webfact Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 CO2 emissions in earth’s atmosphere hit important threshold PARIS: -- The earth has reached a worrying new milestone. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have reached the symbolic threshold of 400 parts per million on average across the whole of 2015, and may not dip below that level for many generations. The World Meteorological Organisation, which released the findings, is sounding the alarm, saying that without tackling carbon dioxide emissions, the promises made in Paris to reduce global warming won’t be kept. “So far we haven’t done enough to reach this 1.5 degree target, which was the lowest level defined in the Paris agreement, and we are also going to reach this 2 degree target very soon if we are not going to start a rapid change in our emission patterns,” explained Petteri Taalas, Secretary-General of World Meteorological Organisation. The spike is in part attributed to the El Nino weather event, however, Taalas added that while the El Nino effect has disappeared, human impact on climate change has not. The leaders of around 200 nations which signed the Paris Accord are expected to meet in Morocco in November to discuss the next steps to combat global warming. -- © Copyright Euronews 2016-10-25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 The plants say thank you for the food. And us Canucks are hoping the warm weather continues as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirineou Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, canuckamuck said: The plants say thank you for the food. And us Canucks are hoping the warm weather continues as well. until we all become plant food also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiang mai Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 Re Plant Food: My guess is that this is similar to the vitamin D issue, the body needs sunlight to produce vitamin D BUT it only needs about one hour per day, anything more than that is superfluous and wasted and in fact becomes a danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 Certain plants do benefit. Most don't. But the idea that it's a good thing if certain plants benefit is a bad one. It will just help those plants outcompete others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 15 minutes ago, chiang mai said: Re Plant Food: My guess is that this is similar to the vitamin D issue, the body needs sunlight to produce vitamin D BUT it only needs about one hour per day, anything more than that is superfluous and wasted and in fact becomes a danger. Greenhouses add CO2 to 2.5 times atmospheric levels, because that is the optimal level for plants. Currently our atmosphere is CO2 poor by their standards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 18 minutes ago, sirineou said: until we all become plant food also A forgone conclusion in any scenario. We are all just worm poop in the making.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiang mai Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 Just now, canuckamuck said: Greenhouses add CO2 to 2.5 times atmospheric levels, because that is the optimal level for plants. Currently our atmosphere is CO2 poor by their standards I'm not expert on this subject so I'm not going to debate it with you, it's just that common sense suggests that if the planet actually needed CO2 levels that high everywhere, it would have been constructed differently. Since it wasn't, it seems to me that levels that are 2.5 times higher in greenhouses is OK in limited quantities in order to force grow some plants, trying to adopt that approach to the entire planet likely has a totally different effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirineou Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, canuckamuck said: A forgone conclusion in any scenario. We are all just worm poop in the making.. one that I am not inclined to hasten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maewang99 Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 (edited) tell me where I am wrong. there's a 10 to 40 year lag between emissions and the full on effect, mostly because of how the ocean reacts of course we know. so.... fill in the blank. and on the effect side take just one... sea level.. is about salt water intrusion.... long before we get to stuff like flooding.... and that veiling may mean a loss of the monsoon season in India and the 'rainy season' in Thailand on top of that and yet chemical veiling is one of our only likely remaining, workable to scale, options..... the politics behind the 1.5 degree nonsense... and we all know what can happen if that doesn't work out... on the light side... 100 million Bangladesian neighbors... surrounded by the most powerful and well rehearsed border armies the world has ever seen.... but.... not completely surrounded... fully coincident time line wise to the same progression that SE Asia has.... i.e. the Delta and the one that is most important here... Bangkok. Edited October 25, 2016 by maewang99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 23 minutes ago, canuckamuck said: Greenhouses add CO2 to 2.5 times atmospheric levels, because that is the optimal level for plants. Currently our atmosphere is CO2 poor by their standards Nonsense. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1960 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/899.abstract http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1694.html http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/smartnews/2012/10/plants-wont-help-fight-global-warming-as-much-as-wed-thought/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maoro2013 Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 We need more plants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirineou Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 15 minutes ago, maoro2013 said: We need more plants No we don't. We have plenty of vegetables in this forum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said: Nonsense. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1960 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/899.abstract http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n3/full/nclimate1694.html http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/smartnews/2012/10/plants-wont-help-fight-global-warming-as-much-as-wed-thought/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm Big green is getting more focused in plastering over the holes in the AGW bogeyman. This smattering of links is evidence of that. But it is the same as doctors promoting tobacco brands in the 50's. A sciency sounding obfuscation by people heavily invested in the industry. Truth is that people who make money off plants and can control their environment use lots of CO2 because it's plant food. Improved plant growth has been noted all over the world. We are benefiting from increased CO2. Edited October 25, 2016 by canuckamuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, canuckamuck said: Big green is getting more focused in plastering over the holes in the AGW bogeyman. This smattering of links is evidence of that. But it is the same as doctors promoting tobacco brands in the 50's. A sciency sounding obfuscation by people heavily invested in the industry. Truth is that people who make money off plants and can control their environment use lots of CO2 because it's plant food. Improved plant growth has been noted all over the world. We are benefiting from increased CO2. Just asserting something doesn't make it so. ANd anyone with a rudimentary understanding how how ecosystmes work would know that if some plants benefits more than others, then they would outcompete them and lots of species would go extinct. And at bottom, when someone starts impugning science by invoking tobacco doctors that's truly bizarre. It was those MD's who denied there was a problem in the face of overwhelming evidence. The people you cite, who get their support from big oil and gas are the tobacco MDs of today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said: Just asserting something doesn't make it so. ANd anyone with a rudimentary understanding how how ecosystmes work would know that if some plants benefits more than others, then they would outcompete them and lots of species would go extinct. And at bottom, when someone starts impugning science by invoking tobacco doctors that's truly bizarre. It was those MD's who denied there was a problem in the face of overwhelming evidence. The people you cite, who get their support from big oil and gas are the tobacco MDs of today. The comparison to tobacco doctors is completely sound. Doctors have just as much scientific understanding in their field as the Climate science gang. In both cases there are people who will do what they can for more cash and influence. Promoting tobacco was a good earner for some doctors. But that pales in comparison to the multibillion dollar climate industry which absolutely depends upon the fear of AGW. Emotional pseudo science propaganda. The notion that scientists have any more ethics than the next guy is pure fiction. It's like believing the neutrality of the media, or truth in advertising. Who do you know that wouldn't embellish a fact or statistic to get a career bump? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALLSEEINGEYE Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 5 hours ago, canuckamuck said: The plants say thank you for the food. And us Canucks are hoping the warm weather continues as well. As a Canuck I hope you are just joking as you would be hard pressed to find anyone involved in the forest industry in agreement with you. Vast amounts of BC's forests have been wiped out by the spruce and pine beetles because the winters are not cold enough to kill them off. This also affects all of the large animals that rely on old growth forest for their food. Anyone that denies that global warming is a serious issue, either has their own agenda of is just plain ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Srikcir Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 This all a chinese conspiracy. I'm sure Trump as POTUS will build a dome over China to contain CO2 and make them pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgordo38 Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 7 hours ago, webfact said: PARIS: -- The earth has reached a worrying new milestone. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have reached the symbolic threshold of 400 parts per million on average across the whole of 2015, and may not dip below that level for many generations. The push is on especially in China to sell more cars. Pretty soon the whole planet will be covered in asphalt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilostmypassword Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 1 hour ago, canuckamuck said: The comparison to tobacco doctors is completely sound. Doctors have just as much scientific understanding in their field as the Climate science gang. In both cases there are people who will do what they can for more cash and influence. Promoting tobacco was a good earner for some doctors. But that pales in comparison to the multibillion dollar climate industry which absolutely depends upon the fear of AGW. Emotional pseudo science propaganda. The notion that scientists have any more ethics than the next guy is pure fiction. It's like believing the neutrality of the media, or truth in advertising. Who do you know that wouldn't embellish a fact or statistic to get a career bump? ." But that pales in comparison to the multibillion dollar climate industry which absolutely depends upon the fear of AGW. Emotional pseudo science propaganda." What planet do you live on? Whatever the size of the climate industry, it is as nothing compared to the fossil fuel industry. Aramco alone has been valued at anywhere from 1.25 to 10 trillion dollars. And that's just one fraction of the petroleum industry. To say nothing of natural gas and coal. Whatever there is of the renewable resources industry is as nothing compared to the fossil fuel industry. And conspiracy and corruption accusation are always the last refuge of the desperate and willfully ignorant. There are over 25,000 climate scientists in the world and 98% say human-caused global warming is happening. Are you seriously suggesting that they are working in a massive conspiracy to promote some dishonest agenda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpatOilWorker Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 Oil and natural gas consumption is projected to continue to increase with 1.5% per year. Only coal consumption might start taper off soon. At the moment we are burning: 1,000 bbls of oil per second 10 km3 of gas per day We should see 500 ppm in my lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickBradford Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said: What planet do you live on? Whatever the size of the climate industry, it is as nothing compared to the fossil fuel industry. Aramco alone has been valued at anywhere from 1.25 to 10 trillion dollars. And that's just one fraction of the petroleum industry. To say nothing of natural gas and coal. Whatever there is of the renewable resources industry is as nothing compared to the fossil fuel industry. He's not talking about the renewable resources industry, but the whole of the climate change 'industry' which includes millions of bureaucrats in make-work jobs offering climate advice, formulating climate regulations, sounding climate alarm, and other unspecified climate activities. The EU has officially boasted that "at least 20% of its budget for 2014-2020 – as much as €180 billion - should be spent on climate change-related action." They have a pretty hard time explaining exactly what these hundreds of billions are being p**sed away on. The best they can do is "mitigation and adaptation actions .... in particular cohesion policy, regional development, energy, transport, research and innovation." This meaningless drivel does nothing but stroke the vanity of EU bureacrats while impoverishing EU citizens, who have to pay for this nonsense. The Climate Policy Initiative said in 2013: “Landscape 2013 finds that global climate finance flows have plateaued at USD 359 billion, or around USD 1 billion per day – far below even the most conservative estimates of investment needs." Stripped of its Greenspeak, that means that a billion dollars a day is being poured down the toilet, but even that isn't enough for the climate change industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 8 minutes ago, RickBradford said: He's not talking about the renewable resources industry, but the whole of the climate change 'industry' which includes millions of bureaucrats in make-work jobs offering climate advice, formulating climate regulations, sounding climate alarm, and other unspecified climate activities. The EU has officially boasted that "at least 20% of its budget for 2014-2020 – as much as €180 billion - should be spent on climate change-related action." They have a pretty hard time explaining exactly what these hundreds of billions are being p**sed away on. The best they can do is "mitigation and adaptation actions .... in particular cohesion policy, regional development, energy, transport, research and innovation." This meaningless drivel does nothing but stroke the vanity of EU bureacrats while impoverishing EU citizens, who have to pay for this nonsense. The Climate Policy Initiative said in 2013: “Landscape 2013 finds that global climate finance flows have plateaued at USD 359 billion, or around USD 1 billion per day – far below even the most conservative estimates of investment needs." Stripped of its Greenspeak, that means that a billion dollars a day is being poured down the toilet, but even that isn't enough for the climate change industry. And there is no way the fossil fuel industry is spending anywhere close to that amount on PR Yes the fossil fuel industry represents a massive economy. But they don't spend all the money trying to prove oil exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcsmith Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 (edited) I see a lot of people here complaining about money being spent to aid with climate change. I think it's pretty easy for retired individuals to make these types of claims. It's your grandchildren who would pay the price anyway and you'll be long gone. The contribution of humans to the change is largely irrelevant (though substantial no matter how you slice it), as we have to live on the planet regardless. I see a lot of people linking articles downplaying the effects we've had on the environment. Of course people in industries who will be negatively affected by enforced changes will fight back in their arguments, those changes will hurt the coal and oil industries for example. But the real question you should be asking is what would people who are not profiting from these changes have to gain by dumping billions of dollars to try to find a solution? Edited October 25, 2016 by jcsmith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickBradford Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 Quote I see a lot of people here complaining about money being spent to aid with climate change. I think it's pretty easy for retired individuals to make these types of claims. It's your grandchildren who would pay the price anyway and you'll be long gone. The people who pay the biggest price are the poor, especially those in Third World countries. With all the hundreds of billions being squandered on "climate actions", less focus and resources are naturally aimed at problems like communicable diseases, malaria, clean drinking water, nutrition, sanitation, basic healthcare and education, and HIV/AIDS. Enormous inroads could be made on all those problems for a fraction of the money being thrown at the chimera of climate catastrophe. The idea that the climate issue is principally a threat to our grandchildren is simply a piece of emotional blackmail dreamed up by the Green/Left to stifle opposition to their plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minimoi Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 40 minutes ago, canuckamuck said: And there is no way the fossil fuel industry is spending anywhere close to that amount on PR Yes the fossil fuel industry represents a massive economy. But they don't spend all the money trying to prove oil exists. But they don't spend all the money trying to prove oil exists You re right, they spend billions of $ AND countless lives to grab it... look at the middle east, certainly not for the Freedom they go there. Climate change is not a "fiction" and the lobbies who really want that nothing change in term of pollution and ecology are the same ones who told us fracking is safe... Now you just have to witness the invasive species in the oceans, coming to part of the earth where they do not belong, we can also witness the coral dying..etc... People saying human activity has no impact on climate are not just clueless obviously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 1 hour ago, RickBradford said: With all the hundreds of billions being squandered on "climate actions"... I've told you a million times not to exaggerate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 8 hours ago, ilostmypassword said: Just asserting something doesn't make it so. ANd anyone with a rudimentary understanding how how ecosystmes work would know that if some plants benefits more than others, then they would outcompete them and lots of species would go extinct. And at bottom, when someone starts impugning science by invoking tobacco doctors that's truly bizarre. It was those MD's who denied there was a problem in the face of overwhelming evidence. The people you cite, who get their support from big oil and gas are the tobacco MDs of today. LOL. Humans have been wiping out other species without any assistance from excess carbon; 322 in past 500 years- just google it. I can't say what will happen if it continues, but what I do know is that nothing effective will be done to change it. If the governments of the world got together and said they were going to implement measures that would work, millions would die and everyone else would rebel as every carbon emitting device was removed from use- every fossil fuelled engine, every fossil fuelled power station- get the picture? What's the alternative? - a crash program to build enough nuclear to replace fossil fueled power, banning all non essential air travel, banning all non essential road travel, banning large gatherings etc etc etc. The car industry would cease, the travel industry would end, etc. I know a lot of people will say renewables, but no one will want to pay the cost, which will be huge, and anyway, impossible to build fast enough to have a significant effect. Human nature will see mankind extinct before they give up their cars, their air travel, their electronic devices and all the other trappings of modern life. Good luck to the youth of today that will be the ones to deal with the sins of their predecessors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 7 hours ago, ALLSEEINGEYE said: As a Canuck I hope you are just joking as you would be hard pressed to find anyone involved in the forest industry in agreement with you. Vast amounts of BC's forests have been wiped out by the spruce and pine beetles because the winters are not cold enough to kill them off. This also affects all of the large animals that rely on old growth forest for their food. Anyone that denies that global warming is a serious issue, either has their own agenda of is just plain ignorant. Even if you are correct, what are the vast majority of humans willing to give up to prevent it? IMO nothing. People want their cheap food, their cheap air travel, their cars, their electronic devices etc. Can't have it both ways. To listen to the GW industry, if we just have a lot of international conferences and pay more taxes all will be well 555555555555555555. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted October 25, 2016 Share Posted October 25, 2016 10 hours ago, maoro2013 said: We need more plants Yes, but even better to stop destroying the rain forests of the world in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now