Musk is doubling down on Model 3 to penetrate the mass market, unlike prev models, there is no room for a "flop". Also, they have to sell twice as many if not a lot more of Model 3 to maintain the same level of cash flow. Tesla is walking on thin ice. You can literally smell a huge "dilution" is coming....
http://thebulletin.org/biodiversity-loss-existential-risk-comparable-climate-change9329
Biodiversity loss: An existential risk comparable to climate change
According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the two greatest existential threats to human civilization stem from climate change and nuclear weapons. Both pose clear and present dangers to the perpetuation of our species, and the increasingly dire climate situation and nuclear arsenal modernizations in the United States and Russia were the most significant reasons why the Bulletindecided to keep the Doomsday Clock set at three minutes before midnight earlier this year.
But there is another existential threat that the Bulletin overlooked in its Doomsday Clock announcement: biodiversity loss. This phenomenon is often identified as one of the many consequences of climate change, and this is of course correct. But biodiversity loss is also a contributing factor behind climate change. For example, deforestation in the Amazon rainforest and elsewhere reduces the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by plants, a natural process that mitigates the effects of climate change. So the causal relation between climate change and biodiversity loss is bidirectional.
Furthermore, there are myriad phenomena that are driving biodiversity loss in addition to climate change. Other causes include ecosystem fragmentation, invasive species, pollution, oxygen depletion caused by fertilizers running off into ponds and streams, overfishing, human overpopulation, and overconsumption. All of these phenomena have a direct impact on the health of the biosphere, and all would conceivably persist even if the problem of climate change were somehow immediately solved.
Such considerations warrant decoupling biodiversity loss from climate change, because the former has been consistently subsumed by the latter as a mere effect. Biodiversity loss is a distinct environmental crisis with its own unique syndrome of causes, consequences, and solutions—such as restoring habitats, creating protected areas (“biodiversity parks”), and practicing sustainable agriculture.
The sixth extinction. The repercussions of biodiversity loss are potentially as severe as those anticipated from climate change, or even a nuclear conflict. For example, according to a 2015 studypublished in Science Advances, the best available evidence reveals “an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries, indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already under way.” This conclusion holds, even on the most optimistic assumptions about the background rate of species losses and the current rate of vertebrate extinctions. The group classified as “vertebrates” includes mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and all other creatures with a backbone.
The article argues that, using its conservative figures, the average loss of vertebrate species was 100 times higher in the past century relative to the background rate of extinction. (Other scientists have suggested that the current extinction rate could be as much as 10,000 times higher than normal.) As the authors write, “The evidence is incontrovertible that recent extinction rates are unprecedented in human history and highly unusual in Earth’s history.” Perhaps the term “Big Six” should enter the popular lexicon—to add the current extinction to the previous “Big Five,” the last of which wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago.
But the concept of biodiversity encompasses more than just the total number of species on the planet. It also refers to the size of different populations of species. With respect to this phenomenon, multiple studies have confirmed that wild populations around the world are dwindling and disappearing at an alarming rate. For example, the 2010 Global Biodiversity Outlook report found that the population of wild vertebrates living in the tropics dropped by 59 percent between 1970 and 2006.
The report also found that the population of farmland birds in Europe has dropped by 50 percent since 1980; bird populations in the grasslands of North America declined by almost 40 percent between 1968 and 2003; and the population of birds in North American arid lands has fallen by almost 30 percent since the 1960s. Similarly, 42 percent of all amphibian species (a type of vertebrate that is sometimes called an “ecological indicator”) are undergoing population declines, and 23 percent of all plant species “are estimated to be threatened with extinction.” Other studies have found that some 20 percent of all reptile species, 48 percent of the world’s primates, and 50 percent of freshwater turtles are threatened. Underwater, about 10 percent of all coral reefs are now dead, and another 60 percent are in danger of dying.
Consistent with these data, the 2014 Living Planet Report shows that the global population of wild vertebrates dropped by 52 percent in only four decades—from 1970 to 2010. While biologists often avoid projecting historical trends into the future because of the complexity of ecological systems, it’s tempting to extrapolate this figure to, say, the year 2050, which is four decades from 2010. As it happens, a 2006 studypublished in Science does precisely this: It projects past trends of marine biodiversity loss into the 21st century, concluding that, unless significant changes are made to patterns of human activity, there will be virtually no more wild-caught seafood by 2048.
Catastrophic consequences for civilization. The consequences of this rapid pruning of the evolutionary tree of life extend beyond the obvious. There could be surprising effects of biodiversity loss that scientists are unable to fully anticipate in advance. For example, prior research has shown that localized ecosystems can undergo abrupt and irreversible shifts when they reach a tipping point. According to a 2012 paperpublished in Nature, there are reasons for thinking that we may be approaching a tipping point of this sort in the global ecosystem, beyond which the consequences could be catastrophic for civilization.
As the authors write, a planetary-scale transition could precipitate “substantial losses of ecosystem services required to sustain the human population.” An ecosystem service is any ecological process that benefits humanity, such as food production and crop pollination. If the global ecosystem were to cross a tipping point and substantial ecosystem services were lost, the results could be “widespread social unrest, economic instability, and loss of human life.” According to Missouri Botanical Garden ecologist Adam Smith, one of the paper’s co-authors, this could occur in a matter of decades—far more quickly than most of the expected consequences of climate change, yet equally destructive.
Biodiversity loss is a “threat multiplier” that, by pushing societies to the brink of collapse, will exacerbate existing conflicts and introduce entirely new struggles between state and non-state actors. Indeed, it could even fuel the rise of terrorism. (After all, climate change has been linked to the emergence of ISIS in Syria, and multiple high-ranking US officials, such as former US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and CIA director John Brennan, have affirmed that climate change and terrorism are connected.)
The reality is that we are entering the sixth mass extinction in the 3.8-billion-year history of life on Earth, and the impact of this event could be felt by civilization “in as little as three human lifetimes,” as the aforementioned 2012 Nature paper notes. Furthermore, the widespread decline of biological populations could plausibly initiate a dramatic transformation of the global ecosystem on an even faster timescale: perhaps a single human lifetime.
The unavoidable conclusion is that biodiversity loss constitutes an existential threat in its own right. As such, it ought to be considered alongside climate change and nuclear weapons as one of the most significant contemporary risks to human prosperity and survival.
Biodiversity loss: An existential risk comparable to climate change
According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the two greatest existential threats to human civilization stem from climate change and nuclear weapons. Both pose clear and present dangers to the perpetuation of our species, and the increasingly dire climate situation and nuclear arsenal modernizations in the United States and Russia were the most significant reasons why the Bulletindecided to keep the Doomsday Clock set at three minutes before midnight earlier this year.
But there is another existential threat that the Bulletin overlooked in its Doomsday Clock announcement: biodiversity loss. This phenomenon is often identified as one of the many consequences of climate change, and this is of course correct. But biodiversity loss is also a contributing factor behind climate change. For example, deforestation in the Amazon rainforest and elsewhere reduces the amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by plants, a natural process that mitigates the effects of climate change. So the causal relation between climate change and biodiversity loss is bidirectional.
Furthermore, there are myriad phenomena that are driving biodiversity loss in addition to climate change. Other causes include ecosystem fragmentation, invasive species, pollution, oxygen depletion caused by fertilizers running off into ponds and streams, overfishing, human overpopulation, and overconsumption. All of these phenomena have a direct impact on the health of the biosphere, and all would conceivably persist even if the problem of climate change were somehow immediately solved.
Such considerations warrant decoupling biodiversity loss from climate change, because the former has been consistently subsumed by the latter as a mere effect. Biodiversity loss is a distinct environmental crisis with its own unique syndrome of causes, consequences, and solutions—such as restoring habitats, creating protected areas (“biodiversity parks”), and practicing sustainable agriculture.
The sixth extinction. The repercussions of biodiversity loss are potentially as severe as those anticipated from climate change, or even a nuclear conflict. For example, according to a 2015 studypublished in Science Advances, the best available evidence reveals “an exceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity over the last few centuries, indicating that a sixth mass extinction is already under way.” This conclusion holds, even on the most optimistic assumptions about the background rate of species losses and the current rate of vertebrate extinctions. The group classified as “vertebrates” includes mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and all other creatures with a backbone.
The article argues that, using its conservative figures, the average loss of vertebrate species was 100 times higher in the past century relative to the background rate of extinction. (Other scientists have suggested that the current extinction rate could be as much as 10,000 times higher than normal.) As the authors write, “The evidence is incontrovertible that recent extinction rates are unprecedented in human history and highly unusual in Earth’s history.” Perhaps the term “Big Six” should enter the popular lexicon—to add the current extinction to the previous “Big Five,” the last of which wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago.
But the concept of biodiversity encompasses more than just the total number of species on the planet. It also refers to the size of different populations of species. With respect to this phenomenon, multiple studies have confirmed that wild populations around the world are dwindling and disappearing at an alarming rate. For example, the 2010 Global Biodiversity Outlook report found that the population of wild vertebrates living in the tropics dropped by 59 percent between 1970 and 2006.
The report also found that the population of farmland birds in Europe has dropped by 50 percent since 1980; bird populations in the grasslands of North America declined by almost 40 percent between 1968 and 2003; and the population of birds in North American arid lands has fallen by almost 30 percent since the 1960s. Similarly, 42 percent of all amphibian species (a type of vertebrate that is sometimes called an “ecological indicator”) are undergoing population declines, and 23 percent of all plant species “are estimated to be threatened with extinction.” Other studies have found that some 20 percent of all reptile species, 48 percent of the world’s primates, and 50 percent of freshwater turtles are threatened. Underwater, about 10 percent of all coral reefs are now dead, and another 60 percent are in danger of dying.
Consistent with these data, the 2014 Living Planet Report shows that the global population of wild vertebrates dropped by 52 percent in only four decades—from 1970 to 2010. While biologists often avoid projecting historical trends into the future because of the complexity of ecological systems, it’s tempting to extrapolate this figure to, say, the year 2050, which is four decades from 2010. As it happens, a 2006 studypublished in Science does precisely this: It projects past trends of marine biodiversity loss into the 21st century, concluding that, unless significant changes are made to patterns of human activity, there will be virtually no more wild-caught seafood by 2048.
Catastrophic consequences for civilization. The consequences of this rapid pruning of the evolutionary tree of life extend beyond the obvious. There could be surprising effects of biodiversity loss that scientists are unable to fully anticipate in advance. For example, prior research has shown that localized ecosystems can undergo abrupt and irreversible shifts when they reach a tipping point. According to a 2012 paperpublished in Nature, there are reasons for thinking that we may be approaching a tipping point of this sort in the global ecosystem, beyond which the consequences could be catastrophic for civilization.
As the authors write, a planetary-scale transition could precipitate “substantial losses of ecosystem services required to sustain the human population.” An ecosystem service is any ecological process that benefits humanity, such as food production and crop pollination. If the global ecosystem were to cross a tipping point and substantial ecosystem services were lost, the results could be “widespread social unrest, economic instability, and loss of human life.” According to Missouri Botanical Garden ecologist Adam Smith, one of the paper’s co-authors, this could occur in a matter of decades—far more quickly than most of the expected consequences of climate change, yet equally destructive.
Biodiversity loss is a “threat multiplier” that, by pushing societies to the brink of collapse, will exacerbate existing conflicts and introduce entirely new struggles between state and non-state actors. Indeed, it could even fuel the rise of terrorism. (After all, climate change has been linked to the emergence of ISIS in Syria, and multiple high-ranking US officials, such as former US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and CIA director John Brennan, have affirmed that climate change and terrorism are connected.)
The reality is that we are entering the sixth mass extinction in the 3.8-billion-year history of life on Earth, and the impact of this event could be felt by civilization “in as little as three human lifetimes,” as the aforementioned 2012 Nature paper notes. Furthermore, the widespread decline of biological populations could plausibly initiate a dramatic transformation of the global ecosystem on an even faster timescale: perhaps a single human lifetime.
The unavoidable conclusion is that biodiversity loss constitutes an existential threat in its own right. As such, it ought to be considered alongside climate change and nuclear weapons as one of the most significant contemporary risks to human prosperity and survival.
the two greatest existential threats to human civilization stem from climate change and nuclear weapons
Na. Climate change is completely normal. 10,000 years ago I lived under a mile of ice.
Nukes will never be used.
If Adolf and Stalin didn't use weapons of mass destruction then it ain't ever going to happen except in Hollywood, the sole exception being those middle east whackos who currently only have access to Kalashnikovs.(Timothy McVeigh types)
The threat to us is.... us.
Overpopulation and overconsumption of scarce resources(annihilation of the biodiversity) will zap us before anything else gets into the picture
Na. Climate change is completely normal. 10,000 years ago I lived under a mile of ice.
Nukes will never be used.
If Adolf and Stalin didn't use weapons of mass destruction then it ain't ever going to happen except in Hollywood, the sole exception being those middle east whackos who currently only have access to Kalashnikovs.(Timothy McVeigh types)
The threat to us is.... us.
Overpopulation and overconsumption of scarce resources(annihilation of the biodiversity) will zap us before anything else gets into the picture
The rate of change in climate/cO2 levels is the problem.. Mother Nature takes time to adapt and has a lot of feedback mechanisms now that the ball really starting to roll on species extinction it will only pick up pace...
if we extinct the bees for instance we are toast..
humans are essentially the asteroid for the coming/in progress 6th mass extinction of earth.. (Others volcanos and asteroids)
-------
[h=1]The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist[/h]The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.
As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million — climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now.
According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere, although it is more likely to take a couple more years until it stays above that threshold, according to Ralph Keeling, a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.
CO2 levels are far higher now than they have been for anytime during the past 800,000 years.
Click image to enlarge. Credit: Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Keeling is the son of Charles David Keeling, who began the CO2 observations at Mauna Loa in 1958 and for whom the iconic “Keeling Curve” is named.
Carbon dioxide is the most important long-lived global warming gas, and once it is emitted by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, a single CO2 molecule can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Global CO2 emissions reached a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes in 2012, up 2.6 percent from 2011. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases warm the planet by absorbing the sun’s energy and preventing heat from escaping back into space.
The news that CO2 is near 400 ppm for the first time highlights a question that scientists have been investigating using a variety of methods: when was the last time that CO2 levels were this high, and what was the climate like back then?
There is no single, agreed-upon answer to those questions as studies show a wide date range from between 800,000 to 15 million years ago. The most direct evidence comes from tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped in the vast ice sheets of Antarctica. By drilling for ice cores and analyzing the air bubbles, scientists have found that, at no point during at least the past 800,000 years have atmospheric CO2 levels been as high as they are now.
That means that in the entire history of human civilization, CO2 levels have never been this high.
The Keeling Curve, showing CO2 concentrations increasing to near 400 ppm in 2013. Credit: NOAA.
Other research, though, shows that you have to go back much farther in time, well beyond 800,000 years ago, to find an instance where CO2 was sustained at 400 ppm or greater.
For a 2009 study, published in the journal Science, scientists analyzed shells in deep sea sediments to estimate past CO2 levels, and found that CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now for at least the past 10 to 15 million years, during the Miocene epoch.
“This was a time when global temperatures were substantially warmer than today, and there was very little ice around anywhere on the planet. And so sea level was considerably higher — around 100 feet higher — than it is today,” said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann, in an email conversation. “It is for this reason that some climate scientists, like James Hansen, have argued that even current-day CO2 levels are too high. There is the possibility that we’ve already breached the threshold of truly dangerous human influence on our climate and planet."
Sea levels are increasing today in response to the warming climate, as ice sheets melt and seas expand due to rising temperatures. Scientists are projecting up to 3 feet or more of global sea level rise by 2100, which would put some coastal cities in peril.
While there have been past periods in Earth's history when temperatures were warmer than they are now, the rate of change that is currently taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past, and therefore it will likely be more difficult to adapt to.
A 2011 study in the journal Paleoceanography found that atmospheric CO2 levels may have been comparable to today’s as recently as sometime between 2 and 4.6 million years ago, during the Pliocene epoch, which saw the arrival of Homo habilis, a possible ancestor of modern homo sapiens, and when herds of giant, elephant-like Mastadons roamed North America. Modern human civilization didn’t arrive on the scene until the Holocene Epoch, which began 12,000 years ago.
Regardless of which estimate is correct, it is clear that CO2 levels are now higher than they have ever been in mankind’s history. With global CO2 emissions continuing on an upward trajectory that is likely to put CO2 concentrations above 450 ppm or higher, it is extremely unlikely that the steadily rising shape of the Keeling Curve is going to change anytime soon.
"There's an esthetic to the curve that's beautiful science and troubling reality,” Keeling said. “I'd very much like to see the curve change from going steadily upward to flattening out."
if we extinct the bees for instance we are toast..
humans are essentially the asteroid for the coming/in progress 6th mass extinction of earth.. (Others volcanos and asteroids)
-------
[h=1]The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t Exist[/h]The last time there was this much carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist. Megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.
As we near the record for the highest CO2 concentration in human history — 400 parts per million — climate scientists worry about where we were then, and where we're rapidly headed now.
According to data gathered at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the 400 ppm mark may briefly be exceeded this month, when CO2 typically hits a seasonal peak in the Northern Hemisphere, although it is more likely to take a couple more years until it stays above that threshold, according to Ralph Keeling, a researcher at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.
CO2 levels are far higher now than they have been for anytime during the past 800,000 years.Click image to enlarge. Credit: Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Keeling is the son of Charles David Keeling, who began the CO2 observations at Mauna Loa in 1958 and for whom the iconic “Keeling Curve” is named.
Carbon dioxide is the most important long-lived global warming gas, and once it is emitted by burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, a single CO2 molecule can remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Global CO2 emissions reached a record high of 35.6 billion tonnes in 2012, up 2.6 percent from 2011. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases warm the planet by absorbing the sun’s energy and preventing heat from escaping back into space.
The news that CO2 is near 400 ppm for the first time highlights a question that scientists have been investigating using a variety of methods: when was the last time that CO2 levels were this high, and what was the climate like back then?
There is no single, agreed-upon answer to those questions as studies show a wide date range from between 800,000 to 15 million years ago. The most direct evidence comes from tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped in the vast ice sheets of Antarctica. By drilling for ice cores and analyzing the air bubbles, scientists have found that, at no point during at least the past 800,000 years have atmospheric CO2 levels been as high as they are now.
That means that in the entire history of human civilization, CO2 levels have never been this high.
Other research, though, shows that you have to go back much farther in time, well beyond 800,000 years ago, to find an instance where CO2 was sustained at 400 ppm or greater.
For a 2009 study, published in the journal Science, scientists analyzed shells in deep sea sediments to estimate past CO2 levels, and found that CO2 levels have not been as high as they are now for at least the past 10 to 15 million years, during the Miocene epoch.
“This was a time when global temperatures were substantially warmer than today, and there was very little ice around anywhere on the planet. And so sea level was considerably higher — around 100 feet higher — than it is today,” said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann, in an email conversation. “It is for this reason that some climate scientists, like James Hansen, have argued that even current-day CO2 levels are too high. There is the possibility that we’ve already breached the threshold of truly dangerous human influence on our climate and planet."
Sea levels are increasing today in response to the warming climate, as ice sheets melt and seas expand due to rising temperatures. Scientists are projecting up to 3 feet or more of global sea level rise by 2100, which would put some coastal cities in peril.
While there have been past periods in Earth's history when temperatures were warmer than they are now, the rate of change that is currently taking place is faster than most of the climate shifts that have occurred in the past, and therefore it will likely be more difficult to adapt to.
A 2011 study in the journal Paleoceanography found that atmospheric CO2 levels may have been comparable to today’s as recently as sometime between 2 and 4.6 million years ago, during the Pliocene epoch, which saw the arrival of Homo habilis, a possible ancestor of modern homo sapiens, and when herds of giant, elephant-like Mastadons roamed North America. Modern human civilization didn’t arrive on the scene until the Holocene Epoch, which began 12,000 years ago.
Regardless of which estimate is correct, it is clear that CO2 levels are now higher than they have ever been in mankind’s history. With global CO2 emissions continuing on an upward trajectory that is likely to put CO2 concentrations above 450 ppm or higher, it is extremely unlikely that the steadily rising shape of the Keeling Curve is going to change anytime soon.
"There's an esthetic to the curve that's beautiful science and troubling reality,” Keeling said. “I'd very much like to see the curve change from going steadily upward to flattening out."
Gonna need all time high stock market and continued central banking support to get more rally outta oil near term and a push higher through this low to mid 40s resistance.. IMO
more probable is market range bound or tanks again and oil pulls back.. Think oil will be stuck 25-45 for a while..
more probable is market range bound or tanks again and oil pulls back.. Think oil will be stuck 25-45 for a while..
400ppm CO2
400/1000000=0.0004
0.0004 x 100 = 0.04%
It's a trace gas with no effect on anything whatsoever, four hundredths of a hundredth of a cent
I find it strange that people will disbelieve the government completely on subject A, but guzzle the government cool-aid on subject B
Any scientist who agrees with global warming gets money. Any scientist who disagrees gets excommunicated.
IMO It's a load of bollox but it's good propaganda for reducing consumption and general pollution, which definitely needs sorted.
(and Plants actually thrive in CO2 rich environments, they love it)
400/1000000=0.0004
0.0004 x 100 = 0.04%
It's a trace gas with no effect on anything whatsoever, four hundredths of a hundredth of a cent
I find it strange that people will disbelieve the government completely on subject A, but guzzle the government cool-aid on subject B
Any scientist who agrees with global warming gets money. Any scientist who disagrees gets excommunicated.
IMO It's a load of bollox but it's good propaganda for reducing consumption and general pollution, which definitely needs sorted.
(and Plants actually thrive in CO2 rich environments, they love it)
Current [atmospheric] CO2 values are more than 100 ppm higher than at any time in the last one million years (and maybe higher than any time in the last 25 million years). This new record represents an increase of 85 ppm in the 55 years since David Keeling began making measurements at Mauna Loa. Even more disturbing than the magnitude of this change is the fact that the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing over the last few decades, meaning that future increases will happen faster. When averaged over 55 years, the increase has been about 1.55 ppm CO2 per year. However, the most recent data suggest that the annual increase is more than 2.75 ppm CO2 per year.
These increases in atmospheric CO2 are causing real, significant changes in the Earth system now, not in some distant future climate, and will continue to be felt for centuries to come. We can study these impacts to better understand the way the Earth will respond to future changes, but unless serious actions are taken immediately, we risk the next threshold being a point of no return in mankind's unintended global-scale geoengineering experiment.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
--------
on a universal time scale (millions of years) the rate of change happening now is unprecedented..
Rate keeps increasing by 2100 estimated we will be 800 ppb if we stay on path of status quo ... Rapid Deforestation by man also plays into all this as they suck up the co2...
These increases in atmospheric CO2 are causing real, significant changes in the Earth system now, not in some distant future climate, and will continue to be felt for centuries to come. We can study these impacts to better understand the way the Earth will respond to future changes, but unless serious actions are taken immediately, we risk the next threshold being a point of no return in mankind's unintended global-scale geoengineering experiment.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
--------
on a universal time scale (millions of years) the rate of change happening now is unprecedented..
Rate keeps increasing by 2100 estimated we will be 800 ppb if we stay on path of status quo ... Rapid Deforestation by man also plays into all this as they suck up the co2...
It's pretty well established that co2 is heat trapping and ppb changes make a difference..
obviously mankind being fucked not just the one issue .. It's deforestation.,human overpopulation..pollution... Massive consumption of resources at rates that are unsustainable etc...
-----
Is this scientific proof of climate change?Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat in air for first time
A new study in the journal Nature demonstrates in real-time field measurements what scientists already knew from basic physics, lab tests, numerous simulations, temperature records and dozens of other climatic indicators.
They say it confirms the science of climate change and the amount of heat-trapping previously blamed on carbon dioxide.
Scroll down for video
Scientists witnessed and measured carbon dioxide trapping heat in the sky above, confirming human-caused global warming, using the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer seen here, located in Barrow, Alaska.
This graph show carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect at a research facility in Oklahoma. As the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (blue) increased from 2000 to the end of 2010, so did surface radiative forcing due to CO2 (orange), and both quantities have upward trends. This means the Earth absorbed more energy from solar radiation than it emitted as heat back to space. The seasonal fluctuations are caused by plant-based photosynthetic activity.'We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,' said Daniel Feldman, a scientist in Berkeley Lab's Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the Nature paper.
'Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect,' Feldman adds.
He said no one before had quite looked in the atmosphere for this type of specific proof of climate change.
The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility.
These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface.
They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2.
Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor.
The result is two time-series from two very different locations. Each series spans from 2000 to the end of 2010, and includes 3300 measurements from Alaska and 8300 measurements from Oklahoma obtained on a near-daily basis.
Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.
Based on an analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s CarbonTracker system, the scientists linked this upswing in CO2-attributed radiative forcing to fossil fuel emissions and fires.
The measurements also enabled the scientists to detect, for the first time, the influence of photosynthesis on the balance of energy at the surface.
They found that CO2-attributed radiative forcing dipped in the spring as flourishing photosynthetic activity pulled more of the greenhouse gas from the air.
HOW THEY DID IT
The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility.
These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska (right), measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface.
They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2.
Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor.
The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2.
The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2.
Scientists say carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and gas is the chief cause of global warming.
In doing so, the data show clouds, water vapor or changes in sun's radiation are not responsible for warming the air, as some who doubt mainstream climate science claim, Feldman said.
The new study in the journal Nature demonstrates in real-time field measurements what scientists already knew from basic physics, lab tests, numerous simulations, temperature records and dozens of other climatic indicators.Nor could it be temperature data being tampered with, as some contrarians insist, Feldman said.
'The data say what the data say,' Feldman said.
'They are very clear that the rising carbon dioxide is actually contributing to an increased greenhouse effect at those sites.'
The study is good technical work, said climate scientist Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University, but it is expected — sort of like confirming gravity with a falling rock.
Watch the world's biggest jet engine fire up: Prototype that will power Boeing's 406 seat 777 'megaplane'...
obviously mankind being fucked not just the one issue .. It's deforestation.,human overpopulation..pollution... Massive consumption of resources at rates that are unsustainable etc...
-----
Is this scientific proof of climate change?Scientists witness carbon dioxide trapping heat in air for first time
- Researchers say experiment confirms the science of climate change
- Witnessed C02 trapping heat in the atmosphere above the United States
A new study in the journal Nature demonstrates in real-time field measurements what scientists already knew from basic physics, lab tests, numerous simulations, temperature records and dozens of other climatic indicators.
They say it confirms the science of climate change and the amount of heat-trapping previously blamed on carbon dioxide.
Scroll down for video
Scientists witnessed and measured carbon dioxide trapping heat in the sky above, confirming human-caused global warming, using the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer seen here, located in Barrow, Alaska.
This graph show carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect at a research facility in Oklahoma. As the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (blue) increased from 2000 to the end of 2010, so did surface radiative forcing due to CO2 (orange), and both quantities have upward trends. This means the Earth absorbed more energy from solar radiation than it emitted as heat back to space. The seasonal fluctuations are caused by plant-based photosynthetic activity.'We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation,' said Daniel Feldman, a scientist in Berkeley Lab's Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the Nature paper.
'Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect,' Feldman adds.
He said no one before had quite looked in the atmosphere for this type of specific proof of climate change.
The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility.
These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface.
They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2.
Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor.
The result is two time-series from two very different locations. Each series spans from 2000 to the end of 2010, and includes 3300 measurements from Alaska and 8300 measurements from Oklahoma obtained on a near-daily basis.
Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.
Based on an analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s CarbonTracker system, the scientists linked this upswing in CO2-attributed radiative forcing to fossil fuel emissions and fires.
The measurements also enabled the scientists to detect, for the first time, the influence of photosynthesis on the balance of energy at the surface.
They found that CO2-attributed radiative forcing dipped in the spring as flourishing photosynthetic activity pulled more of the greenhouse gas from the air.
HOW THEY DID IT
The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility.
These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska (right), measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface.
They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2.
Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor.
The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2.
The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2.
Scientists say carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and gas is the chief cause of global warming.
In doing so, the data show clouds, water vapor or changes in sun's radiation are not responsible for warming the air, as some who doubt mainstream climate science claim, Feldman said.
The new study in the journal Nature demonstrates in real-time field measurements what scientists already knew from basic physics, lab tests, numerous simulations, temperature records and dozens of other climatic indicators.Nor could it be temperature data being tampered with, as some contrarians insist, Feldman said.
'The data say what the data say,' Feldman said.
'They are very clear that the rising carbon dioxide is actually contributing to an increased greenhouse effect at those sites.'
The study is good technical work, said climate scientist Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University, but it is expected — sort of like confirming gravity with a falling rock.
Watch the world's biggest jet engine fire up: Prototype that will power Boeing's 406 seat 777 'megaplane'...
This new record represents an increase of 85 ppm in the 55 years since David Keeling began making measurements at Mauna Loa.
Mauna Loa is a flipping volcano.
Volcanoes spew out all sorts of gases and are the last place I would start measuring a gas, ANY gas
Sounds a bit like measuring global hydrocarbon gas levels on an oil rig...
The North or the South pole would be more sensible IMO
That's our other problem, measuring stuff was pretty crappy up to the mid 1980s and is not really comparable with modern technology, so the data needs to be taken with a degree of caution (not skepticism, they WERE trying their best with what limited kit they had)
Mauna Loa is a flipping volcano.
Volcanoes spew out all sorts of gases and are the last place I would start measuring a gas, ANY gas
Sounds a bit like measuring global hydrocarbon gas levels on an oil rig...
The North or the South pole would be more sensible IMO
That's our other problem, measuring stuff was pretty crappy up to the mid 1980s and is not really comparable with modern technology, so the data needs to be taken with a degree of caution (not skepticism, they WERE trying their best with what limited kit they had)
And here's other data besides Mauna Loa
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/sites/default/files/graphics_gallery_images/co2_sta_records.png
being a sceptic by nature I used to ? It myself., but the evidence/data now is quite clear...
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/sites/default/files/graphics_gallery_images/co2_sta_records.png
being a sceptic by nature I used to ? It myself., but the evidence/data now is quite clear...
And regardless like you say even if the correlation between co2 levels and warming is bollox... The path we on with our population growth and massive wasting/consumption of resources is unsustainable.. Biodiversity is crumbling at a rapid rate that is also a fact regardless of the root cause (many factors related to humans)...
I see people now having 4+ kids and just think to myself WTF are you doing.. Back in day it made some sense... Now it's a complete waste of space.. Have a few to give yourself some purpose to carry on if need be but.. Also the ones with less means and education to raise many are having tons while the ones like me with the means are saying fuck that I'll have 0-2 max... anywho just something to debate to pass the time in our very tiny lifespans ... in the grand universal scale it's all meaningless anyway ... The earth will keep turning regardless..
My problem with the "science" is that it's become policy
You must say global warming is true, if you produce ANY evidence to the contrary you are toast.
So after 4-6 years getting degree stuff and 10 years establishing yourself as a scientist... if you don't follow the established policy.... you are fucked... forever... and need to get a new job delivering pizzas
On the other hand, if you follow the party line then gold and riches and social status will be showered upon you
That-is-not-a-good-environment-for-science(or anything else)
You must say global warming is true, if you produce ANY evidence to the contrary you are toast.
So after 4-6 years getting degree stuff and 10 years establishing yourself as a scientist... if you don't follow the established policy.... you are fucked... forever... and need to get a new job delivering pizzas
On the other hand, if you follow the party line then gold and riches and social status will be showered upon you
That-is-not-a-good-environment-for-science(or anything else)
What's the contrary evidence though? I've tried to find it being a contrarian but it just isn't there.. Solar cycles is one the contrarians point to but that shit is shoddy at best ..
there are are plenty of things to do in science outside the realm of climate change.. Most scientists just put their heads in the sand ... Work for the man.. pop out some worthless kids and cheerlead the status quo
there are are plenty of things to do in science outside the realm of climate change.. Most scientists just put their heads in the sand ... Work for the man.. pop out some worthless kids and cheerlead the status quo
It's 3.30 here and bobos beckons so I'll be brief
Two contrarians
number one
number two (his appeal got bankrolled by his insurance company, unlike Wakefield)
The evidence for what happens to people who step out of line isn't usually easy to find either
Two contrarians
number one
number two (his appeal got bankrolled by his insurance company, unlike Wakefield)
The evidence for what happens to people who step out of line isn't usually easy to find either
As far as GW is concerned I'm not enough of a diehard sceptic to go digging for casualties, various pro GW studies have been discredited though, the best one being an ice free arctic
That was BBC front page stuff when it came out in 2007, and it was a big steaming pile of propaganda bollox
They've been pushing this kinda BS for 20 years now and it makes a shedload of cash for them
About a month later(in 2007) the Russkies were in the news because they were planning a huge expansion of their arctic icebreaker fleet, (I guess Russia doesn't believe the BBC either)
That was BBC front page stuff when it came out in 2007, and it was a big steaming pile of propaganda bollox
They've been pushing this kinda BS for 20 years now and it makes a shedload of cash for them
About a month later(in 2007) the Russkies were in the news because they were planning a huge expansion of their arctic icebreaker fleet, (I guess Russia doesn't believe the BBC either)
