Physicists predict Earth will become a chaotic world, with dire consequences

[Subduction Zone]

No, it isn't.
We have been burning more fossil fuels year on year.
The only time when emissions slowed down is in the pandemic, when lockdowns took much traffic off the roads, and slowing down factory production.

You just demonstrated complete ignorance of the problem.

Yes we have been burning fossil fuels for a long time. The change from burning fossil fuels will not come in one year. The reason is that the atmosphere is pretty big. You might have noticed that. It has taken about a hundred years of burning to get to the point that we are at now. Why would one year of reduced burning make any difference?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is a graph that shows atmospheric CO2 for the last 60 years. One can see that one year would not get us back to where we used to be.

Now, do you know how we know that increase is due to man?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why would one year of reduced burning make any difference?

One year would not make much difference, but many years would.

But alas, mankind often prefer wealth over saving our planet.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Now, do you know how we know that increase is due to man?

Read this: Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

One year would not make much difference, but many years would.

But alas, mankind often prefer wealth over saving our planet.

Which is why such changes have to be at least partially political.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read this: Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

What about it? It supports my claims. From very early on in the article:

"Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.[4][5] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[3] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[6]"

 

[muhammad_isa]

What about it? It supports my claims.

You are preaching to the choir.
I didn't say that it didn't. You asked me a question, and that was my [ lazy ] answer.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Which is why such changes have to be at least partially political.

I haven't seen any significant progress on the issue.
No surprise. Most people want their cake and eat it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I haven't seen any significant progress on the issue.
No surprise. Most people want their cake and eat it.

The progress is not going to take overnight. One of the huge areas of success that has truly surprised me is the cost of electricity generated by solar power. It is not the cheapest electricity on the planet. Government subsidies enable the research that made technological advances possible. Solar will not be the answer everywhere, but it can eventually put a huge dent in the amount of carbon that we put into the atmosphere. Onshore wind is second cheapest. There is now an economic incentive to go green.

Electric cars are making huge leaps and bounds too. If you want quick acceleration the answer is electric. And that is with rather limited work on the new technology. It looks grim right now, but I have serious hopes. And though China is one of the biggest polluters they too are heavily into green technology. They can read the writing on the wall.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The progress is not going to take overnight..

We've known for a long time..
..many scientists in the 1970's were concerned about the effects of climate change.
How long do "we" need, before we care about the poor who are already being affected?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We've known for a long time..
..many scientists in the 1970's were concerned about the effects of climate change.
How long do "we" need, before we care about the poor who are already being affected?

That is true, one can find even earlier references to the possibility. It takes a while to recognize a threat sometimes and even longer to react to it. Unfortunately we humans are not perfect. My point is that things are not quite as bad as they seem.

 

[wellwisher]

What about it? It supports my claims. From very early on in the article:

"Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.[4][5] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[3] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[6]"

I agree with this, but it does not tell the whole story. Science is not self sufficient when it comes to the resources that are needed to do science. It is beholden onto others, such as Government, Business and Private citizens for donations. The givers of money have some say in terms do what research that will be funded. The money giver can stack the deck in terms of their favored experiments and therefore favored publications. It will still be good science, either way. Two scientists with opposite approaches can both do good science, but one may be favored by those who provide funding. Getting funding is competitive.

As an example, former President Obama decreased funding to NASA when he came to office. Just because less research could be done and many future experiments were put on hold, did not mean the space science was debunked. The money givers can impact the amount/direction of the output. How much money goes to manmade climate research and how much is given to alternatives? Whoever has more funding will publish more since all is good science.

If you were a scientist working for a tobacco company, you would never be asked to research and publish the pitfalls of cigarettes. That would be a good science project, but with potential adverse political and economic impact. You are expected to do good science, but only if it carries their water. This is what you are being paid for when you signed that contract. If you show that you are a good team player, you will get promoted. Go against the company politics and you will be overlooked at best and fired at worse. This last thing was popular via let wing protests of good scientists not with the program. That is not science but connected to the politics of money giving which can even fund protesters.

It is unscientific to blank deny any approach to the problem; manmade or natural, since science is not suppose to be political. We often learn even from mistakes. It is not about consensus. Consensus is connected to opinion; Pepsi or Coke, which is not the goal of science. Science seeks to establish the truth and the whole truth. We do not need to take a vote that the apple will fall downward. This is self evident. Consensus of science means nobody is 100% sure but they have to pay homage to the givers of resources.

 

[wellwisher]

Here is a graph that shows atmospheric CO2 for the last 60 years. One can see that one year would not get us back to where we used to be.

Now, do you know how we know that increase is due to man?

The earth has had higher CO2 levels in the past.
The quote below if from this link; A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time | Earth.Org

The most distant period in time for which we have estimated CO2 levels is around the Ordovician period, 500 million years ago. At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm! The average temperature wasn’t much more than 10 degrees C above today’s, and those of you who have heard of the runaway hothouse Earth scenario may wonder why it didn’t happen then. Major factors were that the Sun was cooler, and the planet’s orbital cycles were different.

I can see how they can measure CO2 from rocks from 500 million years ago, but I am not sure how you can know the sun was cooler except by simulations. The main point is CO2 is the not the only variable. There appears to be other variables that can counter the expected greenhouse affect from CO2. Today we are at a whopping 420 PPM while the earth has been somewhere between 3000-9000 ppm. Why wasn't the earth 150 degrees?

The graph in graph supplied by Subduction Zone is interesting in that it shows the seasonal variable of CO2. The CO2 drops in the warm weather; Northern Hemisphere, and rises in the cold weather. The latter is due to fewer active plants and more snow than rain. In the warm weather, rain can scrub the CO2 and allow it to react with silicates in the soil; carbon fixation. While active plants in the warm weather also fix CO2. Snow is not reactive the same way as liquid water, and inactive plants do have much photosynthesis.

Seasonal variation and the importance of active plants tells me that the expansion of civilization and defoliation is reducing the total carbon fixation by plant life. This will cause CO2 to rise.

In 1800 there were 1 billion people on earth and now there are 7 billion people. That is a lot of new houses, farms and commercial real estate. Wood and trees have played a major role in this human progress, for more and more people. The CO2 increase is also due to less natural CO2 fixation as we take down old world forest. If we have to give up fossil fuels maybe we need also give up wood products and chopping down wood environments. We also need to prevent forest fires since these are a double loss; add CO2 and lower carbon fixation.

If we were to stop manmade CO2 production, while still using chopping down trees for wood, the loss of plant CO2 fixation will cause the CO2 to keep rising from natural sources.

Here is an interesting graph from NOAA; Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases
It shows that fire is second leading cause of CO2 and carbon emissions. What it does not show is how the loss of plant life in forest fires makes the green part of the graph get smaller. If the amount below zero gets smaller the CO2 rises even if we do nothing different.

If you look from 2014 to 2016 the green part of the plot got smaller by a large amount. For some reason the earth's land was not absorbing carbon via its soils and trees by a large amount. The oceans were flat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The earth has had higher CO2 levels in the past.
The quote below if from this link; A Graphical History of Atmospheric CO2 Levels Over Time | Earth.Org

The most distant period in time for which we have estimated CO2 levels is around the Ordovician period, 500 million years ago. At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm! The average temperature wasn’t much more than 10 degrees C above today’s, and those of you who have heard of the runaway hothouse Earth scenario may wonder why it didn’t happen then. Major factors were that the Sun was cooler, and the planet’s orbital cycles were different.

I can see how they can measure CO2 from rocks from 500 million years ago, but I am not sure how you can know the sun was cooler except by simulations. The main point is CO2 is the not the only variable. There appears to be other variables that can counter the expected greenhouse affect from CO2. Today we are at a whopping 420 PPM while the earth has been somewhere between 3000-9000 ppm. Why wasn't the earth 150 degrees?

The graph in graph supplied by Subduction Zone is interesting in that it shows the seasonal variable of CO2. The CO2 drops in the warm weather; Northern Hemisphere, and rises in the cold weather. The latter is due to fewer active plants and more snow than rain. In the warm weather, rain can scrub the CO2 and allow it to react with silicates in the soil; carbon fixation. While active plants in the warm weather also fix CO2. Snow is not reactive the same way as liquid water, and inactive plants do have much photosynthesis.

Seasonal variation and the importance of active plants tells me that the expansion of civilization and defoliation is reducing the total carbon fixation by plant life. This will cause CO2 to rise.

In 1800 there were 1 billion people on earth and now there are 7 billion people. That is a lot of new houses, farms and commercial real estate. Wood and trees have played a major role in this human progress, for more and more people. The CO2 increase is also due to less natural CO2 fixation as we take down old world forest. If we have to give up fossil fuels maybe we need also give up wood products and chopping down wood environments. We also need to prevent forest fires since these are a double loss; add CO2 and lower carbon fixation.

If we were to stop manmade CO2 production, while still using chopping down trees for wood, the loss of plant CO2 fixation will cause the CO2 to keep rising from natural sources.

Here is an interesting graph from NOAA; Global Monitoring Laboratory - Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases
It shows that fire is second leading cause of CO2 and carbon emissions. What it does not show is how the loss of plant life in forest fires makes the green part of the graph get smaller. If the amount below zero gets smaller the CO2 rises even if we do nothing different.

If you look from 2014 to 2016 the green part of the plot got smaller by a large amount. For some reason the earth's land was not absorbing carbon via its soils and trees by a large amount. The oceans were flat.

Why do you start your replies with pointless claims that only demonstrate your ignorance and science denial? Do you think the people you are responding to are ignorant of that?

And yes, we know about natural sources of carbon too. That should tell you something too. You should be asking yourself "How do they know that it is manmade?"

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree with this, but it does not tell the whole story. Science is not self sufficient when it comes to the resources that are needed to do science. It is beholden onto others, such as Government, Business and Private citizens for donations. The givers of money have some say in terms do what research that will be funded. The money giver can stack the deck in terms of their favored experiments and therefore favored publications. It will still be good science, either way. Two scientists with opposite approaches can both do good science, but one may be favored by those who provide funding. Getting funding is competitive.

As an example, former President Obama decreased funding to NASA when he came to office. Just because less research could be done and many future experiments were put on hold, did not mean the space science was debunked. The money givers can impact the amount/direction of the output. How much money goes to manmade climate research and how much is given to alternatives? Whoever has more funding will publish more since all is good science.

If you were a scientist working for a tobacco company, you would never be asked to research and publish the pitfalls of cigarettes. That would be a good science project, but with potential adverse political and economic impact. You are expected to do good science, but only if it carries their water. This is what you are being paid for when you signed that contract. If you show that you are a good team player, you will get promoted. Go against the company politics and you will be overlooked at best and fired at worse. This last thing was popular via let wing protests of good scientists not with the program. That is not science but connected to the politics of money giving which can even fund protesters.

It is unscientific to blank deny any approach to the problem; manmade or natural, since science is not suppose to be political. We often learn even from mistakes. It is not about consensus. Consensus is connected to opinion; Pepsi or Coke, which is not the goal of science. Science seeks to establish the truth and the whole truth. We do not need to take a vote that the apple will fall downward. This is self evident. Consensus of science means nobody is 100% sure but they have to pay homage to the givers of resources.

There is no conspiracy or even apparent bias by scholars. An honest person that is willing to learn can understand the basics of AGW.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Try again.

It's not hard to understand.
You can work it out on the back of an envelope.

I think you need to "try again", but you only want to stick to your "scientific guff"
It is very arrogant to think that mankind has all the answers [ i.e. "science" ],
when it is mankind who is causing the catastrophe in the first place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not hard to understand.
You can work it out on the back of an envelope.

I think you need to "try again", but you only want to stick to your "scientific guff"
It is very arrogant to think that mankind has all the answers [ i.e. "science" ],
when it is mankind who is causing the catastrophe in the first place.

That's funny. You claim that anyone can work out the answers but refuse to give them yourself.

And science is very useful. It can answer far more questions than holy books can. It also has something that you lack. Evidence. English may be your first language but you do not understand what evidence is the way that a lawyer, a historian, or a scientist would.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It also has something that you lack. Evidence..

The only evidence you're interested in is that which suits you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only evidence you're interested in is that which suits you.

I am only interested in real evidence. You are right there. You do not appear to have any reliable evidence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You do not appear to have any reliable evidence.

Why do you keep repeating these platitudes..

I often quote wiki .. isn't that good enough for you?
If not, what is???