CO2 already at the danger level

[Old Rocks]

The present level of CO2 is already at a point where we are headed for major problems. And that is without the continueing positive feedbacks that we are seeing in the release of CO2 and CH4 sequestered in the permafrost and ocean clathrates.


Climate Change: The Next Generation: BBC: Current 400 ppm CO2 levels equivalent to 25-40 m higher sea levels during the Miocene; should go back to 180-280 ppm

A new historical record of carbon dioxide levels suggests current political targets on climate may be "playing with fire," scientists say.



Researchers used ocean sediments to plot CO2 levels back 20 million years.

Levels similar to those now commonly regarded as adequate to tackle climate change were associated with sea levels 25-40 m (80-130 ft.) higher than today.

Scientists write in the journal Science that this extends knowledge of the link between CO2 and climate back in time.

The last 800,000 years have been mapped relatively well from ice cores drilled in Antarctica, where historical temperatures and atmospheric content have left a series of chemical clues in the layers of ice.

But looking back further has been more problematic; and the new record contains much more precise estimates of historical records than have been available before for the 20-million-year timeframe.

Sustained levels

The new research was able to look back to the Miocene period, which began a little over 20 million years ago.

At the start of the period, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere stood at about 400 parts per million (ppm) before beginning to decline about 14 million years ago -- a trend that eventually led to formation of the Antarctic icecap and perennial sea ice cover in the Arctic.

 

[Si modo]

A blog?

One would think an article from a scientific journal would be a more appropriate source when attempting to discuss science. But, that's just me.

 

[Old Rocks]

We are going to hand our grandchildren a world far more hostile than the one our grandparents gave us.

Climate Change: The Next Generation: Robert Corell: significant global temperature rise is likely to occur even if industrialized and developed countries enact every climate policy they have proposed at this point

Climate researchers now predict the planet will warm by 6.3 °F by the end of the century even if the world's leaders fulfill their most ambitious climate pledges, a much faster and broader scale of change than forecast just two years ago, according to a report released Thursday by the United Nations Environment Program.

The new overview of global warming research, aimed at marshaling political support for a new international climate pact by the end of the year, highlights the extent to which recent scientific assessments have outstripped the predictions issued by the Nobel Prize-winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007.

Robert Corell, who chairs the Climate Action Initiative and reviewed the UNEP report's scientific findings, said the significant global temperature rise is likely to occur even if industrialized and developed countries enact every climate policy they have proposed at this point. The increase is nearly double what scientists and world policymakers have identified as the upper limit of warming the world can afford in order to avert catastrophic climate change

 

[Si modo]

Oh well. I tried.

 

[Old Rocks]

What the scientific community thinks.

Climate Change: The Next Generation: AAAS: 18 leading scientific organizations send letter to all U.S. senators confirming AGW and serious climate change problems looming in the near future

We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.

Signatures from the leaders of the following organizations:

American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Biologists, American Statistical Association, Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, Botanical Society of America, Crop Science Society of America, Ecological Society of America, Natural Science Collections Alliance, Organization of Biological Field Stations, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Society of Systematic Biologists, Soil Science Society of America, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

 

[elvis]

Oh well. I tried.

Don't let Rocks-in-the-head or any other ecoterrorist frighten you.

 

[Zoom-boing]

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, none of this is going to do any good. An inconvieniant truth will be ignored, and the results will be as foreseen.


Climate Change: The Next Generation: Andrew Glikson: Planetary Boundaries (CO2 equivalent of 460 ppm has been surpassed

In my view an upper limit of 450 ppm CO2, proposed by a range of reports by government organizations, including the Garnaut Review [5] and the Australian Government White Paper [6], can not be sustained, for the following reasons:

A. The atmosphere has already transcended the CO2-equivalent (including the forcing of methane) level of 460 ppm.

B. A level of 450 ppm CO2 is a mere ~40 ppm below the upper boundary of ~500 ppm, which is the upper limit of stability of the Antarctic ice sheet, formed about 34 million years ago. In the Pliocene, 3 million years ago, a CO2 level of 400 ppm led to temperature rise of about 2–3 °C and sea level rise of 25+/-12 meters.

C. There is no evidence that the climate can be “stabilized” at such high level of greenhouse-induced forcing. Due to carbon cycle feedback loops and feedbacks related to ice melt/water interaction, CO2 level of 450 ppm may lead to yet higher greenhouse levels, high temperature levels and possible tipping points.

D. Not taken into account in many projections are looming emissions of methane, which are already taking place under atmospheric CO2 levels of 388 ppm, or CO2-e levels of 460 ppm.

In the view of leading US climate scientists there is no alternative to attempts at reducing atmospheric CO2 levels to below 350 ppm as soon as possible [8]. In my view, only a combination of (A) deep urgent cuts in carbon emissions; (B) fast-track development of clean renewable energy systems; (C) an intensive reforestation campaign; (D) application of a range of biosequestration measures, including chemical sequestration and carbon draw-down methods, may be able to prevent further carbon cycle and ice melt feedback effects from triggering dangerous tipping points [9] with tragic consequences.

 

[elvis]

Of course, none of this is going to do any good. An inconvieniant truth will be ignored, and the results will be as foreseen.


Climate Change: The Next Generation: Andrew Glikson: Planetary Boundaries (CO2 equivalent of 460 ppm has been surpassed

In my view an upper limit of 450 ppm CO2, proposed by a range of reports by government organizations, including the Garnaut Review [5] and the Australian Government White Paper [6], can not be sustained, for the following reasons:

A. The atmosphere has already transcended the CO2-equivalent (including the forcing of methane) level of 460 ppm.

B. A level of 450 ppm CO2 is a mere ~40 ppm below the upper boundary of ~500 ppm, which is the upper limit of stability of the Antarctic ice sheet, formed about 34 million years ago. In the Pliocene, 3 million years ago, a CO2 level of 400 ppm led to temperature rise of about 2–3 °C and sea level rise of 25+/-12 meters.

C. There is no evidence that the climate can be “stabilized” at such high level of greenhouse-induced forcing. Due to carbon cycle feedback loops and feedbacks related to ice melt/water interaction, CO2 level of 450 ppm may lead to yet higher greenhouse levels, high temperature levels and possible tipping points.

D. Not taken into account in many projections are looming emissions of methane, which are already taking place under atmospheric CO2 levels of 388 ppm, or CO2-e levels of 460 ppm.

In the view of leading US climate scientists there is no alternative to attempts at reducing atmospheric CO2 levels to below 350 ppm as soon as possible [8]. In my view, only a combination of (A) deep urgent cuts in carbon emissions; (B) fast-track development of clean renewable energy systems; (C) an intensive reforestation campaign; (D) application of a range of biosequestration measures, including chemical sequestration and carbon draw-down methods, may be able to prevent further carbon cycle and ice melt feedback effects from triggering dangerous tipping points [9] with tragic consequences.

Yes, Osama.

 

[Old Rocks]

A blog?

One would think an article from a scientific journal would be a more appropriate source when attempting to discuss science. But, that's just me.

Links from a blog to scientists stating what they see happening. Each of these articles has a source link.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, none of this is going to do any good. An inconvieniant truth will be ignored, and the results will be as foreseen.


Climate Change: The Next Generation: Andrew Glikson: Planetary Boundaries (CO2 equivalent of 460 ppm has been surpassed

In my view an upper limit of 450 ppm CO2, proposed by a range of reports by government organizations, including the Garnaut Review [5] and the Australian Government White Paper [6], can not be sustained, for the following reasons:

A. The atmosphere has already transcended the CO2-equivalent (including the forcing of methane) level of 460 ppm.

B. A level of 450 ppm CO2 is a mere ~40 ppm below the upper boundary of ~500 ppm, which is the upper limit of stability of the Antarctic ice sheet, formed about 34 million years ago. In the Pliocene, 3 million years ago, a CO2 level of 400 ppm led to temperature rise of about 2–3 °C and sea level rise of 25+/-12 meters.

C. There is no evidence that the climate can be “stabilized” at such high level of greenhouse-induced forcing. Due to carbon cycle feedback loops and feedbacks related to ice melt/water interaction, CO2 level of 450 ppm may lead to yet higher greenhouse levels, high temperature levels and possible tipping points.

D. Not taken into account in many projections are looming emissions of methane, which are already taking place under atmospheric CO2 levels of 388 ppm, or CO2-e levels of 460 ppm.

In the view of leading US climate scientists there is no alternative to attempts at reducing atmospheric CO2 levels to below 350 ppm as soon as possible [8]. In my view, only a combination of (A) deep urgent cuts in carbon emissions; (B) fast-track development of clean renewable energy systems; (C) an intensive reforestation campaign; (D) application of a range of biosequestration measures, including chemical sequestration and carbon draw-down methods, may be able to prevent further carbon cycle and ice melt feedback effects from triggering dangerous tipping points [9] with tragic consequences.

Yes, Osama.

My goodness, two posts and no scatological referances. You may grow out of adolescence yet!

 

[elvis]

Of course, none of this is going to do any good. An inconvieniant truth will be ignored, and the results will be as foreseen.


Climate Change: The Next Generation: Andrew Glikson: Planetary Boundaries (CO2 equivalent of 460 ppm has been surpassed

In my view an upper limit of 450 ppm CO2, proposed by a range of reports by government organizations, including the Garnaut Review [5] and the Australian Government White Paper [6], can not be sustained, for the following reasons:

A. The atmosphere has already transcended the CO2-equivalent (including the forcing of methane) level of 460 ppm.

B. A level of 450 ppm CO2 is a mere ~40 ppm below the upper boundary of ~500 ppm, which is the upper limit of stability of the Antarctic ice sheet, formed about 34 million years ago. In the Pliocene, 3 million years ago, a CO2 level of 400 ppm led to temperature rise of about 2–3 °C and sea level rise of 25+/-12 meters.

C. There is no evidence that the climate can be “stabilized” at such high level of greenhouse-induced forcing. Due to carbon cycle feedback loops and feedbacks related to ice melt/water interaction, CO2 level of 450 ppm may lead to yet higher greenhouse levels, high temperature levels and possible tipping points.

D. Not taken into account in many projections are looming emissions of methane, which are already taking place under atmospheric CO2 levels of 388 ppm, or CO2-e levels of 460 ppm.

In the view of leading US climate scientists there is no alternative to attempts at reducing atmospheric CO2 levels to below 350 ppm as soon as possible [8]. In my view, only a combination of (A) deep urgent cuts in carbon emissions; (B) fast-track development of clean renewable energy systems; (C) an intensive reforestation campaign; (D) application of a range of biosequestration measures, including chemical sequestration and carbon draw-down methods, may be able to prevent further carbon cycle and ice melt feedback effects from triggering dangerous tipping points [9] with tragic consequences.

Yes, Osama.

My goodness, two posts and no scatological referances. You may grow out of adolescence yet!

but you won't grow out of your depends unless you fill them too full .

 

[KittenKoder]

Of course, none of this is going to do any good. An inconvieniant truth will be ignored, and the results will be as foreseen.


Climate Change: The Next Generation: Andrew Glikson: Planetary Boundaries (CO2 equivalent of 460 ppm has been surpassed

In my view an upper limit of 450 ppm CO2, proposed by a range of reports by government organizations, including the Garnaut Review [5] and the Australian Government White Paper [6], can not be sustained, for the following reasons:

A. The atmosphere has already transcended the CO2-equivalent (including the forcing of methane) level of 460 ppm.

B. A level of 450 ppm CO2 is a mere ~40 ppm below the upper boundary of ~500 ppm, which is the upper limit of stability of the Antarctic ice sheet, formed about 34 million years ago. In the Pliocene, 3 million years ago, a CO2 level of 400 ppm led to temperature rise of about 2–3 °C and sea level rise of 25+/-12 meters.

C. There is no evidence that the climate can be “stabilized” at such high level of greenhouse-induced forcing. Due to carbon cycle feedback loops and feedbacks related to ice melt/water interaction, CO2 level of 450 ppm may lead to yet higher greenhouse levels, high temperature levels and possible tipping points.

D. Not taken into account in many projections are looming emissions of methane, which are already taking place under atmospheric CO2 levels of 388 ppm, or CO2-e levels of 460 ppm.

In the view of leading US climate scientists there is no alternative to attempts at reducing atmospheric CO2 levels to below 350 ppm as soon as possible [8]. In my view, only a combination of (A) deep urgent cuts in carbon emissions; (B) fast-track development of clean renewable energy systems; (C) an intensive reforestation campaign; (D) application of a range of biosequestration measures, including chemical sequestration and carbon draw-down methods, may be able to prevent further carbon cycle and ice melt feedback effects from triggering dangerous tipping points [9] with tragic consequences.

Yes, Osama.

My goodness, two posts and no scatological referances. You may grow out of adolescence yet!

So now cow shit doesn't produce "harmful" gasses?

 

[elvis]

Yes, Osama.

My goodness, two posts and no scatological referances. You may grow out of adolescence yet!

So now cow shit doesn't produce "harmful" gasses?

No. Rocks put his head up a cow's asshole long enough to prevent a catastrophe.

 

[Zoom-boing]

What if the whole world farted at once?

 

[Zoom-boing]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/93454-global-cooling-or-global-warming.html#post1671645

 

[Si modo]

A blog?

One would think an article from a scientific journal would be a more appropriate source when attempting to discuss science. But, that's just me.

Links from a blog to scientists stating what they see happening. Each of these articles has a source link.

Newsflash - those aren't 'articles'. Secondly, they are not peer-reviewed. If they reference a peer-reviewed paper, don't parrot their opinions; look at the science (ie. the peer-reviewed articles, letters, etc.) and make your own conclusions.

 

[elvis]

A blog?

One would think an article from a scientific journal would be a more appropriate source when attempting to discuss science. But, that's just me.

Links from a blog to scientists stating what they see happening. Each of these articles has a source link.

Newsflash - those aren't 'articles'. Secondly, they are not peer-reviewed. If they reference a peer-reviewed paper, don't parrot their opinions; look at the science 9ie. the peer-reviewed articles, letters, etc.) and make your own conclusions.

They only count as "articles" when they support Rockhead's terrorist agenda.

 

[Si modo]

Links from a blog to scientists stating what they see happening. Each of these articles has a source link.

Newsflash - those aren't 'articles'. Secondly, they are not peer-reviewed. If they reference a peer-reviewed paper, don't parrot their opinions; look at the science 9ie. the peer-reviewed articles, letters, etc.) and make your own conclusions.

They only count as "articles" when they support Rockhead's terrorist agenda.

The fundamental ignorance is what gets me. Apparently folks have few clues what an article is. They have few clues how science is done and some don't even have a clue what science entails even at the most basic level.

 

[KittenKoder]

Newsflash - those aren't 'articles'. Secondly, they are not peer-reviewed. If they reference a peer-reviewed paper, don't parrot their opinions; look at the science 9ie. the peer-reviewed articles, letters, etc.) and make your own conclusions.

They only count as "articles" when they support Rockhead's terrorist agenda.

The fundamental ignorance is what gets me. Apparently folks have few clues what an article is. They have few clues how science is done and some don't even have a clue what science entails even at the most basic level.

Welcome to the new shit ...