Antarctica Under The Ice Geologists may be the closest thing that science has to time travelers. Their work takes them back in time, recreating billions of years of Earth’s past through studies of rock formations, without ever leaving the present. A new topographical reconstruction of the land mass beneath Antarctica may, for the first time, let them glimpse into our possible future. A warm, frightening future. The British Antarctic Survey created Bedmap2, a detailed map of the terrain beneath the icy sheets of the South Pole.  The permanent ice on our polar continent is fluid, mobile, and sensitive to our changing climate. Understanding its relationship to the Earth beneath it is crucial to predicting whether of our warming planet allows it to maintain its solid form, or if some of it could wash away into rising seas. It’s a visit to the geologic future I hope we never take. More at NASA, including a fun interactive graphic.
Pop-upView Separately

Antarctica Under The Ice

Geologists may be the closest thing that science has to time travelers. Their work takes them back in time, recreating billions of years of Earth’s past through studies of rock formations, without ever leaving the present.

A new topographical reconstruction of the land mass beneath Antarctica may, for the first time, let them glimpse into our possible future. A warm, frightening future.

The British Antarctic Survey created Bedmap2, a detailed map of the terrain beneath the icy sheets of the South Pole.  The permanent ice on our polar continent is fluid, mobile, and sensitive to our changing climate. Understanding its relationship to the Earth beneath it is crucial to predicting whether of our warming planet allows it to maintain its solid form, or if some of it could wash away into rising seas.

It’s a visit to the geologic future I hope we never take. More at NASA, including a fun interactive graphic.

(Rebloggable by request) This one? First of all, you should watch this video. It’s by a scientist instead of a lawyer. The author of that article is an analyst for The Heartland Institute, which was called “the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism” by the New York Times. The Heartland Institute is funded by many prominent conservatives, including the Koch family. Heartland worked with Philip Morris to try and defend the idea that secondhand smoke doesn’t have ill health effects.  This is a lesson in being careful where you get your news from. You should even be careful getting it from me, I have been known to make mistakes. Curiosity without skepticism is dangerous. But beyond just pointing out his serious bias and conflict of interest, his claims also happen to not be true. I suggest you head to RealClimate or How To Talk To A Climate Skeptic to see why. Weather is not climate. Twenty year samples aren’t useful for climate science. Would you claim to know anything about the stock market by looking at a week of the Dow?
Pop-upView Separately

(Rebloggable by request)

This one? First of all, you should watch this video. It’s by a scientist instead of a lawyer.

The author of that article is an analyst for The Heartland Institute, which was called “the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism” by the New York Times. The Heartland Institute is funded by many prominent conservatives, including the Koch family. Heartland worked with Philip Morris to try and defend the idea that secondhand smoke doesn’t have ill health effects. 

This is a lesson in being careful where you get your news from. You should even be careful getting it from me, I have been known to make mistakes. Curiosity without skepticism is dangerous.

But beyond just pointing out his serious bias and conflict of interest, his claims also happen to not be true. I suggest you head to RealClimate or How To Talk To A Climate Skeptic to see why. Weather is not climate. Twenty year samples aren’t useful for climate science. Would you claim to know anything about the stock market by looking at a week of the Dow?

Let’s agree that we’re in agreement about the climate and move on

An international team of scientists recently surveyed almost 12,000 climate science research publications to gauge the consensus on manmade global warming among people who know lots about climate science. They did this because some people still like to pretend like there’s plenty of skepticism and doubt about what’s causing all this. 

What did they find? Well, of the 4,000 papers that declared a position on the cause of global warming since 1991, 97.1% of them agreed that humans were causing a majority of global warming. The rest? Most of them didn’t claim a position because it’s so well-accepted that they didn’t want to waste the space. 

And just how small is the leftover, even if it was real doubt (which it isn’t)? That 2.9% remainder is less than:

Can we start accepting how much everyone who understands the science is in agreement and work on fixing it and adapting to it? The doubt is not real. Just like the Loch Ness Monster.

Read more about the climate research survey at Smithsonian.com. Read more about the crazy psychology behind conspiracy theories here (which is all I am willing to call climate science denialism from here on out).

So there.

edwardspoonhands: Google Earth Engine is a joint project between Google and NASA that allows anyone access to a 30 year time-lapse of the surface of the earth. I made a video about how amazing, terrifying, and important it is. We’ve had an eye on Earth for several decades now, and thanks to the new tool from Google that Hank talks about in his video above, we can see our profound effect on the planet in just a single young lifetime. He notes that we aren’t very good at reconciling data with our own, personal daily existence and the proverbial price of eggs. Maybe that’s why graphs describing the changing climate and numbers such as “400 ppm” aren’t as effective as, say, these images here?
Zoom Info
edwardspoonhands: Google Earth Engine is a joint project between Google and NASA that allows anyone access to a 30 year time-lapse of the surface of the earth. I made a video about how amazing, terrifying, and important it is. We’ve had an eye on Earth for several decades now, and thanks to the new tool from Google that Hank talks about in his video above, we can see our profound effect on the planet in just a single young lifetime. He notes that we aren’t very good at reconciling data with our own, personal daily existence and the proverbial price of eggs. Maybe that’s why graphs describing the changing climate and numbers such as “400 ppm” aren’t as effective as, say, these images here?
Zoom Info
edwardspoonhands: Google Earth Engine is a joint project between Google and NASA that allows anyone access to a 30 year time-lapse of the surface of the earth. I made a video about how amazing, terrifying, and important it is. We’ve had an eye on Earth for several decades now, and thanks to the new tool from Google that Hank talks about in his video above, we can see our profound effect on the planet in just a single young lifetime. He notes that we aren’t very good at reconciling data with our own, personal daily existence and the proverbial price of eggs. Maybe that’s why graphs describing the changing climate and numbers such as “400 ppm” aren’t as effective as, say, these images here?
Zoom Info
edwardspoonhands: Google Earth Engine is a joint project between Google and NASA that allows anyone access to a 30 year time-lapse of the surface of the earth. I made a video about how amazing, terrifying, and important it is. We’ve had an eye on Earth for several decades now, and thanks to the new tool from Google that Hank talks about in his video above, we can see our profound effect on the planet in just a single young lifetime. He notes that we aren’t very good at reconciling data with our own, personal daily existence and the proverbial price of eggs. Maybe that’s why graphs describing the changing climate and numbers such as “400 ppm” aren’t as effective as, say, these images here?
Zoom Info

edwardspoonhands:

Google Earth Engine is a joint project between Google and NASA that allows anyone access to a 30 year time-lapse of the surface of the earth. I made a video about how amazing, terrifying, and important it is.

We’ve had an eye on Earth for several decades now, and thanks to the new tool from Google that Hank talks about in his video above, we can see our profound effect on the planet in just a single young lifetime.

He notes that we aren’t very good at reconciling data with our own, personal daily existence and the proverbial price of eggs. Maybe that’s why graphs describing the changing climate and numbers such as “400 ppm” aren’t as effective as, say, these images here?

edwardspoonhands: jtotheizzoe: climateadaptation: jtotheizzoe: 400. For the first time in human history, carbon dioxide levels reached an average daily level of 400 parts per million, as reported this week. The last time the atmosphere contained this much carbon dioxide was 3 million years ago. This new data comes from the Mauna Loa observatory and a set of data continuously collected since 1958: The Keeling curve. This represents almost a 50% increase since the beginning of the industrial age. Although there is some seasonal variability (that little jagged edge) due to seasonal vegetation sucking up a bit of the CO2 every year, the trend is clear … and it’s not good. So what does that mean? The effects are not something to look forward to. The last time the CO2 level was this high, way back when, here’s what the world was like: Back then, it was a different world. Global average temperatures during the period were between 5.4 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) higher than today, and sea level was as much as 131 feet (40 meters) higher in some places. While the average (which is calculated from levels over the past several days) has since dropped back to 399 (as of today), the saddest part is that both of those numbers are unacceptable. 400 is just a little more catchy. With 401 and beyond right around the corner, what now? We must cut emissions as fast as humanly possible. Because we are mighty humans, and it is possible. We need to take care, because we all share this air. Read about the science of our CO2 contribution here. Watch this episode of It’s Okay To Be Smart to gain some hope maybe. What do you think is the #1 thing we can do to change? What are YOU willing to do? This milestone got some buzz this week. These articles don’t show the harsh reality that billions of people are going to buy cars, laptops, cell phones, homes with lightswitches, heat, and A/C, and all the luxury goods we westerners enjoy. Countless tens of millions of miles of roads, power lines, fiber optic cable, drinking water and sewer pipes, gas pipelines, and other infrastructure are slated to be built for decades on end. There is no way emissions will stop growing. Every projection shows this (see the preeminent IEA’s ‘Fact Sheets’ to sober up). The question is not, What are you willing to do? No, it’s Who is going to deny billions and billions of people in China, south Asia, Africa, India, South America, and eastern Europeans from accessing these goods and services in the coming years? Who’s going to stop growth? Michael adds good counterpoint and perspective to my earlier comments. There is a harsh reality of expectation that Western affluence has created in developing countries, and that expectation is that everyone should have a shot at the life and luxuries that we have enjoyed for so long. It’s hard not to just throw up your arms and just make exasperated sounds, right? Is it this hopeless? I don’t want it to be hopeless. Because hopeless is close to helpless, and we still have the power to minimize change. So maybe a better question is what are you willing to do to adapt? It’s not hopeless because even at 400 ppm…even at 500 ppm, we’ll keep being people and loving each other. We may have to build a levy around New York City and…y’know…give up on New Orleans. There will be famines and wars and that will suck, but there have always been famines and wars.  The question is no longer “what will we do to prevent climate change” but “what will we do to deal with it.” If we begin spending money now not just mitigating our impacts, but preparing for the repercussions of climate change, we will save ourselves a lot of pain. Reblogging for Hank’s comments, which are awesome, as usual.
Pop-upView Separately

edwardspoonhands:

jtotheizzoe:

climateadaptation:

jtotheizzoe:

400.

For the first time in human history, carbon dioxide levels reached an average daily level of 400 parts per million, as reported this week. The last time the atmosphere contained this much carbon dioxide was 3 million years ago.

This new data comes from the Mauna Loa observatory and a set of data continuously collected since 1958: The Keeling curve. This represents almost a 50% increase since the beginning of the industrial age. Although there is some seasonal variability (that little jagged edge) due to seasonal vegetation sucking up a bit of the CO2 every year, the trend is clear … and it’s not good.

So what does that mean? The effects are not something to look forward to. The last time the CO2 level was this high, way back when, here’s what the world was like:

Back then, it was a different world. Global average temperatures during the period were between 5.4 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) higher than today, and sea level was as much as 131 feet (40 meters) higher in some places.

While the average (which is calculated from levels over the past several days) has since dropped back to 399 (as of today), the saddest part is that both of those numbers are unacceptable. 400 is just a little more catchy. With 401 and beyond right around the corner, what now? We must cut emissions as fast as humanly possible.

Because we are mighty humans, and it is possible.

We need to take care, because we all share this air. Read about the science of our CO2 contribution here. Watch this episode of It’s Okay To Be Smart to gain some hope maybe.

What do you think is the #1 thing we can do to change? What are YOU willing to do?

This milestone got some buzz this week. These articles don’t show the harsh reality that billions of people are going to buy cars, laptops, cell phones, homes with lightswitches, heat, and A/C, and all the luxury goods we westerners enjoy.

Countless tens of millions of miles of roads, power lines, fiber optic cable, drinking water and sewer pipes, gas pipelines, and other infrastructure are slated to be built for decades on end.

There is no way emissions will stop growing. Every projection shows this (see the preeminent IEA’s ‘Fact Sheets’ to sober up).

The question is not, What are you willing to do? No, it’s Who is going to deny billions and billions of people in China, south Asia, Africa, India, South America, and eastern Europeans from accessing these goods and services in the coming years? Who’s going to stop growth?

Michael adds good counterpoint and perspective to my earlier comments. There is a harsh reality of expectation that Western affluence has created in developing countries, and that expectation is that everyone should have a shot at the life and luxuries that we have enjoyed for so long.

It’s hard not to just throw up your arms and just make exasperated sounds, right? Is it this hopeless? I don’t want it to be hopeless. Because hopeless is close to helpless, and we still have the power to minimize change.

So maybe a better question is what are you willing to do to adapt?

It’s not hopeless because even at 400 ppm…even at 500 ppm, we’ll keep being people and loving each other. We may have to build a levy around New York City and…y’know…give up on New Orleans. There will be famines and wars and that will suck, but there have always been famines and wars. 

The question is no longer “what will we do to prevent climate change” but “what will we do to deal with it.” If we begin spending money now not just mitigating our impacts, but preparing for the repercussions of climate change, we will save ourselves a lot of pain.

Reblogging for Hank’s comments, which are awesome, as usual.

Source: jtotheizzoe

climateadaptation: jtotheizzoe: 400. For the first time in human history, carbon dioxide levels reached an average daily level of 400 parts per million, as reported this week. The last time the atmosphere contained this much carbon dioxide was 3 million years ago. This new data comes from the Mauna Loa observatory and a set of data continuously collected since 1958: The Keeling curve. This represents almost a 50% increase since the beginning of the industrial age. Although there is some seasonal variability (that little jagged edge) due to seasonal vegetation sucking up a bit of the CO2 every year, the trend is clear … and it’s not good. So what does that mean? The effects are not something to look forward to. The last time the CO2 level was this high, way back when, here’s what the world was like: Back then, it was a different world. Global average temperatures during the period were between 5.4 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) higher than today, and sea level was as much as 131 feet (40 meters) higher in some places. While the average (which is calculated from levels over the past several days) has since dropped back to 399 (as of today), the saddest part is that both of those numbers are unacceptable. 400 is just a little more catchy. With 401 and beyond right around the corner, what now? We must cut emissions as fast as humanly possible. Because we are mighty humans, and it is possible. We need to take care, because we all share this air. Read about the science of our CO2 contribution here. Watch this episode of It’s Okay To Be Smart to gain some hope maybe. What do you think is the #1 thing we can do to change? What are YOU willing to do? This milestone got some buzz this week. These articles don’t show the harsh reality that billions of people are going to buy cars, laptops, cell phones, homes with lightswitches, heat, and A/C, and all the luxury goods we westerners enjoy. Countless tens of millions of miles of roads, power lines, fiber optic cable, drinking water and sewer pipes, gas pipelines, and other infrastructure are slated to be built for decades on end. There is no way emissions will stop growing. Every projection shows this (see the preeminent IEA’s ‘Fact Sheets’ to sober up). The question is not, What are you willing to do? No, it’s Who is going to deny billions and billions of people in China, south Asia, Africa, India, South America, and eastern Europeans from accessing these goods and services in the coming years? Who’s going to stop growth? Michael adds good counterpoint and perspective to my earlier comments. There is a harsh reality of expectation that Western affluence has created in developing countries, and that expectation is that everyone should have a shot at the life and luxuries that we have enjoyed for so long. It’s hard not to just throw up your arms and just make exasperated sounds, right? Is it this hopeless? I don’t want it to be hopeless. Because hopeless is close to helpless, and we still have the power to minimize change. So maybe a better question is what are you willing to do to adapt?
Pop-upView Separately

climateadaptation:

jtotheizzoe:

400.

For the first time in human history, carbon dioxide levels reached an average daily level of 400 parts per million, as reported this week. The last time the atmosphere contained this much carbon dioxide was 3 million years ago.

This new data comes from the Mauna Loa observatory and a set of data continuously collected since 1958: The Keeling curve. This represents almost a 50% increase since the beginning of the industrial age. Although there is some seasonal variability (that little jagged edge) due to seasonal vegetation sucking up a bit of the CO2 every year, the trend is clear … and it’s not good.

So what does that mean? The effects are not something to look forward to. The last time the CO2 level was this high, way back when, here’s what the world was like:

Back then, it was a different world. Global average temperatures during the period were between 5.4 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) higher than today, and sea level was as much as 131 feet (40 meters) higher in some places.

While the average (which is calculated from levels over the past several days) has since dropped back to 399 (as of today), the saddest part is that both of those numbers are unacceptable. 400 is just a little more catchy. With 401 and beyond right around the corner, what now? We must cut emissions as fast as humanly possible.

Because we are mighty humans, and it is possible.

We need to take care, because we all share this air. Read about the science of our CO2 contribution here. Watch this episode of It’s Okay To Be Smart to gain some hope maybe.

What do you think is the #1 thing we can do to change? What are YOU willing to do?

This milestone got some buzz this week. These articles don’t show the harsh reality that billions of people are going to buy cars, laptops, cell phones, homes with lightswitches, heat, and A/C, and all the luxury goods we westerners enjoy.

Countless tens of millions of miles of roads, power lines, fiber optic cable, drinking water and sewer pipes, gas pipelines, and other infrastructure are slated to be built for decades on end.

There is no way emissions will stop growing. Every projection shows this (see the preeminent IEA’s ‘Fact Sheets’ to sober up).

The question is not, What are you willing to do? No, it’s Who is going to deny billions and billions of people in China, south Asia, Africa, India, South America, and eastern Europeans from accessing these goods and services in the coming years? Who’s going to stop growth?

Michael adds good counterpoint and perspective to my earlier comments. There is a harsh reality of expectation that Western affluence has created in developing countries, and that expectation is that everyone should have a shot at the life and luxuries that we have enjoyed for so long.

It’s hard not to just throw up your arms and just make exasperated sounds, right? Is it this hopeless? I don’t want it to be hopeless. Because hopeless is close to helpless, and we still have the power to minimize change.

So maybe a better question is what are you willing to do to adapt?

Source: jtotheizzoe

400. For the first time in human history, carbon dioxide levels reached an average daily level of 400 parts per million, as reported this week. The last time the atmosphere contained this much carbon dioxide was 3 million years ago. This new data comes from the Mauna Loa observatory and a set of data continuously collected since 1958: The Keeling curve. This represents almost a 50% increase since the beginning of the industrial age. Although there is some seasonal variability (that little jagged edge) due to seasonal vegetation sucking up a bit of the CO2 every year, the trend is clear … and it’s not good. So what does that mean? The effects are not something to look forward to. The last time the CO2 level was this high, way back when, here’s what the world was like: Back then, it was a different world. Global average temperatures during the period were between 5.4 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) higher than today, and sea level was as much as 131 feet (40 meters) higher in some places. While the average (which is calculated from levels over the past several days) has since dropped back to 399 (as of today), the saddest part is that both of those numbers are unacceptable. 400 is just a little more catchy. With 401 and beyond right around the corner, what now? We must cut emissions as fast as humanly possible. Because we are mighty humans, and it is possible. We need to take care, because we all share this air. Read about the science of our CO2 contribution here. Watch this episode of It’s Okay To Be Smart to gain some hope maybe. What do you think is the #1 thing we can do to change? What are YOU willing to do?
Pop-upView Separately

400.

For the first time in human history, carbon dioxide levels reached an average daily level of 400 parts per million, as reported this week. The last time the atmosphere contained this much carbon dioxide was 3 million years ago.

This new data comes from the Mauna Loa observatory and a set of data continuously collected since 1958: The Keeling curve. This represents almost a 50% increase since the beginning of the industrial age. Although there is some seasonal variability (that little jagged edge) due to seasonal vegetation sucking up a bit of the CO2 every year, the trend is clear … and it’s not good.

So what does that mean? The effects are not something to look forward to. The last time the CO2 level was this high, way back when, here’s what the world was like:

Back then, it was a different world. Global average temperatures during the period were between 5.4 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) higher than today, and sea level was as much as 131 feet (40 meters) higher in some places.

While the average (which is calculated from levels over the past several days) has since dropped back to 399 (as of today), the saddest part is that both of those numbers are unacceptable. 400 is just a little more catchy. With 401 and beyond right around the corner, what now? We must cut emissions as fast as humanly possible.

Because we are mighty humans, and it is possible.

We need to take care, because we all share this air. Read about the science of our CO2 contribution here. Watch this episode of It’s Okay To Be Smart to gain some hope maybe.

What do you think is the #1 thing we can do to change? What are YOU willing to do?

Time for a science-tastic, carboniferous Episode Extra™ to accompany my latest YouTube vid! In the most recent episode of It’s Okay To Be Smart on YouTube, about how we all share the same air, the #1 question from People Who Are Watching was about a number I mentioned in the beginning: We hoomanz are emitting 33-34 billion tons of CO2 a year. If the atmosphere is so dang big, is that amount of CO2 a lot? A few people were subsequently all “Wait a sec, is Joe referencing climate change here?! Rabble rabble rabble!!!” Congrats. You caught me. Guilty as charged. But there’s science on my side, and you know what they say about science: Where the carbon comes from: the primary people-caused CO2 sources are fossil fuels, deforestation, and cement production. Since 1850, over one thousand billion (AKA “a trillion”) tons of CO2 have been added to the atmosphere. We put about 34 billion tons of CO2 into atmosphere in 2011, the latest year I could find data. These are not debatable facts, minus a few decimals of statistical error. We can measure them, we have the technology.  Where does it go? Only 55% of this is removed by the oceans (dissolved CO2 and photosynthetic organisms) and the plants in our jungles and forests. Fifty years ago, as much as 60% of that CO2 would have been removed by oceans and plants. That means that not only are we increasing the amount of CO2 we emit every year, but plants and oceans (the carbon “sinks”) can’t keep up with the rate that we are adding it to the atmosphere. Sure, as more carbon is put into atmosphere, plants and plankton can reproduce and take more of it up. But if we pump it out faster than they proliferate, it’s still a net loss. Oceans might actually be less able to absorb CO2 as the world warms (it’s simple chemistry, think about warm carbonated soda). Then we get to the warming part. CO2 makes up less than one tenth of one percent of Earth’s atmosphere. So it can’t be that big of a deal to increase that by like 0.01% right? Wrong. Sure, for every million molecules of air, only ~391 of them will be CO2, but carbon dioxide is an amazingly powerful molecular mirror for solar energy, reflecting it back down to Earth and heating our planet. The math is complex, but tenths of tenths of percent changes in CO2 concentrations can lead to full degree changes in global temperatures. This doesn’t even include the effects of methane, which is almost 1,000 times less abundant as CO2, but contributes a whopping 1/5th of greenhouse gas effects. For more: A paper in PNAS about carbon emissions and carbon sinks. A summary of emissions, warming and greenhouse gases from NOAA. Finally, you might need this: How to talk to a climate skeptic. We do share the same small atmosphere, just like the video says. So keep it clean, because it’s mine too, dammit! (PS - If you read this far, you should totally subscribe)
View Separately

Time for a science-tastic, carboniferous Episode Extra™ to accompany my latest YouTube vid!

In the most recent episode of It’s Okay To Be Smart on YouTube, about how we all share the same air, the #1 question from People Who Are Watching was about a number I mentioned in the beginning: We hoomanz are emitting 33-34 billion tons of CO2 a year. If the atmosphere is so dang big, is that amount of CO2 a lot?

A few people were subsequently all “Wait a sec, is Joe referencing climate change here?! Rabble rabble rabble!!!” Congrats. You caught me. Guilty as charged. But there’s science on my side, and you know what they say about science:

image

Where the carbon comes from: the primary people-caused CO2 sources are fossil fuels, deforestation, and cement production. Since 1850, over one thousand billion (AKA “a trillion”) tons of CO2 have been added to the atmosphere. We put about 34 billion tons of CO2 into atmosphere in 2011, the latest year I could find data. These are not debatable facts, minus a few decimals of statistical error. We can measure them, we have the technology. 

Where does it go? Only 55% of this is removed by the oceans (dissolved CO2 and photosynthetic organisms) and the plants in our jungles and forests. Fifty years ago, as much as 60% of that CO2 would have been removed by oceans and plants. That means that not only are we increasing the amount of CO2 we emit every year, but plants and oceans (the carbon “sinks”) can’t keep up with the rate that we are adding it to the atmosphere.

Sure, as more carbon is put into atmosphere, plants and plankton can reproduce and take more of it up. But if we pump it out faster than they proliferate, it’s still a net loss. Oceans might actually be less able to absorb CO2 as the world warms (it’s simple chemistry, think about warm carbonated soda).

Then we get to the warming part. CO2 makes up less than one tenth of one percent of Earth’s atmosphere. So it can’t be that big of a deal to increase that by like 0.01% right? Wrong. Sure, for every million molecules of air, only ~391 of them will be CO2, but carbon dioxide is an amazingly powerful molecular mirror for solar energy, reflecting it back down to Earth and heating our planet. The math is complex, but tenths of tenths of percent changes in CO2 concentrations can lead to full degree changes in global temperatures. This doesn’t even include the effects of methane, which is almost 1,000 times less abundant as CO2, but contributes a whopping 1/5th of greenhouse gas effects.

For more: A paper in PNAS about carbon emissions and carbon sinks. A summary of emissions, warming and greenhouse gases from NOAA. Finally, you might need this: How to talk to a climate skeptic.

We do share the same small atmosphere, just like the video says. So keep it clean, because it’s mine too, dammit! (PS - If you read this far, you should totally subscribe)

What would 25 feet of sea-level change actually look like? According to worst-case climate models (meaning “what would happen if we continue to emit greenhouse gases at the rate we do today”), our grandchildren and great-grandchildren could experience a world with remarkably higher sea levels. Up to 25 feet higher.  Using data from a New York Times interactive feature, Nickolay Lamm made a collection of photos showing us just what that might look do to tourist destinations. io9 has even more, including Miami Beach and the Washington Monument. The saddest part of these future-shock photos is that tourist destinations will be the last of our worries. This means entire cities could be at risk, from New Orleans to Los Angeles to London. And outside of industrialized nations, with their levees and engineers, more than 40% of the world’s population lives in coastal regions at risk of Earth-changing floods. 
Pop-upView Separately

What would 25 feet of sea-level change actually look like?

According to worst-case climate models (meaning “what would happen if we continue to emit greenhouse gases at the rate we do today”), our grandchildren and great-grandchildren could experience a world with remarkably higher sea levels. Up to 25 feet higher. 

Using data from a New York Times interactive feature, Nickolay Lamm made a collection of photos showing us just what that might look do to tourist destinations. io9 has even more, including Miami Beach and the Washington Monument.

The saddest part of these future-shock photos is that tourist destinations will be the last of our worries. This means entire cities could be at risk, from New Orleans to Los Angeles to London. And outside of industrialized nations, with their levees and engineers, more than 40% of the world’s population lives in coastal regions at risk of Earth-changing floods.