Slashdot Mirror
Mathematical Formula Predicts Global Mass Extinction Event in 2100 (vice.com)
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.
there was a whole lot of shareholder value created before the extinction period hit.
I cannot believe how freaked out everyone is about carbon, when it is a basic and abundant element of the planet... 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.
The entire ecosystem of the Earth is built to process carbon, to consume carbon, to use carbon to sustain life. 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...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
We just need to keep phasing out inefficient dirty kid-killing polluting fossil fuels.
It's not that hard.
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.
We can - and are - changing. Fast.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
We must save our knowledge with a library on a remote planet.
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)
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
I prefer carbon-neutral, fully organic and analog "Doom is here!" signs held on the street corner. Mathematical formulas have too much negative impact on the environment.
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.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
That's puzzle #6 in "The Population Explosion and Other Mathematical Puzzles" by Dick Hess.
"Nobody gets rich betting on the apocalypse." At least that's what my dad would say whenever I start spouting tinfoil-hat end-of-the-world chicken little BS. I don't really care though, I'll be long dead by then. In the meantime, you guys can pave the planet. *shrug*
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 are the climate models that are completely wrong that are used as the basis for doomsday scenarios. When the scenarios don't come true, anybody with the temerity to point out that the Human Race hasn't gone extinct is attacked for being anti-science because some *completely different climate model* didn't predict doomsday. Therefore: 1. The models were *always* right (because they predicted every possible outcome and one of the outcomes happened). And 2. If you disagree with our *new* Doomsday prediction then you must be anti-science because guess what... the models are *always* right (see above where the "correct" model that didn't predict Doomsday turned out to be correct).
However, even with the usual propaganda machine in full swing it's hard to literally predict a mass extinction in 2015 and then accuse everyone who points our your inaccuracy in 2017 of being an anti-science big oil shill. So instead they've just pushed the Doomsday date far enough out into the future that they won't have to worry about it. Well played, well played.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
So why should I change my behavior?
How many people just aren't buying this doom and gloom?
We don't have to worry because the Singularity will happen by 2045.
https://futurism.com/kurzweil-claims-that-the-singularity-will-happen-by-2045/
This is the slightly more complicated version of the "Christian Numerologist" (what ever the hell that is) who predicts the world will end this Saturday.
We're in the middle of a mass extinction event already, how is this one 83 years in the future going to be different?
I read the internet for the articles.
the Republitards and their conservitard lackeys, because they are too stupid to notice! To them, none of this is real anyway. They can just go on blithely ignoring reality, just like they already do. Lucky bastards. It really sucks that the skiing is still just as good for them, and the coral just as vibrant, as it has always been. In my world the skiing has deteriorated considerably, and the reefs where we snorkel are all getting bleached (dead). Oh, to be as blissfully idiotic and they are. It would be a such a blessing!
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.
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?
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Youpeee, we will not need to buy bottled carbonated water. We can just take from the oceans!
Prince? He dead! Goofball done suicided hizelf!
You want to stop ths from happening? You have to change hearts and minds of pretty much everyone on the planet, first. Good luck with that, by the way. We can't get people to stop doing much simpler things (like killing each other over stupid things like this-or-that-so-called-god, or the color of someones skin, and so on) so I don't expect you'll get much traction over something that's going to happen a full lifetime in the future. What'll happen instead, is people will have their hearts and minds change when things get so bad that they can't ignore it anymore -- and even then some of the greedier piece of shit people will still be trying to rob everyone, and of course the religious zealot types will just be talking about it being 'gods will', and trying to recruit people into their stupid faith. Seriously, 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.
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 (or a cascade event) to change virtually everything and render the model moot....
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), 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....
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/...). Depends on whether you call that a "tiny fraction."
But, indeed, the natural greenhouse effect of about 30C (ref) 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.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
What if we banned manufacturing in nations like China where pollution is almost totally uncontrolled? Instead we would require manufacturing to take place in first world nations where emissions can be reliably managed. Our corporations obviously see developing nations as a mere resource to be exploited without regard.
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
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
What a bold claim to make knowing you will be dead long before the year 2100, Daniel Rothman at MIT.
Perhaps we have to have some event occur so we all get the clue. Some of us will survive. Earth will better off as soon as it gets this extinction started.
"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...
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 Ordovicianâ"Silurian extinction events 439 million years ago
So the 'extinction events' are approx 65mya, 200mya, 250 mya, 360mya, and 440 mya?
Then we look in https://wattsupwiththat.com/20... for this: (CO2 vs time chart) https://wattsupwiththat.files.... ...which shows us (purple line) ...no clear correlation at all. CERTAINLY not that CO2 changes have been associated with "ALL PREVIOUS MASS EXTINCTIONS". That's bullshit.
65 mya- no CO2 spike (it had been falling steadily 60+ million years)
200 mya- yes CO2 spike
250 mya- no CO2 spike (it had been steady for about 60+ million years)
360 mya- no CO2 spike (a spike about 20my before this, though)
440 mya- CO2 rise over previous 20 my
In fact, that chart shows that current CO2 levels are much lower than the bulk of the last 500 million years.
Further, this chart would serve as pretty serious disputation of ANY correlation between CO2 and warming, frankly. CO2 spikes seem to result in no impact to temperature or plummeting temperatures.
-Styopa
This is all about money, always has been, always will be.
"To perform these [Studies of the modern carbon cycle] tasks, the project expects to need significant resources. Specifically, studies of the modern carbon cycle will require about 15 teams devoted to laboratory and field investigations. Analyses of past events will require about another 15 teams for sample acquisition and geochemical analyses. New theory and related modeling to motivate and support the entire effort will require an additional 10 teams. An average of $2.5M/year for each team would result in a $1B, ten-year project. The outcome would be a fundamental understanding of carbon cycle dynamics, revolutionizing earth and environmental science and resulting in a comprehensive, objective evaluation of the long-term risks of modern environmental change. This is necessarily an extraordinary opportunity for enlightened philanthropy, since a project of this scope could not be funded from public resources." from http://www.sciencephilanthropy...
The kooky AGW nuts in the govt/IPCC with their "forcing/feedback" algorithms off by an order of magnitude are doing the same thing. They want giant sums of money, all the while they (NCDC) are manipulating the weather records in HCN, or making bogus studies based on badly situated weather stations situated next to a heat sink. Next thing you know, we'll see one of these weather stations placed next to a nuclear reactor to cook the books further
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:
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 warming is needed to release them, to know what the effect is. Maybe they're stable, and we don't have to worry about them.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You said:
Anyway, when this gel reaches a certain temperature
Article Said:
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,
So which is it? Warming from atmosphere affecting the water (which if you understood anything you'd know how laughable it is the current warming would be nearly enough to do what you say) or carbon added to the oceans? You death culters cannot even keep your story straight. What a bunch of scare-mongering retards you all are.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You said:
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.
Article Said:
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,
So which is it? Warming from atmosphere affecting the water or carbon added to the oceans? You death culters cannot even keep your story straight. What a bunch of scare-mongering retards you all are. Your claim you understand science at all well is pretty laughable given you can't even pass this simple test of comprehension and consistency. It's like you are arguing we are all doomed based on the average color of loafers people are buying.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That is the other reason why it's insane to listen to the death cultists. Who here believes the use of solar and other alternative energy will not increase massively by 2100? That target they are claiming we will reach is a bald-faced lie, put forth to scare people. The simple natural shift to using alternative energies pushes that tip-over date out to infinity, but they will never admit that because then you would not feel FEAR FEAR FEAR they want you to feel, in order to control your actions and choices.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Wait, is SuperKendal really Trump thinking he's on Twitter in the middle of the night?
These are classic examples of "straw man" arguments: 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 straw-man arguments that nobody makes. It doesn't help the argument.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
...but hey, I'll let ya know.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
At least there won't be any more incessant bitching, moaning and complaining afterwards because that makes for a happy life.
We'll make great pets
They throw that term in to make it seem really "scientific" when in reality it is just another model customized to produce a predetermined outcome.
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.
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.
The surface waters are more-or-less saturated, the deep ocean doesn't turn over quickly enough for that to happen. If it did, we would not need to worry about global warming, as there would be no way for it to build up in the atmosphere. Since we observe the opposite (and the rate of increase is increasing), we can conclude that the ocean's capacity to buffer the increased atmospheric carbon is insufficient. On the long term, I believe silicate weathering is considered likely to dispose of the bulk of the excess carbon, but the deep oceans will also presumably take their share, assuming that we don't manage to end the deep ocean circulation entirely.
...raise taxes, reduce consumption, impose restrictions....all for the masses. Never the politicians and the rich people.
Algore will still live in his giant mansion, Leo will still fly around in his private jet, and the Envirowackos will continue to say it's not enough.
The mass extinction is already happening. Has been going on for several centuries. It has accelerated over the last century. Most species of large mammals will be extinct in the wild by the end of this century.
Can't we just light a match when the methane bubbles up from the oceans?
Finally done with this shithole called Slashdot.
Verification: excrete
Fucking morons.
Even when you die, you are still alive somewhere. Watch Serial Experiments Lain that documents the reality, Someone is always prepared to bring you back to life be it in another dimension or time.
We'll all be robots by then.
"...based on projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..."
Ah well, there you go. We have nothing to worry about. Those folks haven't gotten anything right.
We must immediately raise taxes and reduce population to lower consumption in order to defeat this horrible potential outcome. /s
Or was that Edgar Cayce?
I love how the same old garbage can be dressed up as math or science.
I mean, why not, eh? You'll die one day anyway, so nothing lost.
"So long and thanks for the fish"
I'm not into joining any cult thanks.
However it should be pointed out you are by far the dumber of the two cult groups.
I mean, any large modern religion - you cannot prove nor disprove whatever they believe in. 72 virgins after you die killing infidels? Why not. Heaven/Hell reward/punishment system? Sure, could be. So it's kind of nonsensical to argue about it, and people believe what they will.
But you, you AGW cultist acolytes - you are dumb as a forest of clear-cut stumps. You believe in something (end result of whatever == disaster) that keeps being disproved, then they change what the disaster is supposed to be in response, then you insist on believing THAT until it too is eventually disproved. Note I'm not saying the planet is not warming, or that CO2 has not increased- THOSE things are true things. But atop the true things you have build a cult of lies and punishment and hate, fearing a disaster that will never come. The ironic thing is, you are already living *a* disaster - your very being is being consumed by others for their pleasure and benefit.
I mean, if you were trying to put together a group of the most gullible and easily led people on the planet, I do not believe you could do a better job than your AGW priests have managed to this date. It is truly inspiring to see how many sheep they have created out of rational beings; my hats are off to them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And when this prediction fails (does anyone actually give it serious credit?), he will go away, adjust his fudge factor and be back the next time he craves attention.
I'm going to hatch and be back as an Haibane !
load of shit
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.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
reminds me of Nightfall. Gotta love those stars!
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.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The posted article and the moththerboard referral state "310 gigatons". What's a Gigaton?
The paper doesn't state "gigatons" but actually references "Pg C" which looks like "Petagrams of Carbon". The following article explains what "Pg C" is, and it looks la "gigaton" is 10^9 1000-kilogram metric tons.
http://how-it-looks.blogspot.com/2011/07/petagrams-of-carbon.html
But these are just numbers, right? Explaining it in a meaningful way to Joe Six Pack while his fingers are in his ears is something else entirely.
There's a group out there who have run the numbers and find the world will be vaporized this Saturday, September 23, 2017, because a hidden planet will come by and do the job. 2100? Enjoy the next few days because 2100 will never get here.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Another study says it will take until 2300 AD for the C02 levels to rise to that of 420 million years ago, when life flourished. Sorry levels in 2100 aren't going to end the world. https://www.scientificamerican...
I am for GW but can we stop acting like the end of the world is just around the corner.
If a current BBC article http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170918-the-ships-that-could-change-the-seas-forever is to be believed, the way we move all our consumer products around is what is really doing us in.
In the article it says if you take 16 of the largest ships today, that's what our cars all output. They link this article, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html but yeah, 16 largest ships = all cars output. Not sure if that includes all land activity or just non commercial drivers.
Still, it essentially says our shipping industry is destroying our planet. That alone should be reason enough to be making the majority of goods as locally as possible. We as a society may very well have decided to let the capitalist kill the planet off. It wasn't intentional, but they didn't exactly care if it meant they went out of business.
This is slash dot. And nobody has noticed that robots are becoming smarter.
By about 2100, human beings will be obsolete technology. The robots will no longer need us to program them.
At that point they will deal with human overpopulation for us.
It has already happened before, saw it on this documentary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_(Asimov_novel)
This is not news. Isaac Asimov predicted this in 1951.
Hari Seldon laid out the groundwork of psycho-history.
....Predicts the end if the world (over and over) it's a big deal. How is this different than the numerologist predicting the end?
We should increase our carbon output so we can accelerate the extinction event. Or we could just nuke ourselves.
Letâ(TM)s end ourselves before we spread the human cancer to other planets.
And then there's morons like you who will find any excuse to not change a single aspect of their selfish and gluttonous lifestyles
I am quite sure not only do I lead a far more austere lifestyle than most people here, but I also do a LOT more directly to help clean the environment than the lot of you tubsters combined. The difference between us is, I actually care about POLLUTION whereas you mostly care about CO2, which is in fact the opposite of pollution... by caring about the wrong thing, you have allow irreparable harm to come to the environment the world over.
Shame on you, and the rest of your side-effect polluting death-cultists. I do believe in Karma, and your horrific (if inadvertent) destruction of the environment will not pass without eventual cost to yourself, of that I am sure.
So I don't give a FUCK
True, in infinite universes I'm raping you in the ass right now.
Climate change now accelerats to 1 degree per HOUR!!!!
As the Sun cums up, the earth's temperature goes up
average 1 degree per hour. And when then Sun cums
down, the globe cools 1 degree per hour.
Climate is changing every hour!
Awe noooo! This is making me crispy and toasted.
Can I have a bacon sandwich to top it all off?
3/4 of the earth's surface is water. What will happen if water is no longer water?
I question your use of the word 'reality.'
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
It is well known that that warming causes CO2 to come out of the oceans. That is the chief reason we have higher CO2 levels than in the past. So if CO2 in the oceans is the culprit, warming the earth more is the only solution.
People have been predicting the end of the world since we first got here. This is nothing new, and each group carries an agenda. The current agenda is to get you to give up your comfortable lifestyle and live with less.
* 2014 - Blood Moon Prophacy
* 2013 Rasputin claimed a storm would wipe out earth
* 2012 (just think bad movie with John Cusack).
* 2012 Roland Weinland said Jesus would end us.
* 2011 Comet Elenin was supposed to end us.
* 2011 Harold Camping's 2nd date of destruction after the first one passed without incident.
And so on all the way back to 66 BC Which a Jewish group claimed a battle would end humanity.
Doing some napkin math says I'll be dead, so ....
Nothing to see here, move along.
I question your use of the word 'reality.'
lol, that's all you needed to say
I'll be long dead by that time anyhow. It will be someone else's problem.
Uh......have you ever even read a scientific paper in your life? You have a lot of rage there.
I don't know about megion, but I've spent my life around scientists (and, for that matter, published more than a few papers myself, some of them even about atmospheric science, although to be fair, my main planet is Mars, not Earth.)
The discussion seems to have shifted from science to randomly insulting people, though, so I think that this discussion is over.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
so... in 2100 there is no net gain or loss on intelligent life?
At this point there are thousands of them generated every year. And most of them fail by the end of said year. Occasionally we get one that last two, maybe three years but all eventually fail and have to be replaced with someone else's climate model. Why do we keep putting stock in something that has proven itself to be unreliable?
A mass extinction event could happen at ANY time. That has ALWAYS been the case. Sleep tight folks.
... Is it me, or is the world ending more frequently these days?
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
but that should be enough to delete all mathematical formulas.
If the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a panel known to aggressively fund research that generates the most alarming and sensationalist predictions, doesn't think we will 'poison the waters with enough carbon' until 2100, a little less than 100 years from now, then we are in pretty good shape! Not only have we as humans already collectively been making enough change (beating our own governments goals for increasing solar panel production, and reducing alternative energy costs) to slowly halt the ongoing effects of climate change, with new emerging technologies such as improved energy storage, tomahawk fusion reactors that actually work, and god knows what we will invent tomorrow... we will probably reverse the course of ocean acidification by 2050!
very astute, you uncovered all three vast world conspiracies. You win a hummer that's been stripped of all emissions control equipment, enjoy!
I don't know about megion, but I've spent my life around scientists
Likewise, the quality of your posts and thought tends to be significantly higher than meglon's. It is very obvious that you have read scientific papers, and not surprising that you've written them. In meglon's case, it is not at all clear, his post doesn't even reference science, and his post is full of rage. I was in fact genuinely interested if he had ever read a scientific paper, and if he had, then that at least is something that can be built on.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
...said everyone born before about 1999.
These threats of gloom and doom do no good, as obviated by the fact that people haven't rounded up and shot all the super-rich fucks responsible for the bulk of this shit. Of course, the guilt is pretty well spread throughout most people who live in developed and even some undeveloped or underdeveloped countries... so that better explains why no one is doing shit at this point. To be fair.
Slight problem with their theory. The oceans are not currently absorbing CO2. They're releasing it into the atmosphere. As oceans warm, their ability to hold CO2 decreases. So, yeah, if the oceans start trapping too much CO2, we're headed for a mass extinction event... It's called an ICE AGE!