels highest for 650,000 years 11.24.2005, 07:24 PM PARIS (AFX) - Levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal gas that drives global warming, are now 27 pct higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years, according to research into Antarctic ice cores. The study, adding powerfully to evidence of human interference in the climate system, appears in the run up to a key conference on global warming which opens in Montreal next Monday. The evidence comes from the world's deepest ice core, drilled at a site called Dome Concordia (Dome C) in East Antarctica by European scientists, Agence France-Presse said. The core, extracted using a 10-centimeter-wide drill bit in three-meter sections, brought up ice that was deposited by snows up to 650,000 years ago, as determined by estimated layers of annual snowfall. Analysis of carbon dioxide trapped in bubbles in the ancient ice showed that at no point during this time frame did levels get anywhere close to today's CO2 concentrations of around 380 parts per mln. Today's rising CO2 concentrations are 27 pct higher than at the highest level seen over the 650,000-year time scale, according to the study, which appears in the weekly US journal Science. In the past five years, the average global temperature has risen by 0.2 C -- 100 times higher than is normal for such a short time scale -- and 2005 is on course for being the hottest year on record. _____________ Looks like Bush's Climate Change policy is working....
It's irrelevant whether it's entirely Bush/America's fault if President Bush claims that he's an environmentalist and that he is looking for a policy to reduce America's CO2 levels. Like it or not, the US produces more than a quarter of the world's industrial CO2 output.
I saw Sen. McCain in David Letterman a few weeks ago - he's actually become something of an environmentalist. I wonder how long people are going to try and explain away the human role in global warming? It's getting stupid at this point.
I wonder how many Chinese live in areas that could be flooded by rising water. I know that would be in the tens of millions in the States, not to mention hundreds of millions in other parts of the world. We really need to do something about this. It may be too late, but humanity has to try. We need a change in government in America to do anything here. The Administration only cares for the quarterly profits of it's friends. Golly, it's about time for Republicans to announce another study that they can ignore later. edit: I'm glad I moved to Austin... one of the safest cities and hundreds of feet above sea level! Keep D&D Civil.
As long as the US's production grows or stays consistent, all of us are screwed. Can't pressure other countries to reduce their levels if we're playing the game of who's the worst polluter.
Possibly close to a billion since most of China's population lives along the coast or in flood prone river and lake drainage basins.
What's more interesting, IMO, is the amount of methane that's in our atmosphere. No one is talking about that very much. From Core Evidence That Humans Affect Climate Change "The research, published in today's issue of the journal Science, describes the content of the greenhouse gases within the core and shows that carbon dioxide levels today are 27% higher than they have been in the last 650,000 years and levels of methane, an even more powerful greenhouse gas, are 130% higher, said Thomas Stocker, a climate researcher at the University of Bern and senior member of the European team that wrote two papers based on the core." (Emphasis mine.) How does methane get into the atmospheere and why is no one crying fowl (or bovine) about that? What "smells" to me is that this study is re-enforcing some people's beliefs and theories and those people are running with it. Personally going back 650,000 years still doesn't prove anything to me. The Earth's climate has been around for billions of years and while just over half -a-million years sounds like a lot, it's not in the grand scheme of things. We all know that the Earth has been both warmer and colder than the present many times in the past when there were no humans to muck things up. Just for the record, however, (so no one freaks out) I totally believe that the Earth is getting warmer and am totally open to the idea that Humans are the cause of it (I'm just not convinced yet). Also, regardless of whether humans are causing Global Warming or not I'm all for reducing the emission of green house gasses just for the sake of cleaning things up. I'm mean we're crapping in our bed's here.
Essentially everywhere in the world people tend to congregate in areas that have easily accessible water supplies. That is always low points where rivers run or along the edge of seas and rivers. Naturally, these are the places most susceptible to flooding. Assuming water levels rise significantly, no culture or country will be unaffected. China's CO<sub>2</sub> levels, as with everything else having to do with China are all about volumes of people. China will never come close to US per capita C0<sub>2</sub> production.
That LA Times article was a good read. Thanks. I agree that they mention methane in the article, but focus on carbon dioxide. What causes methane? I know cattle (your bovines, lol ) contribute a great deal, but in North America, at least, we had vast herds of buffalo for thousands of years. Is methane produced in other ways, such as refineries and oil extraction? From ever increasing and growing landfills? Cattle raising worldwide? A combination of things? Any methane experts out there? Keep D&D Civil.
People love meat.... If everyone gave up beef and overfishing, we wouldn't have potential food problems in the near future. It's not only livestock adding to it, but the fertilizer runoff that's changing the balance to surrounding water systems. With added nitrogen and phosphorous, it creates potential breeding grounds for microbes (produces methane) and starves off the O2 for the remaining native life there. People like to run with their convictions, but these are two seperate roots (CO2 and methane) and environmentalists already get a bad enough rap for "taking away excuses to live" from sane people...
For the methane questions... Methane is produced in several ways. Yes livestock actually is a fairly large chunk of that. Especially considering the intense amounts needed to sustain such a large population. But beyond that, there are several natural sources as well. Methane hydrates which are large pools of methane locked in the earth will belt out significant chunks of methane now and then and methane gets released in the oceans all the time from these underwater hydrate reserves. Also, there is methane pollution from various types of industrial areas although the amount tends to be overstated by some. As for the whole methane debate, it's been one of controversy and simply bad evidence. The UN came out with a huge study a few years ago that argued that methane levels had actually leveled out and weren't rising as rapidly anymore but other studies have argued that methane levels have skyrocketed. It's an area of debate that's not as cut and dry as the CO2 arguments.
Geologically speaking, climates change all the time, The Earth's tilt and orbit changes, Sun spot activity changes, the Earth's magnetic poles reverse, volcanoes fill the atomosphere with dust, vast undersea methane pools surface. Not to say man isn't affecting the eviroment but natural causes can be at a much greater scale. I guess the problem for men is that we live on the human scale, not the geologic scale. Energy consumption = quality of life and with six billion people on the planet all wanting to raise their standard I don't see much alternative to a dramatic increase in Man's greenhouse output, would anyone accept a lower standard of living for their children? Best we be moving to higher ground. One could suppose that Gaia will take of the imbalance herself; as man creates more gasses that cause global flooding, the means of the gas production will be flooded and balance will return. Here's a short easy read to get the best guesses about what can/will happen using today's available information. http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/abruptclimate_15misconceptions.html
Global Warming debates are skewed on both sides of the issues. The Environmental movement has probably overblown the impact and the causes while the right wing has pretended that it just isn't occuring. It's this two faced nature of the debate that is turning off the average citizen from caring or at least becoming fully informed. However, to say that we should just keep going and let the Earth balance itself out seems foolish. There are alternatives to greenhouse gases via renewables and greater efficiency in our use of resources that simply are being shut down by corporate interests. I'll give you an example.. We hear about ethanol as an alternative energy source for cars but what most people don't realize is that the latest energy bill called for subsidies for specifically corn ethanol rather than alternatives. Unfortunately, the most cost effective and resource efficient form is sugar ethanol. However, because the agricultural lobby doesn't want us to import sugar and wants us to use good american corn, we have to deal with more expensive less efficient ethanol that no one has access to. On the flip side, Brazil, a country we don't necessarily associate with environmental stewardship, has mandated the use of sugar ethanol. Now 1/3 of their fuel nationally is sugar ethanol and all cars there can use either ethanol, traditional gas, or a mix of the two. We can substantially reduce our emissions if we just cut out the corporate lobbying and adopt environmentally sustainable practices that don't cost as you much as you make it seem. Accepting global flooding and a transition to that means you accept that millions die or are refugees. The sugar ethanol example is just one example of the many possible policies we could implement that don't have a very large environmental impact.
How much biomass equals 80 million barrles of oil? per day? I'm all for you geeimsobored, but changing the entire world's social and economic infrastruture is a pretty big task. Personally I'd like to get the world's population down to about 1 billion so we could all live in mediteranian climates, I'd like bio-powered robots to do all the menial work while men create art and science. But Earthies don't play that. We always have to learn our lessons the hard way. I'd bet on disaster with long odds over utopia. Keep up the hope alive though! (just be prepared for when the **** comes down)
All this while we should keep bash China for trying to keep its population in check. US definately should encourage China to grow to be 2 billion plus so they will produce less CO2.
Why wouldn't they... our government has failed to implement any sort of regulations or incentives to reduce greenhouse gases. Our environmental policies are complete jokes. We havent had a chance to figure out if any of these policies would work.
