Disaster ‘We Don't Know a Planet Like This': CO2 Levels Hit 415 PPM for First Time in 3 Million+ Years - Bring your scuba gear

spiritofamermaid

happiest fish in the water
kiwifarms.net
I've been hearing that [cities being submerged] since I was a kid and I'm not even close to being young anymore. Are we going to kill ourselves already or is this some kind of multi-century-long cock-tease because I'm tired of waiting to embrace death. Drop the goddamned bass already I'm getting bored.
Look, we had plans to take over the cities full of landlubbers but then we saw some hot sailors and got distracted. So it's not our fault.
 

Marissa Moira

kiwifarms.net
This is easy just surrender your liberties so the people in power can continue using their jets every week, living in multiple 4 story mansions on a 50 acre piece of land that need to be watered and taken care of, having around the clock 50 team security that they need to feed and pay, and traveling to 5 star hotels whenever they wish, we wouldn't want out carbon footprint to intrude on theirs. I mean they're important people they're better than us. They deserve to keep the useful technology to themselves. I mean imagine how upset they would be if one of their homes got water damage due to rising sea levels, it would be our fault because we needed to drive to work every day in our personal vehicles rather than taking unreliable public transport.

Use a nuclear bomb on China and India and see the Co2 levels fall like magic within days, further proof that nuclear energy really is wonderful.
 

Medicated

Not the fun kind
kiwifarms.net
The 'global warming is a scam' scam was perpetrated by wealthy oil and coal conglomerates in order to protect their business, much like how cigarette companies bribed and mislead doctors.


Get double conspiracy'd, fag.
lol how does carbon taxes stop companies from polluting? They just shrug and pass the cost to the consumers to eat the tax. Until oil and coal run out, humanity will pollute, because it's human nature to choose the path of least resistance, it's the nature of corporations to lower overheads and maximize profits. These companies will also attempt to block any other avenues of energy, because they aren't going to let people destroy their market share.

If people as a whole truly cared, it would've been nipped in the ass decades ago, but collectively, they don't. Gonna die anyway, let the next idiot deal with it. Sure they'll blame me, but if they were in my position they would've done exactly the same thing.

Maybe people will just start suffocating to death and we'll get some real population control happening.
 

nonperson

I am imaginary
kiwifarms.net
It's insane to think local regulations are going to fix this problem, when two thirds of the world are just starting to build coal power plants and industrialize.

Mass producing electric cars is already starting to have a catastrophic effect on the environment, primarily due to the raw materials needed in batteries. The electricity they run is still predominantly generated by burning shit, which means we're just sweeping the problem under the rug anyway.

The only glimmer of hope is finding a commercial solution (yes, good ol' fashion greedy capitalism). There are promising advances being made that would allow for CO2 to be converted into methanol cheaply, which may prove viable and boom well enough to turn the tide around.

We also need to stop wimping about nuclear and develop it further - it's the best chance at cheap, clean energy we have in the west.

Alternatively, we can all rally behind AOC and support the Green New Deal. She seems to know exactly how to fix everything, you guys.
 

Compositesludge

kiwifarms.net
A bit of a disclaimer: reading this thread made me realize that I'm a lot less versed on climate change and the science underpinning it than I initially thought I was. I think it's absolutely useless and silly to blindly follow purported scientific facts without even a cursory examination or understanding of the principles upon which they're based: as the saying goes, truth does not fear examination, and if we can't discuss this here, where can we discuss it?

Sorry for the length of this post, there was a lot to unpack and examine! But it was fun to research this stuff.

We're a long way from that.

CO2 levels have to go up a hell of a lot before it becomes acutely toxic


Carbon dioxide content in fresh air (averaged between sea-level and 10 kPa level, i.e., about 30 km (19 mi) altitude) varies between 0.036% (360 ppm) and 0.041% (410 ppm), depending on the location.[118][clarification needed]

It's a 415ppm now. 10,000 ppm makes the room feel stuffy. 70,000 to 100,000 ppm is toxic
I wanted to dig a little deeper into this citation because of the noted lack of clarification, and what I found was a very interesting measuring system for tracking CO2 emissions and natural CO2 sinks., which... didn't appear to have the purportedly cited information, or anything about averaging the carbon dioxide content of fresh air. That, and the information does appear to be outdated considering the new 415 ppm figure.

Also, the 70,000-100,000 ppm figure would be applicable if the primary concern was creating an environment which was downright toxic to humans. At that level, absolutely, we would be unable to survive for even a brief period of time (say, 5-10 minutes). But our lifespans are far longer than that. A better question to ask would be what happens to people exposed to higher (but not quite so catastrophically high) amounts of CO2. I found a simple informational page which pegs concentrations and their effects as such:

OHS said:
  • 250-350 ppm: background (normal) outdoor air level
  • 350-1,000 ppm: typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange
  • 1,000-2,000 ppm: level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air
  • 2,000-5,000 ppm: level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air; poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.
  • >5,000 ppm: This indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of other gases also could be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur. This is the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures.
  • >40,000 ppm: This level is immediately harmful due to oxygen deprivation.
and fortunately, the Wikipedia page also does go into some more detail about harmful levels of exposure to CO2 below 1%:

Wikipedia said:
There are few studies of the health effects of long-term continuous CO2 exposure on humans and animals at levels below 1%. Occupational CO2 exposure limits have been set in the United States at 0.5% (5000 ppm) for an eight-hour period.[125] At this CO2 concentration, International Space Station crew experienced headaches, lethargy, mental slowness, emotional irritation, and sleep disruption.[126] Studies in animals at 0.5% CO2 have demonstrated kidney calcification and bone loss after eight weeks of exposure.[127] A study of humans exposed in 2.5 hour sessions demonstrated significant effects on cognitive abilities at concentrations as low as 0.1% (1000ppm) CO2 likely due to CO2 induced increases in cerebral blood flow.[123] Another study observed a decline in basic activity level and information usage at 1000 ppm, when compared to 500 ppm.[124]
10,000 PPM seems to go a bit beyond making a room feel stuffy, and even smaller changes of ~500 ppm or so seem like they can have adverse effects on those exposed to them. Suffocating to death isn't accurate, but we definitely don't need to hit a CO2 level of 10,000 ppm to see some negative widespread effects!

Right now I'd say the only thing we can say for sure is that CO2 levels are going up. Probably we're looking at temperature going up too. As will sea levels. But all this stuff is happening at a glacial pace. Temperature is 1 degree C per century.

View attachment 757960
So this graph is definitely interesting, as it doesn't seem to support your interpretation that change occurs by one degree per decade. Judging by the Lowess Smoothing, it looks as if the temperature increase has been increasing at a steady rate since ~1995, with the temperature increasing by over half a degree Celsius within a 15-year timespan. I'm not sure if I'm missing something or not with your interpretation, it just doesn't seem to fit the graph.

Sea level rise is 3.3mm per year

View attachment 757961
This is another really fascinating indicator, as it measures the global sea level as compared to regional sea level increases. (Weirdly enough, it doesn't tell you that on the sea level page, but can be accessed by clicking on the "Global Mean Sea Level" tab on the main page.



I actually didn't know about this before I started looking more deeply into it either, I'm a little upset that the difference hasn't been emphasized further. Basically, what it seems to come down to is that regional sea level increases vary quite a bit more from global sea level increases, and have a far greater potential to create catastrophic impacts from relatively small global sea level increases:

The National Ocean Service said:
Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors such as land subsidence from natural processes and withdrawal of groundwater and fossil fuels, changes in regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers. In urban settings, rising seas threaten infrastructure necessary for local jobs and regional industries. Roads, bridges, subways, water supplies, oil and gas wells, power plants, sewage treatment plants, landfills—virtually all human infrastructure—is at risk from sea level rise.
So comparing global and regional sea level increases is more vital than it first appears, and I have to say that I'm disappointed in NASA for not properly labeling their dataset. If the difference is so striking, I would argue that they have a responsibility to not contribute to their inappropriate conflation!

None of this is catastrophic and the models that predict catastrophe have overestimated warming


View attachment 757964
So reading through the source provided, it looks as if the primary hypothesis made within the article is that the data obtained from the balloon and satellite datasets provides the most accurate and non-skewed data possible when it comes to observing temperature changes:

Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger said:
The temperature of the mid-troposphere can also be sensed from above, by orbiting satellites that measure the vibration of diatomic oxygen, which turns out to be a much more accurate thermometer than, say, a standard mercury-in-glass instrument.
The comments section goes into a bit more detail about some of the problems regarding the acquisition of this data and the discrepancies which arose from the foundations of their findings. More contemporary analyses of satellite data seem to suggest that the trend is more deleterious than ascribed above, although still not to the same extent as most climate models.

Given we can't do anything to stop it, and living with it seems highly possible, I'd say living with it is the best option.

Or you know, we could elect AOC and do the Green New Deal. Which will do nothing to stop global warming because any decrease the US manages will be dwarfed by India, China etc increasing their emissions. However it will tank the US economy and leave China with all the industrial capacity. And that means all the military capacity in the long run. I'm sure that will work out fine...
I think this really does come down to perceptions: how likely are China and India to scale back their emissions and pursue greener policies? It looks like India is taking proactive steps to try and mitigate their impacts, and China is now examining climate change as deleterious enough for them to revise their security policies in preparation for tackling it. How likely are India and China to mitigate their emissions to a meaningful extent? I'm not really sure about that, but at least they are taking proactive steps, which should hopefully be a good sign.

I apologize again for the length of this post, but this is a pretty complicated topic that I think gets buried underneath rhetoric about climate change skeptics being bad people or whatever. I don't think there's any harm in contesting the mainstream narrative when it comes to climate change, because if the science isn't broadly accepted and proven enough to support the notion that we need to take strong action now, then there's absolutely no point in pursuing it. It's simply too important a topic for discussions of it to be avoided or curtailed for just about any reason!

tl;dr, I spent too much time on this and I won't blame you if you don't read it.
 

Gustav Schuchardt

Trans exclusionary radical feminazi.
kiwifarms.net
How the hell did rooftop solar panels get a kill?

The safety issues with Rooftop solar installations
Those who talk about PV solar power (millions of roofs) need to consider roof worker safety. About 1000 construction fatalities per year in the US alone. 33% from working at heights.

Falls are the leading cause of fatalities in the construction industry. An average of 362 fatal falls occurred each year from 1995 to 1999, with the trend on the increase. 269 deaths (combined falls from ladders and roofs in 2002). UPDATE: Based on a more detailed analysis of the fatal fall statistic reports I would now estimate the fatal falls that would match the solar panel roof installations as 100-150. Only 30-40 are classified as being a professional roofer but deaths for laborer or general construction worker or a private individual count as deaths.

Roofing is the 6th most dangerous job. Roofers had a fatality rate in 2002 of 37 per 100,000 workers.

In 2001, there were 107 million homes in the United States; of those, 73.7 million were single-family homes. Roughly 5 million new homes are built each year and old roofs need to significant work or replacement every 20 years. So 9-10 million roofing jobs in the US alone. In 2007, Solar power was at 12.4 GW or about 12.6 TWh. The 2006 figure for Germany PV was only 1TWh from about 1.5GW from $4 billion/yr. The German rate of solar power generation would mean 12.4GW would generate 8TWh. 2.8GW generates 2 TWh for Germany, assuming other places are 50% sunnier on average, then the 9.6GW would generate 10.6 TWh.

$4 billion is about the cost of one of the new 1.5 GW nuclear power plants, which would generate 12 TWh/year. Nuclear power plants (104) rated at a total 100GW generated 800 Twh in 2007.

The world total was from about 1.5 million solar roofed homes. 30% of the solar power was from roof installed units. 1/6th of the 9 million roofing job accidents would be about 50 deaths from installing 1.5 million roofs if other countries had similar to US safety. The amount of roof installations is increasing as a percentage. 4 TWh from roofs PV. So 12.5 deaths per TWh from solar roof installations. Assuming 15 years as the average functional life or time until major maintenance or upgrade is required. The average yearly deaths from rooftop solar is 0.83/TWh. Those who want a lower bound estimate can double the life of the solar panels (0.44deaths/TWh). This is worse than the occupational safety issues associated with coal and nuclear power. (see table below). 12 to 25 times less safe than the projected upper bound end effect of Chernobyl (from WHO figures). The fifty actual deaths from roof installation accidents for 1.5 million roof installations is equal to the actual deaths experienced so far from Chernobyl. If all 80 million residential roofs in the USA had solar power installed then one would expect 9 times the annual roofing deaths of 300 people or 2700 people (roofers to die). This would generate about 240 TWh of power each year. (30% of the power generated from nuclear power in the USA). 90 people per year over an optimistic life of 30 years for the panels not including maintenance or any electrical shock incidents.
 

The Gay Banana

kiwifarms.net
China is on track to meet its goals it agreed to in the Paris Agreement by 2030. What did America do? Pulled out of the Paris Agreement so it could go back to mining coal. Well done. People can sperg all they want that "muh India and China are the biggest polluters" but America has a far higher rate per capita and this isn't a single nation issue, the highest outside of the middle Eastern oil states.
 

Otterly

Primark Primarch
kiwifarms.net
Climate change isnt a scam, but the way it’s pushed as the single biggest threat I think is incorrect. The biggest environmental threats are linked to environmental degradation - us fucking up entire ecosystems. Water / system pollution, human encroachment on previously pristine areas, biodiversity loss, etc. Pushing everything on CO2 alone is the wrong way to make the public concerned IMO. It touts a huge, doom scenario with no positive actions and it cannot be definitively measured in terms of projecting out what will actually happen, because we don’t know.

If people were focusing on smaller local issues that CAN be improved (like: let’s not let industry x vent waste products into this area of wetlands, or how can we manage the amazon basin to preserve water flow and biodiversity so that whatever plant has a miracle cure for cancer isn’t wiped out) then I think we’d see more progress. People feel powerless in the face of climate change but they can and will fight to have their local wilderness areas kept nice places to hike and camp in.
 
It's good people seem to be seeing that CO2 is not the environmental end all be all.

Keep in mind when talking about CO2 ppm that's all of it, not just humans. I'm not sure we could double that even if we wanted to.

Global warming is measured in degrees C per doubling of atmospheric co2.

Real actual global warming is a long term trend with a very loose correlation to co2. Again, there are real potential problems, a tiny rise in Sea level can be devastating. And shifting climate means we need to adapt a bit.

It would be nice if we could put the silly political slapfight Al gore started with his Bs version of global warming where you pay him and it's fixed.
 

Otterly

Primark Primarch
kiwifarms.net
Pulling co2 out of the atmosphere is theoretically possible as well. Fixing all the other shit we’ve fucked up less so.

We live in what is in essence a closed system. You can’t have infinite growth in a finite system. We don’t have a spare earth if this one gets too fucked up. We do need to take much better care of the planet - fewer of us would be a start. Lower pollution/more sustainable industry is what’s needed though.

I’m sure I read a while ago an article on the futility of individual effort vs how much corporations are responsible... I’ll see if I can find it.
 

Medicated

Not the fun kind
kiwifarms.net
Climate change isnt a scam, but the way it’s pushed as the single biggest threat I think is incorrect. The biggest environmental threats are linked to environmental degradation - us fucking up entire ecosystems. Water / system pollution, human encroachment on previously pristine areas, biodiversity loss, etc. Pushing everything on CO2 alone is the wrong way to make the public concerned IMO. It touts a huge, doom scenario with no positive actions and it cannot be definitively measured in terms of projecting out what will actually happen, because we don’t know.

If people were focusing on smaller local issues that CAN be improved (like: let’s not let industry x vent waste products into this area of wetlands, or how can we manage the amazon basin to preserve water flow and biodiversity so that whatever plant has a miracle cure for cancer isn’t wiped out) then I think we’d see more progress. People feel powerless in the face of climate change but they can and will fight to have their local wilderness areas kept nice places to hike and camp in.
Yeah I think he said it best.

 

Dr W

Heaven is void of light
kiwifarms.net
We live in what is in essence a closed system. You can’t have infinite growth in a finite system. We don’t have a spare earth if this one gets too fucked up. We do need to take much better care of the planet - fewer of us would be a start. Lower pollution/more sustainable industry is what’s needed though.
That's probably why I'm such a space sperg. If we have thirty Earths, then losing one isn't as bad as if we had one Earth and lost it.
 

Gennadiy

kiwifarms.net
Shame we're all going to die because China and India belch out more nasty shit into the environment than the rest of the world combined. Embargo the shitholes until they shape up? Nah. Where would we get our cheap shit.
China and India actually produce much less CO2 per capita than Western countries, with India putting out three times less CO2 than US while being five times larger. Most of their raw output comes from population size, so you can't really force them to do anything. But you don't even have to, because significantly cutting emissions instead of completely getting rid of them is enough to avert a currently inevitable catastrophe. However even that's not gonna happen, so none of it matters.
 

Sprig of Parsley

Damnation dignified
kiwifarms.net
China and India actually produce much less CO2 per capita than Western countries, with India putting out three times less CO2 than US while being five times larger. Most of their raw output comes from population size, so you can't really force them to do anything. But you don't even have to, because significantly cutting emissions instead of completely getting rid of them is enough to avert a currently inevitable catastrophe. However even that's not gonna happen, so none of it matters.
I'd be all for workable solutions instead of whatever the absolute fuck you'd call the Green New Deal.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: GeneralFriendliness

Oh Long Johnson

Collecting your suffering when you die
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
China and India actually produce much less CO2 per capita than Western countries, with India putting out three times less CO2 than US while being five times larger. Most of their raw output comes from population size, so you can't really force them to do anything. But you don't even have to, because significantly cutting emissions instead of completely getting rid of them is enough to avert a currently inevitable catastrophe. However even that's not gonna happen, so none of it matters.
I mean, when your slaves and untouchables cannot afford automobiles, you're going to see shit like that. Another reason why globalization is suicide - you don't want five billion rice niggers to suddenly rise out of poverty and start increasing the energy demand.
 

kcbbq

No controlling legal authority
kiwifarms.net
lol how does carbon taxes stop companies from polluting? They just shrug and pass the cost to the consumers to eat the tax. Until oil and coal run out, humanity will pollute, because it's human nature to choose the path of least resistance, it's the nature of corporations to lower overheads and maximize profits. These companies will also attempt to block any other avenues of energy, because they aren't going to let people destroy their market share.

If people as a whole truly cared, it would've been nipped in the ass decades ago, but collectively, they don't. Gonna die anyway, let the next idiot deal with it. Sure they'll blame me, but if they were in my position they would've done exactly the same thing.

Maybe people will just start suffocating to death and we'll get some real population control happening.
CO2 is wonderful stuff. When concentrations in the atmosphere were really, really high the earth turned it into the delicious coal that allowed us to become what we are. It also gave us dragonflies with three foot wingspans, which is really fucking cool.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino