World Meteorological Organization: Carbon Dioxide hits 400ppm, 'Time is running out'

[LateX'Dog]

GENEVA, Switzerland, May 26 (UPI) --The World Meteorological Association (WMO) announced Monday that the average monthly concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the northern hemisphere exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) in April, the highest monthly average on record.

A press release from the United Nations' weather agency says crossing the "threshold is of symbolic and scientific significance and reinforces evidence that the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities are responsible for the continuing increase in heat-trapping greenhouse gases warming our planet."

According to the WMO's release, CO2 levels have risen more than 40 percent, up from pre-industrial levels of around 278 ppm, since human's began burning fossil fuels. CO2 can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, longer still in the oceans. Because plants absorb more carbon dioxide during summer months when their foliage is more dense and plentiful, CO2 levels fluctuate from season to season and tend to peak in the spring. The northern hemisphere, due to higher levels of human industrial activity than the southern hemisphere, tends to have a more pronounced seasonal cycle.

But even with April's reading representing a seasonal peak, Earth's atmosphere hasn't seen levels as high as 400 ppm for millions of years.

"This should serve as yet another wakeup call about the constantly rising levels of greenhouse gases which are driving climate change. If we are to preserve our planet for future generations, we need urgent action to curb new emissions of these heat trapping gases," WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a statement. "Time is running out."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...its-400ppm-Time-is-running-out/9151401155899/

As the old saying goes, "Our goose is cooked"

What do I mean by that? In a sentence: The global, post-industrial civilization is at risk of collapse or, at the very least, a semi-permanent degradation.

Climate change is a multi-dimensional problem, and few understand its wider implications. Deforestation, ocean acidification, and an overburdened carbon cycle have all coalesced to produce our current predicament.

As these problems intensify, they'll create positive feedback loops, which only propogate the severity of the problem. If we stay above 400-450ppm for long enough, the problem will no longer be solvable--the climate will simply run amok in a literal sense.

But wait, there's more!

Climate change will have disastrous effects which are wholly unrelated to meteorology. As weather patterns shift, so will the prime agricultural and settlement land. Droughts will cause famines, food prices will soar, commodities will become ever more rare and difficult to extract, rising sea levels will create billions of refugees, subregional wars will begin, and the incipient extinction event we're seeing will continue.

As the Pentagon put it: Climate change is a "threat multiplier."

And to make matters worse, we will have to address climate change as we simultaneously address resource shortages. Dwindling oil, helium, rare earth metal, copper and aluminum reserves. Whereas previous generations only had to confront one existential crisis at a time (nuclear proliferation, interstate war, etc.), we will have to face dozens.

Oh, I almost forgot. Most governments are attempting to stifle change--They're all aware of the following simple formula: Climate change + peak resources = Civil unrest. Hell, the Pentagon has published dozens of papers on how to prepare for the societal effects of cataclysmic environmental events!

And what's their solution? A militarized police, tighter legal restraints, and mass surveillance. So even if we wanted to foment change, let alone revolution, it would be nigh impossible.

We're screwed.

 

[Glaucus]

Time ran out years ago. Even the IPCC said it was to late years ago.

It won't collapse.
One farm land becomes poor due to change off weather, another becomes viable. Let alone using our tech. Simple drainage would solve a lot of potential issues.

It's been about adapting and overcoming any changes for a long time now. Despite what a lot of people have been pushing. We've always had to adapt to change in climate and have to with or without CO2.

And no we won't have to deal with shortages, unless you want to take the papers from people who only use current and past technology. In which case we would have hot resource shortages when we ran out of gathering dead wood.

There is insane reserves of untapped "rare" earth metals.
And if you haven't noticed the change from oil to electric has already begun.

 

[Gilly]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

[LateX'Dog]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

This is what i'm clinging my hope on.

 

[Sunbed]

 

[Glaucus]

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Indeed yet if you listen to scaremongers nothings changed and their cigarette packed maths is done on old technology. Where if you look at papers done with sensible assumptions there is no shortage of rare earth minerals. How these scaremongers get the time of day is beyond me.
Oh wait no I'm wrong. Media, governments etc, like scare stories. They sell well.

 

[elmarko]

We actually have the technological capability already, we just need to apply the resources/technology & manpower we already have into it.

The problem is that capitalism & democracy forces us to only consider the short term for a long term issue (mostly) - as I'm no fan of either the solution is actually pretty straightforward to me (as it can be).

The purpose of an economy is to service the needs of the population, if our current model is driving us into destroying our own ecosystem then I'd argue it's failed it's most basic test & requires a serious redesign.

If collectively we manage to destroy ourselves while we have the means to resolve the problems we face sitting on the shelf then maybe we don't deserve to survive as a species. (not that I believe we are looking at any doomsday style scenario) - as a species we will continue, but huge parts of the world will most likely suffer significantly more than they do already.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

The problem with necessity is, it arrives significantly sooner to the poorest & most desperate parts of the world & last to those most able to shield themselves from the impact of ignoring it.

 

[Klo]

Indeed yet if you listen to scaremongers nothings changed and their cigarette packed maths is done on old technology. Where if you look at papers done with sensible assumptions there is no shortage of rare earth minerals. How these scaremongers get the time of day is beyond me.
Oh wait no I'm wrong. Media, governments etc, like scare stories. They sell well.

Better to over react than under react.

 

[Glaucus]

Better to over react than under react.

Not at all. Over reaction, loses you credibility and support. Meaning change comes slower.
And change is happening. It just takes time. Remember how the public treated EVs just a few short years ago. Now look at the reaction to Tesla Model S. Now what will public opinion be in another 10years, when infrastructure and technology are so much better and cheaper.

 

[AGD]

Time ran out years ago. Even the IPCC said it was to late years ago.

It won't collapse.
One farm land becomes poor due to change off weather, another becomes viable. Let alone using our tech. Simple drainage would solve a lot of potential issues.

It's been about adapting and overcoming any changes for a long time now. Despite what a lot of people have been pushing. We've always had to adapt to change in climate and have to with or without CO2.

It's very easy for us in the developed world to believe that we can adapt. What about the millions of people in places which can't adapt? What about the millions of animal/plant species that can't adapt?

You imply that a changing climate is a zero sum game. It isn't.

First, climate change deniers said it wasn't true, now they say it won't be a problem. Both positions are not supported by the evidence and are entirely unscientific.

Time hasn't run out. We can still mitigate the changes.

 

[Glaucus]

I didn't say it won't be a problem or that it'll be a zero sum.
It is simply to late. Look at the ipcc confidence levels for 3-4 years ago. It was to late back then.

 

[ChroniC]

Oh the irony of those idiot anti nuclear protesters, who by stopping the only viable solution to this problem 20 years ago under the pretense of saving the planet have only gone and made the environment worse.
Bloody hippies.

Rather than find the solution to the energy crisis, is there an easier and more cost effective way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere?

 

[LateX'Dog]

It's very easy for us in the developed world to believe that we can adapt. What about the millions of people in places which can't adapt? What about the millions of animal/plant species that can't adapt?

You imply that a changing climate is a zero sum game. It isn't.

First, climate change deniers said it wasn't true, now they say it won't be a problem. Both positions are not supported by the evidence and are entirely unscientific.

Time hasn't run out. We can still mitigate the changes.

First they denied climate change, and I did not speak out--
Because I was a climate change denier.

Then they claimed it wouldn't be a problem, and I did not speak out--
Because I thought it wouldn't be a problem.

Then they noticed changes, and I did not speak out--
Because the changes didn't effect me.

Then the climate changed--and there was no one left to help.

 

[elmarko]

Oh the irony of those idiot anti nuclear protesters, who by stopping the only viable solution to this problem 20 years ago under the pretense of saving the planet have only gone and made the environment worse.
Bloody hippies.

I highly doubt a few marginalised protesters are responsible for any nations nuclear power programs. I'd need some evidence to believe this.

The huge start up cost I'd imagine is more likely to be a contributing factor.

 

[Klo]

Not at all. Over reaction, loses you credibility and support. Meaning change comes slower.
And change is happening. It just takes time. Remember how the public treated EVs just a few short years ago. Now look at the reaction to Tesla Model S. Now what will public opinion be in another 10years, when infrastructure and technology are so much better and cheaper.

The free market is too slow though, climate change is a massive negative externality that isn't fully priced into the goods and services to purchase.

I agree that loss of credibility is a problem however.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Given that we've made little progress in halting 'man made climate change', is it time to consider more drastic measures? Cutting the global population in half is very achievable with just the flick of a few switches. Short of this, I seriously doubt we're going to make any progress on the issue in our lifetime.

 

[LateX'Dog]

The free market is too slow though

Pretty sure there hasn't been a free market in a very very long time.

 

[Glaucus]

The free market is too slow though, climate change is a massive negative externality that isn't fully priced into the goods and services to purchase.

I agree that loss of credibility is a problem however.

What free market. Tax, vat, EU targets ETC. There is no need for the overreaction. They would have been far better splitting it between climate change and general pollution. Cutting pollution also cuts co2. But has a more tangible benefit. Reduction of smog, increase in river life etc.

 

[pooley]

Carbon Tax here we come...

 

[elmarko]

Given that we've made little progress in halting 'man made climate change', is it time to consider more drastic measures? Cutting the global population in half is very achievable with just the flick of a few switches. Short of this, I seriously doubt we're going to make any progress on the issue in our lifetime.

Which half would you be in?.

On a more serious note.

CDR is a slow process, one which requires investment & application now for us to see the benefits with a huge reduction in our existing Co2 output if we wish to actually make an impact.

Interesting article on shale gas (which implies our current plans are pretty out of touch).

"To date, shale gas use in the US has brought down emissions there (though there was a bounce in carbon output last year) but has resulted in an increase in emissions in Europe and elsewhere. That is because coal that would have been used to fire power plants in the US has been exported instead, flooding the world market with cheap coal and encouraging far higher coal-fired power generation. So extracting shale gas may lead to slightly lower emissions than imported liquid natural gas, but a European shale gas rush might mean higher emissions in the long run.

Pursuing shale gas will not necessarily cut emissions without other mechanisms such as a strong price on carbon – the government's own research, the International Energy Agency, and energy companies themselves say so. As for David Cameron's other claim, that UK shale gas production will bring down UK energy prices, even the shale gas leader, Cuadrilla, has said that is not true."

Carbon Tax here we come...

A tax should be added on any activity which has an environmental or social negative impact - personally I don't think a system which allows corporations to ignore huge negative externalities is a good idea.

If the environmental impact isn't priced or enforced, it get's ignored - it's simple economics. The simple fact is, the air we breath & our global habitat are not the property of a corporation to pollute at a whim.