The last time the CO2 in the atmosphere reached 400 parts per million, the sea level was 40m higher, the Arctic was free of ice, the Sahara desert was a gigantic grassland and there were no humans cluttering up the place.
A lot has changed in the five million years from the Pliocene period to now, such as the concentration of CO2 dropped back to more hospitable levels until around 1850 when industrialisation began pushing the CO2 levels back up again from 280ppm of the time to the milestone of 400 ppm of today and an expected increase in global temperatures of a devastating 6C, achieving in 150 years what took 10,000 years previously.
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography estimate that CO2 in rising 75 times faster than in pre-industrial time and has never been seen by human beings and the effects will be catastrophic with mankind hit by a combination of extreme heatwaves, flooding, desertification and general weather related havoc.
'We are creating a prehistoric climate in which human societies will face huge and potentially catastrophic risks and turning back the climate clock by millions of years.' said Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, echoed by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) who warned: 'With current policies in place global temperatures are set to increase by 6°C, which has catastrophic implications'.
So what can we expect from a rise of 6C?
'There are some very basic rules' said Corinne Le Quéré, Director of the UK’s Tyndall Centre, 'more heatwaves, floods and droughts are typical of a warmer climate because you have essentially more energy in the system'.
'Arid regions will get drier, wet ones wetter, the disintegration of the polar ice sheets, causing sea level rises and methane discharges, the collapse of forests, one of the world’s vital carbon sinks and ocean acidification. Once these have been passed there is little chance of turning back the clock'.
The bottom line is life on Earth will be much, much tougher for its inhabitants and that is at current levels so if we are doomed, future species will look back and think due to our own stupidity, we probably deserve it.
9 comments:
lucy,
i'm gonna say what I always say on this topic because the conditions have not changed: these reports are based on childishly crude models, selected data, limited data, and assumptions stacked on top of assumptions.
I can't help but note that these same people (London School of Economics did climate change research?)are unable to predict economic conditions beyond a few months, and can't predict the weather beyond a few days.
YET so many believe them when they start talking about what is going to happen in 20 years.
the masses are not wise. people like al gore getting rich off this tripe are wise. Michael moore got rich on this, I guess he was wise. all these muckitymuks on the public payroll seem to be keeping their jobs by spewing this emotional tripe. so I guess they are wise too. but not the masses.
q
It's not 400 ppm in 20 years time, it's now and we can see with our own eyes what is happening to our weather systems. 400 ppm and a 6C increase in global temp is unprecedented in human existence so while it may be a best guess, it is an educated guess and not a random set of conditions plucked out of the air.
As i always say, i will always trust and listen to the view of people who have studied the subject for decades over people who haven't.
- i'll grant they have more data. I would hope so if that is what they do for a living and what they studied at university (of course some people ignore these same credentials in re experts in banking, insurance, economics, finance, etc.)
- that doesn't mean they know.
- the fact that they are best doesn't mean anything they say is right.
- they can be correct about the past (which is iffy) doesn't mean they can forecast the future.
- if they have been studying this for "decades" then that means they are probably the same ones in the 70's and 80's that said we were entering a new ice age... which one is it guys?
q
"of course some people ignore these same credentials in re experts in banking, insurance, economics, finance, etc"
Are there any issues on which 99% of working economists agree? If there is such an issue, I'll wager that it's never questioned by laymen on the interwebs, the way that anthropomorphic climate change is constantly questioned by plumbers, shoe salesmen and stockbrokers. Ever wondered why this is?
"if they have been studying this for "decades" then that means they are probably the same ones in the 70's and 80's that said we were entering a new ice age... which one is it guys?"
Why are they 'probably' the same people?
And even if they are, when the evidence changes, smart people aren't afraid to change their minds.
Ah, Lucy, I see you are still having trouble with the talking parrot from America.
It seems he get a thrill by arguing against most everything you present on your blog.
He belongs to the legions of mindless cretins who believe that the U.S. is exceptional and should rule the world.
The only thing exceptional about The U.S. is the extent of ignorance that exists there and the commonly held belief among Yanks that warmongering and plundering and killing is next to Godliness!
Americans are an unfortunate throwback to the Neanderthal period.
Hopefully they will soon become extinct!
Good to see some things don't change i.e. David's total and utter inability to make a point.
His propensity to discuss the actual topic of the post is, likewise, about as rare as rocking horse shit.
Welcome back, comrade.
Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber still infest your blog, Lucy. How do you stand it?
Neither has ever said anything wise, relevant, or prescient. They are both clueless, mediocre bottom feeders pretending to be intellectuals.
Anyway, I guess we all have our crosses to carry. You have two very thick crosses. Why not give them the flick, lighten your load?
Anyway, take care, Lucy. Give them both my love, the poor sods!
"Why not give them the flick?"
Erm... I'm just guessing here... but I reckon the reason she doesn't 'give the flick' to people who may not agree with her every word is because she's not a woefully obtuse uneducated Australian fuckw!t whose sense of self-worth depends on having a bunch of syncophantic ditto-heads on her blog who mindlessly agree with her on principle.
Rather, it seems she prefers the actual sharing of ideas... because that's the we all learn something, rather than just repeating boring slogans (or baseless insults) by rote.
Y'know, like a normal person.
You'll get there, young man... you'll get there...
Actually, I withdraw that 'pat on the head'... I don't reckon you'll ever get there. There have been too many years of comments now, and you've literally never said anything substantial about any of the topics. This is just another case in point. I guess your persistence might make you of potential interest to the world of psychiatry, but you have no other raison d'etre.
cheezy,
since talking to the one not to be named (yes david g, daniel, whatever you are using lately) is like talking to the insult dept in a monte python episode, actually more like the childess moronic angry condenscending insult dept, i've decided to act like he is dead. i will no longer acknowledge him.
ahhhh, better already.
q
Post a Comment