
Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years - splawn
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/antarctic-co2-hit-400-ppm-for-first-time-in-4-million-years/
======
blondie9x
We all know by now CO2 and CH4 leads to a warmer planet. We also know what's
driving greenhouse gas levels to rise across Earth. Contributors are
deforestation, intensive animal farming, and primarily the combustion of
carbon fossil fuels like coal, tar sands, oil, natural gas etc. But here is
the underlying problem, despite us knowing how bad things are, (97+% of
scientists who study this field agree we are causing the planet's climate to
shift away from the temperate climate we thrived in) not enough is being done
at present to truly solve the problem.

What really is disheartening and what no one in the media and government is
talking about is how in 2015 CO2 levels rose by the largest amount in human
recorded history. 3.05 PPM

[http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html)

We are being lied to and mislead by our governments that uniform actions are
being performed to save the planet for the future of man. Vested interests in
the fossil fuel industry continue to drive climate change. Yes, solar energy
is starting to become incredibly efficient but not enough of it is coming
online in proportion to fossil fuel burning that persists and is also
installed annually. If we do not rally against it, our ability to live on this
planet is at stake. The lives of our posterity are also at risk because of the
burning. It will not be until we take extreme actions not on a country level
but as humanity together that we will slow the burning and save ourselves.

What are these actions you might ask that will actually be effective? These
can range from banning fossil fuels entirely, global carbon pricing system,
banning deforestation, changing human diets, extreme uniform investment in
renewable energy and potentially fourth generation nuclear reactors, more
funding for developing nations to install alternative energy sources, and to
shift the transportation grid towards sustainability.

~~~
JoBrad
Honestly, the whole point of worrying about climate change is its impact to
humans (the earth has survived far worse over its history, and will likely
survive worse in the future). The suggestions you mentioned all have
substantial negative impacts to humanity - arguably as much as climate change
itself (i.e. doing nothing) - and has a huge upfront cost, to boot.
Additionally, such extreme actions will result in large black markets that
render those bans moot, and abide by very few or none of the laws and
regulations we have in place to mitigate some small amount of impact to our
climate, making the situation worse than it is now.

The only real solution is to innovate our way out of a large amount of our
polluting habits, in a way that is cost-effective.

Also, I don't recall any governmental agency saying that we are taking
appropriate action to save the planet. Most agencies are saying that we should
start taking action, but that we've already passed the point of no return.

~~~
NickM
> The suggestions you mentioned all have substantial negative impacts to
> humanity - arguably as much as climate change itself

I think that assertion deserves to be examined a bit more closely.

We are already effectively subsidizing the fossil fuel industry to the tune of
5+ _trillion_ USD per year [1]. This is a figure from the IMF that includes
direct monetary subsidies as well as externalities like public health,
environmental damage, etc.

So the question now becomes this: would switching to renewables cost more than
that? If we started dumping that same amount of money into renewables and
corresponding infrastructure, how quickly could we switch away from fossil
fuels? If we do some impromptu calculations based on current cost of solar
panels, batteries, etc., it seems like it might take maybe 20 years.

Obviously it's not that simple in practice, but I think this demonstrates that
humanity could theoretically switch away from fossil fuels without enduring
any severe hardships. This isn't a problem of the technology not being good
enough[2], or renewables being too expensive: it's just a
political/organizational problem.

[1]
[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0](http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=42940.0)
[2] With the possible exception of jet planes, for which batteries aren't good
enough to provide a compelling alternative yet. But I would guess that when
the electric car market really starts to take off, battery tech will start
improving a lot faster.

~~~
JoBrad
We should stop subsidies for all fossil fuels, and begin phasing in taxation
of fossil fuels to account for their cost. But the cost I'm talking about it
not just about money. There isn't a viable alternative to a whole host of
products that we use. Off the top of my head I can think of plastics (huge)
and large equipment. Even using energy-reclamation for garbage trucks is an
"innovation" for us. We simply couldn't do it with the current paradigm. You
also have to consider that the majority of humanity is evolutionarily wired to
be change-averse. Overturning our current infrastructure is not easy, and will
require trillions of dollars of investment, for essentially the same level of
service that we have today. That's hard to convince people to do. And even the
best idea is worth nothing if people won't adopt it.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
Most of the things I have read which accuse energy companies of being
subsidized lack a basic understanding of the historical accounting mores of
those industries. This is principally because of depletion allowances and
industrial depreciation. Both of those still apply and have full standing in
the law.

I am not saying this should not be changed but rather that it'd be quite a
change.

As a USAian, I can expect my energy need to be met by cleaner tech than
someone in, say Africa. Natural gas is here and will make a difference.

------
jakeogh
Nice visualization from NASA:
[https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011700/a011719/11719-...](https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a010000/a011700/a011719/11719-1920-MASTER.mp4)

~~~
andrewstuart2
Am I reading the visualization right that CO2 practically disappears every
summer? Wouldn't it logically follow then that we're not actually too late to
fix our CO2 levels? If we can reduce emissions, plant consumption during the
summer months for the northern hemisphere appears to be incredibly effective
at basically demolishing the built-up CO2.

Or is the "too late" aspect more about the melting polar caps, and that they'd
not rebuild quickly?

~~~
lisper
> Am I reading the visualization right that CO2 practically disappears every
> summer?

No. The concentration does drop seasonally, but not even close to zero. See:

[http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/)

Click on the "full record" tab and note that the Y axis starts at 320
(compared to the preindustrial level of 270).

The seasonal drop is about 5PPM, and we're at about 400 now, roughly 50% over
pre-industrial levels. There are seasonal natural emissions as well. Even if
we cut artificial emissions to zero it would still take the better part of a
century (maybe even several centuries) to get back down to preindustrial CO2
levels.

~~~
willholloway
We can fix this, we can take the carbon out of the atmosphere [1]. There is
reason for optimism. We. Are. Not. Doomed. The optimum level of carbon is
probably slightly above pre-industrial levels. We definitely need to get back
below 350ppm to keep human civilization... civilized.

400ppm+ is a trajectory to anarchy. The chimpanzee raiding impulse is alive
and well in our DNA, a survival adaptation for stagnation and decline.

We have the technology, bio-energy with carbon capture and sequestration, its
a scaling problem, but first we have to stop pumping so much carbon up into
the air. We have made progress there as well:

1) Cheap Solar PV has arrived, growth has been exponential for two decades.
[2]

2) Energy storage is possible. Think underground maglev trains, on circular
tracks, working as massive flywheels.

3) Fusion is attainable in the time frame we need it in, if we increase
research funding, but its not required. That said if we cracked fusion, we
would have all the energy we would need to desalinate seawater and sequester
carbon.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-
energy_with_carbon_capture...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-
energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics)

~~~
opo
>...Energy storage is possible.

Possible, but except for pumped hydro, it looks like still a lot of work needs
to be done.

>...3) Fusion is attainable in the time frame we need it in, if we increase
research funding, but its not required. That said if we cracked fusion, we
would have all the energy we would need to desalinate seawater and sequester
carbon.

I am not sure if fusion is attainable in the time frame needed or it would be
economically viable in that timeframe. With fission we have working reactors
right now and with a little more research effort we could soon have 4th
generation reactors. With reactor designs like the integral fast reactor
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor))
there would be enough potential electrical generating capacity to last the
world thousands of years. (Of course we should also keep investing in fusion
research and energy storage.)

~~~
ObeyTheGuts
Breeder reactors like fast neutron reactor main advantage is less radioactive
waste, there is enough of uranium in world to feed the old light water
reactors for thousands of years too, but they produce lot of radioactive waste
which could be used as fuel and inactivated in breeder reactors.

~~~
opo
>Breeder reactors like fast neutron reactor main advantage is less radioactive
waste,

Generally they will also have more passive safety features and in the case of
something like the IFR, an even smaller chance of proliferation. Less nuclear
waste might be the most important issue to most people though.

>... there is enough of uranium in world to feed the old light water reactors
for thousands of years too

True, looks like I was really using the wrong units of time. Scientific
American had an article where they estimated a 60,000 year supply at current
rates. If we switched to the world using breeder reactors, probably more like
hundreds of thousands or millions of years of fuel depending on the growth
rate you use for consumption.

------
wallace_f
Sometimes I feel I am the only one sceptical of the politics and alarmism
surrounding climate change. I am Not saying I'm skeptical that it is real (or
to be more appropriately scientific, that the evidence suggests the observed
increase in CO2 and temperature most likely is caused by emissions), but I'm
saying the politics are more complex than that.

I can think of a number of other issues that pose similar if not more
immediate, or greater risks to humanity that have lower economic costs to
solve.

Global warming activism also bothers me in some ways. Snobs have an absolute
affinity for it, and it seems in this cause it's easy to create an aura of
good will without actually having to follow-up and do anything tangible to
benefit other people. Think: Buying hybrid cars that pollute more than my
simple Honda. Preaching about the importance of action on this topic is also
rather convenient: you don't appear to actually have to take any action.
Preach about the problems of homelessness, drug abuse, crime, healthcare?
There are obvious ways to actually spend your time helping people who are
victims there. Want to hold the moral superiority card with as little effort
as possible? It's super convenient.

There's also the the west's party line to the rest of the world: We can afford
clean energy now, and of course we want it; but even though other nations
can't afford it, they're now declared immoral for not embracing it.

None of what I'm saying is that global warming isn't a worthy cause, just that
the enormity and alarmism of the politics that surrounds it is cause for
question.

~~~
briandear
My problem is that the climate change activism crowd have admitted that the
benefit of climate change regulation is income redistribution and effectively
the destruction of capitalism. The climate change movement started gaining
stream after the Soviet Union collapsed. I am very skeptical of climate
activists with their almost identical similarity to the pro-Soviet
propagandists from the 1980s.

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by
climate policy.. ..One has to free oneself from the illusion that
international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing
to do with environmental policy anymore.."

\--Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and lead author
of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007

~~~
mikeash
I can never understand why dumping pollution into the atmosphere and making
other people bear the costs is categorized under "capitalism" and "free
market," while making people actually pay for the costs they impose on others
through pollution is considered "redistribution" and "communism."

When somebody burns coal as part of their business and pollutes my air, they
are basically imposing a tax on me to subsidize their business. That's not
capitalism or economic freedom, that's socialism for business.

~~~
wallace_f
> I can never understand why dumping pollution into the atmosphere and making
> other people bear the costs is categorized under "capitalism" and "free
> market," while making people actually pay for the costs they impose on
> others through pollution is considered "redistribution" and "communism."

Your confusion is well founded. It is actually the other way around.
Privatizing externalities (the environmental costs) is honestly a well-
respected market-based mechanism to solve problems that fall under the Tragedy
of the Commons category, as is the case here. So it is arguably absolutely
"capitalist," and "free market." It has nothing to do with socialism and
everything to do with using free market mechanisms. If you're interested in
related reading, see:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax)

Socializing the costs (which means to redistribute ownership to society) is
arguably more consistently "communist." Communism is a really bloated term,
economic ideology, in which the economy does not rely on markets, but on
socialization of capital and production, arguably more accurately describes a
situation where we socialize a cost to society.

~~~
mikeash
That seems quite sensible, but unfortunately every time something is brought
up, people come out of the woodwork to criticize it on the basis that it's
anti-capitalist, destroys free markets, etc.

~~~
wallace_f
It is unfortunate, I agree.

------
curiousgeorgio
Go ahead and call me all the usual names (I don't care), but I'm a skeptic of
a few things - especially things like science that has strong political
influences/biases/implications - and yes, sometimes even mainstream science.

But no, I don't deny or ignore the apparent trends. That's why I also don't
feel (as others have expressed here) any sense of grave alarmism or fear about
the effects of warming. When climate-related deaths have steadily decreased in
recent history[1], shouldn't we really be more concerned with adapting (or
continuing to adapt) our own environments to deal with the earth's climate?
That doesn't mean we shouldn't be environmentally conscious; just the
opposite. We _should_ be conscious of our environment, both in terms of what
nature provides and in terms of how we adapt to it. Surely, very few people
alive today would be suited to living in many populous places in the world
without the protections afforded by human invention - today or pre-
industrialization. Technological progress (much of which is a product of
fossil fuels) has enabled us to live significantly longer lives, and fewer
people are in climate-related danger now than ever before in history. In my
view, that's a good thing.

[1] [http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-
content/uploads/...](http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-
content/uploads/boden.png)

~~~
brc
Rich countries with efficient and abundant energy have the lowest population
growth rates and the cleanest and best preserved environments.

The solution for environment degradation is the same as for poverty - the two
are obviously linked.

The solution is efficient energy and rejection of superstitious nonsense.

Alas the majority of the world is trying to unwind the first and positively
going the other way on the second.

------
FuNe
Let it roll.

Few in the industrialized world if anyone really gives a shite (1). Lots of
well-fed educated westerners would lose sleep if "free" economy is coughing
but don't really care about this. Run away capitalism creating the problem in
the first place is also -ehm- the reason why mostly leftists seem to get it.
Not that this helps. It just makes the whole thing even more partizan.

Sad truth is the guys that are really screwed (so far and at the foreseeable
future) by this are not exactly HN commentators. To them this might mean
drought and death next year but to us -fat cats- this apparently means a
danger to economic development. We simply do not have our asses on the line
(yet) - which is why we can talk this to death but do _nothing_ to really
prevent it. We might wake up when we start losing relatives due to 50C heat
waves. Who knows.

And even then, if we get it, who would actually do something? We -at a global
scale- have been terrible at resolving much simpler crises. Want an example?
Ebola virus was stopped last minute. Zika virus is on the loose and is gonna
get worse (because Olympic games will go on at the epicenter despite hundreds
academics calling for delaying them). If nobody makes money out of it nobody
cares. Our whole system is simply dancing to that music.

So - let it roll babe.

1\. <brutally honest mode on> Including my fat ass. </brutally honest mode>

~~~
pmyjavec
Good comment!

I'm highly surprised by the skepticism, especially by 'Hacker News' readers,
some comments read as if science is but an inconvenience.

Westerners don't live in complete isolation from the environment and other
nations of the world.

Our air comes from our oceans (which are in-trouble), cheap goods that prop up
modern consumer driven economies (very sadly) come from places which are
already being hit hard by warming temperatures, deforestation and drought and
mass migration events are already taking place.

More needs to be done.

------
lossolo
The worst thing is that we can't stop it when it will be too late. This
doesn't work like a switch. Even if we would drastically cut all CO2 emission
those levels would not drop in our lifetimes.

~~~
danieltillett
Relying on natural processes yes there is a problem, but if we were to put
WWII levels of resources into it we could create artificial trees [1] while
hiding under a short term SO2 umbrella [2]. Of course I doubt we will actually
do this.

1\.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal)

2\.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering)

~~~
hyperbovine
I have no doubt at we will try this, plus a lot of even dumber ideas, once the
shit really starts to hit the fan. The world is not going to just sit back as
Manhattan, Mumbai, Shanghai, Sydney, Rio, etc. disappear under a foot or two
of water. Politicians (the same one who spent 50 years failing on this issue)
will demand action. It's the best argument I can think of for putting serious
research effort into geoengineering, odious as it may be.

~~~
baddox
It's probably a lot cheaper for those cities to build flood control systems.

~~~
zamalek
> build flood control systems.

Water is only one problem. By 2070 some places might be uninhabitable
according to this[1] study, due to heat.

> At WBTs [wet bulb temperature] above 35C, the high heat and humidity make it
> physically impossible for even the fittest human body to cool itself by
> sweating, with fatal consequences after six hours. For less fit people, the
> fatal WBT is below 35C. A WBT temperature of 35C – the combination of 46C
> heat and 50% humidity – was almost reached in Bandar Mahshahr in Iran in
> July 2015.

At some point it's going to cost big bucks. If the study holds water, the Gulf
will either need to be evacuated or artificial habitation will need to be
built.

[1]:
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/26/extreme-...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/26/extreme-
heatwaves-could-push-gulf-climate-beyond-human-endurance-study-shows)

------
MikeHolman
I've been having a bit of an existential crisis about this recently. Is
sustainability even possible anymore? We are obviously living beyond the
capacity of the earth to cope right now. But is it even possible to sustain
this many people (at current standards of living with foreseeable technology)?

~~~
fabled_giraffe
I believe in global warming, but I also think a higher or lower temperature
Earth with a greater level of CO2 just means that different organisms will
thrive. We think that we have damaged the Earth, but the Earth is much, much
older than us, and we've barely made a dent if you consider the full lifetime
of everything that ever will be. Now- if we had started a global thermonuclear
war and eradicated all life on Earth, I wouldn't be saying that, but all we
have done is to change the temperature and the atmosphere a little, which has
serious consequences for the way things currently are, but in the end it will
just mean different organisms take over and what grows where will change.

If anything, the thing we need to be concerned about is being ready for
changes, which will happen. We might need to grow different sorts of foods,
focus on better insulation for our homes or move underground or underwater. We
may need new laws to avoid wasting resources. But, there is no reason to be
depressed about it. Those things will happen with time.

~~~
wavefunction
My response to you is "what right do we have to usher in these changes?"

You might argue the "might makes right" perspective that anything within our
capability is acceptable and appropriate but I don't agree with that
sentiment. I feel that we, as sentient/semi-sapient beings, must be as
custodians for this world and all the life within it.

We are actually the least among all, until we begin to serve the rest of this
planet that has seen us to this point.

~~~
arama471
He's not saying this is all fine and dandy, hes saying its not an apocalypse,
just a global catastrophe from which both the earth and humanity will recover.

~~~
rosser
The odds are a bit longer on humanity surviving this mess than the planet.

~~~
Macylpse
Humanity will become extinct long before the biosphere. You need to think more
inhuman [1]

"It is based on a recognition of the astonishing beauty of things and their
living wholeness, and on a rational acceptance of the fact that mankind is
neither central nor important in the universe; our vices and blazing crimes
are as insignificant as our happiness. […] Turn outward from each other, so
far as need and kindness permit, to the vast life and inexhaustible beauty
beyond humanity. This is not a slight matter, but an essential condition of
freedom, and of moral and vital sanity.’

[1] [http://dark-mountain.net/stories/books/book-1/the-falling-
ye...](http://dark-mountain.net/stories/books/book-1/the-falling-years-an-
inhumanist-vision/)

------
combatentropy
Up from preindustrial levels of 280 ppm. More:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_at...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere)

------
cconroy
Forgive my ignorance on this issue but Earth has various feedback mechanisms
that forestalls CO2: getting absorbed back into rocks and consumption by
flora. Is comparing CO2 levels to 4 mya disingenuous because that is just one
variable we are isolating? Are we sure that rising CO2 is producing these
effects attributed to climate change and not some complicated combination of
factors that is evidenced by Earth history of rising temperature followed by
cooling temperatures followed by...

~~~
brc
No, you're not ignorant.

Yes, if the earth were an unstable system it would have destabilised in the
past.

Yes, it is a combination of factors poorly understood, like the work only now
coming out of CERN.

Yes, the ROI of the various treaties and tax plans are beyond negative.

Yes, this type of comment is verboten.

~~~
the8472
> Yes, the ROI of the various treaties and tax plans are beyond negative.

Have you factored externalties into those ROI calculations?

> Yes, if the earth were an unstable system it would have destabilised in the
> past.

A stable system can still have its equilibrium point shifted in one direction
or another. Your blood for example is a buffered solution, keeping a
relatively stable pH. But it can still be influenced by many things.

------
tim333
I wonder why it was at 400ppm 4m years ago. Presumably the Earth survived the
last time.

~~~
m4x
Earth will survive next time too. I'm pretty sure Earth could survive
absolutely anything we throw at it. Life on Earth may not survive in it's
current form, however.

It's interesting to note that the last time a life form on Earth substantially
changed the Earth's atmosphere, it caused "one of the most significant
extinction events in Earth's history" (see
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event)
and
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Past_concentration))

~~~
eru
See [https://qntm.org/destroy](https://qntm.org/destroy)

------
rwhitman
So my question is, what density of greenhouse gasses does it take to go from
"Pliocene" to "Venus"?

------
Shivetya
Higher CO2 levels will increase crop yields for many types of foods and in
general flip back as the world greens to soak it up.

While some will correctly identify deforestation, animal farming, and fossil
fuel usage, most over look the costs in making concrete and the building boom
as more of the world gets richer won't help that come down.

------
mturmon
A companion piece about crossing the 400 ppm boundary, also from the southern
hemisphere: [http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/atmospheric-carbon-
di...](http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-
soars-past-crucial-milestone)

------
dominiek
[http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/03/denying-the-
cl...](http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2016/03/denying-the-climate-
catastrophe-1-introduction.html)

~~~
Oletros
From the site:

> The name change from "global warming" to "climate change" was, to my mind,
> less about science and more about a marketing effort to deal with the fact
> the temperatures had plateaued over the last 10-20

Someone that can say that the term have changed from global warming to climate
change is because has an agenda because it is false.

------
Fiahil
So, when should we start our preparation for the apocalypse? 2020? 2025?

~~~
Retric
Never. The issue with climate change is it's not going to harm wealthy people,
so it's not a problem for them. In other words bad shit might happen to 75% of
the worlds population, but so what.

During the Irish potato famine, Ireland exported food. Think about that for a
little bit. _Throughout the entire period of the Famine, Ireland was exporting
enormous quantities of food. Cormac O 'Grada points out that, in Ireland
before and after the famine, "Although the potato crop failed, the country was
still producing and exporting more than enough grain crops to feed the
population. But that was a 'money crop' and not a 'food crop' and could not be
interfered with."[80]_ Net result, 1 million people died.

Yes, large numbers of people really are that evil.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Climate change is already harming wealthy people in the UK who bought nice
houses on flood plains or near the Thames.

It's no longer possible to buy insurance in some areas - the insurance
companies are ahead of the game on modelling climate change impacts - and many
people are trying to move away from those areas, with varying degrees of
success.

Parts of the country are literally becoming uninhabitable.

I had to drive through a flash flood today, and it made me wonder just how
much worse the weather can get. At some point in the next few decades we'll
probably start having tropical hurricanes - which will be immense fun in a
country that's completely unprepared for them.

Also, London is a climate disaster waiting to happen. The Thames Barrier
protects London from tidal flood water, but it won't do anything at all to
prevent the kind of storms that hit France and Germany last week.

~~~
stale2002
As a total percentage of the world's land a very small percentage will become
"uninhabitable", though right?

And much more currently uninhabited land will now become usable. There is tons
of land in Canada and Russia that is currently way too cold to do anything
with.

TBH, the world would be a better place if it was a couple degrees warmer.

~~~
Oletros
> As a total percentage of the world's land a very small percentage will
> become "uninhabitable", though right?

An small percentage of land with a high percentage of population and
infrastructure

> There is tons of land in Canada and Russia that is currently way too cold to
> do anything with

Yap, and with the warming the Sun will also change and will shine like in the
meridional regions, isn't?

> TBH, the world would be a better place if it was a couple degrees warmer.

No, it won't be

------
zaro
Just feels so relevant to the topic :

[http://img.pandawhale.com/post-17543-tomtoroyestheplanetgotd...](http://img.pandawhale.com/post-17543-tomtoroyestheplanetgotdestroye-
LjEH.jpeg)

------
ensiferum
I walk to work. Now are you part of the solution or part of the problem?

~~~
effingwewt
Yea, not everyone has that luxury. If you said something along the lines of
"I've been contacting my state representative to push for more reform,
donating to 'X' to aid in public awareness, etc", I would have given you the
pat on the back you so obviously crave. And what about recycling, or
purchasing avenues which ensure re-population? Plenty we can all do other than
the current popular hipster "in" thing.

~~~
Teever
It is very astounding to hear someone describe walking to work as a luxury.

I don't know what that says about our society.

------
tr1ck5t3r
Its nice picking your time scales and models to convey a message as this image
shows when CO2 was in the thousands parts per million.
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phaneroz...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png)

Now whilst its true the sun is heating up before it goes super nova millions
of years in the future, which is what alot of the global warming fear is based
on, and yes man has contributed a small % of CO2 by releasing CO2 from fossil
fuels and cut down trees, the biggest threat facing mankind in the next 30
years is the Grand Solar Minimum.

A Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) is where the sunspots in the 11 year solar cycle
reduce in frequency and strength and extreme weather becomes common place.

Sun spots reduce extreme weather events.

The last GSM was seen during the Dalton Minimum and Maunder Minimum, which are
now classed as mini ice ages. When this occurred we had things like increased
volcanic activity which lead to the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer)
but extreme cold weather with temperatures seen in the UK of -37 Degrees C,
sea ports and the English channel freezing over, extreme winds which did
things like blow copious amounts of sand inland, leading to houses being
buried in places like Santon Downham, massive inland sand dunes which is what
Thetford Forest is planeted on in a bid to return the soil back to some use,
but most importantly estimates suggest around 25% of the global population
died due to cold and famine due to crop failures.

Today we have increased crop yields so whilst more land has been turned over
to agriculture with modern farming practices, the risk is still very much a
major threat in the next few decades as a hectare will feed more mouths today
than it did during the medieval ice age and the global population has
ballooned since the introduction of oil.

There are steps you can take yourself though to reduce your risk, like buying
suitable farm land whilst also investing in solar which can power air source
heat pumps in case energy supplies & communication become disrupted due to
extreme weather events.

1 Watt of solar power can provide upto 3 Watts of heat energy from air source
heat pumps. These are just like air con units working in reverse.

Now whilst no one wants to create a panic, looking at the facts in context is
important and these points we need to bear in mind.

Firstly there were no meteorological offices during the medieval ice ages, so
the evidence amassed by Professor Brian Fagan which you can read about in his
book "The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850" explains how man
was affected and were very likely the drivers of political events that led to
the French Revolution, the Irish Potatoe famine and more.

Its also worth pointing out that differences in the scientific community means
no one really knows whether our manmade CO2 is going to benefit us or not when
considering plants grow better with more CO2.

So there you go, a brief introduction of what TPTB are currently capitalizing
on, if you fancy capitalizing on it yourself in innovative ways yourself.

~~~
gjm11
> Its nice picking your time scales and models to convey a message

Yeah, they're _totally_ cherry-picking by only looking at the last _four
million years_. Shocking.

You're right that if we go back, say, 100 million years, we find CO2 levels
somewhat higher than today. Other things we find: temperatures 20-40 degrees C
higher at the poles than today; something like half of Europe and the US under
water.

(See
[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/cliscibeyond.html](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/cliscibeyond.html)
for a bit more information, though it's not very detailed.)

> the sun is heating up before it goes super nova [...] whch is what alot of
> the global warming fear is based on

What?

> the biggest threat facing mankind in the next 30 years is the Grand Solar
> Minimum

Take a look at the graph at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum#Grand_solar_mini...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum#Grand_solar_minima_and_maxima)
and tell us again, if you can with a straight face, that anything like the
Dalton minimum (let alone the Maunder minimum) is coming in the next 30 years.

> When this occurred we had things like increased volcanic activity

So far as I know, there is no reason to think that solar minima cause volcanic
activity. It is true that there was a big eruption during the Dalton minimum,
which is probably the main actual reason for the "year without a summer".

> estimates suggest around 25% of the global population died

Whose estimates?

> whilst no one wants to create a panic

It looks very much as if you do.

> no one really knows whether our manmade CO2 is going to benefit us or not

No one _really_ knows anything about anything. But you can look in the IPCC
reports to see what a bunch of smart well-informed people think are the likely
impacts. Or you can throw up your hands and say "no one really knows". Your
call.

~~~
tr1ck5t3r
Picture says a thousand words.
[http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56530521e4b0c307d59bbe...](http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56530521e4b0c307d59bbe97/t/56af97fda3360cecbfe34b0e/1454348294881/)

I get the impression that because you have not heard of this you deny it?

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p005xgcj](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p005xgcj)
"As the Sun ages, it will gradually become a red giant as its hydrogen fuel
begins to run out. Its surface will expand to approximately 100 times its
current size as its core shrinks, and the inner Solar System will be
engulfed."

>So far as I know, there is no reason to think that solar minima cause
volcanic activity

Apart from the fact volcanic activity stepped up during the last event.

>Whose estimates?

Read the book by Professor Fagan. Its a long read but worth it.

>It looks very much as if you do. Far from it, unless you believe in not
informing the public.

The IPCC were hacked and exposed.

Worth understanding Milgram's obedience to authority. Just whose data do you
trust?

~~~
gjm11
> Picture says a thousand words

It might have been better if you'd supplied some of those words, because that
picture doesn't appear to me to indicate anything on the way as major as the
Dalton, let alone the Maunder, minimum.

> As the Sun ages [...]

Yeah, oddly enough that isn't what I was questioning. You made two claims that
are just flatly wrong. (1) That the sun is going to go supernova. Nope, not
happening. Wrong sort of star. (2) That increases in the sun's temperature on
its way to this alleged supernova are "what alot of the global warming fear is
based on". The sun's temperature and luminosity aren't going to change
appreciably on a timescale shorter than many million years.

> The IPCC were hacked and exposed.

What?

(Are you mixing up the IPCC with the UEA CRU? The two are entirely different,
and the hacks didn't "expose" anything to speak of.)

------
NietTim
Woah, so that's even higher when we had no summer in 1800 due to a volcanic
eruption?

~~~
digitalsushi
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer)

------
frogpelt
What if we (humans) don't survive this?

It won't really matter in the long run.

~~~
mikeash
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

If you have a sufficiently long view, _nothing_ matters. The universe will
experience heat death in a mere 10^1000 years, a blip on the total timeline.

I happen to care about humans, though. Most humans do.

------
briandear
"Carbon pollution" \-- would we ever claim that higher oxygen levels were
"Oxygen pollution."

Plant life thrives at higher CO2 levels, so calling it "pollution" is rather
political.

~~~
nradov
Of course we would claim that higher oxygen levels were pollution. Oxygen is a
toxin, albeit a necessary one. If you breathe PPO2 > 0.5 atm for a few days it
will wreck your lungs. And any increase in atmospheric oxygen would cause a
proportional increase in fires.

------
tr1ck5t3r
For context, CO2 has been in the thousands parts per million in the past.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxid...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png)

Sure the planet is warming up as the sun slowly goes super nova in millions of
years time, but the biggest short term risk we face in the next 30 years which
could last 500 years is the Grand Solar Minimum (GSM)

A GSM is where sunspots drop off and the planet experiences extreme weather
patterns which are now seeing now. To a limited degree we see this at the
start and end of each 11 yr solar cycle anyway.

This last occurred during the Dalton and Maunder minimum, when 25% of the
planets population died due to famine and cold.

It triggered political events like the French Revolution, the Irish Potatoe
famine and more.

In the UK temps as low as -37 Degrees C were seen, with sea ports frozen, the
English Channel froze keeping ships locked in port or stuck out in open water.
Extreme winds lead to massive inland sand dunes which is what Thetford Forest
is now planted on in bid to return the soil slowly back to use, the village of
Santon Downham had so much sand deposited on it that a few houses were buried.
The forest was only planted in the early 1900's.

To re-evalute the history of geo-political events during the medieval ice age
and what you may have been taught in history, I would suggest reading the book
by Professor Brian Fagan on the mini age, written in the 00's.

Now whilst we had no meteorological offices during the medieval ice age, we
can still get valuable insight by learning from history like what Professor
Fagan has hilighted in his book, plus depending on what scientific models you
listen to, we really dont know how the CO2 released by man from oil and
cutting down trees is going to do. Plants grow better in CO2 as seen with
dinosaurs and plants during the time when CO2 was in the thousands ppm so our
actions may actually be a blessing in disguise, but bear in mind whilst we
have higher crop yields today due to modern farming methods, the risk is now
greater as one hectare of farm land now feeds more mouths today than ever
before.

With that in mind, you can take steps to minimise any impact on yourself, by
taking up gardening, and investing in things like air source heat pumps with
solar. 1 W of solar energy can create upto 3W of heat energy which is useful
should you ever be cut off from the mains. Air source heat pumps are just over
priced air con units working in reverse.

By being forewarned is to be forearmed, so whilst the TPTB like to treat
people like idiots because you then get dependent idiots, I feel its better to
tell the truth so that people can think and innovate their way out of problems
which you may be able to capitalise in lucrative ways.

~~~
Oletros
> but the biggest short term risk we face in the next 30 years which could
> last 500 years is the Grand Solar Minimum (GSM)

Citation needed

> we really dont know how the CO2 released by man from oil and cutting down
> trees is going to do

No, we know perfectly well

------
wolfram74
No no, that just won't do. Math and modeling doesn't allow us to draw
conclusions about things we can't directly observe. Someone had to be there
and directly count the co2 molecules with their own eyes or it doesn't count
as evidence.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Okay, I'm all ears (or, technically, eyes, since I'm reading this).

How does a 400,000 year old ice core show anything about conditions 4 million
years ago?

Please be specific.

~~~
tstactplsignore
There are specific mineral records that covary strongly with CO2 levels over
that 400,000 year period. However, these mineral records go back millions of
years - therefore, we can use the known relationship to predict how CO2 levels
have changed in the past. These are known as "proxies" in paleoclimatology,
and can be used to estimate past CO2 levels, O2 levels, temperature, and other
attributes of Earth's climate. When multiple independent proxy estimates agree
with each other, we can somewhat safely assume we are not too off-target. This
field is constantly getting updated, but these proxies are usually in decently
good agreement with each other. I think that the paper below is a good
overview of the science involved. I'm not an expert in the field but this
paper is from 2006 and likely now the field has added some more accurate proxy
paleo-CO2 reconstructions.

[http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2%28GCA%29.pdf](http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2%28GCA%29.pdf)

~~~
Turing_Machine
Yeah, I know what a proxy measure is.

That's not what the OP said, though.

~~~
splawn
If you knew they used proxy measures then why didn't you simply explain that
to the OP rather than pretend you didn't understand? However, I am glad you
asked because it caused me to investigate and learn something new.

------
skrowl
Who was taking the CO2 measurements 4 million years ago?

~~~
MagicWishMonkey
We use core samples to measure historic levels -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_sample](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_sample)

------
known
OPEC should sell its Oil in subsidized rates to countries that are reducing
CO2 levels

------
flockonus
A good and recent video explanation about Earth natural cycles
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztninkgZ0ws](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztninkgZ0ws)

------
programminggeek
Assuming the fossil record and all of our measurements and assumptions about
our measurements are correct. It's not like anyone was there, writing this
stuff down at the time.

~~~
spdy
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core)

Ice was there and recorded it :/

~~~
Turing_Machine
The oldest ice core mentioned in that article is about 400 _thousand_ years
old. How does that prove anything about 4 _million_ years ago?

