
Record surge in atmospheric CO2 seen in 2016 - betolink
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41778089
======
alistproducer2
>"Today's CO2 concentration of around 400 ppm exceeds the natural variability
seen over hundreds of thousands of years,"[0]

That's the part that opens and shut's the "debate" surrounding human-cause
climate change. When you have that much data, combined with the fact that we
build and use machines that spew carbon there can not be any other explanation
for the Co2 levels. Case closed.

[0]: [http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/carbon-dioxide-
co2-...](http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/carbon-dioxide-
co2-atmosphere-environment-climate-change-global-warming-un-a8026931.html)

~~~
dwaltrip
More importantly, we know with a high degree of certainty that human global
emissions tip the earth's overall carbon output/downtake balance to net output
(by a few dozen gigatons, I believe), which the models say is enough to
trigger the increase to 400ppm over the past century or so.

~~~
acqq
And we know it's humans who made the increase of CO2 from the measurements of
the carbon isotopes in the ice cores, which stored the state of the air from
the earlier times. Human burning of the fossil fuels changes the isotope ratio
exactly: it is certain that just humans, burning the fossil fuels, are those
who change the CO2 concentration through the years.

------
Filligree
A positive feedback loop through methane was always the nightmare scenario,
and now it seems to be happening.

It's probably too late to stop catastrophic warming simply by cutting
emissions. We still need to do so, because it can always get _worse_ , but
it's time to look seriously at terraforming as well.

~~~
ejolto
Do you mean terraforming Earth or Mars? Handling global warming will probably
be easier than terraforming Mars.

~~~
Filligree
Earth. It's the same technology set, more or less, but aimed at cooling it
down rather than heating up Mars.

I suppose the best option would be carbon capture, if it isn't too expensive,
but I rather suspect it would be.

~~~
AstralStorm
It is not too expensive if we were to use nuclear reactors to power it. (Yes,
including hiked commissioning and decommissioning costs.)

Combined with solar and wind for peak of course because why not.

There are currently no other options. Renewables alone are not enough to even
power civilization at current level. (They get somewhere shy of 60% in an
impossible best case.)

------
tehabe
I feel really helpless, one person alone is essentially powerless, only
governments and corporations are big enough to make a difference but they
don't because they don't "believe" it or have no incentives to do anything.
(And no, boycotts are pointless). So essentially we are screwed and the people
who will come after us will either have to come up with a technology to get
CO2 out of the atmosphere back to 290-300 ppm or will have to live with a much
more hostile environment than today.

I'm extremely pessimistic right now.

~~~
J-dawg
Recently I've been reading various books about how to avoid and control
excessive anxiety.

One piece of advice that I keep seeing is that I should not worry about things
outside of my direct control. This idea is also a central component of
stoicism.

How then, should one process terrible news like this? One the one hand, the
world is not thinking about climate change enough (certainly politicians
aren't).

But on the other hand, it seems impossible to maintain good mental health if
one spends too much time thinking about these things. Part of me wants to
stick my head in the sand and just get on with life (which seems to be what
many people do anyway). How can I read news like this yet remain optimistic
and positive?

Maybe global warming deniers, rather than being stupid or brainwashed, are
just instinctively better at protecting their own mental health?

~~~
mannigfaltig
The problem is that anxiety is warranted in this case. You can’t do anything
about solving the problem for everybody, but you can potentially save your own
life:

\- Work like a madman to get into the 1%.

\- Move to a region that is self-sustaining and is little impacted by global
warming.

\- Buy guns, tools and a farm.

~~~
Diederich
> Buy guns, tools and a farm

Honest question: in the event of some kind of widespread collapse of
civilization, there will be hundreds of millions of starving people. For the
purpose of this question, I don't think it matters much whether its a 'fast'
or 'slow' collapse.

Assuming you have some kind of self sufficient farm and a bunch of guns and
other defenses, does it seem likely that you can keep what food you have and
what food you can produce in the future from a large number of starving
people?

~~~
oh_sigh
It's not like hordes of people are going to come at your farm like a zombie
invasion. The starving people in this scenario will be scattered, scared, and
lacking the ability to share information and coordinate themselves.

~~~
Diederich
You could be right...but I encourage you to think that through very carefully.
Even in most worst case scenarios of climate change killing most food
production, it's a slow process, taking quite a few years.

The people who might eventually come to take by force what someone has as a
result of exceptional planning and execution could be the same people who have
been politely asking for some extra food for years. And those hungry people
have been thinking about it and talking to other hungry people about it for a
good long time.

Also: the local government and pseudo-government entities might insist on
redistribution. And that redistribution might be entirely legal.

~~~
oh_sigh
Sure, but honestly I don't plan for the worst case scenario. I could wear a
giant airbag around my body when I drive but I don't.

------
gdubs
Frustrated with lack of government action, I became a vegetarian. Technically,
pescatarian – but very rarely, because overfishing, mercury, etc.

We need government action on this, and I don't have illusions that my
vegetarianism will make a dent in the problem. But, I believe in taking the
actions you can.

I've also become an advocate for permaculture food production. I will talk at
length about it to anyone who will listen. [1].

We waste a ton of carbon making food. Even if you just cut down on meat
consumption, you'd be reducing your carbon footprint pretty significantly. But
it's not just meat vs vegetables. It's also the way we've centered our food
production around monocultures. Or how we demand fruit that's out of season in
January, that gets shipped and trucked across the globe. (Again, guilty – I
have kids and sometimes you just need to convince them to eat _anything_
besides pasta, but that's another story.)

Maybe for you it's not vegetarianism, but something else you can change in
your own life. We may not fix the problem with our individual changes alone –
but I do believe our individual efforts can create positive momentum towards
progress.

1: [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16441733-restoration-
agr...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16441733-restoration-agriculture)

~~~
kaiku
I agree with you about government action.

That said, if you work for a company, rally together with your like-minded
coworkers to push for change within your organization. Even small companies
can have an outsized impact on both mindshare and environmental direction.

I belong to a group broadly devoted to environmentalism where I work, and we
push on things from renewables; having less meat and more vegetables at lunch
and dinner (we're very lucky to have catered food); and bringing in guest
speakers.

------
zargath
I am a computer engineer so I know nothing of nature :)

But, it boggles my mind why so many people don't believe global warming can be
man-made. I know you can have disagreements, scientists can be wrong, a lot of
things can contribute to things heating up, an so forth. But to be 100% sure
that its not man-made, I dont get it. Is it because these deniers grow up in a
eco system so large that they dont sense human interference, is it pure denial
or ?

~~~
oh_sigh
Keep in mind that there are many viewpoints which are covered under "climate
change denial' \- some of which are more reasonable than others.

Some people don't believe that humans can have any impact at all on the larger
environment

Some people think maybe humans are having an impact, but it is super tiny and
dwarfed by other natural phenomenon

Some people think humans are having an impact, but it isn't worth doing
anything about

Some people think humans are having an impact, but are suspicious that any
economic response will have the intended effect.

~~~
peoplewindow
A lot of climate change denial isn't actually complete denial that the climate
is changing, but rather the poking of holes in the science and claiming that
the confidence level of that science has been grossly overstated by the media
for political and ideological ends.

Unfortunately, when viewed from a "who benefits" perspective, global warming
theory does not look good to your average libertarian small-government cynic:

\- Climate change researchers are virtually all academics.

\- Academics are strongly incentivised to make the grandest, scariest claims
possible because that is what unlocks large streams of grant money.

\- The claim they're making in this case is literally "the world is going to
end unless you give us lots of research money".

\- They have been wrong before, c.f. global cooling.

\- Many of the proposed solutions look suspiciously like excuses for vast
government power grabs to monitor and micro-manage every aspect of one's life
and business. Such people tend to assume the powerful are always looking for
convenient excuses to become even more powerful still, and "we must take away
your trucks and your meat against your will to save the world" looks like the
ultimate power grab.

These concerns are not entirely meritless. A typical example of the genre can
be found here:

[https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/ocean-acidification-
yet-...](https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/ocean-acidification-yet-another-
wobbly-pillar-of-climate-alarmism/)

I haven't looked into the claims in depth but they sound plausible, in
particular, the notion that certain kinds of papers showing negative results
don't get published, the notion that entire fields of study that appear to
have hundreds of peer reviewed papers can nonetheless fall apart when
subjected to rigorous meta-review. We have seen this in other scientific
fields like psychology so it is not implausible that it could happen in
climate science as well.

Ocean acidification is not the same thing as regular global warming. But you
can see why doubt sets in given the alignment of interests involved. For
people who have lost their confidence in the academic establishment, climate
change is effectively invisible.

------
Cacti
> 2016 saw average concentrations of CO2 hit 403.3 parts per million, up from
> 400ppm in 2015... "The largest increase was in the previous El Niño, in
> 1997-1998 and it was 2.7ppm and now it is 3.3ppm, it is also 50% higher than
> the average of the last ten years."

It sounds a lot less alarmist when you put it this way. We're talking like 0.6
part per million. If you look at the graph in the article, it's basically in-
line with the past 60 years.

~~~
guelo
Here's my attempt at visually extrapolating from that graph. If it's a new
trend it looks like a very significant change to me.

[https://imgur.com/fys3MqG](https://imgur.com/fys3MqG)

------
chiefalchemist
It might be a good time to reiterate that fracking (in the USA) hockeystick'ed
in the last 5 - 10 years. That, naturally, drove down the cost of oil, which
naturally helped to not deter (pardon the double negative) oil consumption.

Cheap energy was great for the ailing economy, but it mortgaged Mother
Nature's future.

------
simonsarris
Developing transportation beyond oil is a moral imperative.

How long will it take us?

[https://medium.com/@simon.sarris/the-moral-
technology-6413ca...](https://medium.com/@simon.sarris/the-moral-
technology-6413ca8449c9)

------
melling
As we approach the third decade of the 21st Century, how is most electricity
on the planet generated?

Coal.

~~~
tankenmate
According to "The Shift project Data Portal"[0] coal accounts for 39% in 2014
(which is no doubt lower now considering the rise of solar and wind in the
last 3 years). Carbon based fuel types are at 66% according to the same
source, however take note that coal produces almost two times the carbon
emissions of natural gas, and diesel almost 50% more than natural gas. [1]

Also you need to consider that in G-7 nations mains electricity use is
actually declining. And in G-20 it has only gone up by 0.1% in the last year.
[2]

And lastly consider than non obvious sources of global warming sources are
things like cattle which globally account for nearly 18% (2006 UN Food and Ag
Report) which is more than global transportation. [3]

So singling out coal is nowhere near a big win as your comment implies.

[0] [http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity-
Gene...](http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity-Generation-
by-Energy-Source)

[1]
[https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11)

[2] [https://www.enerdata.net/publications/reports-
presentations/...](https://www.enerdata.net/publications/reports-
presentations/global-energy-trends-2017.html)

[3] [https://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-
glob...](https://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-
warming-1562144730)

~~~
hinkley
Found the coal shill.

Look. We have a carbon budget problem. When you have a budget problem, you
need to make a budget. Nobody with real problems ever solved them by looking
at all of your outlays, trimming the biggest one and claiming victory. You
have to trim every single one that doesn’t represent a reasonable fraction of
the whole.

The opposite of “Singling coal out” is not “give it a free pass”. It needs to
be cut. Along with everything else. It is indefensible that it is 40% of the
energy mix but 60% of the carbon footprint. Full stop.

~~~
tankenmate
I strongly support reducing greenhouse gas emissions, both CO2 (which has very
long term effects) and CH4 (which is more powerful greenhouse gas but shorter
term effects, CH4 as a higher potential energy state compound decomposes in
the atmosphere readily but typically to CO2).

I think coal has no place for future electricity generation investment. But
you can't shut down the plants overnight; a more feasible option would be an
accelerated phase out over 5 to 10 years. Natural gas also should be phased
out but probably over a 10 to 20 year period.

Currently today for large segments in the world solar and/or wind is now
cheaper than coal. There are some places where any of solar, wind, geothermal,
or hydroelectric are not an option but these are a very small minority.
Hopefully molten salt reactors or fusion reactors will fill the void in such
places.

Having said that just removing coal from the picture won't mean we'll make the
necessary targets to keep warming to within tolerable limits. Coal for
electricity production is a sizeable chunk of the problem but by no means the
whole picture. Even on the issue of coal there is still cement production and
steel production to worry about.

------
grandalf
Are there plant species that might not really thrive in the current
environment but will begin to thrive once the CO2 level increases a bit
further?

~~~
computerwizard
I've thought the same thing. It would make sense but would be great if someone
with real knowledge could respond.

~~~
Filligree
All forms of underwater plants will do better with more CO2, especially the
ones that also grow above water. Perhaps not including seaweed.

I don't know how much effect that will have, given seaweed is mostly it, but
planted aquariums typically need to artificially inject CO2 into the water to
get decent growth rates. The exchange rate with air is deeply unfavorable, so
there'll be barely any CO2 in the water otherwise.

The exchange rate also worsens as temperature increases. I'm not sure how it'd
work out overall.

------
thriftwy
How is that solar shade coming along?

------
yters
Why such focus on CO2 when it is a small proportion of the greenhouse effect?
Water vapor is much more significant.

------
Gustomaximus
At the risk of being overly anecdotal, I find it interesting to see the
evolution of people in my life who are anti clean energy movement.

First they denied climate change. Then they moved to saying changes were
happening but it was normal global fluctuations. Now they are telling me that
increased carbon will stimulate growth and help feed the world.

I find it amazing. I dont truly know if global warming is a thing as I'm not a
scientist studying this. I do know the vast majority of scientists are
screaming we are heading for trouble. Even if they are wrong, why would we
take the chance. I find people fighting a change to improve carbon and other
global warming causes dumbfounding. Even if the scientist are likely wrong,
the downside/cost of pursuing green tech is reasonably limited and why would
you take the chance on something so profound.

~~~
jackmott
>Even if they are wrong, why would we take the chance

Because the economic consequences of fossil fuel regulation could be massively
deadly or at least disruptive as well, that is why people and companies spend
millions of dollars lying about it.

The balance of power of nations and corporations would be totally upended.

~~~
epistasis
We’re headed that direction anyway as the tech curves for wind solar and
storage mean that fossil fuel energy generation is likely to be more expensive
in 15-20 years.

We could have gotten here sooner if we had invested more heavily, sooner in
these technologies. As it is we had a few forward thinking states like Germany
to thank for where we are, with spot prices of wind and most solar being
cheaper than coal, and often cheaper than natural gas.

This totally upends the few existing players that were once thought to have
unassailable power. But now that companies that are heavily invested in
natural gas are treating coal as their competitor and enemy in the political
landscape, things are changing. Those natural gas heavy fossil fuel companies
are actually asking for a carbon tax!

As solar and wind become bigger economic forces, we will likely start to see
more consolidation and see fewer player with stronger political force to
compete with natural gas. The nuclear industry has no power here, they let
fossil fuel driven companies control their fate, and they have no industrial
savvy to build an industry, and instead spend all their time tilting at
windmills of weak political forces, and unable to build and deliver reactors
when they do have eager customers.

It will be super interesting to see what happens with Perry’s coal NOPR that’s
being evaluated by FERC right now. Has FERC been stacked with enough coal
partisans, or will the rest of the energy industry win out?

------
nakedrobot2
Hey! Billionaires of the world - there are now 1400 of you [1]. How much would
it cost to, say,

A) buy the entire amazon rainforest, so that it doesn't get chopped down
anymore? (Yes, it's not just that easy, needs monitoring and patrol, etc.)

B) Solve nuclear fusion,

C) build massive arrays of solar panels (or fusion reactors) in order to
desalinate water and eventually reforest the deserts of africa?

Once I'm a billionaire myself I hope to help with at least one of those three
things. Until then, we must ask them nicely to act, rather than just watch
their capital asexually reproduce.

[1] [https://boingboing.net/2017/10/27/new-gilded-
age.html](https://boingboing.net/2017/10/27/new-gilded-age.html)

~~~
JPLeRouzic
I upvoted you because I agree with the "spirit" of what you wrote, but
something is nagging me: Once free energy (in the form of massive solar panel
fields or nuclear fusion) is available, would not it be actually worse?

\- True we would (in theory) no more need coal/oil, but that would be useless
for most transport means as we would have pollution made by producing
batteries as well as with old abandonned leaking electric cars?

\- For the Amazon rainforest, I learnt that it is something that came and went
several times during the hundred of millenia since it exists. Why do you
expect it to have an impact on CO2 rate or the climate? After all if the
problem is the Co2 we could attack it directly by transforming it in food for
example.

\- There is at least an ongoing project in Sahel to create a long wall of
trees, but the main problem is that people burn bush/trees for cooking and
they raise goats. Goats tear off grass, on contrary to other cattle. Those two
reasons explain well the desert progression, in Sahara at least.

Another problem is that the West of Sahara is infested with personal mines.

What I would propose (actually I proposed it in the Global challenges shape
prize [0]) is for UNHCR to create artificial towns in those areas. It not only
would provide work and wealth to people there but it would change their way of
living. This is not a pipe dream, China is already implementing a similar
policy.

[0] [https://globalchallenges.org/en/our-work/the-new-shape-
prize](https://globalchallenges.org/en/our-work/the-new-shape-prize)

~~~
nakedrobot2
Oh! That's an interesting idea. I hadn't considered providing additional
population / infrastructure, as an economic incentive to "regreen" an area.
You would still need some massive efforts around planting / watering the new
vegetation though. So these "new towns" would be in addition to newly
forested+grass areas?

~~~
JPLeRouzic
Yes, not so long ago there were marshes where is now the Chad lake. The
megalake Chad was reached by Romans who called it "lake of ippopotamus".

It is a node of watercraft transport between the West Africa, the Golf of
Guinea and the Congo to the South.

Actually all the places between CAR and Mali could be much greener. There is
even a (quite old) project to make this area a much wetter place:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Chad_replenishment_projec...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Chad_replenishment_project)

------
mariushn
Most comments say we must cut down our emissions, but will YOU do anything
different after this article? I'm honestly asking how can _I_ help?

* I'm already a minimalist. Small apartment, no useless crap around (decorations, lots of clothes, printed books...), which require energy to produce & transport

* Can't convince friends to do the same

* Work from home

* No car, using public transport & Uber when needed

* Voting has no effect

So, what exactly can we do this week, besides just saying "Yep", and just go
on until it breaks? Genuine question.

~~~
OisinMoran
To those feeling powerless about this,
[http://worrydream.com/#!/ClimateChange](http://worrydream.com/#!/ClimateChange)
is one of the most well-researched, well-written, and inspiring pieces written
on this exact problem--"what can a technologist do about climate change?".

~~~
mariushn
Thanks Oisin!

------
rybosome
So how deep into the consequences are we going to get before the debate over
its reality ends?

~~~
titzer
I fear that an entire generation of older Americans simply will _not_ accept
climate change is real. The question is how much political power they will
have in the coming years. We might still be having these debates in a decade.
Sadly.

~~~
gaius
_I fear that an entire generation of older_

Ageist nonsense. The older generation grew up in a time when they repaired
things. The younger generation buy a new phone or laptop every year and chuck
the old one in landfill. The old generation made and repaired clothes, young
people buy clothes made in sweatshops halfway around the world and wear them
for one season then throw them in landfill. Older people ate food grown
locally, young people love imported foods like soy and quinoa. Who are the
REAL deniers? Look at actions not mere words.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Surveys have shown fairly consistently over the years that (at least in the
US) the denial of climate change is larger in the older cohorts.

I'm not sure why those older generations would be so keen to repair their
clothes but not their planet, my own theory would be decades of propaganda
from the likes of Fox has divorced them from reality and therefore their own
self-interest but maybe they just want to torch the world on their way out.

~~~
gaius
_Surveys have shown fairly consistently_

Oh yes, younger people will always SAY the right things, social media has
taught them that, but then jet off on holiday, or buy the latest phone when
their old one was perfectly good... Look at tangible actions, not virtue
signalling and you will see the truth of what I say.

------
PatientTrades
> It is urgent that we follow the Paris agreement and switch rapidly away from
> fossil fuels

I think everyone, even skeptics deep down agree that climate change is real.
However, giving billions, if not trillions of dollars to an international
climate fund run by who the hell knows is definitely not the correct approach.
Businesses and people need short term incentives to switch, not just mandates.
Until scientists further develop not only cheaper, but more convenient and
efficient energy solutions, fossil fuels will continue to be used.

~~~
mikeash
At this point, I think we just need to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies. If we
just made people pay for the _actual_ costs of such fuels, rather than letting
them pollute for free, renewables would wipe the floor with them.

~~~
gaius
What subsidies? For every £1 you spend on petrol in the UK 80p is tax. If we
paid the actual cost people would drive gas guzzlers 'cos why not.

~~~
vkou
> What subsidies?

Getting to dump waste products into the atmosphere for free. That 80p is
nowhere near the true cost of that.

~~~
mikeash
Yes, exactly. People don’t pay for the consequences of the pollution they
generate. If they did, fossil fuels would be much less popular.

