The mess started a lot longer ago than 300 years. Try the day man learned to control fire.

+1

Sigh...

The mess started a lot longer ago than 300 years. Try the day man learned to control fire.

+1

Sigh...

Mean lifetime = 1/2 life of CO2 = 35000 years. Even a few tons a year times 35000 is a lot. Yes, the day man learned to control fire. Your graph just shows why it is human population control that is required to control GHG.

---

Mean lifetime = 1/2 life of CO2 = 35000 years. Even a few tons a year times 35000 is a lot. Yes, the day man learned to control fire. Your graph just shows why it is human population control that is required to control GHG.

What has that to do with anything?
About 200 years ago the CO2 emissions started to rise dramatically.
Before that there were no antropogenic climate change.
And I live more close to the Arctic circle than you do.
Here I can see with my very own eyes how the climate has changed in only 30 years.

Mean lifetime = 1/2 life of CO2 = 35000 years. Even a few tons a year times 35000 is a lot. Yes, the day man learned to control fire. Your graph just shows why it is human population control that is required to control GHG.

What has that to do with anything?

Quite a lot, actually.

About 200 years ago the CO2 emissions started to rise dramatically.

Yes, it did.

Before that there were no antropogenic climate change.

That statement is NOT correct.

And I live more close to the Arctic circle than you do.
Here I can see with my very own eyes how the climate has changed in only 30 years.

30 years, huh? Yes, I have noticed it too over that time period. And I live a lot closer to the equator than you do.

30 years? Try the next 35000 years....

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Kong I think your not understanding it .

Most advanced economy's have negative population growth and in fact need immigration to just keep the population at the current level
This occurs because of the fact as people get richer they make life choices other than having kids so we don't need to reduce the population just making people live
with dignity will reduce the population

Stop using all fossil fuels and we go from only having approx. 50-60 years to having 150 years now add some really big algae farms to start soaking up carbon , place it in thick plastic bags or some thing that won't rot or leak for 100-200 years and we go from 150 to 300 plus years

Now to say we can't solve the problems in 300 years is just a joke .

Where can we put all this carbon ummmmm you got any idea how big the open cut mines are here give you a clue you can see the holes they make from satellite photos and you don't have to zoom in to a local level to see them so plenty of room to bury them as we can all ways fill in some of the extremely large holes in the Australian outback believe me they are not just big holes but massive canons and very deep.

We must stop using fossil fuels now we can't waste anymore of the carbon sink with same old thing we have been doing . We have 50-60 years currently so while there is some time say 10 of those years we can save our self's
Lose 10 years now gain 290 at the end of 10 years conversion . Now if someone had the brass .... to actually commit we can still fix it wait another 20 years and then try and convert and it may well be to late we are running out of time

Glenn,

A lot of this is what you are not understanding.

Current CO2 levels are at about 400 parts per million (and rising). Do we agree on this much?

This level (400 ppm) of CO2 is good for at LEAST another 5 degrees C of warming.

We have at LEAST another 35,000 years before the planet can remove half of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the Carbon cycle.

The warmer the planet gets, the slower the CO2 removal mechanism becomes.

50 to 60 years? Sadly you are mistaken. We are OUT of time... TODAY (and have been for at least 100 years).

Yes, we must stop using fossil fuels... TODAY.

But, we must ALSO stop doing everything else that is making it worse... TODAY.

Sorry, but it is already too late to do any partial, half-measures.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Mean lifetime = 1/2 life of CO2 = 35000 years. Even a few tons a year times 35000 is a lot. Yes, the day man learned to control fire. Your graph just shows why it is human population control that is required to control GHG.

What has that to do with anything?

Try total man caused CO2 in the atmosphere.

About 200 years ago the CO2 emissions started to rise dramatically.

Yes.

Before that there were no antropogenic climate change.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ wrong.
It is the 35000 year tail on the beast. Even a linear input produces an ever increasing output. That is what seems to escape comprehension.

Year 1 = 1 ton
Year 2 = 1 ton + 1-(1/35000)ton

Yes, man was screwed the day he learned to control fire. He sealed his fate the day he learned how to plant crops.

---

@Gary and MajorKong.
Here is many graphs that shows anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 200 years ago to today.
https://www.google.se/search?q=anthropogenic+co2+emissions&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWgNr89LDTAhXDGCwKHbskDx8Q_AUIBigB&biw=1574&bih=977
Now. EVERY graph indicate that CO2 emissions wasn't a problem until for about 200 years ago.
Going back 35,000 year?
There is no significant difference between CO2 for about 200 years ago and 35,000 years ago :)
Extrapolation from today and 35,000 years forward doesn't look good.
Unless we do something!

oh forgot to tell the difference between living in the Arctic and the Equator.
Now the temperatures shift dramatically during the seasons here.
Extremes like 20C milder than average in the winter.
Summer temps up to +35C in the summer in northern Siberia.
http://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/n0793-no-global-warming-in-siberia-donald-trump/

@Gary and MajorKong.
Here is many graphs that shows anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 200 years ago to today.
https://www.google.se/search?q=anthropogenic+co2+emissions&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWgNr89LDTAhXDGCwKHbskDx8Q_AUIBigB&biw=1574&bih=977
Now. EVERY graph indicate that CO2 emissions wasn't a problem until for about 200 years ago.
Going back 35,000 year?

None of those graphs indicate what proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is human caused. They only show how much more we shoved in on a given year. If we have been lucky and nature's fraction has been going down while we have been going up, we have been very lucky, but you graphs don't look at that, they only show the total.

---

@Gary and MajorKong.
Here is many graphs that shows anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 200 years ago to today.
https://www.google.se/search?q=anthropogenic+co2+emissions&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWgNr89LDTAhXDGCwKHbskDx8Q_AUIBigB&biw=1574&bih=977
Now. EVERY graph indicate that CO2 emissions wasn't a problem until for about 200 years ago.
Going back 35,000 year?

None of those graphs indicate what proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is human caused. They only show how much more we shoved in on a given year. If we have been lucky and nature's fraction has been going down while we have been going up, we have been very lucky, but you graphs don't look at that, they only show the total.

Well, I did find one that listed cumulative anthropogenic CO2 emissions (1750 - 2011)...



http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/ipcc/sites/default/files/AR5_SYR_Figure_1.5.png

@ Janneseti:

Notice that about 1/3rd of the cumulative emissions of CO2 from 1750 to 2011 had NOTHING TO DO with fossil fuels or industry.

Now then, please note that these are NOT *my* numbers, but are the numbers according to the IPCC, Assessment Report 5, Synthesis report.

http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/index.php

Read it.

But a total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of about 2 teratons of CO2. 2 Trillion tons.... ouch.

2 Trillion tons of CO2 is (2 trillion * (12/44)) = 550 billion tons of carbon.

550 billion tons of carbon * 1000 kg/ton = 550 trillion kilograms of carbon.

550 trillion kilograms of carbon * 1000g/kg = 550 quadrillion grams of carbon.

Convert the carbon to diamond and we have...

Density of diamond (pure, crystaline carbon) is 3.513 g/cm^3.

So, 550 quadrillion grams of carbon / (3.513 g/cm^3) = 157 quadrillion cm^3 of diamond.

Or 157 billion m^3 of diamond.

Take the cube root...

And we have a cube of solid diamond of about 5.4 km on each side from the cumulative total anthropogenic CO2 emissions from 1750 to 2011.

Now then, to consider only the part of the above that is due to forestry & other land use. As you can see from the graph, it is about 1/3 of the total, so 157 billion m^3 of diamond, divide by 3, = about 52 billion m^3 of diamond. Again, take the cube root gives a cube of diamond 3.7 km on each side...

Anthropogenic CO2 emitted by forestry and other land use from 1750 to 2011 gives a cube of solid diamond 3.7 km on each side... HARDLY small enough to be ignored, now is it?

Ok, in 1850, there were about 1.2 billion people, and they produced about 2 gigatons of CO2 due to Forestry and Other land use. This gives a per capita figure of 2/1.2 = 1 2/3rds tons of CO2 per per person per year of CO2 emissions due to Forestry and Other land use.

Let us use a bit of creative guessing (yeah, I know it won't be very accurate, but at least it will yield a rough ballpark figure).

The Agricultural Revolution began about 10,000 years ago (about 8000 BCE). Halfway through the time period between then and now would be about 3000 BCE, with a population of about 17 million. Let us use that figure for the population every year. Yes, I know that population growth is exponential, not linear, but I can't be arsed at the moment to do any curve fitting to be able to compute a more accurate figure for the CO2 emissions. This will do for the moment, because it will underestimate the population between 3000 BCE and today.

17 million people * 1 2/3rds tons of CO2 due to FOLU per year * 10000 years gives... roughly 283 gigatons of CO2 emitted due to FOLU during the course of the Agricultural Revolution. Mind you, this will be on the low side because of my choice of short cuts on population... but you get the basic idea.

And a good chunk (well over half) of that is still going to be running around the carbon cycle since the half life of CO2 in the carbon cycle (before it is removed through rock weathering) is 35000 years...

They have done studies on this using the current models, and the results were about a 40 ppm increase in CO2 concentration between the beginning of the Agricultural revolution (about 8000 BCE) and the beginning of the industrial revolution (about 1750 CE), resulting in a warming of between 0.8 degrees C and 1.5 degrees C.

Ignore the problem of non-fossil-fuel GHG emissions?? I don't think so.

Oh, and per the IPCC, since 1970, about 25% of yearly anthropogenic GHG emissions has been non-CO2 gasses (CH4. N2O, halocarbons, etc.). The PRIME source of these is Agriculture.

You can't leave any part of the problem alone if you ever want to have a solution.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Glenn,

A lot of this is what you are not understanding.

Current CO2 levels are at about 400 parts per million (and rising). Do we agree on this much?

Umm well depends on what year and if your taking averages or not this year should top out at over 410+ and from last year it will never go below 400 in the northern hemisphere

This level (400 ppm) of CO2 is good for at LEAST another 5 degrees C of warming.

Not shore myself but would make sense as heat takes time to build up as my years of working with Furnaces has shown me

We have at LEAST another 35,000 years before the planet can remove half of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the Carbon cycle.

Again I'm not shore but sounds logical . However man can think witch changes the dynamic of what you are inferring !!

The warmer the planet gets, the slower the CO2 removal mechanism becomes

Yes very true

50 to 60 years? Sadly you are mistaken. We are OUT of time... TODAY (and have been for at least 100 years).

How so ? Your taking about the Dumb ape that accepts it fate and does nothing so 190 years divided by 2.8ppm = 67.??? years at present levels however the 2.8ppm is still going up so we have maximum of 67 but more like 50 when Extreme El-Nino's and La-Nina's occur the Co2 doubles in those years. I'm talking Co2 levels that cause brain defects and stupidity to really start to effect our thinking and physical appearance and processes

Yes, we must stop using fossil fuels... TODAY

Agreed

But, we must ALSO stop doing everything else that is making it worse... TODAY.

Agreed but with a caveat we do have some time and there is still a 190ppm buffer we can use some of this to start to reduce that 35,000 year cycle after all we speed it up 100 times faster than it would have been if what ever is proposed can reduce Co2 then we must do it and do it now not 20 years from now .

Sorry, but it is already too late to do any partial, half-measures.

So your saying F it and just enjoy what you can and Paaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrtttttttttttttyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy .

I am disappointed with the younger Gen there very defeatist . My gen the Baby boomers have a lot to answer for I guess we made a bunch of no hopers . All hope is lost I guess oh well I'm to old to bother as well so pppppppppaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrttttttttttyyyyyyyyy where's my .ong ...bubble bubble bubble back to fantasy land aaaaaahhhhhhhhhh

---

Agreed but with a caveat we do have some time and there is still a 190ppm buffer we can use

Uhh, no. Where are you getting the 600ppm figure?

A few million years ago, the Earth was ice-free. No ice, that is, that lasted year round.

The CO2 concentration at that time? 400ppm.

It was over 5C warmer then (15ish million years ago) than now.

No, we are in Danger-ville right now, and don't have any wiggle-room.

As far as 'baby-boomers'... I *am* one.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Sorry, but it is already too late to do any partial, half-measures.

So your saying F it and just enjoy what you can and Paaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrtttttttttttttyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy .

I am disappointed with the younger Gen there very defeatist . My gen the Baby boomers have a lot to answer for I guess we made a bunch of no hopers . All hope is lost I guess oh well I'm to old to bother as well so pppppppppaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrttttttttttyyyyyyyyy where's my .ong ...bubble bubble bubble back to fantasy land aaaaaahhhhhhhhhh

Just what have you done for CO2 removal? Are you ankle express or do you still drive car? Or do you just talk about it.

---

...

They have done studies on this using the current models, and the results were about a 40 ppm increase in CO2 concentration between the beginning of the Agricultural revolution (about 8000 BCE) and the beginning of the industrial revolution (about 1750 CE), resulting in a warming of between 0.8 degrees C and 1.5 degrees C.

Yes only 40ppm however the population of the world was not fixed at 17 mill there was a gradual increase . Now along comes the industrial revolution . MACHINES and all of a sudden populations start to go up and Co2 starts to rise faster than the anthropogenic CO2 witch increased much slower and more in sync with population increases as your graph clearly shows.

So blaming agriculture or population for the Co2 is just wedge politics as you ignore the rest of the processes that make Co2.

It's mans MACHINES that have made the problems of anthropogenic CO2 and agriculture seem a bigger problem than it is .
Kong you refuse to see that man can change his fate .
And to truly get to the Stars and do what I believe God wished for us to do, populate his universe he made for us .
Then a understanding of what any Intelligent being would have to go though to get to the point of being a God (to more primitive beings) populating the planets Will realise that first you pollute to get your Tech to a high enough level then you clean it up and move to the Stars as truly God like beings and enlightened .

We are now at that point and if we don't change the way we are thinking then the end really is "NIGH"

If your attitude is the attitude of most of your countrymen then America will not be great it will fall behind very quickly and become a backward 3rd world country and you may find the world shutting there doors until you can reduce your Co2 footprint and if after the shutting of doors for trade it may lead to all out war . America vers the World ...nobody wins .

Your already way behind my country on solar , carbon capture , battery storage and going backwards and now Trump will send you even more behind my country!!!

To be smart you need to change the attitude to a more positive one that does not include a evil idea of reducing populations and using that as a excuse to do same old crap as your countrymen did before you where born . Ignorance is bliss , those past have that excuse you or I do not as we know better now

---

The 600ppm is the level children will start to have defects . You can move to higher places so sea level rise won't kill us
You can always cool down by taking a swim or buying a air con.

No, we are in Danger-ville right now, and don't have any wiggle-room.

As far as 'baby-boomers'... I *am* one.

I agree we don't have any wiggle room . but that is still incorrect we do have some wiggle room . Only enough to reduce it not waste it on same old , same old

You need to update your Pic then to show your real age not when you where a few years younger or I need better glasses :)

---

Sorry, but it is already too late to do any partial, half-measures.

So your saying F it and just enjoy what you can and Paaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrtttttttttttttyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy .

I am disappointed with the younger Gen there very defeatist . My gen the Baby boomers have a lot to answer for I guess we made a bunch of no hopers . All hope is lost I guess oh well I'm to old to bother as well so pppppppppaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrttttttttttyyyyyyyyy where's my .ong ...bubble bubble bubble back to fantasy land aaaaaahhhhhhhhhh
Just what have you done for CO2 removal? Are you ankle express or do you still drive car? Or do you just talk about it.

Ops one should not put one foot in ones mouth unless you have cleaned it

Don't own a car , cook my own food and I'm not over weight , most of the electricity I use is for seti, I stopped being charge for water usage as I don't use enough (witch doesn't mean I don't shower before you jump on that one) :) only gas I use is for hot water witch is very low so my Co2 footprint is probably 1/4 of what you would use and possibly lower as the building has Solar panels on it

What about you ? Are you a good citizen and doing your bit ? please explain if you are . Otherwise put the other foot in your mouth too :) checky bugger+

---

You need to update your Pic then to show your real age not when you where a few years younger or I need better glasses :)

Why? I still look much the same as I did in the pic from about 10 years ago. No gray hair on the top of my head, but a very small amount in my beard (I had it about the same then too.)... No receding hair line... my hair is a bit longer now, and that is about it.

I am appearing to be a lot younger than I am, or so I am told. When my wife and I met, she thought I was about 10 years younger than I actually was. She was shocked when I told her.

So, I would say that you just need better glasses (I do too).

At least my pic is *me*, like yours used to be before you changed it to a cartoon version of a very evil varmit (a racoon) dressed up as a character from a big popular movie of 'lets pretend'.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

What about you ? Are you a good citizen and doing your bit ? please explain if you are . Otherwise put the other foot in your mouth too :) checky bugger+

It doesn't matter what I say, you will just find fault and call me and my homeland childish school yard names.

I commend you on your efforts though. It is all about choices isn't it?

---

...

@ Janneseti:
Notice that about 1/3rd of the cumulative emissions of CO2 from 1750 to 2011 had NOTHING TO DO with fossil fuels or industry.
Now then, please note that these are NOT *my* numbers, but are the numbers according to the IPCC, Assessment Report 5, Synthesis report.
http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/index.php
Read it.

All of it? Oh dear:)
However...
Calculating the weight of carbon released in the atmosphere doesn't say anything to anyone.
However concentration does (CO2 not C), in this case measured in PPM.
I didn't know that the carbon cycle was 35000 years.
Does it matter?
The global warming started when the industrial revolution began.
By natural causes?

Ignore the problem of non-fossil-fuel GHG emissions?? I don't think so

Me neither.

@ Janneseti:
Notice that about 1/3rd of the cumulative emissions of CO2 from 1750 to 2011 had NOTHING TO DO with fossil fuels or industry.
Now then, please note that these are NOT *my* numbers, but are the numbers according to the IPCC, Assessment Report 5, Synthesis report.
http://ar5-syr.ipcc.ch/index.php
Read it.

All of it? Oh dear:)
However...
Calculating the weight of carbon released in the atmosphere doesn't say anything to anyone.
However concentration does (CO2 not C), in this case measured in PPM.
I didn't know that the carbon cycle was 35000 years.
Does it matter?
The global warming started when the industrial revolution began.
By natural causes?

Ignore the problem of non-fossil-fuel GHG emissions?? I don't think so

Me neither.

Well, I was trying to give a sense of scale in terms most people should understand.. We have dumped enough Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to make, from the Carbon, a cube of solid diamond several kilometers on a side... In other words... MASSIVE... Also to show that other, non-fossil-fuel and non-industrial sources of our CO2 emissions are massive as well, and cannot be ignored.

And the Carbon Cycle is NOT 35000 years long. That is merely the Half-Life (the time it takes for half of the CO2 emissions to be 'permanently" removed from the Carbon Cycle through chemical reactions with weathered rock on the ocean floor). Sorry, but the other half takes a LOT longer. At 100,000 years, we still have about 7% left. When Carbon is taken up by other sinks (Organic matter... Dissolved in (ocean) water... etc...), it is NOT 'permanently' removed.

Global warming/climate change did NOT start when the industrial revolution began... That is a DA*N LIE.

Climate change has been a constant feature of the Earth's climate since Earth has HAD a climate.

The PROBLEM is that human activity during the Industrial Revolution, and particularly since the widespread use of fossil fuels began, Human activity has produced a greatly noticeable perturbation in the natural cycle.

We are faced with a choice: stop it... or bake in an oven of our own making.

Human activity, particularly since the start of the Agricultural Revolution, has produced a much slower, much less severe Climate Change. We might not have ever noticed it, if Human population had stayed at a much lower level.

But, it didn't.

Today's human population is somewhere well over 7 BILLION.

The amount of agriculture, forestry, and other land use changes required to support a population of this size (which is both still growing and is enjoying an ever increasing average standard of living) is going to produce a SIGNIFICANT amount of GHG emissions.

So, what do we need to do?

Well...

1. Immediately cease ALL use of fossil fuels.
2. Immediately cease ALL industrial processes that produce GHG emissions.
3. Research what levels of the various GHGs the planet can reasonably deal with.
4. Immediately reform all agricultural, forestry, and land use practices (and all remaining sources) to minimize as much as possible GHG production/emissions.
5. Figure out the population that can be fed and housed by comparing the remaining AFOLU emissions per capita with the about half of what the planet can deal with per year (so that the planet can reduce the amounts we have already emitted).
6. Downsize the human population rapidly to this level, and put hard/fast controls to keep it at/below this level. I would suspect that the absolute maximum population might be as much as 1 billion... maybe. Likely will be far smaller... However, we really, really cannot wait for 'negative population growth' to accomplish this population reduction. Doing so might take several centuries that way. Possibilities for the downsizing include, of course, war, famine, and pestilence.

As I (and a few others) have said... The MAIN problem in all of this is the insanely immense size of the human population... We, as a species, can't afford it any longer.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

As I (and a few others) have said... The MAIN problem in all of this is the insanely immense size of the human population... We, as a species, can't afford it any longer.

+7 billion

If we don't reduce, nature will cook us and reduce us that way.

Possibilities for the downsizing include, of course, war, famine, and pestilence.

Somehow I don't see humans choosing any of those as a means of reduction.

Idiots may start the war, but not to reduce AGW.
Idiots may refuse to vaccinate and we get pestilence, but not to reduce AGW.

Famine is likely a result of AGW, so by then it is too late and also we already have a good number of the population hungry already.

A lottery for a license to have a baby or a one child policy is perhaps the best that can be hoped for, and it won't be fast enough so we will have to adapt.

---