Good News: We Could Have A New Tipping Point In Just Four Weeks!

And then we’re completely doomed, unlike all the other tipping points. This one matters, you guys!

(9News) 6.6.16 is almost the devil’s number, but it might be much more than that if a leading scientist’s prediction on climate change is correct.

CSIRO fellow Dr Paul Fraser has earmarked June 6 (“plus or minus a week”) as the day when carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere will hit the point of no return, 400 parts per million (ppm).

The atmospheric measuring station at Cape Grim in Tasmania has recorded the current C02 levels in the atmosphere at 399.9ppm.

Dr Fraser said the difference between 399 and 400ppm was trivial, but when it does hit 400ppm mark it would be a “psychological tipping point”. (snip)

When 400ppm becomes the norm in country air, the cities will feel the pain a whole lot more.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

29 Responses to “Good News: We Could Have A New Tipping Point In Just Four Weeks!”

  1. Dana says:

    So, if we reach that point of no return 24 days from now, will John and Jeffrey stop trying to demand that we live our lives more poorly, because nothing we can do will save us from doom?

    If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die. — 1 Corinthians 15:32

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Um,

    4 parts per 10,000.

    That some really scary shit right there.

  3. Jeffery says:

    A “psychological tipping point” is like the 4 min mile barrier. It’s nothing.

    400 ppm CO2 is the highest in at least 1 million years.

  4. John says:

    But of course for those in the top 1% of the world’s income bracket ($50000)
    That pain will be much less than for the rest

  5. jl says:

    A new tipping point because the other tipping points have fizzled out. I’m shocked. But this time they’ll read their crystal ball correctly

  6. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    A “psychological tipping point” is like the 4 min mile barrier. It’s nothing.

    Which would make it like all of the other tipping points and predictions of doom, documented in our host’s first link.

    One has to wonder: Jeffrey and the left tell us that this is all settled science, yet weren’t those previous predictions of death also settled science. Why, it’s almost as though settled science isn’t all that settled.

    In about seven months or so, someone else will grab his fifteen minutes of fame — and, doubtlessly, another university grant — telling us that the tipping point will be reached next Earth Day.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Dana,

    All you need to understand is that the Earth is warming rapidly from CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.

    Science is never settled but the above is true.

    All the rest is posturing by Deniers and realists.

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    All you need to understand is…

    -the little guy who exaggerates often

  9. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    All you need to understand is that the Earth is warming rapidly from CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels.

    Science is never settled but the above is true.

    If “science is never settled,” how can you say, unequivocally, that “the above is true?”

    I have noted, on my own poor site, the situation on top of the hill locally. This is a bit of a tourist trap area, and we have a lot of liberal New Yorkers who have migrated in, buying homes near the ski resorts, people who would be more likely to believe that global warming climate change is real and we just have to do something about it. But then, when it comes to actually doing something about it, in this case the building of a wind farm, oh, whoa! wait a minute, not in my back yard you don’t!

  10. Jeffery says:

    Dana,

    Science is never settled. A theory can be falsified, but at some point the overwhelming evidence makes falsification less and less likely. It’s 99% likely that the reason the Earth is warming rapidly is because of CO2 in the atmosphere. It’s 99% likely that the reason the CO2 is increasing rapidly is from our burning fossil fuels. Is CO2 the only determinant of the mean average surface temperature? Of course not. The amount of heat entering and leaving the oceans plays a role; as does vulcanism, the albedo, continental drift, atmospheric aerosols, asteroid strikes and wobbles in the relationship between the Earth and the Sun.

    There is a hotly debated topic in astrophysics regarding the largely unexplained physical and natural phenomenon causing the attraction between physical bodies, i.e., the moon orbiting the Earth, the Earth orbiting the Sun, me hanging around Eva Longoria (a one way attraction). In 1697 or so, Isaac Newton “solved” the problem, explaining it as a defined physical force (although not explaining if the force was a wave or a particle). In 1915, Albert Einstein said, paraphrasing, “Not so fast, pretty boy, gravity is better explained as a perturbation in the spacetime caused by the unequal distribution of mass/energy”. Since Newton never responded, many think that Einstein was right. So, while we can be >99% certain that gravity is real, is true, is a fact, the science is not settled.

    While it’s likely true that your new neighbors from NY don’t want a wind farm nearby, are you implying that that is evidence against the scientific theory of AGW?

    You often take the time to type global warming climate change. Why?

  11. Dana says:

    Jeffrey asked:

    You often take the time to type global warming climate change. Why?

    Because I am mocking the warmists. Did you really need me to explain that to you?

    While it’s likely true that your new neighbors from NY don’t want a wind farm nearby, are you implying that that is evidence against the scientific theory of AGW?

    It’s a way of pointing out that even the warmists don’t want any ‘solutions’ which might bother them.

  12. Jeffery says:

    Because I am mocking the warmists. Did you really need me to explain that to you?

    Yes, because it’s not very effective. Is it a form of inside code to your fellow Science Deniers showing that you’re part of the team?

  13. Jeffery says:

    It’s a way of pointing out that even the warmists don’t want any ‘solutions’ which might bother them.

    Fair enough. It’s an ad hominem attack on those you dislike. Got it. It would be like me calling you Cro Magnon because you refuse to acknowledge basic physics.

    That said, did you know that the Earth is still rapidly warming from the CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere from burning up fossil fuels?

  14. Liam Thomas says:

    I would actually comment on all this but Im still waiting for the technological solution to increasing co2 levels.

    All Warmists can say is the planet is warming and its due to co2. Well fine. I have thrown up my hands a long time ago and say okay…….

    Give me some solutions……

    Chirp…chirp…chirp.

    Oh sure they have multi trillion dollar solutions that would wipe out the worlds economy but hey……..

    Im talking about real solid solutions. Show me the solutions to how your going to feed 7 billion people without fossil fuels. Show me the solution to how your going to transport 7 billion people around the world or transport food and merchanidise to markets……..

    Show me some real solid solutions and Ill climb on board your bandwagon.

    Until then….warmist are just chicken littles with nothing more to do with their lives then Troll websites.

  15. jl says:

    Take Michigan stadium,,which seats about 100,000 people, and fill it up. Now, add 10 more people. That’s the amount of extra CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere. But, death!

  16. Jeffery says:

    Laim,

    Thanks for acknowledging the reality of AGW. It’s a start. Most Deniers have yet to reach your level of reality, still denying that the Earth is warming, or denying that CO2 is the cause, or that warming is even a problem.

    Your stage of Denialism is that there are no solutions, which is untrue, or that the solutions are not easy, which is true. It’s not going to be easy. To reduce the amount of CO2 that we’re adding to the atmosphere we must reduce the amount of CO2 we add to the atmosphere or figure out a way to remove CO2! Since the increased CO2 comes from humans burning coal, oil and gas, we need to replace the energy we derive from fossil fuels from sources that do not result in carbon dioxide or methane releases.

    There are two major, and opposed, issues on the economics of global warming. One is the costs associated with the damages caused by global warming (Yes, yes, we understand that Deniers deny any damages), climate refugees, civil strife, direct damages of flooding and drought, changes in water distribution, changes in crops, changes in ocean productivity and sea level. These costs are offset somewhat by regional advantages in global warming and increased CO2.

    The second issue is the economic cost of transitioning from a fossil fuel based economy, the only economic concern recognized by Deniers. There is no evidence or even a good argument that mitigations “would wipe out the world’s economy”, so you would be wise to remove that talking point from list. Economic models predict the impact on world GDP to much less than the impact of the Great Recession, measured in tenths of a percent GDP.

    Frankly, this is going to happen whether you jump on the “bandwagon” or not. It’s not the rank and file Deniers at not the problem, it’s the professional Deniers bought and paid for by the industries. The professional Deniers in government and Think Tanks will never be persuaded.

  17. Jeffery says:

    Take Michigan stadium,,which seats about 100,000 people, and fill it up. Now, add 10 more people. That’s the amount of extra CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere. But, death!

    You’re wrong, either accidentally or as a blatant lie. Actually, since CO2 has increased 40%, it would be like adding 40,000 people to the stadium, and adding 1000 more each year.

    Do you still hold on to the belief that the Earth is not warming?

  18. Liam Thomas says:

    There is no evidence or even a good argument that mitigations “would wipe out the world’s economy”, so you would be wise to remove that talking point from list.

    It is hardly a talking point. There is quite simply NO technological means to scrub co2 from the planet that is viable.

    There is no techological means to replace anything other then electricity. Electricity actually accounts for barely 1/2 of the co2 dispensed.

    What your failing to grasp as you attempt to respond to my questions is the enormous costs associated with migrating to your mitigation sources for replacing coal and fossil fuels for creating electricity.

    The costs are staggering because the resources needed are finite.

    Oil and natural gas are in abundance in the ground. Rare Earths are not. The production of oil to gasoline requires one finite plant built with finite resources.

    The production of one natural gas fired Electricity generating facility requires a fixed or finite amount of resources to then operate for decades.

    In the ongoing great debate the amount of finite resources required to replaced gasoline and electricity also requires a finite amount of resources. However the difference is staggering and unsustainable.

    Because for every 10,000,000 windmills and solar panels built today will need to be rebuilt again in 40-50-60 years. Much as electricity and gasoline plants have a shelf life.

    In the end the cost is prohibitive and again……we have not even begun to address the needs of the world in moving and transporting goods to and from markets.

    Yours is a pipe dream in its current state. You demand that we build solar and wind………..WE ARE.

    You demand we pass regulations to curtail co2. WE ARE.

    You demand that the deniers believe you have solutions……….

    Well show me your solution……you have as yet only a flowery speech as if your a politician running for office rather then working plans to migrate from fossil fuels to alternatives.

    Are you a politician Jeffery? Because all I hear from you are flowery speeches with no substance. Only promises and double talk.

  19. drowningpuppies says:

    Actually, since CO2 has increased 40%, it would be like adding 40,000 people to the stadium, and adding 1000 more each year.

    -the little guy who exaggerates often and proves his stupidity with every comment

    Accept it. Embrace it. It’s who you are.

  20. Jeffery says:

    There is no techological means to replace anything other then electricity. Electricity actually accounts for barely 1/2 of the co2 dispensed.

    And cutting CO2 pollution 50% by 2050 would nearly solve our problem. In addition much local transportation could be transitioned to electricity.

    You proclaim that the costs are prohibitive; you offer no specifics of your own, and you criticize others for not supplying enough specifics!

    Are you part of the fossil fuels industry, Laim, or paid by them? I bet you are, Laim, aren’t you?

    Let me repeat. This is all going to happen, with or without you on the “bandwagon”.

  21. Jeffery says:

    Laim,

    Let me get this straight. You believe that the governments or a quasi-government body (IPCC) or private citizens who recognize that global warming is real should be responsible for developing energy solutions for the free market? Until they can guarantee you an energy source as cheap as heavily subsidized (1.7 to 7 TRILLION USD a year) you won’t jump on the “bandwagon” and endorse a tax on CO2 emissions?

    Is that really a role of government?

    CO2 emissions that increase the concentration in the atmosphere are harmful. Government DOES have a role in limiting harm to citizens. CO2 emissions could be banned, like cigarette sales to minors or heroin, but common sense tells us that WOULD cripple economies. The reasonable approach was to use the power of markets and either tax CO2 emissions (liberals – this would “de-subsidize” coal, gas, oil somewhat) or enact a carbon cap and trade system (conservatives – who hate any taxation), either of which would lead to the gradual transition from fossil fuels to alternatives.

    Unfortunately, in 2008, the US GOP went crazy from teabag poisoning and for political/ideological/anti-government reasons reneged on their promises to help govern. So we’ve lost about 10 years toward the gradual and necessary transition from fossil fuels. Scientists believe we should keep CO2 below about 550 ppm to prevent catastrophic warming – i.e., to limit warming to 2C.

  22. Liam Thomas says:

    You proclaim that the costs are prohibitive; you offer no specifics of your own, and you criticize others for not supplying enough specifics!

    I have posted exact costs here back in august of last year in migrating to wind and solar. I do not wish to dig out old papers I have written and rehash this with a warmist troll.

    The subsidization of all oil and natural gasoline is a national security need for nearly every country. Tanks, Jets, bombers, jeeps, humvees and name your machinery do not run on 250 foot windmills or a 100 solar panels laid out hoping to fight the war on sunny days.

    Oil is subsidized by every country on the planet…..because its of national importance. Your progressivism is oozzing all over your posts when you talk about subsidies to oil and gas industry.

    IF and WHEN solar, wind and other alternatives can DO WHAT OIL AND GAS AND DIESEL CAN DO…..then we will heavily subsidize those in place of your fossil fuels.

    This is why I call you a troll. You ignore facts to continue to trump your agenda.

    I have no agenda (I work for an engineering firm whose purpose is the design and construction of mega projects around the globe.)other then to point out that there is NOTHING to replace fossil fuels and because there is nothing….that is why 1. It will not be taxed and 2. it will be subsidized as a matter of every nations national security.

    Read my lips OIL SUBSIDIES are a matter of national security. Just as the government used to heavily subsidize Amtrack so that we can move heavy divisions of armor to ports to get them to Europe. Or the building of interstate highways which were subsidized mainly for national security interests.

  23. Jeffery says:

    This is why I call you a troll.

    So coal is subsidized trillions of US dollars a year because of national security?

    This is why I call you a troll. And I’m being kind.

  24. Jeffery says:

    What percentage of the total US CO2 emissions come from the dept of defense? We know that the military relies on oil for most of its energy needs (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel).

    But how much do we need to keep the military functioning at its current level? 1%? 10%? 50%?

    This is critical to your argument that we can’t reduce CO2 emissions because the military depends on it. Obviously, the US military is the most relevant since it’s bigger than most other militaries combined.

  25. drowningpuppies says:

    Liam,

    No matter how many facts you bring up, the little guy who exaggerates often will ignore them and try to provoke you with his leftist nonsense.

    The little guy is an attention whore.
    The only response to the little guy is ridicule and mocking.
    Laugh at him and make fun of his stupidity.

  26. Liam Thomas says:

    I understand he is a troll. I only point out what I point out as facts in the debate.

    Barak Obama went to the White House with the intent on shutting down fossil fuel emissions. Oil has surged under his presidency once he was given those secret briefings that only Presidents get.

    As for Jefferys ludicrous post on how much oil the military requires in the veiled attempt to scale back oil production to just what is needed to keep the military running is actually one of the most desperate attempts I have ever seen at grasping for straws.

    This is akin to saying how many people actually need dialysis in the USA therefore we should scale back the building of dialysis machines because they are expensive to health insurance. Or how many people actually eat donuts….therefore we should scale back the production of shortening because its unhealthy…..one does have an extreme bearing on many others.

    To scale back oil and natural gas because it produces co2 is not going to happen. That is why Obama has gone after the COAL industry. Strickly speaking I do not have anything against forcing Coal out of existence or at the very least coal can actually be made to be more CO2 friendly then a natural gas plant…….IF you just had a congress willing to address the needs…..

    AS in Co2 created by the coal plant can be forced thru pipelines to oil fields which then use the co2 to extract more oil and natural gas and use less hard chemicals that are now used in Fracking.

    There are solutions. Unfortunately we all understand the progressive whacko lefts agenda….They simply hate Corporations and so everyone is a target even though 90 percent of the protestors and trolls collect their checks from a corporation or indirectly from a corporation.

  27. Jeffery says:

    Laim,

    One lie at a time, please.

    You made the claim that governments subsidize oil and gas because it’s necessary for the military. That makes no sense.

    My point is that military use is a small percentage (only about 2% in the US) of the total CO2 emissions. So yes, we can cut oil and gas use in other areas and still let the military use it.

    Yes, we can convert coal use to renewables.

    We do not lack for solutions, we lack political will.

  28. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    So coal is subsidized trillions of US dollars a year because of national security?

    Trillions?

    The global top 40 companies, which represent a vast majority of the whole industry, reported some 512 billion U.S. dollars of revenue in 2013.

    The whole world’s coal production was a shade more than half a trillion dollars, yet you are claiming that the US is subsidizing the coal industry by “trillions,” a plural, which must mean at least $2 trillion, or at least four times the total industry’s production.

  29. Liam Thomas says:

    Trillions?

    He uses the trick and pony show of adding into the subsidies the supposed impacts that warming causes the worlds economies. This is his trick and pony show to exaggerate subsidies into the trillions of dollars.

    Idiot Candidates for the Darwin award fall for such lunacy and pick up their fossil fuel fired signs jump in their fossil fuel fired cars and drive to rallys where they become heated and excited EXHALING EVEN MORE CO2 into the atmosphere creating more problems not less with their Darwin influenced stances on most anything they are told to march about.

    What he should be focused on is that fact that if the economies are wrecked in his lifetime due to the dismantlement of the fossil fuels industry he is not going to be able to charge 250,000 dollars per year for his medicine until he racks up several billion dollars in profits…..In fact he may not finish the product at all and in fact…….

    A typical leftist who rakes in the money from a system he loathes while screaming to high heaven about its flaws, only to then spend his week ends on the lake, BBQ’ing and hunting and doing all the things Conservatives unabashedly enjoy without guilt or regret.

    A socialist/communist is guilt ridden because their fellow brothers do not have what they have yet not a single one of them are willing to give up what they have to their deprived brother……..they demand others give up what they have….while they continue to pad their accounts, add to their luxuries and enjoy the good life………

    Inciting riots and protests from the comfort of their air conditioned autos using fossil fueled communications and fossil fueled transportation the protest fossil fuels.

    sheer lunacy and the really sad part is that they understand WHO THEY ARE..they simply are cashing in……getting their ticket stamped and moving on the the next Saul Alinsky protest.