Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 23 Oct 2017, 14:59:52

If you had any remaining doubts set them aside, numbers are definitely trending up once again.


October 22: 404.08 ppm
October 21: 404.23 ppm
October 20: 404.41 ppm
October 19: 403.80 ppm
October 18: 403.16 ppm
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14042
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 23 Oct 2017, 15:02:02


Week beginning on October 15, 2017: 403.97 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 401.65 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 381.10 ppm
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14042
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 23 Oct 2017, 15:03:34

'trending up...'

something of an understatement!
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16751
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby dissident » Mon 23 Oct 2017, 20:45:15

The CO2 sinks are shrinking and the anthropogenic emissions are not decreasing. We are trapped in this mode for the foreseeable future.
User avatar
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4947
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby M_B_S » Tue 24 Oct 2017, 01:02:59

dohboi wrote:'trending up...'

something of an understatement!


Indeed


Image
I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.

M_B_S
User avatar
M_B_S
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3283
Joined: Sat 20 Aug 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby GHung » Tue 24 Oct 2017, 08:24:18

Government report calls on Trump to act on climate change

Washington (CNN)A government report released Monday is sounding an alarm over the threat of climate change, and the government's response.
The US government has spent more than $350 billion over the past decade in response to extreme weather and fire events, and the Government Accountability Office report estimated the US would incur far higher costs as the years progress if global emission rates don't go down.
In the report, GAO called on President Donald Trump to use the information GAO compiled to help identify risks posed by climate change and "craft appropriate federal responses." .....

......The GAO provides nonpartisan information to members of Congress, including audits of government activities and reports about public policy. Its latest report was requested by Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington.
The New York Times first reported the existence of the GAO climate change report.
The Obama administration took several steps to combat the severity of climate change over the next century. Among them was the Environmental Protection Agency's clean power plan, which sought to lower carbon emissions on a state-by-state basis, and the Paris climate agreement, which saw almost every country agree to voluntary limits on future carbon emissions.
The Trump administration has in many respects changed course, with Trump announcing in June his intention for the US to exit the Paris agreement and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announcing the end to the clean power plan this month.
The report outlined years' worth of shortcomings from the government with respect to addressing the climate change threat. By February 17, the report found that federal agencies were working on some strategic planning efforts, but the nature of those was unclear.
Some of those efforts, the report said, were rescinded when Trump issued an executive order in March.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/23/politics/ ... index.html

We don't need no responses, eh?
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby onlooker » Mon 30 Oct 2017, 10:05:46

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41778089
Record surge in atmospheric CO2 seen in 2016
“"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money"”
User avatar
onlooker
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7985
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 30 Oct 2017, 10:15:05

GHung wrote:
Government report calls on Trump to act on climate change


Good luck on that.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 30 Oct 2017, 10:53:33


Week beginning on October 22, 2017: 404.01 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 401.83 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 381.44 ppm
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14042
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 30 Oct 2017, 10:54:50


October 29: Unavailable
October 28: 404.00 ppm
October 27: 404.24 ppm
October 26: Unavailable
October 25: 403.97 ppm
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14042
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby dohboi » Mon 30 Oct 2017, 18:50:11

To put these numbers into perspective, here is an update on our current situation from robertscribbler (in comments at link below; my emphases, and my comments/clarifications in square brackets):

1. Present atmospheric CO2 levels approaching an average of 410 ppm represent a long term level of warming in the range of around 2.1 to 3.5 C.

2. Present atmospheric ghg levels in the range of 491 ppm CO2e [some others set this a bit higher using more current estimates of the global warming potential of methane] represent a long term level of warming in the range of 3.2 to 4.2 C.

3. These ranges represent 1.6 to 2.1 C warming this Century even if [levels] just remain stable.

4. Reduction of present atmospheric greenhouse gas loading is necessary to remove risk that warming will exceed 1.5 and 2.0 C thresholds this Century. [But we don't really have any idea how to do this, especially on anything close to the scale required.]

5. A warming climate makes this more difficult due to the fact that the Earth system is likely to contribute a feedback of between 10 percent and 30 percent carbon emissions relative to the present annual human based fossil fuel emission (primary source) going forward over the next 80 or so years.

6. We are therefore on the precipice of locking in some very dangerous climate conditions, and rapid reduction of the presently unacceptable 10 billion tons per year emitted by humans is both necessary and urgent. [But pretty clearly...not gonna happen :cry: ]


https://robertscribbler.com/2017/10/29/ ... s-step-in/

See also: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41778089

And the new high record for CO2 is getting some other media attention here:

Global atmospheric CO2 levels hit record high

UN warns that drastic action is needed to meet climate targets set in the Paris agreement
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16751
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 30 Oct 2017, 23:00:01

dohboi wrote:the new high record for CO2 is getting some other media attention here:

Global atmospheric CO2 levels hit record high

UN warns that drastic action is needed to meet climate targets set in the Paris agreement


What drastic action does the UN want? Maybe replace the useless Paris Accords with a better treaty??

Cheers!

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20518
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby asg70 » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 00:26:34

Plantagenet wrote:What drastic action does the UN want?


Edict #1. Bar all flights from Alaska to Kathmandu.
Hubbert's curve, meet S-curve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 04:51:35

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Actually, restricting flying doesn't seem very drastic to me. A good start might be starting to tax jet fuel (last I checked, it bizarrely and obscenely is not taxed at all.)

But an even less (to me) drastic step would be the no brainer of stopping the even more bizarre and obscene subsidies going to fossil-death-fuels: Global fossil fuel subsidies represented 6.5% of global GDP in 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

Yes, even as the consequences of our insanity are starting to crash around our heads at in increasing rate and with increasing intensity, we can't manage to muster the collective will to even just stop enormously encouraging the death fuels that are driving us ever deeper into disaster.

Basically, it's like a country under attack from an enemy setting aside a substantial portion of its GDP every year to give be sure the army of the invading country plenty of bullets and bombs so they can be more thoroughly obliterated...it's that insane and suicidal/omnicidal.

When we manage to stop encouraging the forces of our own (and much of the rest of the living world's) destruction, then we can talk about means of discouraging.

Carbon taxes are the most commonly mentioned approach. But, to extend my comparison above a bit, this always struck me as basically continuing to supply the enemy with plenty of bombs to drop on you and your childrens' heads, but just charging them a bit more for it. Again, pretty f'n insane imvho. But at least it's a bit better than just throwing tons of money at them to encourage them to do so, I guess...

But eventually we have to set direct limits on how much of this deadly stuff we dig up and burn, then very rapidly reduce those limits to zero, probably through direct rationing of some sort. We rationed all sorts of things during previous wars fairly successfully, and make no mistake we are now on the losing end of a very furious war, more and more losing every year and decade.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16751
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 07:16:22

We all saw Obama and the Ds commit to a carbon tax before being elected in 2008 and then reneging on their pledge once in office.

If grassroots liberals and Ds actually wanted a Carbon tax then they would’ve revolted and complained when Obama and the Ds abandoned the carbon tax—but they said nothing.

I think this issue is politically dead now. Trump and the Rs sure as heck won’t do it and sadly the Ds won’t either.

Cheers!

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20518
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 08:08:00

"Trump and the Rs sure as heck won’t do it..."

And yet they get none of your ridicule...curious... 8)

And I hope I have made clear that I don't see a mere tax at this point to be sufficient.

So we are where we have been for quite a while...what had seemed like fairly reasonable solutions are now far short of what is needed, yet even they are now completely off the table.

As the problems get worse, we get further and further from even minimally addressing or preparing for them.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16751
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby GHung » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 08:21:29

Plant said; "I think this issue is politically dead now. Trump and the Rs sure as heck won’t do it and sadly the Ds won’t either."

Top US Republicans pitch $40 carbon tax to Trump
Published on 08/02/2017, 10:47am

GOP veterans say carbon dividend could put money in pockets of 70% of poorest in US while significantly cutting greenhouse gas pollution....
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/0 ... -to-trump/


US public backs carbon tax, and spending revenue on renewables
September 12, 2017

The majority of the US public is in favour of a tax on fossil fuels, provided the money goes into clean energy and infrastructure, according to a new study.

The Yale University study surveyed Americans' willingness to pay a carbon tax, and their preferences on how any revenue should be spent. The results were published today in the journal Environmental Research Letters.....
https://phys.org/news/2017-09-carbon-ta ... ables.html


Guess Who’s for a Carbon Tax Now

“If Trump does not go down the path of a carbon tax, we should not lose our resolve. We should stick to our values as Canadians to do something to protect the environment.” — Michael Crothers, Canada, November, 2016

“Climate change is happening. We think a broad-based carbon price is the right answer.” — Steve Williams, Canada, May, 2015

“Carbon pricing systems encourage the quickest and most efficient ways of reducing emissions widely.” — Ben van Beurden, the Netherlands, October, 2015

“A global carbon price would help to unleash market forces and provide the right incentives for everyone to play their part. History has shown the power of market forces in making economies less energy intensive as people have found more efficient ways to use energy.” — Bob Dudley, Britain, February, 2015

“One option being discussed by policy makers is a national revenue-neutral carbon tax. This would promote greater energy efficiency and the use of today’s lower-carbon options, avoid further burdening the economy, and also provide incentives for markets to develop additional low-carbon energy solutions for the future.” — Darren Woods, United States, February 2017

A carbon tax, or a gas tax, would also greatly reduce power of Russia and other oil rich kleptocracies and is probably the best way to...
Wolfgang Price April 11, 2017

A free market and a free enterprise productive system 'greased' with sufficient disposable income and investment capital encounter few...
loveman0 April 11, 2017

Yes a carbon tax, but a transfer tax, with every penny returned in the form of buyer incentives to purchase renewables. For vehicles this...

So, what’s the big deal? Support for putting a price on carbon emissions is hardly newsworthy. Virtually every environmentalist thinks it’s crucial; many believe it’s the single most important thing we could do.

But Michael Crothers doesn’t work for an environmental organization. He’s the president of Shell Canada. Steve Williams is head of Suncor, Canada’s largest oil company. Ben van Beurden is chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell. Bob Dudley is chief executive of BP.

Darren Woods? That statement was part of his first blog post in his new job: chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil, replacing Rex Tillerson, the new secretary of state — who also endorsed a carbon tax

Could it actually happen?

I’m not proposing to bet on its success, but a carbon tax plan written by the Climate Leadership Council, a group of prominent Republicans that includes George Shultz, James A. Baker III and Henry Paulson, has at least started a debate. The group proposes taxing each ton of carbon emissions — and then returning all the money to Americans by sending everyone a quarterly dividend check.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/opin ... x-now.html
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 09:03:30

G, note how your first quote starts: "Republican veterans..."

That is, the old guys, mostly no longer in power. These were fella's for back in the day when Repubs did not have a total aversion to not only all taxes but nearly all varieties of scientific facts.

How far they have fallen...but still get unquestioning support from so many of the clueless, including many here... :cry:
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16751
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby GHung » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 09:21:12

dohboi wrote:G, note how your first quote starts: "Republican veterans..."

That is, the old guys, mostly no longer in power. These were fella's for back in the day when Repubs did not have a total aversion to not only all taxes but nearly all varieties of scientific facts.

How far they have fallen...but still get unquestioning support from so many of the clueless, including many here... :cry:


Republicans who may favor such a tax/dividend plan know it would be politically complicated and dangerous. First they would have to admit there is a problem. The alt-right could (and already have) use it as a way to kick out more moderate/established Republicans.

On the other hand, many conservatives see it as a way to stick it to the EPA by imposing taxes rather than regulations. Pick your poison, eh?

Some discussion here: https://www.carbontax.org/conservatives/
Proposed legislation here: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon ... -dividend/
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1778
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Thread Pt. 6

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 31 Oct 2017, 11:03:00

dohboi wrote:G, note how your first quote starts: "Republican veterans..."

That is, the old guys, mostly no longer in power. These were fella's for back in the day when Repubs did not have a total aversion to not only all taxes but nearly all varieties of scientific facts.

How far they have fallen...but still get unquestioning support from so many of the clueless, including many here... :cry:


More accurate to say they are out of power and have nothing to lose politically by making the proposal. On the other hand if the proposal gets a lot of publicity and makes them look good they get the chance to squeeze their way back into political power at a minimum in advisory roles as the 'brave' leaders who proposed the policy in the first place.

Face it dohboi, these jerks are only after power for themselves and they are playing to the coaster media bias. Outside of big college towns and coaster cities their proposal is DOA, but that doesn't matter because it is shaped to appeal to the coasters who have great influence over who gets a seat at the table when things are decided.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14042
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests