Atmospheric CO2 - a datapoint

Forums › Off topic › Atmospheric CO2 - a datapoint

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#204404 30-Sep-2016 07:48

March 2015 was the first month in recorded history with atmospheric carbon dioxide at 400ppm (parts per million) concentration. No month ever in recorded history had reached that level.

September is the usually the month in the annual cycle where CO2 is at its lowest level.

September 2016 is the first annual CO2 *minimum* where CO2 will have remained at 400ppm. All future months will be ABOVE this level.

So 18 months ago we reached the level for the first time, and now ALL months going forward will be this level or higher.

Bear in mind the climatic consequences of CO2 increase take 10-20 years to work through the global climate system. The record warming we are experiencing now is due to CO2 in the atmosphere 10-20 years ago.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/world-passes-400-ppm-threshold-permanently-20738

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

1043 posts

Uber Geek

#1648843 10-Oct-2016 23:42

We are doing so well.

I remember just a few months back, the world had another climate meeting and decided to set a target of 1.5 degrees C warming by about 2050.

We are already almost there. Just a coupe of tenths shy and over 30 years ahead of target. We should be proud.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1648851 11-Oct-2016 00:52

"Since the industrial revolution, humans have been altering this process by adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than plants can take up. "

They missed the bit that we are also reducing plant life, therefore exacerbating the issue. Urban sprawl and deforestation. The Amazon rainforest is huge oxygen generator, and CO2 user, thats reducing every day.

MikeAqua

7779 posts

Uber Geek

#1648898 11-Oct-2016 09:04

tdgeek:

They missed the bit that we are also reducing plant life, therefore exacerbating the issue. Urban sprawl and deforestation. The Amazon rainforest is huge oxygen generator, and CO2 user, that's reducing every day.

More trees. Many, many, many more trees.

Mike

kiwifidget

"Cookie"
3420 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1648912 11-Oct-2016 09:19

Delete cookies?! Are you insane?!

jmh

458 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1648940 11-Oct-2016 09:32

CO2 is not pollution and scientists do not KNOW (capitals do not make it MORE true) the future. When the scientists start including the effects of ocean temperature and sun radiation in their models I'll start listening. At the moment, reality is not meeting the models. However, many more billions are being spent each year to try and prove that man is more powerful that the earth's oceans and the sun.

sidefx

3711 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1648942 11-Oct-2016 09:34

Don't worry people, I've been reading the comments on slashdot - apparently global warming is a myth created by a small, splinter group of renegade psuedo-scientists. Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

(PS: Even if it's real which it's not nuclear power is the solution to everything. Frost Pist)

"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there." | Octopus Energy | Sharesies
- Richard Feynman

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek

#1648961 11-Oct-2016 09:58

kiwifidget:

Myth.

The oxygen that we breath is produced by the plants that we grow for food. (Or that we grow as fodder for the animals that we eat.)

That is a perfectly balanced cycle. It has to be. Basic chemistry. The plant grows and uses sunshine to convert CO2 and water into tasty food and free oxygen.

We eat the tasty plant and suck in some oxygen and then convert the plant back into CO2 and water and it is all perfectly balanced.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1648973 11-Oct-2016 10:16

jpoc:

kiwifidget:

Myth.

The oxygen that we breath is produced by the plants that we grow for food. (Or that we grow as fodder for the animals that we eat.)

That is a perfectly balanced cycle. It has to be. Basic chemistry. The plant grows and uses sunshine to convert CO2 and water into tasty food and free oxygen.

We eat the tasty plant and suck in some oxygen and then convert the plant back into CO2 and water and it is all perfectly balanced.

How can it be perfectly balanced when we artificially add more CO2, then artificially remove plants? That's a double effect

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1649139 11-Oct-2016 13:16

jpoc:

The oxygen that we breath is produced by the plants that we grow for food. (Or that we grow as fodder for the animals that we eat.)

That is a perfectly balanced cycle. It has to be.

Why does it have to be? Why couldn't we consume more oxygen than food plants can convert back to oxygen? Especially in a situation where there are lots of non-food plants converting CO2 to oxygen?

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1649170 11-Oct-2016 13:50

frankv:

jpoc:

The oxygen that we breath is produced by the plants that we grow for food. (Or that we grow as fodder for the animals that we eat.)

That is a perfectly balanced cycle. It has to be.

Why does it have to be? Why couldn't we consume more oxygen than food plants can convert back to oxygen? Especially in a situation where there are lots of non-food plants converting CO2 to oxygen?

The need to have a balanced oxygen content probably isn't too important. Humans already live in areas where oxygen level is high, or high in the mountains where its a lot less.

CO2 is the issue. There are lots of plants using CO2, but they are being reduced in numbers by us. So thats causing the CO2 to increase as a % of volume. Add to that, that we are adding CO2. When the Russian tundra melts, thats HUGE. Ok, thats methane, but another sode effect of warming the planet. Millions of years of compost is frozen in Russia and the tundra is nearing a thaw in areas. Punch a hole in the ground, get a lighter, free gas to use for your campfire. Its like that now in areas.

MikeAqua

7779 posts

Uber Geek

#1649200 11-Oct-2016 14:16

A tree, while growing absorbs and retains a net amount of CO2. That's how it grows.When it stops growing it's roughly in carbon balance.

We planted thousands of trees on our farm in the 1990's (slope stabilisation). I did at one stage do the carbon numbers for them. Not why we planted them but it was interesting to calculate.

Impressive sequestration until 20 years of age and pretty slow after that. There would have been an increase in soil carbon as well, although that wasn't calculated. It cost very little and made financial sense to control erosion.

There is a lot of land that could be planted in trees in this way. In believe the NZ government has funding for tree planting in erosion prone land.

Mike

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1649226 11-Oct-2016 14:28

frankv:

jpoc:

The oxygen that we breath is produced by the plants that we grow for food. (Or that we grow as fodder for the animals that we eat.)

That is a perfectly balanced cycle. It has to be.

Why does it have to be? Why couldn't we consume more oxygen than food plants can convert back to oxygen? Especially in a situation where there are lots of non-food plants converting CO2 to oxygen?

I think we can blame the athletes for using up all the oxygen! I don't use much oxygen the way I am ...

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1649289 11-Oct-2016 15:58

jmh:

CO2 is not pollution and scientists do not KNOW (capitals do not make it MORE true) the future. When the scientists start including the effects of ocean temperature and sun radiation in their models I'll start listening. At the moment, reality is not meeting the models. However, many more billions are being spent each year to try and prove that man is more powerful that the earth's oceans and the sun.

This post highlights one of the real problems

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1649300 11-Oct-2016 16:16

MikeAqua:

A tree, while growing absorbs and retains a net amount of CO2. That's how it grows.When it stops growing it's roughly in carbon balance.

We planted thousands of trees on our farm in the 1990's (slope stabilisation). I did at one stage do the carbon numbers for them. Not why we planted them but it was interesting to calculate.

Impressive sequestration until 20 years of age and pretty slow after that. There would have been an increase in soil carbon as well, although that wasn't calculated. It cost very little and made financial sense to control erosion.

There is a lot of land that could be planted in trees in this way. In believe the NZ government has funding for tree planting in erosion prone land.

Have the world make one effort. One tree for every person, thats 7 Billion trees. Poor countries will have it paid for by the non poor countries. Thats one or two or three trees per property. Too many people, there will be areas like parks, reserves, farms to plant the excess trees. Sound silly? well its a VERY easy thing for me to plant one tree, its not a drama of time and consents and rules. Make a tree day, where we have time to pickup our tree, then on global tree day, 7 billion trees are planted. Bang, one worthwhile effort rather than listening to speeches on it

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1649304 11-Oct-2016 16:20

MikeB4:

jmh:

CO2 is not pollution and scientists do not KNOW (capitals do not make it MORE true) the future. When the scientists start including the effects of ocean temperature and sun radiation in their models I'll start listening. At the moment, reality is not meeting the models. However, many more billions are being spent each year to try and prove that man is more powerful that the earth's oceans and the sun.

This post highlights one of the real problems

Very much flawed. They measure water temps already, and sea levels. Suns radiation is not what the issue is, its the heat trapped inside, and that doesnt reflect away as the ice covered parts of the planet are reducing. Its just simple physics really. I read once that if we stopped it TODAY, it would take the globe 50 years to settle. I think some of the pollutants settle or dissipate is a decade or three

1 | 2 | 3 | 4