Elevated CO2

[waldo]

I can't believe I've wasted my time discussing these issues with apparently a colossal idiot who's never heard of photosynthesis!

What effect does increased CO2 have on undesired plant growth among invasive weeds?

USDA - United States Department of Agriculture - The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity

Climate change is likely to lead to a northern migration of weeds. Many weeds respond more positively to increasing CO2 than most cash crops, particularly C3 “invasive” weeds. Recent research also suggests that glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the United States, loses its efficacy on weeds grown at the increased CO2 levels likely in the coming decades.

hey Rhasida from Regina... how many points for USDA?

[bush_cheney2004]

....hey Rhasida from Regina... how many points for USDA?

Hmmmm...let's see...USDA is an agency of US government, so about the same as NASA or NOAA. Have to be fair about these things....20 pts!

[GostHacked]

good luck with your just plant more trees brainchild solution. Yes... clearly... AGW climate change is simply nothing but a minuscule irritant that completely overlooks the subtle and glaringly obvious significance of photosynthesis. You bet!

Well if C02 is a greenhouse gas as they say, planting more vegitation to filter out the C02 would benefit us two-fold. One it gives us more oxygen to breathe and lowers the temperature of the planet. Win win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

The atmosphere of Earth is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is retained by Earth's gravity. The atmosphere protects life on Earth by absorbing ultraviolet solar radiation, warming the surface through heat retention (greenhouse effect), and reducing temperature extremes between day and night. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.

So I was wrong about how much C02 one would breathe in. Less than 1% of the air is C02 apparently. So even if it goes up a couple percentage points, I don't see it being that much of a deal. Combating C02 is not the solution. Cutting down on pollution and reducing the amount of garbage we throw out will help more than you can imagine.

And most of our efforts can be negated by that big ass fire ball in the sky we call the Sun.

Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense against invasive insects (your link)

Ever think that decades of pesticides and herbicides makes those targeted plants/insects more resistant to future dusting of said pesticides and herbicides?

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/pesticides/c_2.htm

What Happens to Pesticides

When a pesticide is released into the environment many things happen to it. Sometimes what happens is beneficial. For example, the leaching of some herbicides into the root zone can give you better weed control.

Sometimes, releasing pesticides into the environment can be harmful, as not all of the applied chemical reaches the target site. For example, runoff can move a herbicide away from target weeds. The chemical is wasted, weed control is reduced, and there is more chance of damaging other plants and polluting soil and water. Or some of the pesticide may drift downwind and outside of the intended application site.

Many processes affect what happens to pesticides in the environment. These processes include adsorption, transfer, breakdown and degradation. Transfer includes processes that move the pesticide away from the target site. These include volatilization, spray drift, runoff, leaching, absorption and crop removal.

We can look at past use of certain pesticides and herbicides to see what kind of damage that can cause.

http://www.cape.ca/toxics/pesticides.html - now mind you this bit is talking about home use pestecides which I think are much stronger than stuff we dust crops with, but I guess it depends on the amount you use.

Pesticides

Pesticides are among the most widely used chemicals in the world, and also among the most dangerous to human health. They are a leading cause of poisonings here in Canada and have been estimated to account for thousands deaths each year globally.

Pesticides can also have chronic health effects both as sequelae of acute poisonings and from chronic exposure. Many studies have documented adverse health effects on humans. There are several areas of concern.

Chronic exposure can come from the food we eat that is sprayed with those chemicals.

http://www.peelregion.ca/health/topics/pesticides/why-reduce/why-reduce4.htm

What happens to pesticides in the environment?

Pesticides have to be released into the environment to kill an intended, targeted pest.

Once applied to a lawn or garden, some of the pesticide may travel into the air, soil, groundwater, and surface waters and be carried away from the lawn or garden. Just how fast a pesticide moves off-site from where it’s applied depends on its chemical and physical characteristics. Also, pesticides in the environment can change or degrade due to reactions caused by light, chemical reactions, or biological reactions.

Risk to non-target species

Pesticides can kill beneficial soil bacteria, earthworms, snails, frogs, birds, fish, honeybees, and other valuable species. Sometimes instructions on the product label include information about risks to these ‘non-target species.’

Replace the words 'lawn' and 'garden' with 'food crop'.

[bush_cheney2004]

....So I was wrong about how much C02 one would breathe in. Less than 1% of the air is C02 apparently. So even if it goes up a couple percentage points, I don't see it being that much of a deal. Combating C02 is not the solution. Cutting down on pollution and reducing the amount of garbage we throw out will help more than you can imagine.

Correct.....even for respiration at one atmosphere, CO2 partial pressure is irrelevant, as more is contributed from the lungs than is present in the inhaled atmosphere. On subs, we keep CO2 partial pressure levels at between 0.2% and 1% with scrubbers.

[GostHacked]

Correct.....even for respiration at one atmosphere, CO2 partial pressure is irrelevant, as more is contributed from the lungs than is present in the inhaled atmosphere. On subs, we keep CO2 partial pressure levels at between 0.2% and 1% with scrubbers.

And that seems 2 to 3 times the norm in our atmosphere. I don't see much of an issue. Did it get hotter in the sub when CO2 levels are higher?

[waldo]

Well if C02 is a greenhouse gas as they say, planting more vegitation to filter out the C02 would benefit us two-fold. One it gives us more oxygen to breathe and lowers the temperature of the planet. Win win.

the grandiosity of your most unsupported claim is matched, seemingly, only by your perseverance. Let's play: even without factoring any other temperature impacts on vegetation, care to surmise just how much 'equivalent' vegetation would be required to realize a 'safe CO2' level... what would it be and where would it be grown? What would be your safe/acceptable CO2 ppm level? How much vegetation growth equates to an equivalent ppm of CO2? Oh wait - would this increased vegetation growth butt up against continued and increased reliance on fossil fuels... butt up against continued and increased deforestation practices? Do you subscribe to simply growing more vegetation in the face of using more fossil fuels... grow more - use more? Yeesh!

Combating C02 is not the solution. Cutting down on pollution and reducing the amount of garbage we throw out will help more than you can imagine.

yes, 'combating CO2 is not the solution', is exactly what those who don't subscribe to the theory of AGW climate change state. They may give token acknowledgment to the environment itself... in terms of your emphasis on addressing pollution (separate from CO2).

And most of our efforts can be negated by that big ass fire ball in the sky we call the Sun.

no, there is no scientific consensus acceptance of the effects of the Sun as being the causal link to 'recent' warming.

Ever think that decades of pesticides and herbicides makes those targeted plants/insects more resistant to future dusting of said pesticides and herbicides?

your links don't offer anything to support your assertion that plants develop a beneficial "hardiness" to increased pesticide application - one that can be relied upon and exploited for crop yield gains. I offered you a reference that expressed the exact opposite; one that referenced to recent research suggesting the most widely used herbicide (glyphosate), loses its efficacy on weeds grown under increased CO2 levels.

[GostHacked]

the grandiosity of your most unsupported claim is matched, seemingly, only by your perseverance. Let's play: even without factoring any other temperature impacts on vegetation, care to surmise just how much 'equivalent' vegetation would be required to realize a 'safe CO2' level... what would it be and where would it be grown?

Look around you, vegetation grows all over the place, and with much variety. It even grows between the cracks of the cement sidewalks lining city streets. Give it enough time like that show 'After Humans' and the planet will be alright. Global warming will not make humans extinct, only our way of modern life. We still have to learn to adapt to the planet and not have the planet adapt to us. The later means we are in for a 'world' of hurt.

A simple experiment can show you how effective it really is. Let's say it's 25 Celsius. IN the urban sprawls, you are going to find a higher temperature because of the lack of vegetation combined with the concrete jungle. Now head out of town to a forest. If you live in places like L.A. it's going to be a long trek. Quite the difference. It always seems cooler in the bush/forest than it is on the city streets. They provide shade, they slow the wind.

What would be your safe/acceptable CO2 ppm level?

Seems pretty safe as it is. It's all the other toxins in the air my body can't handle. I am no expert, but it seems like it will be safe for the foreseeable future.

How much vegetation growth equates to an equivalent ppm of CO2? Oh wait - would this increased vegetation growth butt up against continued and increased reliance on fossil fuels... butt up against continued and increased deforestation practices? Do you subscribe to simply growing more vegetation in the face of using more fossil fuels... grow more - use more? Yeesh!

Well reducing logging can help in the long run yes indeed. Fossil fuels contribute to more toxic byproducts than C02. Carbon MONOXIDE comes to mind. And plants I don't think can handle that. I know humans can't. It seems living beings can produce small amounts of C0, but not enough to poison ourselves. Stick your lips on the back of a car's tailpipe and ask again if C02 is your issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide

Toxicity

Main article: Carbon monoxide poisoning

Carbon monoxide poisoning is the most common type of fatal air poisoning in many countries.[14] Carbon monoxide is colorless, odorless and tasteless, but highly toxic. It combines with hemoglobin to produce carboxyhemoglobin, which is ineffective for delivering oxygen to bodily tissues. This condition is known as anoxemia. Concentrations as low as 667 ppm may cause up to 50% of the body's hemoglobin to convert to carboxyhemoglobin.[15] In the United States, the OSHA limits long-term workplace exposure levels above 50 ppm.[16]

yes, 'combating CO2 is not the solution', is exactly what those who don't subscribe to the theory of AGW climate change state. They may give token acknowledgment to the environment itself... in terms of your emphasis on addressing pollution (separate from CO2).

News flash. I don't buy into this whole AWG climate change bullshit anyways. If there was a real concern about it, the solution would not come in forms of a carbon emission credit than can be traded. You can pollute as long as you pay for it. If companies are allowed to pay for the pollution, then guess what, they will. This in no way affects the way they do business and how much they pollute. And pollution is much more evident and more of an immediate threat to our lives than this touted AWG crap.

no, there is no scientific consensus acceptance of the effects of the Sun as being the causal link to 'recent' warming.

There does not seem to be a consensus on AWG as well.

your links don't offer anything to support your assertion that plants develop a beneficial "hardiness" to increased pesticide application - one that can be relied upon and exploited for crop yield gains. I offered you a reference that expressed the exact opposite; one that referenced to recent research suggesting the most widely used herbicide (glyphosate), loses its efficacy on weeds grown under increased CO2 levels.

I never asserted that pesticides are good for the plants. However, if plants develop a hardness for the pesticides (which can happen I guess), then so are the pests. They have not exactly been eradicated yet. We still need to use pesticides. And how much can we use before we render the ground unusable for food crop production?

I come from a city where mining is the biggest employer and money maker. Inco and Falconbridge (now both owned by foreign companies). Carbon dioxide is the least of Sudbury's worries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inco_Superstack.

The structure was built to disperse sulfur gases and other byproducts of the smelting process away from the city itself. As a result, these gases can be detected in the atmosphere around Greater Sudbury in a 240 kilometers (149 mi) radius of the Inco plant. Prior to the construction of the Superstack, the waste gases contributed to severe local ecological damage. Compounded by open coke beds in the early to mid 20th century and logging for fuel, an inevitable near total loss of native vegetation occurred. Of particular interest to geologists are the now exposed rocky outcrops, which have been dyed jet black by acid rain in a layer which penetrates up to three inches into the once pink-gray granite.

I live in Ottawa now, but was recently back in Sudbury to visit my folks. The place is still pretty barren. There are trees and vegetation, but it's very very slow to grow and take back the black landscape to make it green again. There is very little farmland in the Sudbury area.

Ever breath in this shit? Trust me, you don't want to. I'll take a little more C02 in than that crap any day. I stayed indoors on the days where the wind took the sulfur dioxides from the stack and blew it over my neighborhood. Even on those days I went outside, I never lasted more than a couple hours before my throat got irritated and sore. It's like that feeling of a cold coming on but 10x worse.

Take a few matches and light them on fire and inhale the fumes just after you strike it, and you will have a sample of what I am talking about.

Now I want to point out that Climate change and Global Warming are two separate things people need to consider and really take note of. Climates do change and will keep changing. There are many other things we need to consider for this so called global warming than just carbon dioxide.

The climate in Sudbury now is quite different from 100 years ago.

And both INCO and Falconbridge can pollute more, they just have to pay for it. And if it turns into bigger profits, they will pollute. This carbon credit trading bullshit is just a money making/transfer scheme nothing more. Which tells me that C02 is not what we should be looking at.

Edited May 6, 2010 by GostHacked

[waldo]

News flash. I don't buy into this whole AWG climate change bullshit anyways.

yes, clearly... notwithstanding your lack of any substantive input, was there any doubt?

There does not seem to be a consensus on AWG as well.

standard denier response

Now I want to point out that Climate change and Global Warming are two separate things people need to consider and really take note of. Climates do change and will keep changing. There are many other things we need to consider for this so called global warming than just carbon dioxide.

crikey, when you need to formulate a distinction you're obviously out of your element... hey now... does global warming cause climate change? Duh! But yes, most certainly... there are other considerations than just CO2; however, please step forward with anything you'd like to propose as the substantive overriding cause for recent warming... other than increased CO2? Don't hesitate to provide your acclaimed and recognized support for those, "other considerations".

[eyeball]

And both INCO and Falconbridge can pollute more, they just have to pay for it. And if it turns into bigger profits, they will pollute. This carbon credit trading bullshit is just a money making/transfer scheme nothing more. Which tells me that C02 is not what we should be looking at.

We could be looking at the corporate and government officials that are responsible for allowing and mitigating pollution but as I've been given to understand transparency and accountability at this sort of executive level would cause us even worse problems.

[wyly]

We still have to learn to adapt to the planet and not have the planet adapt to us. The later means we are in for a 'world' of hurt.

you have too much faith in our ability to adapt...whatever technology you envision to us will not save the environment, we cannot separate ourselves from the environment...if the environment collapses we die...

A simple experiment can show you how effective it really is. Let's say it's 25 Celsius. IN the urban sprawls, you are going to find a higher temperature because of the lack of vegetation combined with the concrete jungle. Now head out of town to a forest. If you live in places like L.A. it's going to be a long trek. Quite the difference. It always seems cooler in the bush/forest than it is on the city streets. They provide shade, they slow the wind.

go stand in the prairies or in mid summer tell me how much shade you find, lot's of vegetation but it's still damn hot...

Seems pretty safe as it is. It's all the other toxins in the air my body can't handle. I am no expert, but it seems like it will be safe for the foreseeable future.

toxic levels and the human body are a completely different issue than it's GHG effect...but yes CO2 can and has killed...

Well reducing logging can help in the long run yes indeed. Fossil fuels contribute to more toxic byproducts than C02. Carbon MONOXIDE comes to mind. And plants I don't think can handle that. I know humans can't. It seems living beings can produce small amounts of C0, but not enough to poison ourselves. Stick your lips on the back of a car's tailpipe and ask again if C02 is your issue.

go talk to profesional divers and ask them about the toxic effects of CO2 or a HVAC engineer about CO2 and Sick Building Syndrome...but again your sidetracking the issue comparing the toxic effects of CO2 on the human body to the effect of CO2 as a GHG, the two aren't the same...

News flash. I don't buy into this whole AWG climate change bullshit anyways. If there was a real concern about it, the solution would not come in forms of a carbon emission credit than can be traded. You can pollute as long as you pay for it. If companies are allowed to pay for the pollution, then guess what, they will. This in no way affects the way they do business and how much they pollute. And pollution is much more evident and more of an immediate threat to our lives than this touted AWG crap.

what do you want? carbon credits or carbon tax?

There does not seem to be a consensus on AWG as well.

there is a very strong consensus...

Now I want to point out that Climate change and Global Warming are two separate things people need to consider and really take note of. Climates do change and will keep changing. There are many other things we need to consider for this so called global warming than just carbon dioxide.

yes climates change (hardly new information) but they always change for a particular reason and do not always the same cause, please name the true cause of this warming... Edited May 7, 2010 by wyly

[bush_cheney2004]

And that seems 2 to 3 times the norm in our atmosphere. I don't see much of an issue. Did it get hotter in the sub when CO2 levels are higher?

Indirectly and inversely, yes....CO2 levels would increase proportional to elevated crew activity. During drills or battle conditions when scrubbers were secured and ventilation lineups diminished airflow and exchange rates, CO2 would increase and it got warmer. A second scrubber would be brought online after the fun to get CO2 levels back to the required < 1% of partial pressure. Another source of CO2 was the carbonated soda fountain/dispenser in the crew's mess.

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm sorry Shady, its a neat video, but a youtube video stating very little real evidence isn't peer-reviewed science.

[GostHacked]

you have too much faith in our ability to adapt...whatever technology you envision to us will not save the environment, we cannot separate ourselves from the environment...if the environment collapses we die...

So maybe we should not be screwing it up to the extent we are. Or else we will die out. We have already separated ourselves from the environment, we now control it and make it work for us. Which obviously is upsetting some balance nature has.

Essentially our lifestyles are going to change drastically in the next 50 years to combat this global warming, or we are going to face a mass extinction scenario. Not just for us, but for many other species on the planet.

go stand in the prairies or in mid summer tell me how much shade you find, lot's of vegetation but it's still damn hot...

Indeed you are right. The climate in the prairies is quite different than a forest climate. I will agree with you here.

toxic levels and the human body are a completely different issue than it's GHG effect...but yes CO2 can and has killed..

Again, I admit its a different issue.

go talk to profesional divers and ask them about the toxic effects of CO2 or a HVAC engineer about CO2 and Sick Building Syndrome...but again your sidetracking the issue comparing the toxic effects of CO2 on the human body to the effect of CO2 as a GHG, the two aren't the same...

True, I was trying to make a comparison between a house (as a model of an earth, but it fails anyways)

what do you want? carbon credits or carbon tax?

Neither, that is not going to fix the issue. If we can trade credits or pay a tax, that allows us to pollute. It does not reduce it.

http://environment.about.com/od/faqglobalwarming/f/globalwarming.htm

reenhouse Gases and Global Warming

While many greenhouse gases occur naturally and are needed to create the greenhouse effect that keeps the Earth warm enough to support life, human use of fossil fuels is the main source of excess greenhouse gases. By driving cars, using electricity from coal-fired power plants, or heating our homes with oil or natural gas, we release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. Deforestation is another significant source of greenhouse gases, because fewer trees means less carbon dioxide conversion to oxygen.

This goes with my 'plant more trees' and 'C02 is plant food'. But if you want a reason why greener technologies are not being implemented on the scale and scope they should be ....

http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/f101.asp

Why aren't these technologies more commonplace now?

Because, while the technologies exist, the corporate and political will to put them into widespread use does not. Many companies in the automobile and energy industries put pressure on the White House and Congress to halt or delay new laws or regulations -- or even to stop enforcing existing rules -- that would drive such changes. From requiring catalytic converters to improving gas mileage, car companies have fought even the smallest measure to protect public health and the environment. If progress is to be made, the American people will have to demand it.

Not just Americans, everyone on the planet needs to demand this. If you want to know why nothing is really being done about it, this is the main reason. Corps lobbying governments to allow the status quo. It comes down to the bottom line (money/profits).

yes climates change (hardly new information) but they always change for a particular reason and do not always the same cause, please name the true cause of this warming...

If the reasons are different for climate changes, then I would say there are many reasons why global warming is (maybe) happening. C02 just might be just one of the many things we should be looking at. Simply reducing C02 alone will not give us the desired results.

Question:

Why don't we hear about the ozone layer anymore?

[Bonam]

Question:

Why don't we hear about the ozone layer anymore?

Cause we effectively eliminated the release of chlorofluorocarbons which were responsible for damaging the ozone layer, which is now regenerating. Remaining uses of CFCs exist only on small scales in very specific applications.

[wyly]

Neither, that is not going to fix the issue. If we can trade credits or pay a tax, that allows us to pollute. It does not reduce it.

I suppose that's right to a point, but there's is a limit to what people will pay, like a sin tax on cigarettes there is a threshold where people say I'm not paying that...

Not just Americans, everyone on the planet needs to demand this. If you want to know why nothing is really being done about it, this is the main reason. Corps lobbying governments to allow the status quo. It comes down to the bottom line (money/profits).

will not the drive for market share/profit force compliance? if four competing companies are all being taxed for CO2 production and one finds a way to avoid the tax by reducing emissions they will sell their product cheaper and force the others to follow suit...

If the reasons are different for climate changes, then I would say there are many reasons why global warming is (maybe) happening. C02 just might be just one of the many things we should be looking at. Simply reducing C02 alone will not give us the desired results.

other causes have been looked at and there is little if any evidence to support them, none fit the data/observations...

Question:

Why don't we hear about the ozone layer anymore?

it's no longer a concern, the cause of ozone layer destruction was identified (CFC's)and banned world wide, the ozone destruction leveled off and should return to where it should be in another 40-50 years if I recall correctly...

[bush_cheney2004]

Cause we effectively eliminated the release of chlorofluorocarbons which were responsible for damaging the ozone layer, which is now regenerating. Remaining uses of CFCs exist only on small scales in very specific applications.

True, the Montreal Protocol has effectively reduced (but not eliminated) the release of CFCs, but the so called ozone layer was/is still impacted by naturally occuring aresols and chlorine.

[WIP]

Actually that is my line. "C02 is plant food". I just about disagree with everything else shady has posted, but he is correct in this thread. I know I feel kind of dirty defending Shady, but .. there you go.

Let's go back shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis

If you want to reduce the amount of C02 in the atmosphere the solution is dead simple. Start planting plants!

Is this stuff even taught anymore?

What neither you nor Shady understand is that we are talking about a complex system when we're dealing with the biosphere, not a pea pod in a tank. The simple fact is that atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising steadily for over a hundred years, so maybe human activity and the occasional volcano are adding too much carbon dioxide to be balanced out through encouraging more plants to grow. If rising CO2 levels were naturally balanced by increased plant growth, atmospheric CO2 levels would not be steadily increasing.

This planting plants idea is nothing new, since planting trees is counted as a carbon offset in these proposed cap and trade schemes. But, there are a lot of ecology experts who maintain that it's bullshit, and won't lower CO2 levels one iota.

Those peas may grow faster with 1200 ppm carbon dioxide, but if this experiment is tried out here on planet earth, we'll all be dead from a runaway greenhouse effect. And it's worth noting again about the carbon that is absorbed by the oceans has increased ocean acidification by 30%, which is already putting added stress on shellfish and corals.

In past eras when CO2 levels went shooting up like they're doing now, the melting of ice at the poles turned oceans anoxic because of the sharp decrease in the ocean conveyor system of currents that oxygenate water. The lack of oxygen kills off normal sea life, while encouraging the growth of cyanobacteria. The mass extinctions of land and sea life that occurred during the Permian-Triassic Extinction was likely largely due to the world's oceans turning into dead zones. Then what would those pea pods do?

[wyly]

This planting plants idea is nothing new, since planting trees is counted as a carbon offset in these proposed cap and trade schemes. But, there are a lot of ecology experts who maintain that it's bullshit, and won't lower CO2 levels one iota.

trees in the northern latitudes do not remove enough CO2, it's the tropical rain forests that are significant and they're being destroyed...regardless how many trees are planted in northern latitudes they'll never keep up to the growing emissions...

[WIP]

trees in the northern latitudes do not remove enough CO2, it's the tropical rain forests that are significant and they're being destroyed...regardless how many trees are planted in northern latitudes they'll never keep up to the growing emissions...

Yes, I remember hearing something about that awhile back. The Amazon is considered to be the number one carbon filter for the planet, and that's why there is so much concern over declining precipitation levels in the Upper Amazon Basin that feeds the giant river. The algae in the world's oceans must also be high on the list of carbon absorption because of algae. But, as more and more large areas of the world's oceans turn into dead zones, as the photosynthesizing algae is replaced with non-oxygen using cyanobacteria, the carbon absorption and oxygen production drops.

[maple_leafs182]

Guys, we are killing people in wars, letting other starve, we can't even take care of ourselves do you really think we can "save" the planet. Our mentality towards life needs to change globally first.

[WIP]

Guys, we are killing people in wars, letting other starve, we can't even take care of ourselves do you really think we can "save" the planet. Our mentality towards life needs to change globally first.

Stopping wars and finding some way to start another Green Revolution is not going to fix the finite world we have to live on. I am inclined to be a pessimist about longterm survival of the human race, since our motivations are focused on short term needs and slowly advancing long term crises go unnoticed. Ending war, and growing more food is not going to fix the most fundamental problem of what kind of place future generations will have to live in.

[bloodyminded]

Guys, we are killing people in wars, letting other starve, we can't even take care of ourselves do you really think we can "save" the planet. Our mentality towards life needs to change globally first.

You're no doubt exactly right that a serious mental re-evaluation needs to occur, probably a truly revolutionary change which no ideology is capable of producing, much less disseminating. But as it stands, our only choice is to tackle problems more or less individually. If climate change is indeed the Big Issue, then certainly wars and starvation fall under the topic, related to it.

[bush_cheney2004]

Guys, we are killing people in wars, letting other starve, we can't even take care of ourselves do you really think we can "save" the planet. Our mentality towards life needs to change globally first.

No it doesn't....life and death are only displaced by time and location on the food and resource chain. Don't confuse production with distribution.

[waldo]

What neither you nor Shady understand is that we are talking about a complex system when we're dealing with the biosphere, not a pea pod in a tank. The simple fact is that atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising steadily for over a hundred years, so maybe human activity and the occasional volcano are adding too much carbon dioxide to be balanced out through encouraging more plants to grow. If rising CO2 levels were naturally balanced by increased plant growth, atmospheric CO2 levels would not be steadily increasing.

as I'm sure you're aware, the salient point of discussion focuses on 'climate sensitivity'... just how much will global temperature rise in response to increases in atmospheric CO2 once all the 'fast feed-backs' have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice, etc.), but before any of the 'slow feed-backs' have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, aerosols, carbon cycle etc.). And, of course, climate sensitivity is more commonly given as 3ºC of warming for a doubling of CO2 (i.e. from 280 ppm to 560 ppm).

given the complexity and long timescales associated with the 'slow feed-backs', they have not been previously well integrated within climate models... however, recent research has brought forward an estimate that Earth’s response to elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 is 30% to 50% greater than previously calculated - that the Earth's climate is more sensitive to CO2 than previously thought. => Earth system sensitivity inferred from Pliocene modeling and data

Nature Geoscience Journal - Abstract: Quantifying the equilibrium response of global temperatures to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is one of the cornerstones of climate research. Components of the Earth’s climate system that vary over long timescales, such as ice sheets and vegetation, could have an important effect on this temperature sensitivity, but have often been neglected. Here we use a coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model to simulate the climate of the mid-Pliocene warm period (about three million years ago), and analyse the forcings and feedbacks that contributed to the relatively warm temperatures. Furthermore, we compare our simulation with proxy records of mid-Pliocene sea surface temperature. Taking these lines of evidence together, we estimate that the response of the Earth system to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations is 30–50% greater than the response based on those fast-adjusting components of the climate system that are used traditionally to estimate climate sensitivity. We conclude that targets for the long-term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations aimed at preventing a dangerous human interference with the climate system should take into account this higher sensitivity of the Earth system.

[WIP]

...however, recent research has brought forward an estimate that Earth’s response to elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 is 30% to 50% greater than previously calculated - that the Earth's climate is more sensitive to CO2 than previously thought.

Wow! As if we needed more bad news. Some new research I mentioned earlier studying past CO2 levels using a new chemical testing that is supposed to be accurate to within 14 ppm (reducing uncertainty and contradictory analysis of some previous paleoclimate research) shows that for 800,000 years CO2 levels stayed within a narrow range of 180 to 300 ppm., so we have been moving into uncharted territory for the past 100 years. According to that study, CO2 levels were last sustained at a level of 385 ppm 15 million years ago, and the Earth looked much different then than it does now. At present levels it may be impossible to stop the eventual melting of the polar ice caps and force future generations to have to adapt to conditions that our species never had to deal with previously. And if projections that CO2 levels will rise to somewhere between 600 and 900 ppm. in the next century, people living at that time may face a real threat of extinction.