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.
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
"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.
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?
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.
I read the internet for the articles.
Rivers are built to transport water but if you put too much water in them you're still gonna have a bad time.
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.
I don't know what is worse, your comment full of dumb or the fact you got modded up for it.
Here's the reason:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
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
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.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Want to take part in a small experiment, then? Here, put this CPAP mask on your face, there you go. Now, I'll open the valve on this cylinder of gas, and you breathe deeply, okay? What's that? Oh, no worries, really, the risk is small, the gas is 50% pure oxygen and 50% pure carbon.. So, let's open the valve.. (a minute passes) SuperKendall, why are you asleep? Are you bored? Wake up, buddy, we're not done with the experiment yet!
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.
When has anybody advocated anything like that? The only thing I've seen advocated was alternative solutions to the same energy issues.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I'll be dead anyway so why should I change my behavior?
This is the pinnacle of selfishness.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
So, no links to support it.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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
hmm, if only there were these plants that could grow and used carbon dioxide as fuel......
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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).
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
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
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. 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.
But based on SuperKendall's logic, methane is good because it comes out of kittens' asses.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"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
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, to contribute something to solving overpopulation" - Prince Philip, 1988
That's what they think of you.
As usual, someone misinterprets data for their own personal agenda. When the ratios of C02 and/or light are changed, plants food production changes. Increasing light or C02 makes plants create more sugar and less vitamins , proteins and important nutrients. Plants are becoming less and less nutritious as the C02 level raises.
http://grist.org/briefly/veggi...
Manufacturing is extremely energy intensive, it's where most of the end cost often resides. Renewables will not even put a dent in the armor of that massive energy demand, and price is obscene. The solution is next generation nuclear, it's the only clean source of power that can meet demand and do it safely. China is already working on it but regulatory bodies in the US are obstructing progress and refusing to do their job.
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?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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
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.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Most of them. And if you don't you're a racist and something should be done about you.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Do your own searches, lame ones.
OK, I did. Shockingly, you're completely full of shit.
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]
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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...
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...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Quite full of yourself, aren't you?
-- Cheers!
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.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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?
We'll make great pets
The OP is making an Appeal to Stupidity. 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.
We'll make great pets
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.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
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
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%).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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?
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
...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
let them eat.. kelp?
Considering how badly the elites simply want to eradicate roughly 90% us from the Earth
I hope you're seeing a professional, licenses psychologist. You've got some serious issues.
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
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.
That's demonstrably false. None of the world's major automakers are selling anywhere near a majority of their vehicles as electric or hybrids.
I don't respond to AC's.
So, no links to support it...
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Good thing plants are what food eats!
Can't we just light a match when the methane bubbles up from the oceans?
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 doesn't benefit from more CO2, and is also potentially harmed by acidity.
There are probably other effects on ocean life as well. A greenhouse isn't a useful analogy.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
My brain runs on sugar, you insensitive clod!
There is no information on Bloomberg (or anywhere that I can find) to support your statements. You are wrong. The largest automakers in the world are not selling many electric cars right now, and will not be in 2018.
https://cleantechnica.com/2017...
I don't respond to AC's.
Well, for some of us it's a lot more minutes than others... Then there's the whole oxygen tank thing. Then there's the matter of once someone tries long enough, anyone can be revived. LaGrange!
Considering how badly the elites simply want to eradicate roughly 90% us from the Earth...
Ok grandpa, time for bed.
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!
Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
Unlike you, I actually watch the TV show, and get the podcasts and get the Twitter tweets from them.
The largest manufacturers of electric cars are in China.
BMW, Audi, VW, Ford, Chevy, and all other US and UK and German or Italian manufacturers are producing electrics in the 2018 model year. They have no choice in the matter. Whether they will be available in the US outside of the 17 clean air compact states is a separate issue. It is expected you won't be informed it's a plug-in electric model in the US for marketing reasons. But it is. That's marketing, not production.
Try getting your news from non-US sources for once. There's an entire world out there, and it doesn't care about whether or not you export vehicles or not. It will provide supply.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Or was that Edgar Cayce?
I love how the same old garbage can be dressed up as math or science.
You should evolve so it runs on multiple things... caffeine, nachos and pizza are all readily available.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
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.
What ridiculous is the stupidly simple arguments that some humans make. Look, be as stupid as you want to be, just don't expect everyone else to be as stupid as you are,
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
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.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
And yet those "bigger" plants are less nutritious by biomass. So, you need to eat even more of them to get the same amount of minerals and vitamins.
To some, yes. The real question is, will brain-death really change anything in his life?
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
"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/...
Hmm.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Take a quarter and go buy a clue, you obviously don't have one.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
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.
You are an elephant. Look it up! I'm not going to do your research for you.
I don't respond to AC's.
You are comparing 1912-2017 apples to 2017-2018 oranges.
Nobody is taking away your existing vehicles.
Nobody is stopping you from paying more and more at the pump.
Nobody is forcing you to buy an electric or hybrid car or truck.
But. The electrics will be cheaper by the 3rd model year (just look at the internal forecasts) than the gasoline versions.
And in many countries you won't be able to expense fleet purchases of vehicles if they aren't green. Or pass emissions tests.
It depends on which country you do business in. If it's Norway, you're going to have to adapt fast. If it's the USA, you probably have a few years. If it's Canada or Mexico you will notice the shift this coming year. If it's China ... well, let me just say it's going to be fun watching the effects.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Actually it'd be "most of the really stupid ones." And stupidity doesn't solve problems. They're not racist, they're just really fucking stupid. You don't go to an auto mechanic when you start having chest pains; you shouldn't go to an inbred, intentionally stupid, uneducated twat about matters of science.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
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?)
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.
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?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
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
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
It's because you are. The World Heath Organization has kept track of declining birth rates since the 50s. Current models show three possible scenarios for the future: Virtually no change in total world population (Around 9bn), an additional 2 billion people (incredibly unlikely), or a decline in population to 3 billion people. Seriously, look it up. There are professional organizations that keep track of this shit. These projections are for 100 years from now, but this is something that needs to be discussed now. When the baby boomers finally do die off, you'll see a change in the narrative from over to under population. Not good news for an economic system that depends on an ever increasing population.
Not to mention that in twenty-thirty years, the prices will be unbeatable by pretty much anything.
Ezekiel 23:20
3 billion? How is that an issue? 1 billion is more than plenty.
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.
The ocean is a buffered solution. It's average pH isn't going to wonder off into extremes as you suggest. ... but they can also have none if it has been used up). So, just because a water mass is cold it does not mean it has a lot of dissolved gases. This concept is a little tricky but just remember that the amount of dissolved gases in seawater depends more on the types of life forms (plants and animals) that are present and their relative proportions. ...
http://www.marinebio.net/marin...
"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 there are a large number of plants in a marine water mass then the oxygen levels can be quite high during the day. If there are few plants but a large number of animals in a marine water mass then the oxygen levels can be quite low. Oxygen is measured in parts per million (also called ppm) and levels can range from zero to over 20 ppm in temperate waters. It only reaches 20 when there are a lot of plants in the water, it is very sunny with lots of nutrients, and the wind is whipping up the surface into a froth. In any water mass there is a maximum amount of dissolved gas that can be found (after which the gas no longer dissolves but bubbles to the surface). This maximum amount increases with a decrease in temperature (thus cold water masses can hold more dissolved gases
pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a substance and is one of the stable measurements in seawater. Ocean water has an excellent buffering system with the interaction of carbon dioxide and water so that it is generally always at a pH of 7.5 to 8.5. Neutral water is a pH of 7 while acidic substances are less than 7 (down to 1, which is highly acidic) and alkaline substances are more than 7 (up to 14, which is highly alkaline). Anything either highly acid or alkaline would kill marine life but the oceans are very stable with regard to pH. If seawater was out of normal range (7.5-8.5) then something would be horribly wrong. "
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
These papers have been coming out http://www.stat.washington.edu...">for a while, and they will keep coming out. Eventually scientists will come up with explanations for why the models are wrong, and will fix them. Seriously, do you look at this and say, "Oh yeah, that's right"? If so, what is wrong with you?
btw, if you think the cause was volcanoes and solar activity, http://www.academia.edu/421041...">this paper talks to you. You'll have to find some other explanation. ENSO doesn't work as an explanation either, since it's oscillated both ways over that time period. Specifically (quoting from the paper):
a significant increase in recent volcanic activity has not been recorded, while variations in solar insolation or activity still require rather speculative amplification mechanisms that could contribute to the observed recentdecrease in global warming
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Dang it, messed up two of those links. Here they are fixed for your convenience:
Paper 2
Paper 3.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
A lot of that is because most people think in binary, either/or, 100 percent use or 0 percent use. Reality is a spectrum, a Case statement, with gradients from 100 percent (destruction), to 80 percent (give neighbor a ride in car or truck), to 50 percent (recycle some stuff or go to yard sales, grow some stuff), to 20 percent (hippies), to 2 percent (how most of the world lives, where you get one light in a one room house).
You can save a lot of money moving from 80 to 50 percent, replacing old fridge or freezer with a modern one that uses much less energy and is quieter, replacing your Harvey-damaged car with a hybrid or electric car or truck. This massively reduces resources. Especially when done by Americans and Europeans, who use the most resources per person.
Corporations can do, and are doing, the same. Building new buildings to use renewable energy, at anywhere from 10 to 25 percent what it used to cost for fossil fuels, using electric trucks and train shipments, operating new factories in the dark where there are only robots. Decent, hardworking, taxpaying American robots, educated by American robot schools, working in the dark.
Oh. wait.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
Solution: Giant methane scrubbers! I see a sci-fi film...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
A buffered system isn't immune to change in pH, it just is more stable than one that isn't buffered. Do you remember titrations in chem class? The scenario detailed in the linked article involves the buffering capacity being exceeded, at which point further climb will be linear and unconstrained by buffering.
AGW is truly complicated. I have no doubt that things are changing and as a result there will be many challenges in the future. I'm also pretty sure these experts are making wild guesses based on a lot of assumptions that may not be true. Models change continuously and they're all over the place. This kind of "the sky is falling" stuff is exactly why people are so skeptical. People may not know the science but they know these people don't really know anything for certain.
Another absurd armchair climatologist who thinks he's smarter than actual scientists.
If only there weren't countless specialized ecosystems that have been delicately balanced over millions of years that can't react fast enough to the amount of climate change that we are causing.
And then there's morons like you who will find any excuse to not change a single aspect of their selfish and gluttonous lifestyles because their pride and ego won't let them. For some reason they need to prove to everyone how immutable they are because they lack any real character and have nothing else to base their identity on.
Really the level of intelligence being demonstrated here is so low as to be almost unbelievable!
In case you really don't have a clue: carbon dioxide is put into the atmosphere, and is absorbed by the oceans from the atmosphere. So they BOTH go up. Not sure why you think there is some requirement that one go up and the other down.
Starting in 2018 more than 80 percent of all cars and trucks sold worldwide will be electric or plug-in hybrids
Um either you did a typo or you are pretty wrong there. I would suspect 20 percent at most, maybe you got the percentage reversed?
He did say "plug-in hybrids" which are gettng pretty popular. Nowhere near 80% by any stretch of the imagination, but a lot more than your electric-car percentage.
Even 8% sounds impressively high, but if that is what he found it explains the typo. I find it hard to believe he actually thinks 80% is correct.
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 models don't match closely to what we observe, we want to know why, so that we can improve them. From your own first link (again):
..both internal variability and external forcing contribute to the ‘slowdown’. The externally forced contribution is due to the combined cooling effects of a succession of moderate early twenty-first century eruptions, a long and anomalously low solar minimum during the last solar cycle, increased atmospheric burdens of anthropogenic sulfate aerosols, and a decrease in stratospheric water vapour
As you point out, internal variability (ENSO etc) alone is very unlikely to account for the discrepancies, but your own citation says that internal variability and the short-term external forcings listed above are responsible for the so-called "pause" (in tropospheric warming specifically), and the models do not adequately account for these (again, no surprise to actual climatologists). Meanwhile, other (and more important) climate models are tracking nicely; for example, "ocean warming estimates over a range of times and depths agree well with results from the latest generation of climate models" (which is accelerating rapidly).
if you think the cause was volcanoes and solar activity, this paper talks to you. You'll have to find some other explanation.
So when your first link from 2017 explicitly calls out volcanoes and solar activity (among other things) as significant factors, you cite a paper from 2013 (four years out of date) to claim that it can't be those - despite that same paper explicitly not ruling out external forcings like those as being a factor. You really need to read your own citations more closely.
Seriously, do you look at this and say, "Oh yeah, that's right"? If so, what is wrong with you?
I look at that and say, "I see it's 5 years out of date, big surprise". Then I say "what is that graph even representing? There's no labels". Then I look at more up-to-date data. (NB I'm assuming from your example that you're fine with linking to images on blogs, but at least try to use something current and well-sourced?)
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
The obvious solution is to exterminate the fungi that figured out how to metabolize lignin, and return us to a new Carboniferous era. Giant dragonflies are cool, plus we get free coal out of it in just a few hundred million years!
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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.
What the hell are you smoking?
Greenhouse veggies taste like carton.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
3/4 of the earth's surface is water. What will happen if water is no longer water?
I can write a formula to predict the world is going to end tomorrow. It doesn't mean it will be correct. Sadly, some will take these results as gospel and will suggest we base policies on these results.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I question your use of the word 'reality.'
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
never mind whatever we are adding in being a tiny fraction of what it is already.
Perhaps you don't know the maths very well, but we're currently emitting CO2 at an annual rate equal to 1% the total current atmospheric CO2. Even if we only maintain that rate we'll double atmospheric CO2 in 70 years. If it were to increase to just 1.1% the doubling time would be 64 years, and so on...
The entire ecosystem of the Earth is built to process carbon, to consume carbon, to use carbon to sustain life.
Then why has atmospheric CO2 levels risen from 300 to 400ppm over the last 100 years? If the ecosystem was able to process the extra carbon then why is the level not steady?
It's epicycles all over again.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
As usual, someone misinterprets data for their own personal agenda.
Exactly like this mathematical model - it's not based on facts, it's based on interpretation of facts.
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
So, no links to support it...
Sir, I believe you've found yourself a troll!
I doubt any policy changes are coming from this one particular algorithm. The preponderance of evidence from hundreds of studies over many decades conducted by thousands of scientists - that is what should, and will, hold sway.
reality is this way.
we encourage you to join it.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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
Basically you have to time the prediction such that you earn all your profits from the prediction before the predicted time comes. In the case of this prediction of yours, if you earn all your profits before tomorrow, your problem is solved.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I don't know who thenewamerican is, but they don't seem to be a very reliable source; they seem to have an axe to grind. A difficulty with many of these political sites is that they cherry-pick predictions, and for that matter cherry-pick data, on the assumption that nobody will check them. Better to go back to the original sources.
I've been graphing global temperatures and comparing them to predictions for years, starting with the Manabe and Wetherald 1967 model, which predicted 2.25 degrees per doubling (this is still, fifty years later, within the estimated error range of the most recent IPCC consensus band.)
The measured data is right on the prediction. That's fifty years of data-- quite remarkable.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
The key there is the number of mass-extinction events in our fossil records are directly connected with exactly these same events.
Source? - AFAIK, there are no mass-extinction events associated with methane spikes large enough to increase planetary temperature >6c within 80 years.
Not the formula we need. The formula needed determines maximum personal power, political control, and wealth generated by managing the level of projected impact, time to impact, revenue before timeframe, revenue after timeframe and ability to make subsequent false predictions without skepticism. Our elites have had much more success with their models solving the issue above.
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.
Evil. I like it.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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!
What could possibly go wrong? :D
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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."
First you get the money, then you get the girls!
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
LOL Check your inbox, by the way. It's raining so I've not yet gone out to the blueberry fields.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Except not. Millenials outnumber baby boomers.
https://www.census.gov/newsroo...
-
And yet, in the same 5 minutes, it's beyond easy to come up with multiple sources that straight up refute his point (example). In this article, the provincial government is looking for a target of 14,000 electric sales per year by 2020... out of an overall sales number of over 750,000.
Sales of electrics here in Canada are so pitiful, even with so many options, The OP's claim is total BS.
I live in Canada, and you are just plain wrong. Very wrong. Right now, late 2017, you could not see a single electric vehicle on the road if you tried. I would find a claim that even 8% of new sales are electric/hybrid to be ludicrous, let alone 80%.
Go spread your lies elsewhere, or start reading the facts.
All facts are interpretations. When results are peer reviewed and duplicated ,then they become accepted facts.
There will always be a minority who reject even massively accepted facts (ie: climate change deniers) . Whether it be cogitative dissonance or simple lying because you’re a paid greedy prick (ie: the 7 dwarfs who perjured themselves before congress claiming cigarette smoke does not cause cancer )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is only true for doomsday predictions. I was talking about all predictions - whether or not you have a clue about the subject matter.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I too live in Canada, and I see EVs every day. Usually they're Nissan Leafs, but I often also see Kia Soul EVs, BMW i3, Tesla Model S and Xs and I've even seen one Chevy Bolt, a Ford Focus EV and an ugly Mitsubishi i-MiEV. Maybe you just don't know what to look for, those Soul EVs look almost exactly like their Gas powered siblings. Or maybe you're in a particularly EV unfriendly place in Canada. Or maybe you're not actively looking for them like I am.
But it's no matter, not that I agree that it was a good prediction, the original claim was regarding new car sales, so the number of EVs currently on the road is irrelevant.
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!
even when they reliably nail the long-term trend for over thirty years.
Except they didn't! Ha!
I'll talk to you again in two years when it's even more obvious that the models are wrong. At some point, it will be so obvious that even people like you will clearly see it.
btw, I hope you learn how to read papers and stop linking to dumb blogs. Until then, you'll never have an original thought.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Why turn it on before brushing? Don't you have saliva?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I like it better when the toothbrush starts out wet.
Sure sure. And one day I hope to see you cite studies that actually say what you claim (or at least that you read them more carefully first). Until then I'll keep pointing out the gap between your claims and the actual data.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Hopefully this "mass extinction" event includes knob heads like yourself.
Being a hobbyist farmer, ever hear about leaving fields fallow or planting different plants each year to avoid nutrition depletion? How the heck do you think farmers handle this? Either with fertilizer or with the thousand year old method above.
Oh conveniently left it out. That's fine, just do us a favor and off others like yourself so we can stop global cooling, err warming, err climate change.