Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby dissident » Sat 14 Apr 2018, 11:27:35

Ibon wrote:
KaiserJeep wrote:
Either way, the human species will evolve rapidly, both culturally and phyically. Evolution accelerates in times of stress is the prevailing theory.



Perhaps the inverse is also true. In times of opulence and abundance without the honing effect of external constraints humans have begun to culturally and physically degenerate.


Hear! Hear!

This is exactly what is happening. Both psychologically and physically humans require stress to retain functionality. Our brain is not distinct in this regard from muscles. One could argue that opulence and abundance do not imply intellectual atrophy, but we clearly see the dumbing down of the education system and the rise of point and click "learning". People even think that multiple choice tests are hard. No, they are a joke.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5165
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby Yonnipun » Sat 14 Apr 2018, 16:01:59

I am with KaiserJeep in this because sustaining 9 billion people on this planet by burning fossil fuels is not sustainable. The degradation of the ecosystem is so rapid that eventually all the soil is eroded to the point that it is not possible to grow plants or crop. After that the game is over. There is going to be a massive dieoff from starvation. The only thing I could think of would be pumping mud out of oceans and lakes to restore soil thickness. Also as we know that there have been ice ages before then how could anyone be 100% sure that there is not going to be another one in the nearest future? I myself am absolutely not sure whether we are heading to clobal warming or to clobal cooling. But I am absolutely sure that we are heading towards collapse. There will not going to be a true AI that will save us and no mars missions. We are never going to leave this planet . The speed of the depletion of the fossil fuels is simply so high than none of those fairytales could actually become true.
Yonnipun
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat 07 Apr 2018, 03:29:19

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby energy investor » Sat 14 Apr 2018, 18:35:03

I am for hopeful about our ability to learn and adapt, when push eventually comes to shove.

For example my own history as a "troll and sock puppet" wasn't a fast transition.

After immersing myself in the then known science, I started with two years as an AGW supporter, spreading the word to anyone who would listen.
I learned more, got serious reservations and then sat on the fence for 12 years.
I am now inclined to believe that the AGW meme is wrong. Moreover I think that the IPCC orthodoxy may well be heading in the wrong direction. It is now about social justice for the poor of emerging nations and on a global scale has absolutely no prospect of improving mankind's outcomes.

I got to this position, because when I was introduced to the subject in about 2000, the planet was warming and I believed with pollution and the finite nature of fossil fuels, there was nothing to be lost by following the IPCC line. The fact that it will be another 20-30 years at best before our technology can hope to transition us away from fossil fuels is serious flaw in the IPCC strategy.

It is certain to have adverse consequences as kaiser jeep points out.

The BS that the Australian study showed 97% of "climate scientists" approved the orthodox position is obviously false, if you bothered to examine what was studied and what the outcome was. There were at best only 35% who actually supported the IPCC line. But that is irrelevant to whether the AGW theory is valid.

I haven't found the IPCC folks' defence against the "pause" to be entirely credible either. But that too is irrelevant.

What has happened is that there is still are large and growing measure of scientific disagreement about whether we have warming or cooling in our near future and this is at a time when there is a significant reduction in the observed sunspots (similar to what happened during the mini ice age) and strange things have been happening for the last two Northern winters.

This to me only proves one thing. The science is not settled. Yet I have friends with forests receiving carbon credits and all sorts of folk buying the modern day equivalent of Papal Indulgences. These activities will change nothing in practical effect, only robbing peter to pay paul.

Meanwhile the leaders in solar sciences (including China, India and Russia) are not binding themselves to the Paris Accords in any more effects, than agreeing to start their CO2 reduction programmes in 2030 - strangely nominating the time when grand solar minimum SC25 is due to have maximum effect (whatever that may be).

So my mind has been changed by the passage of events and research.

I don't regret the higher profile of the scientific research on climate change as it acts to inform us. Most micro studies are useful but there is a sense that the outcomes of some studies are not being accepted yet where they vary from the orthodox position. But that too can change.

The Northern harvests this year will be an issue for IPCC credibility IMHO. So we can watch the prices for agricultural commodities to see what signals these send. They haven't started to move yet but the seeds that should already have been sown are still in storage and in many places the ground is rock hard with frosts. Many winter crops are already failing.

A lousy harvest won't change things much because what happens next?

So in reality I am only a 70% denier. At "three score years and eleven" I may get to know the outcome of the climate change debate before I expire, but the one thing that is certain, is there is nothing I can do about it, that I haven't already set in motion.

Any existential threats we face will more likely come to our children and our grandchildren. And I really do care about that. So I have put my money where my mouth is.
energy investor
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2011, 23:03:40

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 14 Apr 2018, 18:48:54

Okay, I will try and meet EI and Kaiser in the middle. I will concede that the full implications of what climate change has in store is a complex and not fully known subject. I will also concede that abruptly giving up on FF would have catastrophic consequences for human civilization and welfare.
However, I would hope that both of you would concede of the need to limit the emission of FF into the atmosphere as it is scientifically clear that they act to retain heat within the lower levels of our atmosphere. And I also hope that you can concede that consistent with being cautious, we at least attempt to develop strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change given the possibility of very dire future consequences.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9283
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby energy investor » Sun 15 Apr 2018, 00:22:48

Hi Onlooker,

I have been enjoying your posts on peakoil for years. Thanks for your agreement to seek some middle ground.

Perhaps I could explain my background a bit further before responding. I have only swapped sides to become a denier because I don't think there is much chance of the IPCC project being proven right. My 70:30 probability of near term cooling means I would be extremely surprised if I have erred.

Back in the 1970's as a senior business manager I was horrified to read the book, "Limits to Growth" by Meadows, Randers and Meadows. This had nothing to do with global warming but with the message of resource limitations and the threat of what would happen if we continued on our current track. The book was prepared for a group referred to as "The Club of Rome". Humanity's central problem is population growth. However any question of reducing population is regarded as Eugenics and beyond the pale for discussion.

By 2004 as an internationally qualified and experienced CMC, I had realised that we humans are extensively modifying our environment with both pollution and the rapid rate of population growth so how could that end well. The follow up book of Meadows, Randers and Meadows called "Limits to Growth" published in 2004 gave the 30 year confirmation that they were happy with forecasts but two new features arose. The first one was that our biggest problem was considered to be the build up of CO2 that caused global climate to go into runaway heating. The second was the need for humanity to have a global government and for rich countries to pay poor countries so all could agree on a common course...all due to the need to avoid a homicidal build up in CO2 for all humanity.

I am accustomed to going into organisations of all shapes and sizes and telling people the unpleasant truth, usually to fix a failing business or government agency so I don't worry too much about being unpopular...and I started enquiries as a hobby.

As I came to realise that CO2 is really nothing more than a trace gas in the atmosphere (410ppm), I came to realise that there is very little prospect that we would be able to stop any possible warming by influencing the level of atmospheric CO2 anyway.

The pre-industrial CO2 level (said to be 280ppm) was extremely low by historical times and the current level is still extremely low by geological time frames. The pre-industrial level was recorded at the end of the Mini Ice Age. As a result of the ocean giving off all sorts of gases when it warms and taking it up when it cools, then CO2 levels should have risen considerably regardless of any human discharges! The ocean has far more CO2 in it than the public is being told.

Logic then requires us to ask the simple question, "What would motivate us to try to reduce the level of CO2? And why would doing so matter?"

Remember, the Dutch have for 50 years been injecting around 1500 ppm of CO2 into their glass houses to maximise crop growth/yields. At under 200ppm, the plants essential to our survival will start to die and it is doubtful whether our crop yields could feed the current, let alone a growing population.

Right now, the planet's cooling over the last couple of years is being passed off as being due to increased CO2 levels. So due to the manipulation of data by both NASA and NOAA, the hockey stick fraud, and the 97% fraud, you have to necessarily come back to the question of why there is so much effort to stop the critics of IPCC from being published? Why vilified? Why fired from all but tenured university positions? Why prohibited from gaining grants for research? What else is going on?

I am not a party to the reasons why the IPCC/ Club of Rome cabal are trying to achieve an attack on oil, gas and coal. I quite like it as a means of reducing demand for those finite resources. Yet at a growth of 1.5 million bbls of oil per day in each successive year, due to 60% of the extra demand going to India and China, with the rest of the saving and more going to other emerging countries, their overall objective is being destroyed. They cannot possibly succeed. Atmospheric discharges are actually increasing. That must bug them to hell!

All I can do is to invite you to read "the Limits to Growth". Watch the desperation of the IPCC in the months and years ahead as the global temperature cools under the influence of the sun's Grand Global Minimum.

I can't provide a point of compromise because I will either be proven right or wrong. That doesn't confer any merit on me in either direction. But I suspect I know how this will most likely end...perhaps the oil lobby will vanquish their detractors in open court as their attackers documentary evidence is shredded.

Perhaps at some point the intelligentsia who are keeping their counsel will consider it safe enough come out and call as fraud the IPCC - the Emperor who is wearing no clothes.

In this debate I suspect evil and dirty deeds. Certainly no settled science.

Worst of all. I expect Trump's stand could be vindicated and he could perhaps become a cult hero. The alter ego to Al Gore, joint winner of the Peace Prize.

May the Lord have mercy on my soul for thinking such a thing.
energy investor
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2011, 23:03:40

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Sun 15 Apr 2018, 03:45:09

Oh, God. Make me puke. Fox Noise Conditioning.

"Alpha children wear grey. They work much harder than we do, because they're so frightfully clever. I'm really awfully glad I'm a Beta, because I don't work so hard. And then we are much better than Gammas and Deltas. Gammas are Stupid. They all wear green and Delta children wear Khaki. Oh no, I don't want to play with Delta children. And Epsilons are still worse. they're too stupid to be able ..." Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
Last edited by Cid_Yama on Sun 15 Apr 2018, 03:47:51, edited 1 time in total.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7016
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 15 Apr 2018, 03:47:09

EI, thank you for that cogent reply. You are obviously a thoughful and earnest analyst of our Overshoot dilemna as a species. I especially appreciate your reference to limits to growth. If you and others notice, I have never discounted them because I am acutely aware of their immense importance at this juncture of our evolution. Overpopulation has made many matters worse as it is the fundamental manner in which we are in overshoot. Our collective impact on the
Environment is inexorably deteriorating the resilience of our ecosystems and as long as our population stays this large or larger, it will continue to degrade and deplete resources and ecosystems.

So, the binary focus on PO versus AGW is a bit simplistic. Our technologies and modes of living are also unduly burdening the environment with wastes and toxins that are overloading both the air, land and water. Other pernicious effects are also due to modern industrial civilization. So, I cannot comment on your theory as I have not studied it sufficiently. I am an amateur as regards climate science. Maybe your claim is true or not. So, the irony of our entire Predicament is that modern global civilization is now needed to support so many but that same is underming the habitalibity of our planet. And even more ironic the attempt to keep so many people alive is also undermining this habitability. A poster whose expertise and insights I have found very valuable is Ibon. He correctly points out that this overshoot predicament is no longer under our control. That our huge population in overshoot will be bought back in line with the carrying capacity via the logical natural way of die off. And that any attempts to counter this are ultimately making things worse and are doomed to fail. I fully agree with that opinion. So, in the final analysis our situation will be resolved given that it is unsustainable in a profound sense. So, lets not obsess too much about it.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9283
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Sun 15 Apr 2018, 04:02:47

So, the binary focus...

It's called bifurcation fallacy, or just binary thinking. It's an artifact of conditioning. In fact it's conditioning in it's simplest form. You are only given two choices as if no other options exist.

Then there is the repetition. Repeat it on Fox Noise 150 times and it becomes true in the weak minded. Fox Noise has been around long enough, they not only live in an alternate reality, they have an alternate history.

It is unfortunate that once conditioned like that, it is nearly impossible to undo.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7016
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 15 Apr 2018, 06:02:26

Cid_Yama wrote:
So, the binary focus...

It's called bifurcation fallacy, or just binary thinking. It's an artifact of conditioning. In fact it's conditioning in it's simplest form. You are only given two choices as if no other options exist.

Then there is the repetition. Repeat it on Fox Noise 150 times and it becomes true in the weak minded. Fox Noise has been around long enough, they not only live in an alternate reality, they have an alternate history.

It is unfortunate that once conditioned like that, it is nearly impossible to undo.

Yes, Cid. I can much more debate someone who can concede he/she is not sure than someone who acts like they know it all. Certainly some of us have strong opinions. In such cases I defer to who has a better grasp of the particular issue. So, my venture into climate is prefaced and limited by my acute sense of lack of expertise in the matter. I just wish some kind of unanimous consensus existed relative to the climate situation. But rumours that the facts are being distorted one way or the other makes forming an opinion quite difficult. Our deep overshoot status though, is certain
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9283
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 15 Apr 2018, 06:35:51

ei is likely right about one thing (and that's about it)--some parts of the world are indeed likely to get a bit colder over then next few years/decades. Specifically, because of the attested slowdown in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (AMOC), much of Europe is likely to start experiencing temperatures that are considerably colder than long-term norms.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... al-warming
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17424
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 15 Apr 2018, 11:28:27

dohboi wrote:ei is likely right about one thing (and that's about it)--some parts of the world are indeed likely to get a bit colder over then next few years/decades. Specifically, because of the attested slowdown in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (AMOC), much of Europe is likely to start experiencing temperatures that are considerably colder than long-term norms.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... al-warming

Just another plea for more research funding.
“Many people have tried to check that with computer models,” said Rahmstorf. “But they differ a lot because it depends on a very subtle balance of density – that is temperature and salinity distribution in the ocean. We are not able to model this with any confidence right now.”

“We are hoping to somehow make some headway, but I have been in this area for more than 20 years now and we still don’t understand why the models differ so much in the sensitivity of the Amoc,” he said.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8873
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 15 Apr 2018, 12:29:58

???

He didn't say anything about funding...

Got any other non-sequiturs up your sleeve?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17424
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Sun 15 Apr 2018, 18:43:41

EI just spouted the denier drivel as it is repeated over and over in their echo chamber. There was no thought there.

He even prefaced it by saying he was an "AGW supporter"(?!) who changed his mind after 'careful' deliberation. No such thing as an AGW supporter or warmist or whatever term deniers use to try to lump together anyone that recognizes the hogwash they are trying to peddle.

There are those who use reason and THE DATA to see what is happening, and are not swayed by the emotional appeals of the deniers.

The deniers are spreaders of disinformation. They all exhibit dishonesty and lack of integrity, and a profound disregard for truth and reason. Whatever it takes to 'win', like this was some football game, and there were 'teams'.

It's all over, there is nothing that can be done, but such unethical and immoral behavior even until the end just raises my hackles. Either they know the truth and don't care, or they are too ignorant, too lacking in critical thinking skills to know the truth. Dishonesty and stupidity going hand-in-hand.

Onlooker, you discount yourself. You are brighter than you admit. You just don't like the conclusions you've been coming to, and want someone to tell you otherwise.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7016
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby jef » Sun 15 Apr 2018, 19:36:16

Ei - FYI CO2 is perhaps the most important "trace element" in the atmosphere. Without it Earth is a giant icecube, too much and its a burning fire ball.

You and others dont't get to "decide" to "believe" or not any more than you get to decide to believe in gravity, believe that you need a certain ppm of oxygen in the atmosphere to breath, that your body needs to stay within a degree or two of 98.6 in order not to die.

For claiming to be smart and advising others you sure are a twat.
jef
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed 30 Mar 2016, 08:30:46

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 15 Apr 2018, 20:31:02

Consider this;
CLIMATE can be defined as the general meteorology we experience OR
as the world and culture we experience.

In either definition the “climate” is changing.

The underlying cause of both changes is our sever state of overshoot.

So in one sense it doesn’t matter if EI is “right” or “wrong”, as described by the fundamentals of LTG we are screwed because of our inability to control our population and resource usage.

When you cut to the bottom of it all there is not really much debate.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10498
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby energy investor » Sun 15 Apr 2018, 20:35:47

Onlooker,

I agree entirely with your comments. I don't think my perspective is necessarily binary but it does influence my investment outlook.

Jef,

I also agree with your comments, save the twat bit of course...lol

What we do or don't do is unlikely to matter. Whether we understand or don't understand, what is, is.... irrespective.

Perhaps if more people had the time to go back to first principles and question what we are being told, there would be far more people agreeing with me - but perhaps not. The Northern cooling that started in 2015 in earnest is too short a period for any of us to detect a solid trend in it. That may come next year or the year after, or even the year after that.

But no we are told authoritatively that 97% of peer reviewed papers agreed with the AGW line, so we all accept it - that is until/unless we actually read the detail of that Australian study, or go back to working out that it was logical after the mini ice age for CO2 to have been so low as to be 280ppm. And it was logical for oceanic warming to release much more of that CO2 back into the atmosphere. But what then accounts for the extra 130ppm?

Who can be bothered doing all that study when the outcome is said to be "settled science". One thing I am certain of after monitoring the situation for 14 years, is that it ain't settled.

Everyone who has been marginalised in this debate by being called everything from sock puppet, twat, troll or in the pay of big oil or other mysterious forces etc., is probably watching to see what happens with the current cooling cycle and the IPCC mob are meantime desperately trying to establish in our minds why the Atlantic Conveyor could be slowed by melting ice. I was years ago told the Atlantic Conveyor slowed during the Mini Ice Age. If so, that certainly wasn't AGW.

But right now, for me, I back the sceptics...rather uncertainly, because I know so little and the cooling trend and approach of Grand Solar Minimum are so recent.

If you accept that the science is settled, you are welcome to destroy my arguments with hard data. If you haven't done the research and want to simply label me an idiot, please feel free. But just remember the insults validate my position and make yours look weak.

Coming back to the moot of this thread. I presently only see a main ice age as an existential threat, because the last one obviously was. We had no knowledge of humanity's history prior to that. The more we increase our population, the more people we will made susceptible to fires, droughts aquifer depletion, starvation and cold.
energy investor
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2011, 23:03:40

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby energy investor » Sun 15 Apr 2018, 20:47:23

I can't argue with you there Newfie...

But we are sure spending humungous amounts of money in the OECD to try to engineer a change that the IPCC led group believes is desirable.

I just cannot see that happening. Humans v. nature? Nature always bats last.
energy investor
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2011, 23:03:40

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 16 Apr 2018, 00:56:41

energy investor wrote:The PRE-industrial CO2 level (said to be 280ppm) was extremely low by historical times


No it wasn’t. CO2 has been at ca. 270-280 ppm since about 8000 years ago—-an interval that encompasses all of historic time and several thousands years of prehistoric time.

[quote=“energy investor”]the current level is still extremely low by geological time frames. [/quote]

No its not. Its heading for levels higher then any seen since the Pliocene about 5 million years ago—-a period when ALL the ice in Greenland melted along with some of the Antarctic ice, and sea level was ca. 15 m (45 feet) higher then now.

[quote=“energy investor”]I am not a party to the reasons why the IPCC/ Club of Rome cabal are trying to achieve an attack on oil, gas and coal.[/quote]

You must be quite oblivious to what you read then, since the IPCC has been very clear that they think fossil fuel use should be restricted to reduce CO2 emissions and mitigate global warming.

CHEERS!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21253
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 16 Apr 2018, 05:29:31

energy investor wrote:I can't argue with you there Newfie...

But we are sure spending humungous amounts of money in the OECD to try to engineer a change that the IPCC led group believes is desirable.

I just cannot see that happening. Humans v. nature? Nature always bats last.



That is why root cause analysis is important. Figure out the principal problem and exert efforts appropriately. As a by product, if all can agree on he root cause, which is simpler if more painful, then we can put the bickering aside.

Simply put: in no scenario do I see an up side to having a larger population. I can’t think of a single large scale problem not made easier by having fewer people.

Yet it’s very unlikely we will ever come to terms with this issue on an effective scale

What is left? Trying to figure out how to survive the coming trials, for us and our kids. It’s the only personal sane solution I can think of.

Now more to the point it seems we all agree that FFs are a finite resource and should be used wisely so future generation have a share. I’m no fan of the Paris Accords, I would lean much more to reducing 1st world usage, reducing it to 3rd world levels. On the face of it that is something all should agree upon.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 10498
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: climate change "existential" threat to humanity

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 16 Apr 2018, 06:07:21

Well at present we are sending 35 billion tonnes of CO2 into the air every year world wide. If my math is right that would amount to six parts per million each year but fortunately about half is reabsorbed by plants and plankton so it will take about thirty years to take the CO2 concentration from 400 to 500 parts per million.
Reducing fossil fuel use in the Western world will not only be difficult but will probably be offset by increases in developing nations. India alone if it raises per capita emissions up to the level of China will add seven percent to the world total.
I see no workable solutions to the problem.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8873
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests