Home› A Moving Train

Climate change crisis reaches troubling milestone

PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,950
edited June 2012 in A Moving Train
http://m.ctv.ca/tech/20120531/climate-c ... 20531.html

Fuck.
Natural cyclical warming my ass, btw. Human are dumping carbon dioxide into the air and everyone is too greedy or too addicted to luxury and convenience to do anything about it. :evil:
(Yes, the 400 number itself is psychological... the constant human-made increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is not)
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • oona leftoona left Posts: 1,677
    :evil:
  • Long Gone DayLong Gone Day Posts: 216
    Don't worry the next ice age will kill more than half of the worlds population and stop the rising temperature of the earth. Now don't quote me on this.
    Go listen to John Frusciante right now!
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    why are the levels highest in the North, where there's the least amount of industrialization and human habitation? does CO2 travel to where it's colder?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    I hate to say this, but the only way the world will listen to the problem is if the US makes it a SERIOUS priority, and it never will. it's political suicide to tell all the fat people who drive tanks one block to 7-11 to get out and walk.

    even now after I read about how much pollution is generated just by people waiting in drive through lines (here in Canada, the example was at Tim Horton's), I always turn the car off and go in.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,027
    First of all, thank you PJ_Soul for posting this. It's a message that needs to be heard.

    The frustration for me is that reading this is like finding and old newspaper with a story about how the Giants beat the Texas Rangers in the World Series. Old news. I've been tracking this situation since my brontosaurus had the flu and still little has changed.
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • mysticweedmysticweed Posts: 3,710
    north carolina republicans are trying to pass a bill that will ignore the projected rise in sea levels due to global warming
    for the purpose of evaluating beach front real estate, they will predict sea levels based on the past ten years instead of the accelerated rates scientists and climatologists are predicting

    god jam
    talk about burying your head in the sand!
    fuck 'em if they can't take a joke

    "what a long, strange trip it's been"
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    why are the levels highest in the North, where there's the least amount of industrialization and human habitation? does CO2 travel to where it's colder?

    i can't open the link ... possible theory is the oil sands and resource extraction ... it's about 5% of Canada's gHg emissions comes from the process to extract oil there ...
  • byttermanbytterman Posts: 136
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    why are the levels highest in the North, where there's the least amount of industrialization and human habitation? does CO2 travel to where it's colder?

    Seasonal cycle; because it's colder (for the moment at least...) the north takes longer into spring to become a net sink for CO2. In a normal year it turns around about now, so the next numbers should be lower. The global CO2 values will decline for the next 6 months or so, say maybe 5-6 ppm, and be heading back up by late fall (in the Northern hemisphere). Of course that's just normal background variation, against the long term increase.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    bytterman wrote:
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    why are the levels highest in the North, where there's the least amount of industrialization and human habitation? does CO2 travel to where it's colder?

    Seasonal cycle; because it's colder (for the moment at least...) the north takes longer into spring to become a net sink for CO2. In a normal year it turns around about now, so the next numbers should be lower. The global CO2 values will decline for the next 6 months or so, say maybe 5-6 ppm, and be heading back up by late fall (in the Northern hemisphere). Of course that's just normal background variation, against the long term increase.


    this is a real question as I do not know much about climate science. Although rising sea levels and temperatures would be the cause and they can be devastating in their own way, wouldn't an earlier melt and a longer growing season in the artic be good for CO2 levels?
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,950
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    bytterman wrote:
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    why are the levels highest in the North, where there's the least amount of industrialization and human habitation? does CO2 travel to where it's colder?

    Seasonal cycle; because it's colder (for the moment at least...) the north takes longer into spring to become a net sink for CO2. In a normal year it turns around about now, so the next numbers should be lower. The global CO2 values will decline for the next 6 months or so, say maybe 5-6 ppm, and be heading back up by late fall (in the Northern hemisphere). Of course that's just normal background variation, against the long term increase.


    this is a real question as I do not know much about climate science. Although rising sea levels and temperatures would be the cause and they can be devastating in their own way, wouldn't an earlier melt and a longer growing season in the artic be good for CO2 levels?
    Doesn't the lack of vegetation make CO2 levels higher as well? Or, at least, prevent a decrease where there otherwise would be?
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    this is a real question as I do not know much about climate science. Although rising sea levels and temperatures would be the cause and they can be devastating in their own way, wouldn't an earlier melt and a longer growing season in the artic be good for CO2 levels?

    the climate would have to change dramatically more to sustain any significant farming up there ... people are growing things but it's not a significant source of food ...

    also the rapid decrease in sea ice will only speed up the warming of the planet as right now ... the ice and snow is responsible for reflecting back much of the heat back into space ...

    if you can catch a screening of this film ... http://chasingice.com/ ... you can see first hand the rapid decline in sea ice and the fast retreat of the majority of all our glaciers ...
  • byttermanbytterman Posts: 136
    polaris_x wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    this is a real question as I do not know much about climate science. Although rising sea levels and temperatures would be the cause and they can be devastating in their own way, wouldn't an earlier melt and a longer growing season in the artic be good for CO2 levels?

    the climate would have to change dramatically more to sustain any significant farming up there ... people are growing things but it's not a significant source of food ...

    also the rapid decrease in sea ice will only speed up the warming of the planet as right now ... the ice and snow is responsible for reflecting back much of the heat back into space ...

    if you can catch a screening of this film ... http://chasingice.com/ ... you can see first hand the rapid decline in sea ice and the fast retreat of the majority of all our glaciers ...

    Also hindering any farming in the north are fairly crappy soils; fixable by fertilization I suppose, but at significant $$ and with other long-term problems (incl. the ghg's needed to produce/transport). That's just on land though, lots of the arctic is ocean. No argument about the reflectance point but oceanic carbon uptake is very strongly limited by light, so it's possible that less ice could lead to more uptake in the short term. I assume it's been modelled, but no idea how well.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    polaris_x wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    this is a real question as I do not know much about climate science. Although rising sea levels and temperatures would be the cause and they can be devastating in their own way, wouldn't an earlier melt and a longer growing season in the artic be good for CO2 levels?

    the climate would have to change dramatically more to sustain any significant farming up there ... people are growing things but it's not a significant source of food ...

    also the rapid decrease in sea ice will only speed up the warming of the planet as right now ... the ice and snow is responsible for reflecting back much of the heat back into space ...

    if you can catch a screening of this film ... http://chasingice.com/ ... you can see first hand the rapid decline in sea ice and the fast retreat of the majority of all our glaciers ...

    Thanks I will check it out
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    bytterman wrote:
    Also hindering any farming in the north are fairly crappy soils; fixable by fertilization I suppose, but at significant $$ and with other long-term problems (incl. the ghg's needed to produce/transport). That's just on land though, lots of the arctic is ocean. No argument about the reflectance point but oceanic carbon uptake is very strongly limited by light, so it's possible that less ice could lead to more uptake in the short term. I assume it's been modelled, but no idea how well.

    yeah ... and with a low density population base - any large scale agriculture doesn't make sense anyways so people are primarily just going to grow their own stuff ...

    http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-war ... a-ice.html
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ic-warming
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 Posts: 10,739
    Governments 'not on track' to cap temperatures at below 2C

    https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/governments-not-on-track-to-meet-goal-of-2015-paris-agreement-capping-temperatures-below-2-degrees-celsius-before-end-of-century-united-nations-climate-change-talks-bangkok/111586/

    Shocking ...
    Give Peas A Chance…
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 30,521
    edited September 2018
    Having corrupt people being paid to be climate change-deniars in the biggest superpower in the world is doing wonders. 
    Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
    "Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    Spiritual_Chaos said:
    Having corrupt people being paid to be climate change-deniars in the biggest superpower in the world is doing wonders. 
    Shame that the superpower is not part of the agreement that allows itself to set the rules and police themselves. We can only wonder what kind of punishment it would have handed to itself. I expect all other countries to really come down on themselves for not adhering to their own set rules!
    I'm keeping a watchful eye on them.
Sign In or Register to comment.