The real numbers, especially concerning positive back loops, is absolutely frightening.
We are closer to an actual apocalypse more than most know.
5 Likes
The correct answer is that we need to drop fossil fuel emissions at least 90% (and 100% is fine) AND we need to restore the Arctic’s albedo so that we don’t release a potential 1.7 trillion tons of greenhouse gases that way AND we need to develop agricultural and other methods of enhanced carbon sequestration. If you only chose the first part, you only got partial credit. Sorry.
It would also help if we had mass extinction zoos to repopulate the planet later, and if we paid more attention to local humidity and temperature. Drought-resistant trees help. I have a fog pond that puts night fog onto local arid environments, improving the local carbon sequestration effort.
Typical brit humour. :))
But there won’t be any minions left to do their bidding.
Methane, CH4, is lighter per mole of molecules than air, about 78% N2 and 21% O2. A huge methane gas leak goes straight up in the air. Asphyxiation is quite unlikely.
As a matter of fact, Providence, RI had a natural gas main blowout, millions of cubic feet escaped and went pretty much straight up. No asphyxiation and fortunately no sparks to set it off.
Liquefied natural gas is a different animal entirely. The world’s first liquefied natural gas tank farm was in Cleveland, Ohio. In 1944, late in WWII, the tank farm had a small explosion and lots of LNG poured down into the sewers. That’s where it vaporized, in a rather enclosed area. Eventually a spark was found and one square mile of houses and factories exploded. 10,000 people lost their homes. Manhole covers were blasted upwards and landed several miles away. Because people ran in terror from the first smaller explosion, only perhaps 140 people died in the two kiloton blast.
I agree and the #1 kamikazi in my opinion, is Bloomberg to whom I would submit was allowed to illegally enter the debates. I think the DNC and it’s corrupt elites saw that Bernie could be threat to their corporate, Democratic choice Biden, so are using Bloomberg as a way to eliminate Bernie.
3 Likes
I hate like hell to say it, but if I was betting in Las Vegas on who the next POTUS will be…I would have to bet on Bloomberg.
Well, he took some green initiatives in NYC, says Wikipedia. On the other hand, Wikipedia looks like it has been diddled by political operatives to severely downplay the fact that he ran as a Republican for all three of his elections.
We have no idea where Mr. Bloomberg got all that money!! Best guess, he somehow got himself a cut every time somebody traded in the stock market, and it added up fast. We know that premium stock market players get to buy and sell a fraction of a second faster than anyone else, so they look at whether other people want to buy or sell and then they get to go first, and then the original buyer or seller learns that the market suddenly jumped away from him or her so they have to pay extra or else no sale.
It seems to be top secret.
Maybe we can catch up with Mars.
The way the scientific community over the last 20 or so years, has repeatedly underestimated the level of damage to the environment, and when we would expect to see their predicted estimates, leads me to believe that their current estimate of a 417 PPM level of CO2 by May of this year will probably be reached sooner, and maybe even exceeded.
1 Like
OK, I’m not a climate scientist, nor do I doubt that climate change is happening, but when I read this story, the first thing that entered my mind was “Yeah, they built a climate monitoring station on top of an active volcano… what could possibly be wrong with that?”
The answer is that volcanos vent gases like carbon dioxide, that’s what’s wrong with that! So I checked Wiki and found the following statement, “Measurements are adjusted to account for local outgassing of CO2 from the volcano.” Gee that sounds like a tricky, error prone thing to do! There would necessarily be many variables. Wouldn’t it have been much simpler to build the observatory on some other mountain where outgassing of CO2 is not a problem? Don’t these people realize that the anti-climate change forces will notice this little detail and make us look stupid?
Robots? 
This NOVA could explain climate change even to a Republican:
(h)ttps://www.pbs.org/video/polar-extremes-mfaum5/
1 Like
There are a small percentage of people in the way to make the necessary changes happen quickly.
In a society that values life and our home this would have been normal practice without a conscious thought.
They are being dangerous to us all ,behaving like children playing with matches.
We are starting to feel the heat now but we can still take those matches out of their hands.
Time to Awaken The Species
You are thinking about this from a ‘once only’ perspective as if they took readings only once and then made projections based on that. Scientists from around the world corroborate their findings with measurements taken from many, many sources world wide on a daily/yearly basis. They chose the location because it rises high above the Pacific and the air is so pure. They measure any CO2 or other gases that may be emitted by the volcano, of course and they do not take their readings from within the volcano’s cone and apply it to readings of the general atmosphere.
I sincerely suggest that you consider the observation of climate change using the following analogy.
If you asked a thousand people what is the color of a red barn, nearly all would rightfully say it was red. However, if you went around asking only the people among the thousand who were color blind then they would say that it looked gray to them. What color would you then say the barn was when based on the observations of those few that you had asked?
If you ask only those who deny the evidence that is continually being collected by virtually the whole scientific community worldwide then you will get a similarly ‘color blind’ denialist view of climate change.
1 Like
The Earth’s temperatures can only be accurately measured up to about 800,000 years ago because ice core measurements can only go back that far. Fossil sea shell estimates while controversial do go back to much earlier eras. Millions of years ago the sun was cooler and though life existed, with higher ratios of CO2 than now, oxygen levels were some 5% richer in the days of the dinosaurs. Back then Antarctica had trees and dinosaurs and the Sahara was green. Plate tectonics resulted in the uplifting of mountain ranges which helped reduce CO2 through weathering etc. Going back only a couple of million years ago when Homo habilis first picked its nose, the Earth’s temperature was at or near today’s CO2 levels but the oceans were a 100ft. higher and warm beachfront property up in Scandinavia was to be had at bargain prices.
I think common sense should tell anyone that the ‘banksters’ as you call them and the corporate media of today who have done their best to deny climate change for so long are not likely to be the ones pushing climate change on anybody. Dystopia is in the eye of the beholder I suppose but take one look at Australia and see the reality of climate change for them. Moreover, are you suggesting that autocrats and dictators are trying to instill fear in us serfs …um… people by faking the reality of climate change? Um? What does that make Trump? Or the denialist Prime Minister of Australia? Or the others who have long tried to deny climate change? It is not like they have been trying to convince anyone that climate change is real that I can see.
Since humans were first human hundreds of thousands of years ago, the Earth has never seen this high a CO2 ratio. It continues to go higher and higher, so it isn’t about lifestyle changes as much as it is survival for your grandchildren. Nearly 8 billion people and their cars and planes and power plants etc. produce billions upon billions of tons of carbon each year. To suggest that has no cumulative effect over the years is an indication that you failed high school chemistry at best. I suppose you simply ignore a melting Polar Ice Cap? Do you really think that everyone in the world is just faking that? Are we all just pretending just to trick you? Our own navy has reported that we can longer hide our nuclear submarines below the ice cap in the North Pole because the ice has shrunk so much and what is left is too thin. Are they also fooling us? Just for the fun of it maybe?
2 Likes
Thanks for sharing that link-----looks very good!
1 Like
Thanks for your reply Wereflea. So what are these “many, many sources world wide” reporting? Unfortunately the Article does not say but rather implies by silence that this daily reading is typical. It would really be nice to know if that’s the case. As for the point of my comment it flies in the face of common sense that if it was so important to build the site in the middle of the Pacific because the air is so pure there, why then would they build it right on top of a source of CO2?
Look at Tasmania Clean air station as a source.
And as for 417ppm by May, 420ppm more likely.