Science & Technology

Rave

The last time CO2 levels were this high

Posted 28 months ago|45 comments|1,189 views
Written by
Altruist
Eugene, OR
There are many Global Warming deniers that claim that our current carbon dioxide levels (387 ppm)were not that unusual, and happened quite often. Now researchers have determined that you would have to go back 15 to 20 million years to have carbon dioxide levels this high. When these concentrations were sustained the last time "global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland."
Scientists have established a close correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. Researchers were able to determine CO2 levels going back 800,000 years by analyzing gas bubbles trapped in ancient ice core samples. To go back farther in time, scientists at the University of Cambridge developed a new technique to assess carbon dioxide levels in the much more distant past — by studying the ratio of the chemical element boron to calcium in the shells of ancient single-celled marine algae.
The findings from the shells were corroborated by comparing them to the analysis of gases trapped in ancient ice.
See the article in the external link.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
28 months ago: All this talk and still no one knows what is the optimum CO2 value for our Environment should be. The ice caps have melted to levels not seen in a long time and the ocean levels are still where they were 10 years ago. Where is all of the water? Where did the melt off go? Do you think that maybe Mother Nature is storing it in the additional plant growth with the missing carbon dioxide?
28 months ago: So #%&%$$ what!

There used to be no leaves on the trees, but the leaves came back.

They did core drilling off of Greenland's coast and found fossilized worms that could only thrive in tropical climates. So, Greenland used to be tropical. Now it's not, and maybe it will be again.

MAN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Blithering algur fools.
28 months ago: Thank you for the article. I have been looking forward to science that would tell us what to expect. Ice cores can only go back as long ago as when that ice was formed. And the oldest ice in Antarctica is only about a million years old. Our atmosphere has gone past the levels of CO2 that is found in Antarctica ice.

We gots more CO2 in the air now, than when the Antarctica ice begin forming. Therefore, if CO2 levels remain as they are now, or become even more, we can be confident that the South polar ice will melt. Canada's permafrost will soften, that will become land to farm. Likewise with much of Russia and Alaska. The Arctic sea ice will be gone and we will have year-round shipping through the Arctic Ocean. And sea levels will rise. All of this, even if we do something.

Life is an adventure -- Live with it.
28 months ago: Right on target Scotmanster & Terryeo. I do not see anything that says proliferate UNTIL there is a billion people then stop.

As for the land supporting the population, there are many organizations that are rising to the challenge. One promising company, Biochar, has been seeing 250% improved yields by adding carbon to the soil. I know that I do not have to name the company who's process byproduct is potentially billions of tons of carbon, but for those of you who are new to Rant Rave, it is Swapsol Corp. Now there is another solution for you.
28 months ago: Recommended read: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf83.html
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
28 months ago: Jon your comment about where all the water went from the ice that has melted indicates a flaw in your understanding. Most of the ice cover in the arctic that has melted was floating. If you have a glass with ice cubes in, it won't overflow when they melt. When the Greenland ice mass and all of the glaciers on land melt it will raise the sea level considerably.
Scot you seem to think there is some green conspiracy to promote environmentalism, and you think all of the scientific studies are tainted. You say follow the money, but if you do follow the money, you see that most of the money comes from big fossil fuel companies paying scientists to prostitute their scientific principles to spread doubt, just as the tobacco industry paid fake scientists to spread doubt that tobacco kills.
There are a lot of industries that do a lot of "Greenwashing" pretending their products are green when they are not, just to get more customers, because the public really does care about the environment.
Who is advocating reducing the population to 1 billion? Scientist predict that the population will increase to between 8 and 10 billion. If it hits the upper range society will collapse and billions will die from starvation until the population reaches what the earth can sustain, which is about 2 billion.
Spending pennies now will save dollars down the line and we need to invest now to save billions of lives in the future.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
28 months ago: Optimal levels of CO2 depends on what type of life form you are. The earth doesn't care and will survive. We mammals who just evolved in the past few million years will have to move to higher latitudes and elevations. Plants may do well but most of what is now growing food will be turned into desert, with considerably less water available for irrigation. Disease bearing insects are doing well and spreading north. The oceans are already rising and overwhelming low lying islands. Global warming is already killing 300,000 people a year!
See: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/29/annan.climate.change.human/
28 months ago: Hey Scotmanster, Thanks for the info. We here inside the Chesapeake Bay Act Area have already lost much of our Landowner rights. Main item is 16% limit on ground cover that includes roads and structures of any kind.

Altruist: Duh! Sure the Arctic is floating and therefore offsetting. What about the Icebergs and melt off from the Antarctic? Greenland? Or the numerous Glaciers and frozen mountain tops?

Earth turning to barren sands? I don't think so! Mark your calendars October 21, 2009 will be the day that the public will be informed about the Solutions from Swapsol Corp. Then you too might see a different future for the world.
28 months ago: Amen scotmanster! It gets worse, I know of one case where public lands bought and paid for with hunting license fees has been cordoned off by local influential powers after the state failed to reestablish the access roads after a storm washed the roads out. I first started noticing the environmental laws being used for private gain when Freon production was band.

I love to bowhunt, but gave up hunting for photography. I have shot more deer with a camera than I ever did with a gun/bow. It is much easier to clean the camera vs butcher a deer at the end of the day.

Talk about farmers, pesticides and wasting deer meat. Ever consider the effect of the pesticides on wild life? Think that it is safe to eat the meat harvested near farm land? Most farmers around here will not eat the meat because they know what was used on the crops is not good for man. In fact there are hundreds of doe's killed on crop damage permits left to rot each year on just one farm (<6,000 acres) because people are afraid to eat them.

I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but the excitement is building with Swapsol about to make an announcement on October 21st. If you have not been to the website yet, I would do so if for no other reason than to see the news before it is news. They are going to turn the Environment and the Economy around at the same time!
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
28 months ago: Scott I read the general idea and contents of the UN’s Agenda 21 and thus far there is nothing in the document that I disagree with. Where does it talk about reducing the population to 1 billion? I advocate the following.
(a) Providing adequate shelter for all;
(b) Improving human settlement management;
(c) Promoting sustainable land-use planning and management;
(d) Promoting the integrated provision of environmental infrastructure: water, sanitation, drainage and solid-waste management;
(e) Promoting sustainable energy and transport systems in human settlements;
(f) Promoting human settlement planning and management in disaster-prone areas;
(g) Promoting sustainable construction industry activities;
(h) Promoting human resource development and capacity-building for human settlement development.
I also agree with the biodiversity maps that you gave the link to. It is important for migratory wild animals to have wild corridors connecting wilderness and roadless areas. These maps are a goal which I endorse. The corridors are no where near any heavily populated areas and there is plenty of room for human expansion. The goal of the biodiversity project is to reclaim some of the 90% of the wilderness we have destroyed.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
28 months ago: I didn't see anything that would abolish private property or take your land in any of this. I would appreciate some specifics.

I agree with the goals of sustainable development also. I don't understand how you could disagree with the following: "Sustainable development is seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising those of future generations."

We liberals, who also love this great country, are trying to preserve it so our grandchildren can also enjoy the wild outdoors, and become hunters if they want, because there will still be a few wild places for wildlife to thrive in.

I am glad that you are a bow hunter and interested in wildlife conservation. Here in the West there is still sufficient wild lands that hunters do not have to pay to go to hunt clubs.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
28 months ago: "In the name of "Environmental Conservation", "Sustainable Environmental Projects" and ect.. but ever since the 80's it has turned to economic purposes only. Private individuals making huge money off not only Global Warming but the Environment Projects. They are really sophisticated, crafty and have the media and big bank accounts behind them to fund it all."

I know about a few organizations like the Seria Club and The Nature Conservancy that are trying to buy up land to preserve it for future generations. I have never heard of anyone in these or any other environmental organizations that are in it for the money. All of the environmental organizations get all of their money from individual donors who are concerned about saving the earth. Please provide specifics if you know of any folk getting rich by being environmentalists.

On the other hand I have heard of thousands of corporations and industries that spend hundreds of millions on lobbyists, slick advertising, and misinformation campaigns to allow them to continue exploiting and destroying the environment and our public wild lands. This is just common sense. The industries get rich by exploiting and extracting natural resources. There are hundreds of billions of dollars in it for them.
How do environmentalists make money out of saving the planet? They don't.
There are some environmental tourism businesses in which communities can make a living. These are the hunting and fishing guides, the hiking and camping outfitters, and the other outfitters that can make a living by helping people to get out to enjoy the wilderness. That sounds like you and your kind of folk. Why do you object to their making a livelihood?
28 months ago: Thanks scotmanster, and may we contiue to enjoy the American Tradition.

Good to see your agenda Altruist. While I can agree with you, you do cause some concern when you refer to "human settlement developments". I do have one item that I have to add to the list. Along with your wants, I could not be truly at peace unless we as a Nation can return to Our original Constitution and Freedoms with our God given rights restored. Too often laws are passed that cut into our Freedom to choose.
28 months ago: Altruist: I do not know anyone that has become rich by saving the Environment JUST YET. But soon to know of a bunch. Swapsol solutions are the first Environmental solutions that could make hugh profits out of pollution waste products.
We will not have long to wait.

We can be Clean, Green, Economical AND Environmentally Responsible.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
28 months ago: RE: Scot's "There are no facts in that article just speculation." "The report's startling numbers are based on calculations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Earth's atmosphere warmed by 0.74 degrees Celsius (1.33 degrees Fahrenheit) from 1906 to 2005, with much of that increase coming in recent decades. The panel predicts that by 2100 temperatures will have increased a minimum of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels regardless of what's agreed in Copenhagen.

"No matter what," the report concludes, "the suffering documented in this report is only the beginning." A rise of two degrees, it says, "would be catastrophic."

Of the 300,000 lives being lost each year due to climate change, the report finds nine out of 10 are related to "gradual environmental degradation," and that deaths caused by climate-related malnutrition, diarrhea and malaria outnumber direct fatalities from weather-related disasters."

Jon I don't remember addressing "human settlement developments" I too would like to see our constitution, which was shredded under Bush, restored.
Scott you asked me about Obama's openness record. I too am dissapointed by the incremental nature of Obama's changes, but he is restoring some of the openness to government.

Under Bush all government agencies assumed that Freedom of information requests would be denied unless specifically approved from on high (when Cheney wanted to leak something).
Now the opposite is true the presumption is the information will be released unless expressly forbidden from higher up. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/60661.html
He also agreed to release its White House visitor logs
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/09/04/white-house-to-release-visitors-logs/
28 months ago: Altruist: your entry five entrys up, 3 hours ago. Items E,F & H you reference "human settlements"
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
28 months ago: OK that is from the UN's Agenda 21 (f) Promoting human settlement planning and management in disaster-prone areas.
The idea I think is to place refugee settlements in places where they will not be destroyed by further disasters. For example don't put the settlement in a flood zone or under a steep hillside that has been clearcut and thus prone to mudslides.
28 months ago: Last time I checked I am a FREE citizen of the United States of America. Don't you see that any time that government takes away our freedom to chose, we loose another piece of our Freedom.
28 months ago: WOW Gezabelle, you Sound like a power house of energy. At the risk of being crude I am repeating my "Welcome to America, we need more people like you."

Thank you for recognizing the potential of Swapsol.

You have many good thoughts. We may not have gone down the path to where we are now if we had not changed the regulations that FDR had put into place.

I agree we have got to keep capital and jobs in America.

Try this idea on for size. The balance of trade may take on a new twist with Swapsol's solutions being employed world wide. The Royalties and license fees could be astronomical source of trade for the USA.

The 64 trillion dollar question is...... what can we make from this "FREE" new source of high quality high strength carbon materials? Aircraft, boats, cars, storage batteries, sports equipment, Structural substitutes for steel, Electrical and Electronic components. The possibilities are endless. A friend of mine is extremely excited about the economic possibility of building the space elevator.

As for jobs.... I think low cost CLEAN energy combined with plentiful high strength and high quaility carbon fiber materials says it all.

Starting to get the picture?

We can be Clean, Green, Economical and Environmentally Responsible at the same time.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
28 months ago: Jon I wish Swapsol well. Innovation works when small companies can get the investment capital, but we need a national and global effort to stop global warming. It is cheaper to pollute so market forces will not provide an incentive to stop, indeed it is market forces that have encouraged pollution. National and international regulations are the price of civilization and our only salvation.

Scott Your maps show the wild areas in red. These are potential corridors to connect existing wilderness areas. Nothing is taken. If land in those areas comes up for sale this map tells organizations like the Nature Conservancy that it would be worth purchasing it to add to that corridor. Almost all of those corridors are now private land and will not be taken.
The black areas show existing population clusters. You are extremely paranoid if you think that someone is going to put up barbed wire and enclose the cities and have check points to keep people from moving out. That is just plain nuts!
You have yet to show me one sentence in any of these documents that will limit your freedoms, or force you to do something you don't want to do.
28 months ago: Thanks, I wish ALL well.

I disagree Altruist, It will be market forces (profit) that will drive the Corporate world to adopt the Swapsol processes. CAP & Trade or carbon credits ($20, $50 per ton by 2050) are plenty of incentive by itself. Add to that that the net cost of generating electricity should be less than zero. The cost savings realized from NOT dealing with fly ash & GHG emissions as we do today is considerable. Higher efficiencies (possibly NO2 free) made possible will be a big cost savings too. Even if the prices of carbon fibers drop to $1 a pound (currently some carbon structures go for thousands of dollars per pound) that still leaves the potential value of 27 billion tons of CO2 waste emissions yearly, the potential profits are astronomical ! Not to mention making the consumers happy that they may not be paying more for electric power. Now if that were not enough....EV's made from light weight low cost carbon fibers powered by Carbon / Lead batteries charged from clean low cost energy All thanks to Swapsol. Well are you starting to get the picture?

We can are Clean, Green, Economical and Environmental Responsible.
28 months ago: You are so right scotmanster.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
28 months ago: Scot when you say that the government is going to corral us all in certain areas, I think you need to realize that our constitution and legal system still works and would prevent that. In this article the courts just denied the cops the ability to set up roadblocks. http://www.justiceonline.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5365&news_iv_ctrl=1021
Instead of just spouting alarmist paranoia, you should do something to alleviate your fears. Why don't you start working with an organization like this that helps protect our rights?

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.