Enjoy Earth While It Lasts: Atmospheric Carbon Levels Pass the Point of No Return

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

you know, in the old days, I'd think, Hm, a sandwich, sure, I can make a good ham and swiss. But now days, some strange urban slang means something completely different and likely, disgusting. And it's mostly because you said it.

1.8 seems a lot

a reply to: network dude

Just keep eating......sandwich.

a reply to: TJ4life

Look, we can't do a thing about the chemtrails or the C02, but we could deal with the Niburu situation with ease.
(you know how we hide it from everyone from this side?, well, we just hide the Earth from the Nefilum (niburuites) and they will loose interest and go on about their way.)

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

So we should just jam the throttle down to full, break off the handle, and party while the earth burns?

Unless you want to prolong our own mass suicide, thereby ensuring that each successive generation is progressively more miserable than the last.

That's like saying that a smoker should shoot themselves in the head today because lung cancer will kill them in 50 years.

a reply to: network dude

I did read the whole OP. Your point at the end about taking care of the environment doesn't make the point I highlighted any less silly.

Plus believing in and accepting that we are past the point of no return or even that AGW is real doesn't necessarily mean that you know of solutions to the problem. I hate when people try to do this lazy false equivalence, "well if you believe in AGW, how about offering some solutions?" Like just because I accept the science in front of me suddenly I know how to fix whats causing it.

Breaking 400ppm happened in 2013. And the amount of co2 will go back down once spring hits on the other side of the globe.

I'll try and find the link.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

That's like saying that a smoker should shoot themselves in the head today because lung cancer will kill them in 50 years.

No, it's like saying "smoke 'em if ya got 'em".

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: network dude

We exhale carbon dioxide.

Should we stop breathing?

That's not practical, but we can do what Secretary of State John Kerry advises, and stop using our air conditioners. Even though the globe is warming, we must use restraint and stop cooling ourselves when the temp is under 110 degrees outside.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

That's like saying that a smoker should shoot themselves in the head today because lung cancer will kill them in 50 years.

No, it's like saying "smoke 'em if ya got 'em".

That's actually equivalent to the question I asked you, not your point, but whatever.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: FamCore

So........did your prof point out that there's nothing that can be done to stop this?

And my question is.............if there's nothing that can be done to stop this............why talk about it?s

If you're on an airplane at 30,000' and all the engines burn out, and it starts to fall from the sky........are you going to do anything any good by .............talking about it?

I have been patiently waiting for it to be announced that we are past the point of no return.....

So that there is no need to care about their harping any more.

a reply to: network dude

I can make a good ham and swiss.

Do you put mustard on it?

Now that we are past the point of no return, I will put mustard on mine.... and beans on the side.

Well, it's about time we got past the point of no return! Seems like it took forever...

Now we can quit worrying about carbon dioxide and maybe get some things done. Like that island of plastic floating in the Pacific. Like the dumping of hazardous industrial waste into our waterways. Like the deforestation of the Amazon. There's so much to do!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: TJ4life

Look, we can't do a thing about the chemtrails or the C02, but we could deal with the Niburu situation with ease.
(you know how we hide it from everyone from this side?, well, we just hide the Earth from the Nefilum (niburuites) and they will loose interest and go on about their way.)

Oh, it's out there alright. Didn't you see the thread the other evening? It's out there, it will soon be apparent, but at the moment it's hiding behind the dark side of the Sun.

originally posted by: network dude

But now we really, really know we're in trouble. Scientist Ralph Keeling, who's in charge of the Scripps Institute for Oceanography's carbon dioxide monitoring program, wrote in a blog that "it already seems safe to conclude that we won’t be seeing a monthly value below 400 ppm this year—or ever again for the indefinite future." Similarly, NASA's chief climate scientist Gavin Schmidt told Climate Central, “In my opinion, we won’t ever see a month below 400 ppm.” Carbon dioxide, or CO2, is the "primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change," according to the Environmental Protection Agency. NASA says that the planet's average surface temperature has warmed 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the Industrial Revolution, because of "increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere."

link to article.

This is much the same stuff we have heard from AGW proponents for a while now. And it may well be right on target. A few of the ATS heavyweights on this topic sure sound just like this.

But you as a human have the amazing ability to have free thought. You aren't forced to believe what you are told, you can do amazing things with your mind.

I choose to believe that AGW is not at all like the alarmists claim. I chose to believe that the Earth is much more resilient and our input, however ugly and disruptive it may be, could not effect the Earth on a planetary level as some would suggest. What do I base that on? A feeling. (I know, super credible right?) Knowing the alternative is to run around screaming and flailing, I'd prefer to just smile and go on with my world. Whatever the temperatures might be, I'll adjust as I do each season.

Some might ask, "but how can you ignore the proven science? How can you ignore the 99% or whatever amount of climate scientists that say were doomed?"

My answer "how can you not ignore them?" On a personal level, I could make changes to how I do things. I could stop driving anywhere, move to the inner city and reduce my carbon footprint. In doing so, I would make a monumentaly infinitesimally small contribution. So small that nobody would notice. At all. If we all did something, and by all, I mean every warm body that walks on two legs, could we make a noticeable difference? (If you believe the 99% who write articles like this, no, no we can't.)

So this becomes more of a way to keep yourself sane, and keep your mind healthy, than science and reality. If I'm right, the Earth will change, all the 99% of scientists will scratch their heads, make new models, and come up with more ideas to explain why the Earth does what it does. I like that idea.

If I'm wrong, we are all doomed and it's basically game over at some point. (I don't like that at all)

So in conclusion, I hope that we can all reduce our pollution, come up with real viable ways to energize our world without toxic byproducts, and become better stewards of our planet. Why? Because if I'm right, then the generations to come sure don't want to have to pick up after our messy asses. So as with camping, hiking, or generally doing anything in the wilderness, leave it better than you found it.

Have a nice day.

The problem is we are living longer and there are more of us than ever before and everyone is a special flower and has to preserve their life for as long as possible...

Earth itself will cull the herd...it always has.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You know exactly what my point is, and now you're trying to deflect because you realize the political ramifications of claiming we're "past the point of no return".

That is to say, all of your "green policies"--the laws, the regulations, the "new tech", and most importantly the taxes--are completely impotent and totally useless if you make the argument that we are "past the point of no return".

If you indeed believe that's where we're at, any further advocacy for the adoption of such policies belies all they've been about from the very beginning:

Control of human behavior, having nothing whatever to do with a concern for the future of environmental health.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: introvert
Don't be a cheapskate on the scotch. Discount cigars are fine, but not scotch.

Balvenie 30 and Montecristos.

I don't go cheep on booze or smokes.

That'll do.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
But we have been recently told it's not so much CO2, it is Methane that is to blame for AGW. Industrial farming on the scale that we currently have cannot continue, therefore a tax on meat is required.

Guys like Gavin Schmidt don't let you off with one thing as opposed to the other, Schmidt and the his modelling would have you believe only that Methane and CO2 together is an even worse scenario, (which is true if everything were rampant) hence the old story was CO2 as the big baddy, then someone probably thought it a good idea to go round telling everyone that Methane is leaking away all over the place...OMG! just when natural gas is becoming to the fore as a much cleaner product than coal burning, just to make the rat's nest much more rattier. So it just might be better to just burn the natural gas, rather than let it leak out.
It should be easy enough to make a sparking device that ignites when it smells Methane...stick one on a cows tail for instance, or in your trousers!

All this brought to you by the same people and school of thought that said "the hole in the ozone would destroy us all!!". I sometimes question these so called experts. Sure you'd have to be a dummy not to see that the climate and environment are changing and the pollution continues to pile up. But the "experts" have been wrong many times before. I always hear them saying carbon alone is going to destroy us just like CFC's and the ozone hole of the 90's. It's kind of disingenuous when the pollution of the waters and land are just as severe(if not worse) as the polluting of the air. Yet it's carbon this and carbon that always with a carbon tax solution at the end.

Much like poverty I'm very skeptical a federal entity can actually fix this through taxation. If you all think I'm just being facetious here. I will give you some examples of the wholesale destruction of the planet you most likely unknowingly take part in, and you can tell me if you think we should be taxed there too.

Palm Oil
We all know the rain forests are endangered but never really explained exactly why. Found in damn near every food and cleaning product. More rain forest is cleared yearly for this crop than any other source. Yet most people I talk to have never heard of the stuff. Much less know where it comes from.

To make a burger first you need 660 gallons of water. This is from calf to plate. The amount of water the agricultural uses and pollutes is only compared to the garment industry.

If you cleaned your house, ate food, and bought clothes in the last decade you most likely contributed to this destruction. More so than driving your car to the store to pick up said products. Don't believe this carbon crap.

I personally know a scientist at McMurdo station and this is almost verbatim what he tells me.
Most of these scientists are on federal grants and to acquire said grants you need to fill there narrative.
Carbon bad!
Taxes good!

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
But we have been recently told it's not so much CO2, it is Methane that is to blame for AGW. Industrial farming on the scale that we currently have cannot continue, therefore a tax on meat is required.

Guys like Gavin Schmidt don't let you off with one thing as opposed to the other, Schmidt and the his modelling would have you believe only that Methane and CO2 together is an even worse scenario, (which is true if everything were rampant) hence the old story was CO2 as the big baddy, then someone probably thought it a good idea to go round telling everyone that Methane is leaking away all over the place...OMG! just when natural gas is becoming to the fore as a much cleaner product than coal burning, just to make the rat's nest much more rattier. So it just might be better to just burn the natural gas, rather than let it leak out.
It should be easy enough to make a sparking device that ignites when it smells Methane...stick one on a cows tail for instance, or in your trousers!

I pass on that Smurfy old chap.

Goodness gracious great balls of fire!!