I wonder at what point does it become too late to save mankind?
"According to data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is over 415 parts per million (ppm), far higher than at any point in the last 800,000 years , since before the evolution of homo sapiens.
By: CNN Newsource
“We don’t know a planet like this.”
That was the reaction of meteorologist Eric Holthaus to news that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have reached heights not seen in the entirety of human existence – not history, existence.
According to data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is over 415 parts per million (ppm), far higher than at any point in the last 800,000 years , since before the evolution of homo sapiens.
Holthaus spotted the new high on Sunday when it was tweeted out by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, which measures daily CO2 rates at Mauna Loa along with scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Measurements have been ongoing since the program was started in 1958 by the late Charles David Keeling, for whom the Keeling Curve , a graph of increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, is named.
“This is the first time in human history our planet’s atmosphere has had more than 415ppm CO2,” Holthaus said in a widely shared tweet.
“Not just in recorded history, not just since the invention of agriculture 10,000 years ago. Since before modern humans existed millions of years ago,” added Holthaus.
Way back in 2011, I spent some time exploring the SRES Climate Models that attempt to predict global warming effects under different emissions scenarios. What I found startling was the relatively small difference in warming predicted to occur under aggressive/drastic carbon reduction schemes vs basically continuing on our current trajectory.
That was eight years ago.
The pessimist in me thinks that it’s now too late to make any meaningful reduction in projected temperature rise with any workable carbon policy using any existing technologies. On a, say, 20-50 year timeframe, I think resources would be better spent on global warming effect mitigation strategies, rather than global warming reduction strategies.
But…
The optimist in me thinks that nuclear fusion power generation will make all of the current global warming concern moot on a 50-100 year timeframe. In 2119, burning fossil fuels will be viewed as a quaint and briefly-lived 20th-21st century practice.
Then again…
The cynic in me thinks that humans won’t survive to 2119 at all due to the rise of AI…
At some point, nations like China and India are going to have to dial it back. The US and Europe have to keep doing better as well. We also have to take reparative measures like reforestation even though that is a losing battle. Humans emit 40 billion tons of CO2 annually of which 40% can be absorbed, so 24 billion tons of CO2 is being added to the atmosphere annually. At 2.5 tons per year per acre of new forest, that’s 14.1 million square miles - almost 4 USAs. (or 4 Canadas for our northern friends). For all intents, that’s unrealistic… and that’s just to stop the increase in CO2 levels, let alone reduce. We need to reduce usage and emissions. It’s as simple as that. But not many people, myself included, want to incur the costs of doing so … especially when we know nothing is changing in SE Asia. We’d be talking drastic lifestyle changes. And we’re selfish.
At some point, nations like China and India are going to have to dial it back. The US and Europe have to keep doing better as well. We also have to take reparative measures like reforestation even though that is a losing battle. Humans emit 40 billion tons of CO2 annually of which 40% can be absorbed, so 24 billion tons of CO2 is being added to the atmosphere annually. At 2.5 tons per year per acre of new forest, that’s 14.1 million square miles - almost 4 USAs. (or 4 Canadas for our northern friends). For all intents, that’s unrealistic… and that’s just to stop the increase in CO2 levels, let alone reduce. We need to reduce usage and emissions. It’s as simple as that. But not many people, myself included, want to incur the costs of doing so … especially when we know nothing is changing in SE Asia. We’d be talking drastic lifestyle changes. And we’re selfish.
I wish the Green Party would run someone for President that didn’t appear nuts or incompetent. I feel like I am dooming my unborn grandkids to certain hell.
i recently saw it expressed this way: today’s kids will have to have a carbon footprint 95% smaller than their grandparents in order to avert climate disaster.
i really, really hope we can innovate our way out of this shitstorm.
What we really need is a 50% reduction in the number of humans, back to levels before the increase on CO2. Who wants to volunteer?
No kidding. Yet people keep wanting to throw open the doors to immigration because western populations are ‘dwindling’. It’s too taboo to speak of.
immigration of . . . people who were already born?
to come to a country where they and their children, for a whole variety of factors, are much less likely to have lots of kids than they would in their home country?
i recently saw it expressed this way: today’s kids will have to have a carbon footprint 95% smaller than their grandparents in order to avert climate disaster.
i really, really hope we can innovate our way out of this shitstorm.
Not that I am unwilling to do my part but it sure would be nice if China, India and Most of Africa gave a shit.
i recently saw it expressed this way: today’s kids will have to have a carbon footprint 95% smaller than their grandparents in order to avert climate disaster. i really, really hope we can innovate our way out of this shitstorm.
Not that I am unwilling to do my part but it sure would be nice if China, India and Most of Africa gave a shit.
Bingo.
I wish the Green Party would run someone for President that didn’t appear nuts or incompetent. I feel like I am dooming my unborn grandkids to certain hell.
It needs to be a conservative that truly cares about the planet but will push for it responsibly. A lot of right-leaning people are environmentally conscious, advocate for conservation and preservation. The problem is they are never going to vote for someone who also is going to go after 2A and tax the hell out of them. I’d welcome a GOP candidate that put environment high on their list.
+1. I would like to have a conservative President that cares about the environment too, but I can’t imagine the GOP supporting that candidate and then actually implementing their programs. At least until the shit really hits the fan.
To me it seems like some people have a view that we have it great, they don’t, so just let them come here and they too can have it great.
It’s not fixing the overcrowding issues where things aren’t so great and gradually eroding what makes the more fortunate place great.
Resources/jobs etc are not unlimited. Why is it so hard to say that the root cause is that there’s too many of us rather than just focus on excess lifestyle? Water and basic food are not luxuries yet we struggle to provide it for all.
Population growth should be on the agenda as much as climate change. The two are linked.
immigration of . . . people who were already born?
to come to a country where they and their children, for a whole variety of factors, are much less likely to have lots of kids than they would in their home country?
i don’t get your angle here.
Your post has one glaring flaw: they are not “less likely to have lots of kids” as seen in many, many studies. In Europe and the U.S. the immigrant population is out reproducing the native population by more than 2 extra offspring. Add to that the factor that some ethnic groups allow multiple wives for a family which in turn adds significantly more offspring than a traditional two parent family.
The only way your post could be correct would be if the immigrants assimilated and took on the characteristics of the native population. That is not happening, the immigrants are retaining their own culture and not assimilating as fast as previous immigrant groups.
immigration of . . . people who were already born?
to come to a country where they and their children, for a whole variety of factors, are much less likely to have lots of kids than they would in their home country?
i don’t get your angle here.
Your post has one glaring flaw: they are not “less likely to have lots of kids” as seen in many, many studies. In Europe and the U.S. the immigrant population is out reproducing the native population by more than 2 extra offspring. Add to that the factor that some ethnic groups allow multiple wives for a family which in turn adds significantly more offspring than a traditional two parent family.
The only way your post could be correct would be if the immigrants assimilated and took on the characteristics of the native population. That is not happening, the immigrants are retaining their own culture and not assimilating as fast as previous immigrant groups.
well, a quick google suggests that immigrants have higher fertility than native-born americans (provided you’re talking about the USA), but nothing like double, and it’s falling faster too. the only reference i can find to ‘more than 2 extra offspring’ is a point that “Although still higher than that of natives, immigrant fertility has only a small impact on the nation’s overall birth rate. The presence of immigrants raises the birth rate for all women in their reproductive years by just two births per thousand (3.9 percent).”
and is which US states is polygamy legal?
and which immigrants aren’t assimilating? all of them? which previous immigrant groups? previous to when?
so again, since world immigrants don’t magically produce more produce more kids overall by dint of being immigrants, the issue is total world population and not immigration per se.
