CO2 Levels increasing...

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#1
MAUNA LOA OBSERVATORY, Hawaii - Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year, say scientists monitoring the sky from this 2-mile-high station atop a Hawaiian volcano.

The reason for the faster buildup of the most important "greenhouse gas" will require further analysis, the U.S. government experts say.

"But the big picture is that CO2 is continuing to go up," said Russell Schnell, deputy director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's climate monitoring laboratory in Boulder, Colo., which operates the Mauna Loa Observatory on the island of Hawaii.

Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space. Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases.

The climatologists forecast continued temperature rises that will disrupt the climate, cause seas to rise and lead to other unpredictable consequences _ unpredictable in part because of uncertainties in computer modeling of future climate.

Before the industrial age and extensive use of fossil fuels, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stood at about 280 parts per million, scientists have determined.

Average readings at the 11,141-foot Mauna Loa Observatory, where carbon dioxide density peaks each northern winter, hovered around 379 parts per million on Friday, compared with about 376 a year ago.

That year-to-year increase of about 3 parts per million is considerably higher than the average annual increase of 1.8 parts per million over the past decade, and markedly more accelerated than the 1-part-per-million annual increase recorded a half-century ago, when observations were first made here.

Asked to explain the stepped-up rate, climatologists were cautious, saying data needed to be further evaluated. But Asia immediately sprang to mind.

"China is taking off economically and burning a lot of fuel. India, too," said Pieter Tans, a prominent carbon-cycle expert at NOAA's Boulder lab.

Another leading climatologist, Ralph Keeling, whose father, Charles D. Keeling, developed methods for measuring carbon dioxide, noted that the rate "does fluctuate up and down a bit," and said it was too early to reach conclusions. But he added: "People are worried about `feedbacks.' We are moving into a warmer world."

He explained that warming itself releases carbon dioxide from the ocean and soil. By raising the gas's level in the atmosphere, that in turn could increase warming, in a "positive feedback," said Keeling, of San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that, if unchecked, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations by 2100 will range from 650 to 970 parts per million. As a result, the panel estimates, average global temperature would probably rise by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius (2.7 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) between 1990 and 2100.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol would oblige ratifying countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions according to set schedules, to minimize potential global warming. The pact has not taken effect, however.

The United States, the world's biggest carbon dioxide emitter, signed the agreement but did not ratify it, and the Bush administration has since withdrawn U.S. support, calling instead for voluntary emission reductions by U.S. industry and more scientific research into climate change.

 
Jun 18, 2004
2,190
0
0
#2
What's the status on the hole in the ozone...that was big news for a while, but you don't hear about it any more...last I heard, it had split into two holes...then I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it was repairing itself, but it wasn't very convincing...any info?
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#6
Acid oceans spell doom for coral

By Carolyn Fry, (August 29, 2004), BBC News

The increasing acidity of the world's oceans could banish all coral by 2065, a leading marine expert has warned.

Professor Katherine Richardson said sea organisms that produced calcareous structures would struggle to function in the coming decades as pH levels fell

The Danish expert told the EuroScience Open Forum 2004 that human-produced carbon dioxide was radically changing the marine environment.

CO2 levels are now said to be at their highest level for 55 million years.


Most of it will eventually be absorbed by seawater, where it will react to form carbonic acid.

The normal acidity of the ocean is around pH 8, but experts predict this could drop to pH 7.4.

Scientists fear this increasing acidification could have a particularly detrimental effect on corals and other marine organisms, because it reduces the availability of carbonate ions in the water for them to make their hard parts.

Record readings

As climate change research has primarily concentrated on the impacts on land and in the atmosphere, our knowledge of what the rise will mean is uncertain.

However, as there are 78,000,000 gigatonnes of carbon locked up in ocean sediments compared with 750 gigatonnes of carbon in the atmosphere, the rise could have very serious implications for the carbon cycle, Professor Richardson believes.

"It makes sense that the component of the Earth's system we need to understand the most is the biggest," said the researcher from the Department of Marine Ecology in Aarhus, Denmark. "But it just happens to be the one that's most difficult for us humans to explore."

CO2 levels in the atmosphere, driven up by the burning of fossil fuels, currently stand at about 380 parts per million (ppm) - up from their pre-industrial mark of around 280 ppm.

Carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere by microscopic ocean-dwelling plants called phytoplankton, through photosynthesis. But one group, called the coccolithophorids, also produce calcium carbonate platelets, called liths.

Each lith is only about 2.5 micrometres (millionths of a metre) across but a very great many are produced each year.

It is estimated that blooms of the dominant species, Emiliania Huxleyi, annually cover about 1.4 million sq km of the ocean.

When they die, they rain down to the ocean floor, in the process locking carbon away in a vast sediment store. This biological pump helps to control the exchange of carbon between the oceans and atmosphere.

Knowledge search

"E. Huxleyi has dominated the world's oceans since the Holocene, but prior to that a different species was responsible for moving all the carbon to the bottom," explained Professor Richardson.

"It's anyone's guess if another species would step in if E. Huxleyi can't tolerate the more acidic conditions."

Scientists are beginning to address the gaping holes in our knowledge. Last week, the UK's academy of science, the Royal Society, announced a study concentrating on the impact of increased acidity on marine life.

An extra reason for the concern is that scientists have considered exploiting ocean processes to help mitigate rising CO2 levels.

The idea is that by artificially "fertilising" phytoplankton at the ocean surface, it might be possible to stimulate the take-up of CO2 - locking away some of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere that is believed to be forcing global temperatures to rise.

If increased acidity begins to hinder the natural removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, however, then we may lose one opportunity to reverse any damage induced by human activity.
 

DubbC415

Mickey Fallon
Sep 10, 2002
22,620
6,984
0
38
Tomato Alley
#7
this shit is real...and American politicians continue to not give a fuck. this is the shit that angers me more than anything. it continues to surprise me, (for some strange reason) how much Bush doesnt give a flying fuck, or any other leading candidate. I dotn want a tree hugging PETA-member, Amnesty International member for a president, but we need someone who is concerned with these rising problems. the one about the water is just absolutely incredible and people just continue to not do anything.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#8
Another extremely large amount of carbon is locked under the Alaskan ice areas that are now melting...the amount of carbon release from the oceans and the biological material trapped underneath our poles could be fucking astounding.

Our current CFC output is nothing compared to what would happen if coral gets wiped out as predicted, or the melting at the North Pole accelerates.

This is a HUGE problem. Fucking HUGE. I'm talking world increases in temperature of up to 30 degrees fahrenheit by 2100.

Bush: "I will reduce carbon dioxide emissions if elected."

What Bush does instead: Institute "voluntary" reduction initative for coporations, pulls out of Kyoto, guts the EPA and attempts a repeal of the Clean Air Act...unfuckingbelieveable.

Republicans and some Democrats right now, backed by about .001% of scientists worldwide who do not believe in global warming, are spewing SHIT in the face of America and the world with their denial of this problem.

This is a disaster scenario, but Bush and his cabinet, which contains more skeptics of global warming than the entire United States Senate, and who recieves more funds and lobbying from coal, oil, mining, logging, and other energy companies, is willing to stick their dicks in the mud on this issue. What a fucking shame.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#13
If you look at many European capitalist nations...Denmark, Iceland, Norway, etc...their attitudes toward recycyling, alternative energy sources, environmentalism, et al are largely different from ours, and their environmental impact is less ours by a factor of a hundred. These are examples of conscious, holistic capitalism.

The problem I have with the USA being communist or socialist is this: If we become a state economy, and institute large-scale measures intended to facilitate social, fiscal, and environmental equity, our attractiveness to industry and business takes a double-blow it will likely not recover from. America is America because of our capitalism, not in spite of it.

We are not unique in natural resources, size, or diversity. We are unique in that we found masures that gave us a decent modicum of economic success, mostly through toying with the balance between a free market and government regulation (though slavery was a huge initial factor).

Though you say no true communist state has ever existed, some would say no true Republic has ever existed, some say no true Christianity has ever existed besides Christ, etc. The implementation of an ideal will always be flawed. In other words, no true communism will ever exist, so the only standard we have to go on is the "communism" of other countries, which is obviously horrible.

So knowing that we will never be able to implement "true communism" (Look at the rabid anti-Communist stance of conservatives, who account for 30-40% of this country), I don't see how a globally efficacious viewpoint and economic policy will come from communism.

Many European nations are an example of environmentally conscious capitalism. The US is the source of 60-70% of pollution worldwide. If follow the example set by others abroad, we may one day get to a point where we can begin to reverse damage. Though it would take a major effort.

It will probably take just as large an effort as a conversion to communism, though both would require huge amounts of effort by the people and political capital. I see the US having a beneficial environmental policy as about as likely to happen as US communism.
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#14
How the hell did you make this capitalism vs. communism thread? We can get into that perhaps later on a different thread, but I will state I don’t believe you have studied other “communist” nations enough to understand why they failed and why they swayed so far away from true communism, thus you are probably not in the position to criticize the system. It is unfair to categorize these Stalinist nations as communist nations.

The first question I asked is if you believe global warming and the environmental problems are direct results of capitalism. I assume you either overlooked this or ignored the question because the answer is obviously yes.

In effect then, we now know that modern technology which is privately owned cannot survive if it destroys the social good on which it depends — the ecosphere. Hence an economic system, which is fundamentally based on private transactions rather than social ones, is no longer appropriate and is increasingly ineffective in managing this vital social good. The system is therefore in need of change.
I will state now that the capitalist private profit system is the root cause of the environmental crisis. With it’s exploitation of both human-labour and natural resources for short-term profits, there is no way capitalism is capable of utilizing natural resources in a way that meets the needs of society and of future generations.

We got rich global companies making billions of dollars destroying the environment—why? Because there is profit to be made. You go tell an investor to invest in solar power where he can make 10 to 1 profits and help “save the environment” or invest in oil and make a 71 to 1 profit. What’s the answer going to be? What is a capitalist to do? Capitalism constantly seeks to produce more, not to satisfy human needs but to increase profits.

Remember comrade, Europe is not the Mr. Captain Planet of the world. Let us not forget that European companies are just as guilty as American companies when it comes to Imperialism and the raping of third world countries, “industrializing” nations, taking advantage of nonexistent environmental laws and causing a tremendous amount of pollution.

European nations are however more concerned with the environment simply because they will be the one of the first affected on a major scale. Denmark, Iceland, Norway, England etc. are much more north than America and as a result will be dramatically affected by global warming. It is in the immediate interest to make a change, not to mention Europe is much more “socialistic” than America.

I’m sure you heard about the “secret” Pentagon report....

TO BE CONTINUED :eek: :eek: :eek:
 

shep

Sicc OG
Oct 2, 2002
3,233
2
0
#15
i would say it's not just capitalism, but the politics of consumption. the countries that WD named do not consume as much as America and other western countries (with america consuming more than anyone else per person).....
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#16
@WHITE DEVIL,

Here is a C&P of part of an article which represents my views and is basically what I was attempting to get at. Please Read.


The majority of the planet's land surface - and the vast majority of the world's people - is made up of what is sometimes known as the 'Third', 'Underdeveloped' or 'Developing' World. These are the countries - is Asia, Africa and Latin America - which were dominated by the 'great powers' in the past. Regions, nations, and seven sub-continents were ruled by foreign powers - Britain, Germany, Belgium, Portugal, and others.

Particularly after the Second World War, mass movements of millions of people for national independence and self-determination threw the imperialist powers out. But imperialism has not disappeared - it has just changed its spots. The advanced capitalist countries have given up on direct rule. Instead, their domination is economic, maintained by the ownership of the multinationals and international financial institutions. As US civil rights leader, Jesse Jackson, said at a conference of African nations: "They used to use the bullet or the rope ... now they use the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund". From now on, we shall refer to these countries as 'neo-colonial'.

In the early days of capitalism, individual companies competed with each other for control of markets and higher profits. Now the world is dominated by a few hundred multinationals, each with a turnover larger than many countries. 350 big monopolies now dominate 40% of all trade in the world.

The giant oil companies, together with the desperate need of big business for oil, plunged the people of the Middle East into a bloody war in 1991. While the capitalist powers pretended that the Gulf War was about Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, or Saddam's brutal regime, it was really about keeping control of Kuwait's oil supplies. As a senior American politician put it: "if Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn." As a result, up to 150,000 Iraqis were killed in a brutal war, large areas of southern Iraq were destroyed, millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide were pumped into the atmosphere as oil fires raged out of control ... and the vicious dictator Saddam Hussein stayed in power!

Of course, even some capitalists are concerned about growing environmental problems. Unlike in the past, even if they move away to mansions in green countryside and mountain retreats they can no longer escape from the poisons they produce.

The growth of environmental concern has created a new market for 'green' companies and so-called eco-friendly products. Where these products are produced in a less damaging way, they can play a small role in protecting the environment. Yet their protection is usually small scale, many of the claims made for them don't stand up to closer inspection and they are often little more than a marketing con.

The problem is not this or that individual capitalist - some of them may even be very nice people! - but the way the whole system works. Even the most 'environmentally-friendly' company works in the same basic way. They have to put profits first and look for cheaper ways to make goods and provide services. If one company spends money to prevent pollution, or on other steps to protect the environment, they will be under-cut by another firm. Economically, it is still in the interests of business to treat the environment as a free resource, which does not enter their balance sheets - the costs are met by someone else: the state, consumers or workers. Accountants and economists even have a name for it - the 'externalization' of costs.

The very nature of competition and the way everything is given a price, treated as a commodity, is the key to understanding how capitalism wrecks the planet. Capitalism keeps the costs of extracting raw materials and of getting rid of waste as low as possible by ignoring the environment.


Marketing and Advertising

Competition is an inevitable and necessary consequence of capitalist economics. It is an extremely inefficient way of running an economy, creating unnecessary duplication of products, techniques and research, and huge amounts of wasteful or unneeded products.

As the system has become more complex and competitive, secondary factors, like marketing and advertising, have become increasingly important. These secondary factors, exclusive to capitalist economics, have a very damaging effect on the environment. A socialist society would mean the planning of resources and production of society and the ending of duplication and unnecessary competition. A great deal of waste and environmental damage could be done away with almost overnight.

Advertising has become big business. Huge sums of money - $250 billion a year world-wide - massive amounts of resources, and many people's time are all used to persuade us to buy one product or another. The drugs companies spend twice as much on advertising as they do on research into new products! There is a whole industry just trying to convince us that one washing-powder is better than another. They even use masses of paper to tell us how 'green' their products are! Every year packaging of goods consumes vast quantities of energy, forests of trees and produces mountains of waste. Of course we need containers for things, but as most packaging is about image and advertising, not practical use, and is not reusable, it adds up to a huge waste. A 1992 survey found that, of the average £75 cost of a typical shopping bill in a British supermarket, just over £10 of that was for assorted wrappings and packagings. In the USA alone, packaging uses 50% of the paper produced in that country, 90% of the glass, 11% of the aluminum and 3% of all energy. This packaging amounts to 50% by volume of municipal waste. 4

Many goods are deliberately made so they wear out in a few years ensuring there is a market to sell new ones to. Built-in obsolescence, as it is called, is an important marketing ploy and one which is extremely damaging to the environment. It would be possible in a socialist economy to manufacture a huge range of goods to last the same time as reducing the work week and providing alternative useful jobs for the workforce. Many goods are advertised on the virtue that they are disposable - use once and throw-away. And if your tires, car stereo, or computer doesn't break down or wear out after a while, you can be sure that capitalist marketing will invent a better one or more fashionable model to persuade you to get rid of the old one and buy a newer one, putting more money in their pockets.

Food is increasingly standardized, even the shape and colour of fruit and vegetables is dominated by marketing policy. This needs large quantities of chemicals, which damage the soil and water, as well as being harmful to people. Large amounts of edible produce are dumped as they do not conform to a marketing image.

All these policies only increase profits because they are based on short-term economics which do not include - or 'externalize' - the environmental or social costs.

Making a Profit - The Highest Law

Over the years, legislation - the Clean Air Ace, the Environmental Protection Act and others - has been introduced to limit some of the worst excesses of capitalism. Over 100 years ago laws were established to limit some extremes of pollution, establish food standards and clean water. The state, although representing the interests of capitalism, sometimes takes action to limit the excesses of individual companies to protect the overall interests of the ruling class. Reforms have often been introduced in response to mass pressure, to prevent further action which could threaten the entire system. Even those partial reforms are not given, but won in struggle. However, the short-termism of capitalism is never addressed. So one problem is often replaced by another - smogs produced by coal burning have been replaced, for example, by car pollution smogs in most cities.

Big business is always looking for ways around the law. They claim that compliance costs too much and are constantly campaigning to reduce controls. Or else they just move to where the controls are looser. Since 1969, over 2,000 factories have sprung up on the Mexican side of the border with the USA, to take advantage of the easier environmental laws and cheaper wages. These maquiladora import parts and raw materials from the USA and then export the finished products. The only thing they leave behind is toxic waste. The biggest, Ciudad Juarez, has grown from a sleepy frontier town to a city of over one million people in less than a generation. 150,000 people are employed by companies like General Motors, Ford and Toshiba in plants that pay one-sixth the wages they would in the US. Meanwhile one-third of the city has no piped water and the rest send their sewage to a 30 km ditch of stinking black ooze. Residents often find illegal dumps of toxic waste and the city is permanently enveloped, along with its nearest Texan neighborhood, El Paso, in a brown smog.

In recent years Regan and Bush in the USA and Thatcher and Major in Britain, and their followers elsewhere, have weakened many protective laws. Even where they still remain, enforcement is weak. There are few inspectors and fines are often so low that it is profitable for firms to ignore the law. DuPont, one of the world's largest chemical firms, paid out nearly a million dollars a day in fines and other legal charges between May 1989 and July 1991. This was cheaper than taking action to prevent pollution.

It is only constant pressure that forces capitalism, temporarily and partially, to limit its damage to the environment. But, at any opportunity the bosses will be back to their polluting ways if it's the way to make money.
 
May 11, 2002
4,039
12
0
44
#19
President Bush outraged much of the world when he withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol. He has since followed more of a national than an international approach.

In his Nature response he accepted that "global climate change is a serious long-term issue" but then challenged assumptions about the effect of greenhouse gases by saying that the National Academy of Sciences "found that considerable uncertainty remains..."

He said: "My administration is now well along in implementing a comprehensive climate-change strategy... I also committed the nation to a goal of reducing American greenhouse-gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years."

Senator Kerry calls for intentional action but does not in fact commit himself to rejoining the Kyoto accord and speaks in rather general terms only.

"The scientific evidence is clear that global warming is already happening... President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol, stubbornly walking away from the negotiating table altogether.

"John Edwards and I (he keeps on mentioning John Edwards in his answers) will take the United States back to the negotiating table while working at home to take concrete steps to reduce pollution..."

So, no target figure came from Mr Kerry, just a commitment to negotiate internationally.

Source: BBC News