Analysis: “The content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is accelerating super-exponentially.”

[kpete]

Analysis: “The content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is accelerating super-exponentially.”
March 16, 2011
................................


It turns out that a purely mathematical analysis, “Evidence for super-exponentially accelerating atmospheric carbon dioxide growth,” comes to a similar conclusion.

The paper itself is mostly mathematically and essentially agnostic on climate science. But the conclusions are as stark as any in the climate literature:

Overall, the evidence presented here does not augur well for the future.

* Notwithstanding a lot of discussions, international meetings, prevalence in the media, atmospheric CO2 content growth continues unabated with a clear faster-than-exponential behavior. On the face of this evidence using data until 2009, stabilizing atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions at levels reached in 1990 for instance seems very ambitious, if not utterly unrealistic. We are not pessimistic. We think that only evidence-based decision making can lead to progress. The present evidence gives some measure of the enormous challenges to control our CO2 emissions to acceptable levels

the rest:
http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/16/content-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere-accelerating-super-exponentially/

[AKDavy]

1. And it isn't just anthropogenic CO2 emissions...

There are feedback mechanisms and tipping points. When permafrost thaws, and soil temperatures in vast expanses of tundra increase, more CO2 is emitted from decay of organic matter. Methane hydrates thaw, releasing a GHG even more potent than C02.

Meanwhile, Congress tries to legislate the laws of nature, and business tries to buy an alternative physical universe with money.

As a biologist, I know that everything in nature is self-limiting. Populations exhaust resources, or they poison their living space with waste products, or they build to population levels where behavior itself becomes toxic. We're reaching all of those limits.

Nature is nature. It isn't subject to political opinion or perspective.

[NYC_SKP]

2. The most absurd comment on that page is number 26, copied and pasted here:

Matt Bergin says:
March 17, 2011 at 5:23 pm

The world isn’t that populated. The entire 6.5 billion people would fit into the state of Texas. I have done the calculation myself. I admit there wouldn’t be much room left but they would fit. I remember reading The Population Bomb back in the seventies and none of the authors predictions have come true, and only time will tell with this paper but I not holding my breath. Windmills and solar cells will never supply enough energy even if we covered every square inch of the land surface on this planet with them.

"The entire 6.5 billion people would fit into the state of Texas."

mmmkay.

He has done the calculation, himself.

:wtf:

[Gregorian]

3. Stupid, blind idiots.

Forget about septic issues. Forget about traffic. Jobs, housing, air quality, and a ton of other things. Forget about all of that. Just what about happiness?

What the fuck is wrong with these boneheads who just can't see the forest for the trees. The world was tolerable at 4 billion. And after that we started on a far more vertical slope of the exponential curve in all kinds of areas. I saw it. I was a child just starting to drive. Saigon was something like 60 million people, and I talked with someone who lived there, and they said it was just a sea of heads bobbing along in the streets. Crazy.

We're not talking millions. This is billions.

I have wondered myself why global warming hasn't been worse than it is. But one thing that is absolutely certain, it is caused by use of fossil fuels. Which means people. Demand is people. Number of people.

[Codeine]

5. Saigon has a bit over 7 million inhabitants. nt

[Gregorian]

6. So then it was 6 million. Not 60 million. Makes more sense.

And still it was a mass of humans. Which makes the point even stronger.

[NYC_SKP]

7. "The world isn’t that populated. The entire 6.5 billion people would fit into the state of Texas."

"Matt Bergin says:
March 17, 2011 at 5:23 pm

The world isn’t that populated. The entire 6.5 billion people would fit into the state of Texas. I have done the calculation myself. I admit there wouldn’t be much room left but they would fit. I remember reading The Population Bomb back in the seventies and none of the authors predictions have come true, and only time will tell with this paper but I not holding my breath. Windmills and solar cells will never supply enough energy even if we covered every square inch of the land surface on this planet with them.'

:eyes:

To his credit, Matt admits that there "wouldn't be much room left".

:rofl:

[joshcryer]

4. Psst.

Nothing to see here, move along.