Home
> Uncategorized > Atmospheric CO2 concentration year 1 to 2018
Leave a Reply
—– look inside —– $5.94 / $20.00
—– look inside —– $4.90 / $8.00
—– look inside —– $15.99
—– look inside —– $5.99 / 12.99
—– look inside —– $5.93 / $12.99
—– look inside —– $4.97 / $9.90
—— Ugarteche, Puyana and Madi ——
Gerson Lima / Maria Alejandra Madi
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
————— Michael Hudson ————–
Maria Alejandra Madi / Jack Reardon
————- Edward Fullbrook ————-
—————— Steve Keen —————–
————— Richard Smith —————
————– Gustavo Marques————
– Victor Beker and Beniamino Moro –
————– Lars Pålsson Syll ————-
—————– Stuart Birks —————-
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Mauro Gallegati ————–
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Real-World Economics Review Blog 
Why do we allow fools and the insane to deny this and keep us sitting on our thumbs?
I don’t
I don’t, either.
I am strongly aware of two things: the increasingly likely outcome is catastrophic collapse of multiple systems, rather than some new system formed by the tinkering reforms that dominate the conversation of all but the young people in the United States of America; and that if I make this collapse idea my dominant message, people will be bummed into inaction.
So I do what I can, put forth realistic possibilities for local social action, act, and hope that others elsewhere are doing the same. I am pessimistic and avert cheerleader optimism, but I will never give up.
Some wonderful people in my state have created The Children’s Trust, which is suing the federal government for encouraging the fossil fuel industry, among other things. The lead name in this lawsuit is a wonderful young woman named Kelsey Rose Cascadia Juliana. Find a YouTube of her and you’ll see she is our version of another powerful teenager, Greta Thunberg.
And poet Dylan Thomas guides my emotions: “I will not go gently into that good night.”
The graph is staggering as an image.
I am just discovering this aspect of word press; you remain a great thinker in my book. I have read from its inception about the trial that is suing over oil subsidies. Now I am on a very low level of attempting to figure out how to use word press.
You have a big problem there, its not one of either Climate Change or CO2 emissions its actually with the scaling of your axis.
Try some Lord Monckton, Here he is on Brexit.
https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2019/06/10/norway-eea-whats-the-good-of-mercators-north-poles-and-equators-tropics-zones-and-meridian-lines-merely-conventional-signs/
And Here On the Climate Science basic errors in their modelling of course the Dismal Science is not very good at Dynamics is it?
https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2019/06/11/political-cartoons/
Please, Lord Monckton?! An imposter!
Monckton is a Lord of the British Realm, he does not sit in the now Re constituted House of Lords, that does not make him an Imposter.
Secondly Regarding Monckton’s paper on the errors in basic Climate modelling his Status as a British Peer of the realm has nothing to do with the mathematics of modelling feedbacks.
FInally, perhaps William Happer or Freeman Dyson will tick more of your boxes for an appropriate expert qualified opinion.
.
He is an imposter in the sense that he presents himself as an expert on the subject of climate change. However he has no scientific qualifications, and in particular none in the field of climate science. If he had some peer-reviewed publications under his name in reputable climate science journals, then I might be persuaded to take him more seriously.
0 on y axis in this case is NOT a meaningful value . You have jumped to an erroneous assumption. Zero CO2 is impossible value.
The graph appears to be from Our World in Data so direct your complaints about removal of the x-axis origin point to that site.;)
It’s not a good idea generally to remove graph origin points. However, all sorts of decisions are made and have to made in terms of origin points, scaling, cropping, etc., in order to present graphs. Graphs are best seen in context; meaning in a paper with text, tables and appendices of raw data. The trouble is so few people want to read scientific papers. Part of the point of having some scientific education, even if one hasn’t gone on to become a scientist, is to employ that scientific literacy by reading a bit of science reporting, including in some cases original papers. But climate change denialists are science illiterates so they can’t read and understand the scientific papers.
As to what all the data behind that graph are telling us? In summary, we appear to be in a lot of trouble. It looks like a runaway, exponential trend with positive feedback reinforcing. The science and data behind that graph back up that impression to a high degree of certainty.
But of course, climate change denialists understand neither science, nor mathematics, nor logic. What they engage in is faith-based reasoning. Faith is blind belief without evidence. Scientific evidence is sought objectively, is measurable and confirmed by multiple observations. Scientific knowledge is never absolutely certain. It is the faith-based reasoners who claim to be absolutely certain. Good science always presents objective data and expresses a confidence rating for its conclusions.
Ikonoclast is lucid
The scaling of the axis is just fine and it is unnecessary to locate the zero line What it tells us is that for 1900 years (and probably far longer) atmospheric carbon dioxide hovered around 280 ppm and that during the past 50 years it has risen from around this value to 400 ppm, and is currently still rising at a rapid rate.
What is the transition to a sustainable economy about? It is not about letting globalized corporations destroy the planet and leaving its rescue to the individual choice of consumers.
Why should I have the burden to chose if I buy fair trade or bastard child slave labour coffee? Choice is not freedom.
Environmental and social damaging production must be prohibited by law.
We already have done this successfully with narcotics. No one would leave the buying decision to the drug adict.
I agree, the graph is question is a case where the base line is more important than the zero line. At the zero line (0% CO2) the earth would be an ice-ball on the surface. The 280 ppm line is a line well suited to agriculture.
It seems significant that agriculture and civilization arose in the Holocene. I term it the “Holocene Benignity” (of climate). It’s a clumsy term and for sure it won’t catch on. What it encapsulates is that it seems we needed a benign climate to Invent and develop agriculture and thence civilization. We still need this benign climate to sustain agriculture. Instead. we are wrecking this benign climate. I would predict severe food crises arising this century and maybe arising well before 2050.
I agree. Shifting climatic patterns could possibly result in droughts within temperate regions where food crops are currently grown, as well as greater and more frequent monsoonal rains, flooding and hurricanes within tropical and semi-tropical regions.
My own feeling is that climate is noticeably changing where I live in South-East Queensland, Australia. Of course, my personal observations and feelings are just anecdotal evidence. But when one’s personal experience provides a little back-up to the scientific picture, it makes the abstract data start to feel a little more concrete. Am I being suggestible or am I noticing something real? That is the question.
So, what changes do I feel I have I noticed in our sub-tropical climate?
(1) Winter frosts were always sporadic but did occur in low lying areas when I was a boy. I haven’t seen a frost in something like the last 30 years now in my local area.
(2) Our winters are clearly warmer and wetter than they were. A few years back we had a winter rain event more severe than any summer rain event we had ever seen. This seemed completely anomalous as our mid-winters historically have been dry. Yesterday, we had winter thunderstorm. Again, this is almost unheard of in our climate.
(3) Our summers (which were historically wet) are becoming drier.
(4) Overall, our weather is becoming windier. This has been very noticeable with very windy weather occurring in months which historically have been the calmer months.
Australia has always been, in human memory, a land of climate extremes, being called “a land of droughts and flooding rains”. This is true but the general picture now seems to be of the extremes getting even more extreme. This will certainly make agriculture even more difficult. It feels to me that the climate is becoming more unstable (anecdotal “feelings” evidence of course). Higher perturbation and instability could of course be the result of more heat energy in the system. The dots connect in my view.
“Climate Change is Real” is The Sky is Blue, does the pope wear a funny hat? Is CO2 the control Knob for Global Warming?, This is a very different question. What is the crisis? I think Dennis Rancourt is correct in the following thesis that the crisis is a crisis in Dollar Hegemony and a lot of the rest is a result of the old Binary choice of Guns or Butter.
Historical emergence of climate change, gender equity, and anti-racism as State doctrines. (Denis G. Rancourt) This is a lightly edited, highly abridged version of a recent paper by Denis G. Rancourt; possibly the most important piece of political research of the last half-century. During the Bretton Woods period, from 1945 to 1971, the USA experienced a growing deterioration of its preeminence as the main trade-surplus nation, and projected a difficulty in honouring the gold redeeming arrangement if confidence in the USA dollar were to falter. “On August 15, 1971, without prior warning to the leaders of the other major capitalist powers, US president Nixon announced in a Sunday evening televised address to the nation that the US was [unilaterally] removing the gold backing from the dollar.”
Are you familiar with this Classic Paper? https://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf I
am also a Keen Student of Claes Johnsons WOrk. https://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2013/11/standard-calculus-as-ill-posed-unstable.html
From Dollar Hegemony to Global Warming: Globalization, Glyphosate and Doctrines of Consent
by COLIN TODHUNTER FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
There has been an on-going tectonic shift in the West since the abandonment of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1971. This accelerated when the USSR ended and has resulted in the ‘neoliberal globalization’ we see today.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/06/13/from-dollar-hegemony-to-global-warming-globalization-glyphosate-and-doctrines-of-consent/
Rather than cite one more scientist or scientific book or paper on climate change, I suggest instead we look at one book by an anthropologist/archaeologist, Brian Fagan. It’s titled, “The Great Warming: Climate Change and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations.” The book is a study of the civilizational impacts of five centuries of changing climate—in fact, of a global warming—between A.D. 800 and 1300, and of the changes’ impact on the world of a millennium ago. As in our own time, climate change did not plot a straight line from year to year and varied from place to place. But its peaks and valleys followed a trend that we can clearly make out in retrospect. We have much to learn from this story about the power of climate change to affect our own future. The Medieval Warm Period was named half a century ago by a British meteorologist, Hubert Lamb. He described a period from about A.D. 800 to 1200 that he pieced together from a jigsaw of climatological and historical clues: four or five centuries of relatively amiable climate that brought good harvests to Europe and permitted the Norse to land in Greenland and North America. The Medieval Warm Period gave way to six centuries of highly unsettled climate and cooler conditions: the Little Ice Age. Until recently we knew more about the Little Ice Age than the Medieval Warm Period. But today we know a great deal about both.
Europeans built cathedrals and the Norse sailed to North America during the Medieval Warm Period, but the picture of the warm centuries that’s emerging from the new research depicts a climatic villain as much as a hero. Yes, there was warming, in most places reflected in milder winters and longer summers, but the temperature differences were never more than a few degrees. Nor was everywhere necessarily warmer. In the eastern Pacific, the same centuries were cool and dry. These were times of sudden, unpredictable climatic swings, and, above all, of drought. Extended medieval dry cycles helped topple Chaco Canyon and Angkor Wat, contributed to the partial collapse of Maya civilization, and starved tens of thousands of northern Chinese farmers. But as climate change demonstrated its power to destroy civilizations such as Chaco Canyon and Angkor Wat, killing or displacing people who had lived there for a thousand years, the construction of the cathedral of Notre Dame de Chartres demonstrated the power of climate change to raise up civilization. Chartres was built at a time when Europe basked in a warmer climate and enjoyed a long series of good harvests. Those who benefited thanked God and the unknown powers of the cosmos for their bounty. They built a cathedral in gratitude.
A thousand years ago most humans still lived in small hunting bands or as subsistence farmers, surviving from harvest to harvest, eking out a living from the soil. We have long known of this world from archaeology, from excavations into great cities, into caves and humble shell mounds, and from scatters of Norse iron nails in the High Arctic, from historical documents and oral traditions. But it’s only now that we’re learning just how profoundly the warmer climate of the day affected humanity. Much of the aridity that helped extinguish Chaco Canyon and Angkor Wat can be traced to persistent La Niña conditions in the Pacific, especially around 1100 to 1200, but climate change was not the only villain. The kind of environmental determinism that assigns climate as the major event prompting all the economic, political, and social changes described by Fagan was discredited more than 75 years ago. The effects of climate changes are generally more indirect and subtle, like ripples from a rock thrown into a mountain lake. It is not so much the immediate impact of a major shift like drought, a flood cycle, or an El Niño that causes political or social change. Rather, the subtle consequences rippling through society make the difference: new strategies for storing water; the planting of more drought-resistant cereals; the development of new institutions such as secret societies that collect information for predicting rainfall. Fagan’s book is as much about how the human societies of a thousand years ago coped with climate change as it is about the warming and other climatic phenomena themselves.
Humans have always lived in unpredictable environments, in a state of flux that requires them to adapt constantly and opportunistically to short- and long-term climate change. What is fascinating about the world of a thousand years ago and is a lesson for us today is that we now have just enough climatological information to look behind the scenes, to examine the regular undercurrents of climate that helped push Angkor to collapse or forced Mongolian horse nomads to search for new pasture. These undercurrents are now part of the meat and drink of history. A generation ago, they would have been ignored. In our current climate change crisis climate scientists have performed sturdily to give us information never possessed by humans on climate and climate change. From the research on the Medieval Warm Period summarized by Fagan, we know explicitly how climate change can affect – helping or hurting – civilizations. Humans of a thousand years ago did not have either the means or knowledge to plan for the changes in climate affecting them. Today we are further along in both areas. How could humans today be foolish or suicidal enough to ignore this great advantage? With William Happer or Freeman Dyson leading the way, we will certainly fail this test. An F on this test will kill a great many humans and at least several human civilizations. And since we don’t yet know the severity of the climate changes coming at us, failure may ultimately extinguish Sapiens.