>"Today's CO2 concentration of around 400 ppm exceeds the natural variability seen over hundreds of thousands of years,"[0]<p>That's the part that opens and shut's the "debate" surrounding human-cause climate change. When you have that much data, combined with the fact that we build and use machines that spew carbon there can not be any other explanation for the Co2 levels. Case closed.<p>[0]: <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/carbon-dioxide-co2-atmosphere-environment-climate-change-global-warming-un-a8026931.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/carbon-dioxide-co2-...</a>
A positive feedback loop through methane was always the nightmare scenario, and now it seems to be happening.<p>It's probably too late to stop catastrophic warming simply by cutting emissions. We still need to do so, because it can always get <i>worse</i>, but it's time to look seriously at terraforming as well.
I feel really helpless, one person alone is essentially powerless, only governments and corporations are big enough to make a difference but they don't because they don't "believe" it or have no incentives to do anything. (And no, boycotts are pointless). So essentially we are screwed and the people who will come after us will either have to come up with a technology to get CO2 out of the atmosphere back to 290-300 ppm or will have to live with a much more hostile environment than today.<p>I'm extremely pessimistic right now.
Frustrated with lack of government action, I became a vegetarian. Technically, pescatarian – but very rarely, because overfishing, mercury, etc.<p>We need government action on this, and I don't have illusions that my vegetarianism will make a dent in the problem. But, I believe in taking the actions you can.<p>I've also become an advocate for permaculture food production. I will talk at length about it to anyone who will listen. [1].<p>We waste a ton of carbon making food. Even if you just cut down on meat consumption, you'd be reducing your carbon footprint pretty significantly. But it's not just meat vs vegetables. It's also the way we've centered our food production around monocultures. Or how we demand fruit that's out of season in January, that gets shipped and trucked across the globe. (Again, guilty – I have kids and sometimes you just need to convince them to eat <i>anything</i> besides pasta, but that's another story.)<p>Maybe for you it's not vegetarianism, but something else you can change in your own life. We may not fix the problem with our individual changes alone – but I do believe our individual efforts can create positive momentum towards progress.<p>1: <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16441733-restoration-agriculture" rel="nofollow">https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16441733-restoration-agr...</a>
I am a computer engineer so I know nothing of nature :)<p>But, it boggles my mind why so many people don't believe global warming can be man-made. I know you can have disagreements, scientists can be wrong, a lot of things can contribute to things heating up, an so forth. But to be 100% sure that its not man-made, I dont get it. Is it because these deniers grow up in a eco system so large that they dont sense human interference, is it pure denial or ?
> 2016 saw average concentrations of CO2 hit 403.3 parts per million, up from 400ppm in 2015... "The largest increase was in the previous El Niño, in 1997-1998 and it was 2.7ppm and now it is 3.3ppm, it is also 50% higher than the average of the last ten years."<p>It sounds a lot less alarmist when you put it this way. We're talking like 0.6 part per million. If you look at the graph in the article, it's basically in-line with the past 60 years.
It might be a good time to reiterate that fracking (in the USA) hockeystick'ed in the last 5 - 10 years. That, naturally, drove down the cost of oil, which naturally helped to not deter (pardon the double negative) oil consumption.<p>Cheap energy was great for the ailing economy, but it mortgaged Mother Nature's future.
Developing transportation beyond oil is a moral imperative.<p>How long will it take us?<p><a href="https://medium.com/@simon.sarris/the-moral-technology-6413ca8449c9" rel="nofollow">https://medium.com/@simon.sarris/the-moral-technology-6413ca...</a>
At the risk of being overly anecdotal, I find it interesting to see the evolution of people in my life who are anti clean energy movement.<p>First they denied climate change. Then they moved to saying changes were happening but it was normal global fluctuations. Now they are telling me that increased carbon will stimulate growth and help feed the world.<p>I find it amazing. I dont truly know if global warming is a thing as I'm not a scientist studying this. I do know the vast majority of scientists are screaming we are heading for trouble. Even if they are wrong, why would we take the chance. I find people fighting a change to improve carbon and other global warming causes dumbfounding. Even if the scientist are likely wrong, the downside/cost of pursuing green tech is reasonably limited and why would you take the chance on something so profound.
Hey! Billionaires of the world - there are now 1400 of you [1]. How much would it cost to, say,<p>A) buy the entire amazon rainforest, so that it doesn't get chopped down anymore? (Yes, it's not just that easy, needs monitoring and patrol, etc.)<p>B) Solve nuclear fusion,<p>C) build massive arrays of solar panels (or fusion reactors) in order to desalinate water and eventually reforest the deserts of africa?<p>Once I'm a billionaire myself I hope to help with at least one of those three things. Until then, we must ask them nicely to act, rather than just watch their capital asexually reproduce.<p>[1] <a href="https://boingboing.net/2017/10/27/new-gilded-age.html" rel="nofollow">https://boingboing.net/2017/10/27/new-gilded-age.html</a>
Most comments say we must cut down our emissions, but will YOU do anything different after this article? I'm honestly asking how can <i>I</i> help?<p>* I'm already a minimalist. Small apartment, no useless crap around (decorations, lots of clothes, printed books...), which require energy to produce & transport<p>* Can't convince friends to do the same<p>* Work from home<p>* No car, using public transport & Uber when needed<p>* Voting has no effect<p>So, what exactly can we do this week, besides just saying "Yep", and just go on until it breaks? Genuine question.
> It is urgent that we follow the Paris agreement and switch rapidly away from fossil fuels<p>I think everyone, even skeptics deep down agree that climate change is real. However, giving billions, if not trillions of dollars to an international climate fund run by who the hell knows is definitely not the correct approach. Businesses and people need short term incentives to switch, not just mandates. Until scientists further develop not only cheaper, but more convenient and efficient energy solutions, fossil fuels will continue to be used.