Mathematical Formula Predicts Global Mass Extinction Event in 2100 (vice.com) 394
Kate Lunau, writing for Motherboard: A new paper in Science Advances finds that a mass extinction period mirroring ones from our planet's ancient past could be triggered when humanity adds a certain amount of carbon to the oceans, which are home to the majority of all plants and animals on our planet. The paper pegs that amount at 310 gigatons. According to lead author Daniel Rothman of MIT, based on projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we're on course to hit that number by 2100. After that, we enter "unknown territory." [...] Previous mass extinctions have happened over the course of thousands or millions of years, but the period of change we're in right now has lasted centuries at best, making it hard to compare them. Although plenty of experts say Earth is already experiencing a sixth mass extinction, that remains "a scientific question," Rothman, who is professor of geophysics in the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, told me. Once our planet hits the threshold he identified in this paper, he explained, it will kickstart changes that will "amplify" everything that came before. These same changes, to reiterate, have been associated with all previous mass extinctions on Earth.
At least... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
there was a whole lot of shareholder value created before the extinction period hit.
You should at least link to the New Yorker cartoon: https://i.pinimg.com/originals... [pinimg.com]
Re: (Score:3)
there was a whole lot of shareholder value created before the extinction period hit.
I knew storing dates as two digit numbers to save space was a bad idea *sigh*
Re: (Score:3)
Danny and this guy [cbslocal.com] should get together.
I bet they would have lots to talk about.
Re: (Score:3)
You have been warmed!
Fixed that for you.
Re:At least... (Score:5, Insightful)
the "Nuclear Winter" debacle
What Nuclear Winter debacle? That a nuclear war would cause a Nuclear Winter? Don't think there's much appetite to test that theory.
the "Limits to World Growth" debacle
Do you think you can continue to consume non-renewable resources indefinitely [youtube.com]?
the "Hockey Stick" debacle
Yet since that was published it's kept on getting warmer [climate.gov]...
Each had one thing in common: the claim that the only way to avoid catastrophe was to adopt Marxism
[citation needed]
In fact, the Russians invented the kind of hysteria being promoted today. It's called Lysenkoism: the use of faked science to push political agendas.
No, this is quite different. With Lysenkoism it was a small group of people going against massive scientific consensus for their own gain. With climate change there is a massive scientific consensus by individual scientists who have nothing to gain personally from it.
I'll tell you what is like Lysenkoism though, a small number of politicians with links to fossil fuel pushing back against scientific consensus who are set to personally gain massively from being able to continue to sell coal and oil until the stocks start to run low.
Re: At least... (Score:4, Insightful)
And my point is, so what? That's a single graph, multiple recent data sources show rising temperatures, and multiple other proxy studies show historically temperatures were lower [skepticalscience.com].
Even if that single study were completely debunked, there's plenty of other sources that show the same trend.
Re: At least... (Score:4, Informative)
Further models, and collected data, show additional warming - not the same as Mann's hockey stick graph. It matters because it's dishonest and incorrect.
Yes, the planet is heating up and yes, we humans are to blame for a goodly portion of this warming. Those aren't facts in dispute, unless one is insane and deliberately ignoring the vast amounts of data. However, it's not what was predicted and saying it is what was predicted is dishonest and bad science. Good science is saying, "Hey, our models were wrong. The planet is still warming and we're continuing to work on the process." Which, really, is what they appear to be doing.
It is not, on the other hand, what the person I responded to was doing. Given the politics involved, it's important to be open, honest, and communicative. It's important to admit mistakes and to continue to improve the results. What isn't helpful is saying, "Well, it's still warming!" Yes, we know it's still warming - but it's not doing so as projected. There is no hockey stick. It's been a gradual increase in average temperatures across the globe, no spike, no runaway...
It's like the other comment that pointed out the acidification of the oceans was certain because of coral bleaching. That sounds good, until I cite NOAA who tells us that the bleaching has stopped and the coral reefs are starting to repair themselves.
By no means does this make me an AGW skeptic. No, I'm firmly in the AGW is real camp. I've just taken a lot of time to understand the data and follow the research and learn about climate science. I've even gone so far as to download the models and the datasets and run them myself. I'm intimately familiar with modeling large datasets - though I did so with traffic, another chaotic system. It was only natural that I learn to do the same with climate.
Anyhow, I'm very much a "believer" in AGW. That's because I've done the work involved to learn about it. It took a great deal of time, over a period of several years, for me to catch up with it as well as I could. It's okay that the hockey stick isn't real - just because it isn't real doesn't mean that AGW isn't real. It sure as hell doesn't mean that AGW isn't a problem. No, AGW is both real and a problem - and one that we should address, for many reasons. It's okay to admit past models were wrong.
Here, I encourage you to view this image:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp... [drroyspencer.com]
The models have been incorrect, time and time again. They have consistently predicted more warming than has occurred. That's okay - that doesn't mean that the planet isn't warming up. It just means we're still learning. It just means that further refinement is needed. Modeling is extremely difficult to do with great predictive accuracy. Modeling is not easy. It's difficult to the point where it becomes almost an art form to get it right.
Please, see the linked image. And, remember, it's okay - it doesn't mean that the planet is not warming, nor does it mean that the theory behind AGW isn't sound. AGW is real and climate science is difficult. Prediction is very, very difficult - and that's okay.
What we need is honesty and openness. What we need is saying, "Yeah, we fucked that up. We're still learning and we're getting better all the time." Yet, it seems people aren't able to do this - as is evidenced by this very thread. Fortunately, as linked elsewhere, the scientists are doing exactly that. I linked to a recent study that showed them admitting their predictions aren't very accurate. This doesn't cast doubt on AGW. It just shows that we're not as good at predictions as many have been led to believe.
The GPP+N post stated that the hockey stick was invalid. The response was that it wasn't. I've demonstrated that it is invalid. I've linked to the research and done my best to explain why it's okay and why the other user is right - in that specific claim. I've also incidentally needed to cite th
Universal chaos (Score:2)
Justice (Score:2)
How much, exactly, are hominids to blame for this and what penalties should we apply to individual ones?
(Pauses for cognitive dissonance from conceptually incoherent Linnaean Taxonomy training/brainwashing to set in)
Re:Justice (Score:4, Interesting)
How much, exactly, are hominids to blame for this and what penalties should we apply to individual ones?
Exactly enough to make all the difference. We shouldn't penalize people or corporations for releasing CO2, we should charge them the amount of money that it costs to clean up their mess. If you put 30 tons of CO2 into the air, then you have to pay to have it removed. We have the technology to actually do this, it's not hypothetical.
Re: (Score:2)
Doom is here! (Score:2)
Catastrophic feedback (Score:3, Insightful)
The possibility of a catastrophic feedback is indeed the wild card in global warming calculations: there is a lot of carbon dioxide and methane trapped in frozen soil and in undersea clathrates, and it is indeed possible that there is a threshold above which these will be released, dramatically increasing the temperature. It has happened in the past.
When people talk about the uncertainty in global warming predictions, this is one uncertainty that is often left out: the possiblility that the models are accurate about short-term warming but significantly underestimate long-term warming.
But this is also extremely hard to model.
Re:Catastrophic feedback (Score:5, Informative)
The possibility of a catastrophic feedback is indeed the wild card in global warming calculations: there is a lot of carbon dioxide and methane trapped in frozen soil and in undersea clathrates, and it is indeed possible that there is a threshold above which these will be released, dramatically increasing the temperature.
It's not a "wild card," it is considered so unlikely by scientists that after consideration, the IPCC didn't even put it in their report as a reasonable possibility. Nature has a good summary of the research [nature.com]:
Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2C per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years. Most of Earth's gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be affected by warming over even 10^3 yr.
The full answer is, we don't know (Score:2)
It's not a "wild card," it is considered so unlikely by scientists that after consideration, the IPCC didn't even put it in their report as a reasonable possibility. Nature has a good summary of the research [nature.com]:
That's a good article, thanks. There are other articles, however-- some of them even cited in that one-- that emphasize slightly more the "We don't know" aspect of the clathrate stability.
Methane clathrates are only one of several sources of greenhouse gasses that are currently sequestered in cold traps, primarily in the Arctic. We do know that, in the past, there have been times when warming has released these. We don't know enough about how much is currently sequestered in cold traps, and how much warm
What the scientists really want. (Score:2)
Close.
The scientists are actually hoping that, with enough research, they will be able to find something nobody has seen before.
That's what gives scientists kudos: figuring out something that nobody else has figured out before.
This guy is smarter than the average doomsayer (Score:2, Insightful)
In the past the usual suspects who claimed we were all doomed DOOMED I SAY were stupid enough to make predictions with 5 or 10 year time horizons.
Now don't get me wrong, there's plenty of people who will try to shove any doomsday prediction that doesn't come true down the memory hole via the usual dodges of "They never *really* said that!" or "OMG they were totally right because [insert vague allusion to a statistic here]!" even though it turns out everybody is strangely still not dead.
My personal favorites
What about the existing mass extinction event? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder about that myself. It will probably be mass extinction on steroids.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no formal definition for a mass extinction event. The current event is based on extinction rate over the background rate. Other methodologies such as percentage of families and genus which have gone extinct at this point don't consider us in an a mass extinction event ... yet.
The past extinction rates at the start of the Holocene event (the current one) were much higher than they are now. Based on this human hunting and development is causing the rate to drop. If we can also prevent horribly screwi
Carbon Sinks Full? (Score:2)
Wait a minute, I thought the oceans were already 100% saturated with CO2, after acting as a carbon sink for a long time, and thus new CO2 stays in the atmosphere now? Is he saying that's not the case, or that solid carbon is going to be dumped into the oceans?
Re: (Score:2)
When you increased the partial pressure of CO2, you increase the amount absorbed in the ocean. ("Henry's Law")
It is a very long term process, however.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Core/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/Solutions_and_Mixtures/Ideal_Solutions/Dissolving_Gases_In_Liquids%2C_Henry%27s_Law
Hearts and Minds! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>some days I begin to think that the reason we haven't seen sure signs of alien civilizations in our galaxy is because they did the same stupid shit that we're doing right now, and fucked up their own planet so bad that they all went extinct.
A sad thought, but as convergent evolution is a thing I can see it being true. We're the way we are because it's something that works. Competition, reproduction, expansion, predation... all just part of life. Nature doesn't care about enlightened self interest bec
Useless model (Score:2, Troll)
I am not saying we shouldn't be as clean and impactless as we can to take care of our home, we shouldn't need any kind of model to do the right thing on a global stewardship level, but this model is essentially useless for any kind of prediction.
Aside from a number what ifs that this model simply can't predict, this all depends the current social/economic/political environment remaining virtually the same (not to mention natural ones like tectonic, space phenomena, diseases, etc).
All it takes is one event (
Manufacturing change? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The picture that emerges from these figures is one where—in general—developed countries and major emerging economy nations lead in total carbon dioxide emissions. Developed nations typically have high carbon dioxide emissions per capita, while some developing countries lead in the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions.
Because emissions have never been reliably managed in first world countries, which is why we're in the situation we're in now. As for corporations, they don't see developing countries as resources to be exploited... they see ALL countries as resources to be exploited.
Sheer FUD, mixed with outright falsehoods (Score:2, Informative)
"These same changes, to reiterate, have been associated with all previous mass extinctions on Earth"
Really?
Timeline of (major) Mass Extinction Events:
http://www.worldatlas.com/arti... [worldatlas.com]
1 Holocene extinction - Present
2 Cretaceousâ"Paleogene extinction event 65 million years ago
3 Triassicâ"Jurassic extinction event 199 million to 214 million years ago
4 Permianâ"Triassic extinction event 251 million years ago
5 Late Devonian extinction 364 million years ago
6 Ordovi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts
Re: (Score:3)
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.
The sourcewatch article is short, and largely points out how much of a lying sack of shit the guy is.
Could be a good thing (Score:2)
This is why renewables aren't the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think this is just an opportunity to advance renewable energy development, then you do not truly believe one of those things. Either you think global warming is not really happening, but you can use it to scare the world into adopting your preferred energy source. Or you believe it's happening but it's not really that serious, so we have plenty of time to develop renewable energy sources and phase them in.
Nuclear power doesn't have to be our final energy source. All we need is to use it to immediately arrest climate change, buying us more time to develop cleaner energy sources. Then we can phase out nuclear power in favor of renewables. Trying to jump straight to renewables is like being on a sinking ship, and insisting that nobody is allowed to use the existing life rafts. Instead you want us to research, design, and construct new life rafts to save ourselves, even if that might take more time than it takes for the ship to sink.
There's a possibility it might work. But why take that risk? Why gamble with all life on Earth? Implement the solution which is guaranteed to work (get on the existing life rafts / switch to nuclear power). Then once the immediate threat is over we can work on developing the ideal solution (develop new life rafts / develop renewables). If there's mass extinctions starting in 2100, it's going to be the fault of the environmental movement - who prevented us from immediately turning off fossil fuels and switching to nuclear, and insisted that we instead had to roll the dice and develop new unproven energy sources which still have problems with scalability and consistency.
Re: (Score:2)
>If you truly believe global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions is occurring, and you truly believe it's going to cause mass extinction in less than 100 years, then you want to prevent it in the most effective and expeditious method we have available - nuclear power.
I wouldn't mind something like the Toshiba 4s reactor popping up all over the place - distributed 'neighbourhood' nuclear power that's safe, robust, and difficult for terrorists to target.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Nostradamus confirms it (Score:2)
Or was that Edgar Cayce?
I love how the same old garbage can be dressed up as math or science.
Re:Not if we continue global renewables expansion (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, China, India, the UK, the EU, Canada, Japan, and the Northeastern and Western US are all AHEAD of where we needed to be on renewables to avoid this. We met and exceeded the 2025 renewables goals in 2016.
...
Starting in 2018 more than 80 percent of all cars and trucks sold worldwide will be electric only or plug-in electric hybrids with a biodiesel option.
This sounds completely made up. Any links to support it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, no links to support it.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite full of yourself, aren't you?
Re: (Score:2)
So, no links to support it...
Re:Not if we continue global renewables expansion (Score:5, Insightful)
in the text of many articles. latest BBC rediff from Nature Geoscience quotes it. latest CBC rediff on podcasts today and last night CBUT Vancouver shows it.
do your own work.
I'd like what you say to be true, and I spent the last five minutes searching but was unable to find a single article making that claim.
Perhaps my Google-fu sucks (which it normally doesn't). In any case, you're going to have to either provide some citations or be dismissed as full of shit, because what you're claiming is a truly massive shift in transportation production and it's just not believable that it's going to happen next year.
Re:Not if we continue global renewables expansion (Score:5, Informative)
Do your own searches, lame ones.
OK, I did. Shockingly, you're completely full of shit.
Re:Not if we continue global renewables expansion (Score:5, Informative)
"Starting in 2018 more than 80 percent of all cars and trucks sold worldwide will be electric only or plug-in electric hybrids with a biodiesel option."
80 percent, you say.
"Despite their rapid growth, plug-in electric cars represented only 0.15% of the 1.4 billion motor vehicles on the world's roads, up from 0.1% in 2015." - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Hmm.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not if we continue global renewables expansion (Score:4, Interesting)
Wrong. Price of renewables today is under 6 cents.
It's 2017 not 1967, sunshine. China manufactures entire solar farms that look like giant panda bears the size of Rhode Island. Nobody is waiting for you. Walmart literally built more solar PV in the US than was built before 2010. You can scream fake news until the cows come home, and then wonder why we are more competitive than you are. Because we build it in the West. We use it in the West. We have cheaper energy and we're eating your shorts. Capitalism 101.
Re:Not if we continue global renewables expansion (Score:4, Informative)
That's demonstrably false. None of the world's major automakers are selling anywhere near a majority of their vehicles as electric or hybrids.
Re: (Score:3)
https://cleantechnica.com/2017... [cleantechnica.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Starting in 2018 more than 80 percent of all cars and trucks sold worldwide will be electric only or plug-in electric hybrids with a biodiesel option.
No, it will be 8%. No I'm not going to do the research for you, look it up yourself.
(am I doing this right?)
Re: That is the other aspect of this (Score:3)
Re:Holy shit, stop the insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Water is everywhere, our bodies are mostly water by weight, and yet you somehow want me to believe that if I'm submerged in water for just a few minutes I'll die? That makes no sense to anyone with a shred of scientific understanding of our bodies, or indeed basic biology.
Even better -- we have finite resources on our planet but let's go ahead and reproduce exponentially. What could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
And you could ask what happened to the people in a greenhouse when the cement substructure started mucking with O2 / CO2 balance levels when it cured (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 [wikipedia.org]).
Re:Holy shit, stop the insanity (Score:5, Informative)
http://grist.org/briefly/veggi... [grist.org]
Re:Holy shit, stop the insanity (Score:5, Informative)
Climate change and rising CO2 are altering the behavior of land plants in ways that influence how much biomass they produce relative to how much water they need for growth. This study shows that it is possible to detect changes occurring in plants using long-term measurements of the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2. These measurements imply that plants have globally increased their water use efficiency at the leaf level in proportion to the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the past few decades. While the full implications remain to be explored, the results help to quantify the extent to which the biosphere has become less constrained by water stress globally.
http://sci-hub.io/10.1073/pnas... [sci-hub.io]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't you ask a botanist what happens to plants in greenhouses when you add more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?
(Here's a hint, they grow bigger!)
Or you could ask a botanist a relevant question, like what happens to marine life when the amount of dissolved carbon dioxide is increased.
The answer is, it depends on how tolerant the organism is to decreased pH levels. Dissolved CO2 creates a small amount of H2C03, AKA carbonic acid, which makes the water more acidic. Photosynthesizing sea life may well benefit from higher CO2 levels... if the increased acidity doesn't kill it. And of course there is also lots of non-photosynthesizing sea life that does
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The ocean is a buffered solution. It's average pH isn't going to wonder off into extremes as you suggest.
http://www.marinebio.net/marin... [marinebio.net]
"The amount of dissolved gases varies according to the types of life forms in the water. Most living species need oxygen to keep their cells alive (both plants and animals) and are constantly using it up. Replenishment of dissolved oxygen comes from the photosynthetic activity of plants (during daylight hours only) and from surface diffusion (to a lesser extent). If ther
Re:Holy shit, stop the insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually why don't you ask an actual botanist? Because I can tell you haven't.
Anyone with basic scientific literacy understand that plants live in ecosystems where they compete with other plants; furthermore any gardener will tell you that many plants are much more nitrogen and/or phosphorous limited than carbon limited. This means that the diversity of plant species will drop under higher CO2 scenarios as CO2 sensitive species outcompete less CO2 sensitive ones. High CO2 will be especially beneficial to plants like poison ivy that grow quickly and need lots of carbon for their cellulose structure.
Plant extinctions are easily deducible from a basic knowledge of ecology and gardening. Experimental work on CO2 impact is not promising either, indicating that many food species will produce more cellulose and other carbohydrate and less protein per pound. Plants experimentally grown in high CO2 environments develop abnormalities in their insect defenses that open them up to predation.
Understand by an "mass extinction event", we don't mean the extinction of all life. We mean a catastrophic loss of biodiversity. In a few million years, the Earth will be right as rain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
let them eat.. kelp?
Re:Holy shit, stop the insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the reason:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The key there is the number of mass-extinction events in our fossil records are directly connected with exactly these same events.
When methane vents open up under the ocean from various gethermal processes, they make this kind of gel (methane clathrate) that builds up at the ocean floor and sediment. There's a LOT of this stuff.
Anyway, when this gel reaches a certain temperature, the methane that was 'frozen' in it gets released relatively quickly. Methane already is like carbon pollution on steroids, and the scale of this release is literally world-changing, compared to say cow gas releases.
Again - this has happened several times already, taking out the large swaths of species of the planet each time. To the point that the ground leftover looks completely different across the entire planet.
It's kind of a big deal.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
But based on SuperKendall's logic, methane is good because it comes out of kittens' asses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Holy shit, stop the insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
I cannot believe how freaked out everyone is about carbon, when it is a basic and abundant element of the planet...
Nobody is worried about carbon, after all we are carbon-based lifeforms. However, people are worried about carbon dioxide.
the amount in the atmosphere is minuscule to begin with, never mind whatever we are adding in being a tiny fraction of what it is already.
Doubling the amount of naturally occurring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not minuscule. Also, have you seen how thick the Earth's atmosphere is? It's a tiny bubble around the planet surface.
It is so sad to see rational people get lost in a death cult that makes absolutely no sense to anyone with a shred of scientific understanding of the climate, or indeed basic material science...
Feel free to point out exactly where the calculations have gone wrong. You'll be the world's savior and petrol companies would pay you billions for that proof.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Plants [Re:Holy shit, stop the insanity] (Score:3, Insightful)
hmm, if only there were these plants that could grow and used carbon dioxide as fuel......
...and if only we weren't cutting them down at a rate of about 13 million hectares a year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
hmm, if only there were these plants that could grow and used carbon dioxide as fuel......
Plants cannot remove the amount of CO2 being emitted daily. Also, when plants die, they release almost all of the sequestered CO2. If they didn't, don't you think they would have run out of CO2 long before humans arrived on the scene?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except the models have NOT been "proven wrong by observation." I've been graphing prediction versus actual, and the model predictions are still very close to spot on.
You linked the Independent article from yesterday morning, but I notice you didn't link the one from yesterday afternoon: http://www.independent.co.uk/i... [independent.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty- first century results is low (between zero and about 9%).
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why that paper attributes discrepancies to external forcings like volcanism and unusual solar minimums, rather than internal variability. Do we have to go through this all over again?
Re: (Score:3)
As long as you don't admit that the models are wrong, you're opposed to science.
Oh the irony.
Sigh. Fine, we'll do this again. Yes, of course the models are not perfect - they do not (and cannot) predict every last short-term wiggle. To a "black and white" viewpoint then that means they're *always* wrong - even when they reliably nail the long-term trend for over thirty years. This of course does not mean they are not still very useful to climatologists that know how to use them (and as long as you don't admit that, you're opposed to science, yes?)
So with that out of the way, when the m
Re: (Score:2)
All this week, stories are running how every global climate model has been proven wrong by observation
That just says it's warming at a slower rate than anticipated, not that it isn't warming. The only thing that means is that there is more time on the countdown to doomsday but it's still coming.
Re: (Score:2)
Dr Millar said this budget represented about 20 years of emissions at the current rate, giving humanity more time than some other estimates and, therefore, a greater hope of meeting the Paris Agreement target.
20 years. Not really all that much more time. Hell, it'll take longer than that to get some of these conservative know-nothings to pull their heads out of their asses.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
On the upside, people who died of Carbon Dioxide and/or Carbon Monoxide intoxication look very healthy, because they look ablush. It's because of the heart pumping more blood as the body starves for oxygen.
We'll end up with a very healthy-looking SuperKendall - the fact that he'd be dead is less relevant, after all, looks are what matters, ain't it.
Re: (Score:2)
Greenhouse effect is well understood (Score:5, Informative)
I cannot believe how freaked out everyone is about carbon, when it is a basic and abundant element of the planet...
People are "freaked out" about carbon-- specifically, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere-- because it is known to absorb outgoing infrared radiation, so the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere affects the temperature balance of the planet. This is an effect that has been known for a very long time (here's a good review from the American Institute of Physics: https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm [aip.org]), but only recently has the amount of carbon dioxide put in the atmosphere by humans been enough to make the effect visible.
You're correct that it is "basic and abundant", although I'm not sure why that's relevant
the amount in the atmosphere is minuscule to begin with,
Correct. It was the great discovery of Tyndall in 1859 that extremely small amounts of trace gasses can affect the infrared absorption. https://earthobservatory.nasa.... [nasa.gov]
never mind whatever we are adding in being a tiny fraction of what it is already.
Humans have increased the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere by about 45% since preindustrial times, most of that in the last century (graph: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/... [noaa.gov]). Depends on whether you call that a "tiny fraction."
But, indeed, the natural greenhouse effect of about 30C (ref [climatecentral.org]) is about much larger than the human contribution. That's one reason we understand the greenhouse effect; it's large enough to be easily measured.
The entire ecosystem of the Earth is built to process carbon, to consume carbon, to use carbon to sustain life.
Correct again. Over a period of few hundred thousand years, this will undoubtably be removed from the biosphere.
It would be lot faster than that, except we're cutting down trees a lot faster than we're growing trees.
It is so sad to see rational people get lost in a death cult that makes absolutely no sense to anyone with a shred of scientific understanding of the climate, or indeed basic material science...
I will assure you that I have a pretty good scientific understanding of climate, and also of basic materials science. This is how we understand the atmospheres of all the planets, not just Earth. The basic physics of the greenhouse effect is quite well understood science, and the absorption coefficients of trace gasses in the infrared are all well measured.
Re: (Score:3)
You said:
So which is it? Warming from atmosphere affecting the water or carbon added to the oceans?
It's both. Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the absorption of infrared light, which results in warmer temperatures that radiate mainly into the oceans. Increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere also increases the carbon content of rain, which precipitates mainly into the oceans increasing acidity. Both affect global patterns in different ways and both are unlikely to be friendly to our current mode of civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
Ocean and atmosphere (Score:2)
Yes, as the previous commentator stated: both.
The paper was about measuring oceanic carbon, but of course the oceans absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This equilibrium is slow by human standards, but they are in equilibrium on a time scale short compared to the geological time scales measured in the paper.
Re:Holy shit, stop the insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what is worse, your comment full of dumb or the fact you got modded up for it.
The OP is making an Appeal to Stupidity [logicallyfallacious.com]. AGW is complicated, and he doesn't understand it, so therefore it can be flippantly dismissed as a non-problem.
The argument is surprisingly effective, and is also impervious to logic, facts, and evidence, since the validity of those has been dismissed a priori. It is especially effective among people that have a vested interest in accepting it.
Re: (Score:2)
The OP is making an Appeal to Stupidity [logicallyfallacious.com]. AGW is complicated, and he doesn't understand it, so therefore it can be flippantly dismissed as a non-problem.
Overpopulation has been dismissed in the same manner by human beings before we were even aware of a climate change problem. We seem to prefer doing that.
Re:Holy shit, stop the insanity (Score:5, Interesting)
Overpopulation has been dismissed in the same manner
Hogwash. Overpopulation was recognized as a problem by nearly everyone. The debate was about what to do about it, not whether the problem existed.
Today there is a broad consensus that the solution to overpopulation is peace, prosperity, and low infant mortality. Once you have those, birthrates drop to replacement levels (or below) in a generation.
Re: (Score:2)
You could also say that AGW is a Rube Goldberg contraption that provides no means of falsification or validation.
EVERYTHING that happens is laid at AGW's feet. Too Much or Too Little of everything is deemed the fault of AGW.
It's the Theory of EVERYTHING!
... which we can falsify with capital letters!
Re: (Score:3)
When has anybody advocated anything like that? The only thing I've seen advocated was alternative solutions to the same energy issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how badly the elites simply want to eradicate roughly 90% us from the Earth, it isn't mental gymnastics to figure out that the first step to that is reducing us to mere subjects. Why do you think they teach children in kindergarten to take cold showers and scold their parents for running air conditioning or brushing their teeth with the sink running? It's to dehumanize us and remove modern society's comforts from us.
"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus,
Re: (Score:2)
they teach children in kindergarten to take cold showers and scold their parents for running air conditioning or brushing their teeth with the sink running
[citation needed]
Straw man arguments (Score:3)
These are classic examples of "straw man" arguments [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]: assert that the people you disagree with said something absurd, and then attack that absurd statement.
Of course, the answer Is to go back to living in a cave like a hunter-gatherer while the Al Gore and the rest of the elites can reign over us on high like the Greek Gods from their Mount Olympus.
People are suggesting a switch to technologies that reduce carbon emissions. Nobody is claiming we need to go back to living in caves like a hunter-gatherer. That's a straw man.
Considering how badly the elites simply want to eradicate roughly 90% us from the Earth,
People are suggesting reducing the rate of population growth. Nobody is suggesting "eradicating 90% of us from the Earth." That's a straw man.
Yes, it's easy to demolish absurd
Re: (Score:2)
What possible comfort could you possibly get from having the sink run while you're brushing your teeth? Why would anyone need to do that?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it must be a combination of habit and shocking laziness. It's easier to turn the water on and off once than to turn it on, turn it off, then back on again and off.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you're seeing a professional, licenses psychologist. You've got some serious issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how badly the elites simply want to eradicate roughly 90% us from the Earth...
Ok grandpa, time for bed.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of people got rich selling tinfoil hats, Flavor-Aid, and doomsday cults (donate all your money to free your soul.) Cult leaders are especially likely to get groupies, although if you then have children you may care about what kind of planet they end up inheriting; try not to crap it up, k?
Re: (Score:2)
"Nobody gets rich betting on the apocalypse."
Then why do you buy insurance? You have house insurance and health insurance and life insurance, don't you dad? Why? Why are you betting on a catastrophic failure? You're not going to get rich doing that. Even if one of these events happens, they'll pay out a little, but it will barely cover the loss. If at all.
So are you going to go cancel all your insurance? No? Please explain why.
Nobody gets rich betting on the apocalypse, but they might survive it.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll be dead anyway so why should I change my behavior?
This is the pinnacle of selfishness.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of them. And if you don't you're a racist and something should be done about you.
Re: (Score:2)