Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Hawking: 'Trump could turn Earth in to Venus'


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

On 7/7/2017 at 6:41 PM, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I would love to see your evidence for that claim.

Look up.

Helium has been added to our sun.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2017 at 6:44 PM, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

If you bothered to read your own link you will find that climate engineering is mostly proposals, not something that is happening.

Just because something is possible doesn't mean that it is actually happening.

 

 

They explained the " Proposal ".

Can you imagine if they admitted it?!

The U.S. Government doesn't want to answer the : "Why?" question.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

Look up.

Helium has been added to our sun.

Helium is the main product of hydrogen fusion, which is what is happening in the Sun.

Harte

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Harte said:

Helium is the main product of hydrogen fusion, which is what is happening in the Sun.

Harte

Many people are commenting on the sun on other forums.  "It's more white and less yellow."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

Many people are commenting on the sun on other forums.  "It's more white and less yellow."

People also swear they have seen the book with the thunderbird photo, and argue that Oscar has changed names between Meyer and Mayer.. it's called the mandella effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, rashore said:

People also swear they have seen the book with the thunderbird photo, and argue that Oscar has changed names between Meyer and Mayer.. it's called the mandella effect.

The host of Coast to Coast Radio says it also!

More white, less yellow...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will bet that at least during my lifetime (I'm 70.), there has been no measurable change in the sun's spectrum.  And that means no change in color or brightness.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

Look up.

Helium has been added to our sun.

It's  called fusion and it is what's been powering the sun for 4,5 billion years, or are you proposing that it have been added artificially? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

It's  called fusion and it is what's been powering the sun for 4,5 billion years, or are you proposing that it have been added artificially? 

Yes, look how many views of this video! Wow!

Biosphere adding Helium and transforming our sun into a Blue/White Star.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

No, but I am unable to confirm them as facts.  What is your source?

The 200 ppm figure is for the Pleistocene, not Holocene.  Sorry about that.  During the Holocene, levels have been more like 320 ppm.

Just look at any source. I have a hard time believing that you can't confirm what I said.

Here is one source showing CO2 concentrations over geologic time for anyone interested but there are many others all in good agreement with one another.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

As for plants and CO2...

"

Summary

During the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; 18 000–20 000 yr ago) and previous glacial periods, atmospheric [CO2] dropped to 180–190 ppm, which is among the lowest concentrations that occurred during the evolution of land plants. Modern atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]) are more than twice those of the LGM and 45% higher than pre-industrial concentrations. Since CO2 is the carbon source for photosynthesis, lower carbon availability during glacial periods likely had a major impact on plant productivity and evolution. From the studies highlighted here, it is clear that the influence of low [CO2] transcends several scales, ranging from physiological effects on individual plants to changes in ecosystem functioning, and may have even influenced the development of early human cultures (via the timing of agriculture). Through low-[CO2] studies, we have determined a baseline for plant response to minimal [CO2] that occurred during the evolution of land plants. Moreover, an increased understanding of plant responses to low [CO2] contributes to our knowledge of how natural global change factors in the past may continue to influence plant responses to future anthropogenic changes. Future work, however, should focus more on the evolutionary responses of plants to changing [CO2] in order to account for the potentially large effects of genetic change." - Plant responses to low CO2 of the Past  Laci M. Gerhart, Joy K. Ward

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/abstract

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

Just look at any source. I have a hard time believing that you can't confirm what I said.

Here is one source showing CO2 concentrations over geologic time for anyone interested but there are many others all in good agreement with one another.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml

As for plants and CO2...

"

Summary

During the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; 18 000–20 000 yr ago) and previous glacial periods, atmospheric [CO2] dropped to 180–190 ppm, which is among the lowest concentrations that occurred during the evolution of land plants. Modern atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]) are more than twice those of the LGM and 45% higher than pre-industrial concentrations. Since CO2 is the carbon source for photosynthesis, lower carbon availability during glacial periods likely had a major impact on plant productivity and evolution. From the studies highlighted here, it is clear that the influence of low [CO2] transcends several scales, ranging from physiological effects on individual plants to changes in ecosystem functioning, and may have even influenced the development of early human cultures (via the timing of agriculture). Through low-[CO2] studies, we have determined a baseline for plant response to minimal [CO2] that occurred during the evolution of land plants. Moreover, an increased understanding of plant responses to low [CO2] contributes to our knowledge of how natural global change factors in the past may continue to influence plant responses to future anthropogenic changes. Future work, however, should focus more on the evolutionary responses of plants to changing [CO2] in order to account for the potentially large effects of genetic change." - Plant responses to low CO2 of the Past  Laci M. Gerhart, Joy K. Ward

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03441.x/abstract

You are confirming exactly what I said:  during the last Ice Age, CO2 concentrations dropped to about 180 ppm.  Since then they rose to around 320 ppm and since about 1910 have risen to over 400 ppm.  Thanks for confirming that.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

You are confirming exactly what I said:  during the last Ice Age, CO2 concentrations dropped to about 180 ppm.  Since then they rose to around 320 ppm and since about 1910 have risen to over 400 ppm.  Thanks for confirming that.

 

I was not arguing against that. Anyone can look this stuff up, but you have failed to acknowledge my points. That those low CO2 concentrations were dangerously low and the lowest in the Earth's history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I was not arguing against that. Anyone can look this stuff up, but you have failed to acknowledge my points. That those low CO2 concentrations were dangerously low and the lowest in the Earth's history.

Guess we were talking about two different things.  I acknowledge your points.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

Many people are commenting on the sun on other forums.  "It's more white and less yellow."

Are they not misinterpreting the science? When viewed from space the sun is essentially white. But when viewed from down on earth, when the sun is high in the sky it has a slight yellow tinge. This is because the atmosphere scatters the shorter wavelengths making the sky appear blue. When seen against the blue, the eye interprets the sun as being slightly yellow. In other words, the sun has not suddenly started changing color as some people seem to be claiming.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

Yes, look how many views of this video! Wow!

You do know that the number of views a youtube video gets have nothing to do with how factual it is, don't you ?

6 hours ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

Biosphere adding Helium

How does a biosphere add helium ?

What is your evidence that there even is a biosphere on the sun ?

I previously told you why helium is add to the Sun, it called fusion. In the suns core four hydrogen atoms fuse together to create one helium atom. Thats what drives the sun, do you agree on that ?

6 hours ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

and transforming our sun into a Blue/White Star.

Blue and white stars much more massive than the sun, so where is all this mass comming from ? 

6 hours ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

 

 

I allways like when people use publicly available information to show that something is being covered up. The fact that people never sees the inherent contradiction in this is amazing to me. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Guess we were talking about two different things.  I acknowledge your points.

Ok. So since CO2 concentrations were just recently at dangerously low levels (180 ppm) ( 20,000 - 14,000 ybp ) and we are just now about double that ( 400 ppm )... and we are still at the low end of things and there is still plenty of rocks and mountain ranges around to weather,... then what is the justification for all the apocalypse now doom and gloom hype? 

When I look at just the facts I feel like we should honestly be celebrating our good fortune. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

venus is a lot closer to the sun then us. It's runaway greenhouse effect evaporated its oceans into its sky early on. The earth isn't close enough to the sun for this to happen if its history is accurate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Ok. So since CO2 concentrations were just recently at dangerously low levels (180 ppm) ( 20,000 - 14,000 ybp ) and we are just now about double that ( 400 ppm )... and we are still at the low end of things and there is still plenty of rocks and mountain ranges around to weather,... then what is the justification for all the apocalypse now doom and gloom hype? 

When I look at just the facts I feel like we should honestly be celebrating our good fortune. 

 

The exposed rocks and mountain ranges absorb CO2 over millions of years. And also, something has to happen to expose them to the air - like a continental collision.  This is far too slow to have any appreciable effect on atmospheric CO2 at the century and decadal levels that global warming is operating on.

As I said above, I think Hawking is being a bit alarmist.  There is not enough carbon on earth that can be burned to turn earth into another Venus.  We have reached the point where the doom-and-gloom people are doing as much damage as the climate-change deniers.

Realistically, at the current rate earth's average temperature will peak near the boiling point in 300 to 500 years.  The operative words are "at the current rate."  As temperatures rise, that rate will change.  Claims of the end of the world by the end of this century are greatly exaggerated.  There are several reasons to think it will take longer to get to that point, if we ever reach it.  The statement is based on Jim Hansen's book which was published at least 15 years ago and is now somewhat obsolete.

1.  As CO2 concentrations rise, temperature becomes less responsive to carbon.  That would place the peak temperature at a lower level than "near the boiling point."

2.  As we encounter more difficulties due to rising temperatures our viability as a species will decrease.  We will burn less carbon because there are fewer of us around to do it.

3.  We are developing and starting to deploy the technology to bring global warming under control.  I think we'll make it, albeit, the landing will be tough.  At current rates, the US will be generating 25% of its power needs from wind by 2030 and probably about 50% by 2050.  We could vastly increase that amount.  These next five years are going to be big for wind.

4.  Trmp and his coal-financed backers will not be around forever, especially if they keep acting like they are right now.  Trmps' campaign promises notwithstanding, coal is never coming back:  that is because both natural gas and wind furnish cheaper power.  The market has changed and Trump is not an economist.  Considering that he has bankrupted at least four businesses, I'm not sure he is even a businessman, at least, he's not a competent one.

We have about two more degrees of temperature rise that the current ecosystems can tolerate without major disruptions.  After that, the system will start to collapse.  And that's what we're afraid of:  an ecosystem collapse that kills off something we depend on.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

venus is a lot closer to the sun then us. It's runaway greenhouse effect evaporated its oceans into its sky early on. The earth isn't close enough to the sun for this to happen if its history is accurate.

People would have to live underground to survive on Venus.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

People would have to live underground to survive on Venus.

That wouldn't even work as the rocks are hot.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

The exposed rocks and mountain ranges absorb CO2 over millions of years. And also, something has to happen to expose them to the air - like a continental collision.  This is far too slow to have any appreciable effect on atmospheric CO2 at the century and decadal levels that global warming is operating on.

 

The continental collision(s) that created the mountain ranges we have today obviously have already happened. The rocks are already exposed and weathering. Yes this takes long time periods but we were already at critically low CO2 levels because of this weathering quite recently (~20,000 years ago).

 

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Realistically, at the current rate earth's average temperature will peak near the boiling point in 300 to 500 years.  The operative words are "at the current rate."  As temperatures rise, that rate will change.  Claims of the end of the world by the end of this century are greatly exaggerated.  There are several reasons to think it will take longer to get to that point, if we ever reach it.  The statement is based on Jim Hansen's book which was published at least 15 years ago and is now somewhat obsolete.

 

How do you figure that we get near the boiling point in 300 - 500 years? Esspecially, considering that you say as temps rise the temperature becomes less responsive to CO2. Also that has never happened in the past and CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today.

 

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

2.  As we encounter more difficulties due to rising temperatures our viability as a species will decrease.  We will burn less carbon because there are fewer of us around to do it.

We are already in the process of reducing emissions. We have more efficient motors, we are developing and using wind, solar, and better batteries. 

Even if temps rise a bit, then we end up having more arable land to grow crops and less freezing temps increasing habitable land for people to live. With more CO2 plants grow faster and larger and become more drought resistant. All that sounds much better than if the Earth fell back into an Ice Age. That would actually be quite catastrophic for Humanity.

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

3.  We are developing and starting to deploy the technology to bring global warming under control.  I think we'll make it, albeit, the landing will be tough.  At current rates, the US will be generating 25% of its power needs from wind by 2030 and probably about 50% by 2050.  We could vastly increase that amount.  These next five years are going to be big for wind.

I agree.

 

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

4.  Trmp and his coal-financed backers will not be around forever, especially if they keep acting like they are right now.  Trmps' campaign promises notwithstanding, coal is never coming back:  that is because both natural gas and wind furnish cheaper power.  The market has changed and Trump is not an economist.  Considering that he has bankrupted at least four businesses, I'm not sure he is even a businessman, at least, he's not a competent one.

 

This must be the fourth or fifth time this week I've seen you misspell President Trump's name on purpose I assume. That's quite disrespectful, does that make you proud of yourself?

Market's do tend to change when they are smothered to death by onerous Government regulations. 

9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

We have about two more degrees of temperature rise that the current ecosystems can tolerate without major disruptions.  After that, the system will start to collapse.  And that's what we're afraid of:  an ecosystem collapse that kills off something we depend on.

 

I'm not sure how you can say how an ecosystem will respond to 2 degrees of average warming, much less say any would collapase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This completely off-the-wall hyperbole(Earth turning into Venus because of a very minor change in our atmosphere, less than a fraction of one percent of change) that we're exposed to on a daily basis is one of the main reasons so many people dismiss the AGW theory out of hand.  Just yesterday I came across one of the more ridiculous articles:

Quote

There’s a compelling reason scientists think we’ve never found aliens and it suggests humans are already in the process of going extinct

Unchecked climate change will eventually lead to widespread devastation on Earth.

Rising seas will inundate coastal cities like Miami, searing heat will increase human mortality, and acidic oceans will become inhospitable to fish and coral, leaving behind little but rubbery masses of jellyfish.

These consequences of human activity could be the thing that prevents our civilization from advancing much further. In a particularly extreme scenario, it could even wind up wiping us from the face of the Earth.

That may sound unlikely, but it's the answer some scientists are giving to a perplexing question: Why haven't we encountered intelligent alien life?

link

Maybe if we hadn't been told the sky was about to fall "within the next 5-20 years" depending on who you ask since the 1990's straight to today, then people might be willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

The continental collision(s) that created the mountain ranges we have today obviously have already happened. The rocks are already exposed and weathering. Yes this takes long time periods but we were already at critically low CO2 levels because of this weathering quite recently (~20,000 years ago).

Good point.  I don't really have a good answer to this, except to say that atmospheric CO2 levels are rising.  If there was enough rock surface exposed to absorb the extra CO2, there would be no increase in atmospheric CO2.  How do you explain atmospheric CO2 rising while the glaciers were melting off and exposing more rock?

 

How do you figure that we get near the boiling point in 300 - 500 years? Esspecially, considering that you say as temps rise the temperature becomes less responsive to CO2. Also that has never happened in the past and CO2 levels have been much higher than they are today.

The 300-500 year figure came from James Hansen's book:  2010.  "Storms of My Grandchildren - the Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Cyhance to Save Humanity."  As I said, it's a bit dated.  Our understanding of the relationship between temperature and CO2 has changed since then:  the curve is not a straight line.  It is an inverted logarithm approaching an asymptote from below.  As yet, we don't know where that asymptote is.  Earth's temperature, at least as it related to CO2, will never exceed that limit.  But where is that limit?

 

We are already in the process of reducing emissions. We have more efficient motors, we are developing and using wind, solar, and better batteries. 

Even if temps rise a bit, then we end up having more arable land to grow crops and less freezing temps increasing habitable land for people to live. With more CO2 plants grow faster and larger and become more drought resistant. All that sounds much better than if the Earth fell back into an Ice Age. That would actually be quite catastrophic for Humanity.

While climate change creates more arable land in Canada and Russia, it turns the borders of the Sahara, the Gobi and Oklahoma, Texas, eastern New Mexico and Colorado into deserts.

 

 

This must be the fourth or fifth time this week I've seen you misspell President Trump's name on purpose I assume. That's quite disrespectful, does that make you proud of yourself?

That's on purpose.  There's no "you" in Trmp.  It's all about him.  And, yes, it's disrespectful.  Respect has to be earned and he has a long way to go to earn mine.

 

Market's do tend to change when they are smothered to death by onerous Government regulations.

Wind power is being deliberately strangled by govt regulations, especially at the state level, but also at the Federal level.  In spite of that, conversion is moving ahead. 

 

I'm not sure how you can say how an ecosystem will respond to 2 degrees of average warming, much less say any would collapase.

I would have to look up the specific articles, but you are as capable of doing that as I am.  The collapse would occur at somewhere over two more degrees of temperature rise, but nobody knows exactly how far over.  To illustrate:  what do you think would happen if the planet's average temperature really did make it to the boiling point?  If an ecosystem collapse had not already happened, it would then.

Doug

 

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

While climate change creates more arable land in Canada and Russia, it turns the borders of the Sahara, the Gobi and Oklahoma, Texas, eastern New Mexico and Colorado into deserts.

 

You have a source for this? 

 

4 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

That's on purpose.  There's no "you" in Trmp.  It's all about him.

 

I don't believe that at all, and either way that's our President and acting like this is Shameful.

 

4 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Wind power is being deliberately strangled by govt regulations, especially at the state level, but also at the Federal level.  In spite of that, conversion is moving ahead. 

Probably because they are a horrible ungodly sight and they wreak the skyline for everyone even when the electricty is pumped off far away and your local electric rates are not discounted. I hate them when I go outside to skywatch and it's like I'm living inside a red flashing Christmas tree! Thanks! 

 

4 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I would have to look up the specific articles, but you are as capable of doing that as I am.  The collapse would occur at somewhere over two more degrees of temperature rise, but nobody knows exactly how far over.  To illustrate:  what do you think would happen if the planet's average temperature really did make it to the boiling point?  If an ecosystem collapse had not already happened, it would then.

 

That's just the thing Mr. Hawking, er Doug1o29, we are not going to get to boiling oceans! That's just alarmism plain and simple. 

Edited by lost_shaman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 7:20 PM, lost_shaman said:

You have a source for this? 

All you really need to know is how climate change works.  Because of carbon's absorption and re-emission of atmospheric heat is impeded by liquid water, warming is greatest in dry areas.  These include dry deserts and continental interiors in the Arctic where water is frozen much of the year.  In the US, the hotspot for warming is Amarillo, TX.  It has the greatest warming of any city in the country.  Back in 2005 I did a paper for a post-graduate class analyzing warming in Ft. Smith, AR, Wilmington, NC and Meridian MS.  Ft. Smith, being in the continental interior, showed the greatest warming.  Wilmington, being on the Atlantic coast, didn't show any.  Neither did Meridian.

Oklahoma has just come out of a major drought.  This is the third one since 1900.  We can expect another in the 2020s and 2030s.  We have also undergone 1.6 degrees of warming over the last 150 years.  Each drought is slightly warmer than the last one.  We have also had four major droughts since 1200 AD - tree-killing droughts.  One of these produced a phenomenon dendrochronologists call "The Wall."  There are very few trees older than 350 years because a drought about that time killed most of them.  I know of only two trees in Oklahoma older than 350 years - and one of those got bulldozed when the North Canadian Ranch rebuilt its fences.  The other is still alive and well and living in the Ancient Forest Reserve in Sand Springs.

If you are unable to apply Google Scholar to the problem of locating sources, here are a couple:

Brown, J. H., T. J. Valone and C. Curtin.  1996.  Reorganization of an arid ecosystem in response to recent climate change.  Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  94(18).

Stringer, L. C., J. C. Dyer, M. S. Reed, A. J. Dougill, C. Twyman and D. Mkwambisi.  2009.  Adaptations to climate change, drought and desertification: local insights to enhance policy in southern Africa.  Environmental Science and Policy.  12(7) 748-765.

A quick search will turn up hundreds of references.  Next time, do your own homework.

 

Quote

I don't believe that at all, and either way that's our President and acting like this is Shameful.

I agree that he is the President.  And I show him all due respect as such.  But he is dismantling nearly everything I have spent my entire life working on.  For example, he defunded the Fire Services.  If you own a house near a national forest or BLM land, you no longer have any fire protection.  I used to be a forester.  People like me fought and died to protect those forests and the people in them.  Check out Storm King, 1994.

Just after he took office, Trump tried to remove research datasets from US govt computers.  Thanks to that effort, all those datasets are now backed up - he was too slow in issuing the order.  The Federal database stored at the National Labs in Boulder, CO is now backed up at the University of Arizona, at the University of Calgary and in Europe.  We thought it best to create backups in foreign countries where he couldn't legally touch them.  But just in case, there are hundreds of copies on private computers all over the world, including partial copies on mine and several unpublished ones.

His order to remove all climate change articles from govt computers "on pages facing the public" has been thwarted by creating private sites where that same data can be obtained.  Check out "Badasslands National Park." They're on Facebook.

Mr. Trump and his cronies are threatening my health insurance (and yours).  If his insane bill goes through, I'll have to pay more for less coverage AND I'm insured through private insurance.

I hope we can come through his presidency without sustaining irreversible damage.

 

Probably because they are a horrible ungodly sight and they wreak the skyline for everyone even when the electricty is pumped off far away and your local electric rates are not discounted. I hate them when I go outside to skywatch and it's like I'm living inside a red flashing Christmas tree! Thanks! 

I grew up next to four belching smoke stacks run by the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company.  They were ugly and the entire town stunk with their smoke.  They were supplied with coal by a railroad with lots of associated noise, like whistles and cars banging into each other.  I'll take a nice quiet, graceful windmill any day.  There are more than a thousand of them between here and Kansas.  In case I should miss the coal smoke, there is still a coal plant up near Pawnee.

 

That's just the thing Mr. Hawking, er Doug1o29, we are not going to get to boiling oceans! That's just alarmism plain and simple. 

In case you didn't read my post.  That's exactly what I said.  The earth will never reach the boiling point because 1.  There isn't enough fossil fuel on earth to burn and put out enough CO2 to get it that high, and 2 we will kill ourselves off in an ecosystem collapse before we can complete the job.

Doug

P.S.:  Remember "Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires?"  No. Really.  The Fire Services have been defunded.

Doug

 

Edited by Doug1029
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.