Search This Blog

Wednesday, December 4, 2013

Carbon-dioxide levels are at their highest point in at least 800,000 years

Posted by Brad Plumer on May 8, 2013 at 11:21 am


Since 1956, the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has been gathering data on how much carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere — a very basic measure of how humans are transforming the planet and setting the stage for future climate change.
The so-called Keeling Curve is attracting even more attention than usual this month, as the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is on the verge of hitting 400 parts per million, a new milestone (the readings hit 399.71 on Tuesday):
mlo_full_record
Notice that the curve is jagged. As humans keep burning fossil fuels, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has trended upward over time. But there are still seasonal fluctuations. When trees in the Northern Hemisphere bloom in the spring and summer, they absorb some of that carbon. When the leaves wilt in the winter, carbon returns to the air and readings spike. The curve is a record of the planet's breathing.
As such, even if Mauna Loa does register levels above 400 parts per million this May, it will prove temporary. The readings will drop again this summer by a few parts per million, and it will likely be a few years before levels remain above 400 ppm all year.
But in an important sense, this year's milestone is beside the point. For decades now, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have higher than at any point in the last 800,000 years — a fact scientists discovered by analyzing ancient air bubbles trapped in ice cores:
co2_800k
In fact, even that's probably an understatement. Recent studies have estimated that current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are at their highest levels since the Pliocene, the geologic era between five million and three million years ago. Here's a description of that era from the University of California, San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography:
Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.
The Pliocene is not strictly comparable to our current era, and there are still questions about why that period was as warm as it was, but it's thought to be a useful historical guide. Here's a little more detail about what conditions were like at the time:
As for what life was like then, scientists rely on fossil records to recreate where plants and animals lived and in what quantity. Pliocene fossil records show that the climate was generally warmer and wetter than today. ...
The absence of significant ocean upwelling in the warmest part of the Pliocene would have suppressed fisheries along the west coasts of the Americas, and deprived seabirds and marine mammals of food supplies.  Reef corals suffered a major extinction during the peak of Pliocene warmth but reefs themselves did not disappear.
Keep in mind, too, that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide during the Pliocene era was a very gradual process over many thousands of years, caused by subtle changes in the Earth's orbit. Today, carbon dioxide is rising much more rapidly, largely due to fossil-fuel burning and land-use changes. Climatologists argue that speed will make a big difference:
Richard Norris, a geologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, said the concentration of CO2 is one means of comparison, but what is not comparable, and more significant, is the speed at which 400 ppm is being surpassed today.
“I think it is likely that all these ecosystem changes could recur, even though the time scales for the Pliocene warmth are different than the present,” Norris said.  “The main lagging indicator is likely to be sea level just because it takes a long time to heat the ocean and a long time to melt ice. But our dumping of heat and CO2 into the ocean is like making investments in a pollution ‘bank,’ since we can put heat and CO2 in the ocean, but we will only extract the results (more sea-level rise from thermal expansion and more acidification) over the next several thousand years.  And we cannot easily withdraw either the heat or the CO2 from the ocean if we actually get our act together and try to limit our industrial pollution–the ocean keeps what we put in it.”
One final point: Humanity is all but certain to zoom past 400 parts per million. The big question is, how far past?
For a long time, many climate experts thought we should aim to stabilize atmospheric carbon to about 450 parts per million. That goal looks daunting now. At the current rate, the world will pass that mark within a few decades. Indeed, even the most optimistic analyses of current trends, like this one from the International Energy Agency, which predicts that natural gas will displace coal, see us hitting at least 650 parts per million without drastic changes.
Further reading:
--There are a bunch of great resources about the Keeling Curve over at the Scripps Institution website, including a chart that is updated daily. There's also a Twitter account reporting daily readings as soon as they come in.
--Back in 2010, Justin Gillis of the New York Times wrote a nice profile of the Mauna Loa Observatory and Charles David Keeling, the scientist who first began measuring atmospheric carbon. (His son, Ralph Keeling, now runs the measurement program.)
--Here's a more detailed look, from the International Energy Agency, of the changes the world would need to make to its energy system to stay under 450 parts per million. (And some scientists, like NASA's James Hansen, have argued that we need to go even further and get back down to 350 parts per million.)

French Kids Do Have ADHD: An Interview

French kids do have ADHD. An interview with Elias Sarkis M.D.
Marilyn Wedge, Ph.D.
This post is a response to Why French Kids Don't Have ADHD by Marilyn Wedge, Ph.D.
 
 
 
Toby et Lucy: Deux Enfants Hyperactifs by Charles-Antoine Haenggeli
Moliere described ADHD in his play L'Étourdi ou Les Contretemps (The Blunderer) in 1655.  However, the concept of ADHD, or "Trouble déficit de l’attention/hyperactivité"(TDAH), as a serious disorder is still not fully accepted in France.  However, ADHD impacts the functioning of 3.5% of the population of France (Lecendreux, et al. 2011).  In addition, ADHD is just as prevalent in other countries as it is in the U.S. (Faraone, et al. 2003).
I interviewed Elias Sarkis MD, a board-certified child and adolescent psychiatrist and Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Assocation, to learn more about the prevalence of ADHD in France.  Dr. Sarkis lived in France for 10 years, and graduated from medical school at Universite de Lille in Lille, France.  He is now the medical director of Sarkis Family Psychiatry and Sarkis Clinical Trials in Gainesville, Florida.  His website is www.sarkisfamilypsychiatry.com
Dr. Sarkis returns to France on a regular basis.  He said that ADHD does most certainly exist in France.  Not only are there clinical studies showing the prevalence of ADHD in France, but Dr. Sarkis also has a friend, a psychiatrist, whose child has ADHD.  His friend's daughter had lifelong difficulties in school, had an unplanned pregnancy, and then dropped out of school.  Her mother is now watching her child so she can return to school.
Dr. Sarkis said that in France there is a "strong negative cultural belief against medication" for children with psychiatric disorders.  However, he said, children with ADHD continue to suffer the consequences of the disorder.  Regarding the impact of undiagnosed and unmedicated ADHD in France, Dr. Sarkis said, "the reality is that there are French kids in prison, a high rate of tobacco use, and kids dropping out of school".
Dr. Sarkis said said that if a French child with ADHD receives "excellent parenting, high structure, and clear expectations from parents" it can mitigate behaviors, However, it is "at the price of the child experiencing increased anxiety and internalizing problems". For those children who are not able to receive excellent parenting and high structure, ADHD behaviors can be extremely impairing.
In France it is difficult for parents to get an evaluation and treatment for their ADHD child.  It takes 8 months for a child to get an appointment with a specialist, and it can take another 8 months before a child is prescribed medication (Getin, 2011).
Fortunately, Dr. Sarkis said, the concept of ADHD as a serious, treatable disorder is gaining strength in France.  Parents are learning more about ADHD via the Internet, and there are more centers being established to help treat this debiliating disorder.

Faraone, S.V., Sergeant, J., Gillberg, C., & Biederman, J. (2003).  The worldwide prevalence of ADHD: Is it an American condition?  World Psychiatry 2(2):104-113.
Getin, C. (2011).  Déficit de l'attention/hyperactivité: Le point de vue des familles.  L'Information Psychiatrique 87(5):375-378.
Lencendreux, M., Konofal, E., & Faraone, S.V. (2011).  Prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and associated features among children in France.  Journal of Attention Disorders 15(6):516-524.
www.stephaniesarkis.com
Australia just scrapped its debt ceiling. America should, too.
Mature countries just walk away from a fight
Should the U.S. Treasury, like Australia's, get an unlimited borrowing limit? 
Should the U.S. Treasury, like Australia's, get an unlimited borrowing limit?  (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
D
ebt ceiling fights, it seems, have become a permanent fixture in American politics. Twice in the last couple of years, the United States has been days away from potentially irrevocable economic damage because Congress refused to raise the debt ceiling and let the Treasury issue more debt. The next debt ceiling fight is slated for March 2014.
But isn't there a better way to increase a borrowing limit — and one that doesn't freak out markets, investors, and, well, just about everyone every few months?
The federal government will be able to borrow as much money as it wants after Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey cut a deal with the Greens to dispense with the debt ceiling completely...
It means the government will not have to ask the Parliament for permission whenever it wants to borrow money above a certain limit. [Sydney Morning Herald]
Some may be extremely concerned by this possibility. If the government can borrow all the money it wants, then won't that lead to the government making extremely irresponsible decisions, such as spending huge amounts of money it doesn't have building bridges to nowhere?
But it's actually a brilliant idea — and one that America and the rest of the world would do well to implement as soon as possible — because it would eliminate the uncertainty and confusion of debt ceiling fights. And there is no reason — absolutely no reason — to believe that it will lead to excessive government spending. Why? Because there already exists a natural debt ceiling called interest rates — the cost at which investors in the market will lend the government money.
The U.S. government is legally bound to pay its debts, and as the issuer of currency it has the means to do so. This means that U.S. government debt is considered by the market to be a very safe asset. And, as Frances Coppola argues, that means that it is a critically important part of the global financial system, because it is used around the world as collateral for lending and as a store of purchasing power. Right now interest rates are very low by historical standards, even after adjusting for inflation. This means that the government is not producing sufficient debt to satisfy the market demand. The main reason for that is the debt ceiling.
If the Treasury became extremely profligate and started borrowing much, much more — say, increasing borrowing from just over half a trillion dollars a year to ten trillion dollars a year — interest rates would rise significantly, making it unaffordable for the government to do so. That is the only debt ceiling we need.
The debt ceiling today is particularly badly designed. Why? Because it's denominated in an arbitrary number of dollars. Let's say you are a government with $1,000 of debt. Can you repay it? It depends what your tax base is. If the whole economy is generating $10 of activity per year, you have no chance. At a 30 percent tax rate, that would yield just $3 per year in tax. But let's say you have a $10,000 economy. Then, a 30 percent tax rate yields $3,000, meaning that $1,000 of debt would be easy to repay. So the sustainability of your debt is dependent on the size of the economy, and the size of your debt is much more meaningful if it is expressed in terms of the amount of activity taking place in the economy (GDP).
So should the current debt ceiling be replaced by a ceiling expressed as a percentage of GDP? While that is slightly less stupid than the current system, it is still not the best idea because it would be very hard to agree on what constitutes a sustainable level of debt. For example, Harvard economists Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart published a well-received paper suggesting that 90 percent of GDP was the level at which government debt becomes damaging to economic growth. But their 90 percent limit has been completely debunked since. Great Britain, for example, had a debt over 250 percent of GDP in the 19th century, and successfully paid it down without defaulting.
Essentially, then, the only sensible way to determine how much the government can borrow is whether or not people are willing to lend the government more money. Australia has made a very smart move, and the U.S. should follow suit as soon as possible.

A Medley of Potpourri: Oldest known human DNA reveals we're 'complete mongrels' | PBS NewsHour

A Medley of Potpourri: Oldest known human DNA reveals we're 'complete mongrels' | PBS NewsHour
I am testing something, but the following from OMGFacts I interesting and something I didn't know:

The Eisenhower interstate system requires 1 mile in every 5 must be straight. These straight sections are airstrips in times of emergency.

A neuroscientist's radical theory of how networks become conscious (Wired UK)

A neuroscientist's radical theory of how networks become conscious (Wired UK)

Georgism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...