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

7 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I think alarmist statements like this actually hurts real climate science. We need people to listen to real arguments instead of hyperbole.

Please stop Mr. Hawking. You are hurting a cause you are trying to support.

Well said.

"alarmist"

Sounds like liberal Click Bait.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

You can blame that on orbital mechanics.  If it weren't for CO2 pollution, orbital mechanics would have started us into a cooling period about 10 years ago.  The solar cycle jumps up and down every nine to eleven years.  If solar activity were driving temperature change as much as deniers think, we would see that cycle in the temperature curve.  It's there, but of such a small amplitude that statistics has to remove a lot of other variation before it can be seen.

Doug

The biomass of humans, our cows and CO2 output is considerable but so are the number of trees and plankton out there. It leaves me unconvinced about an environmental meltdown. One further reason is the small increase in the temperature of Mars and Venus which mirrors our own (indicating its the sun).

Another is how we arent actually out of the last ice-age yet with average temperatures for our planet throughout its history being considerably warmer than they are now. And the trend is currently moving from ice-age back to that average. I dont see anything odd here just a return to where Earths temperature should be.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

Well said.

"alarmist"

Sounds like liberal Click Bait.

 

5 minutes ago, HauntedDreams80 said:

Fake News

Trump-bots are out in full force today, i see.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

 

Trump-bots are out in full force today, i see.

Yeah I think CeresExpo2000 misunderstood what I was trying to say in post #6.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen Hawking - being a clever person who thinks before he speaks - was careful enough to say, "Trump's action could push the Earth over the brink ..."

As a scientist he will be say his statement is justified because, no matter how unlikely, there is a possibility the Earth could become like Venus. He might even want to demonstrate this by providing the quantum mechanical maths that shows, for instance, how the Earth could suddenly jump to an orbit beyond Jupiter. Very unlikely, but not impossible.

This, as I see it, is one of the problems encountered when investigating climate change. Scientists use differential equations (or algorithms of them) and come up with a variety of solutions. From a mathematical point of view all the solutions are valid, but to differing degrees. 

That said, I agree with Astra and Noteverythingisaconspiracy that as a well-known public figure Hawking is being needlessly alarmist. He should take a leaf from Albert Einstein's book, who to the end of his days had faith in humanity and the belief we will have a brighter future. That is why Einstein was not only a great scientist, he was a great human being.

Edited by Derek Willis
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, RabidMongoose said:

The biomass of humans, our cows and CO2 output is considerable but so are the number of trees and plankton out there. It leaves me unconvinced about an environmental meltdown. One further reason is the small increase in the temperature of Mars and Venus which mirrors our own (indicating its the sun).

Another is how we arent actually out of the last ice-age yet with average temperatures for our planet throughout its history being considerably warmer than they are now. And the trend is currently moving from ice-age back to that average. I dont see anything odd here just a return to where Earths temperature should be.

Global mean temps are continuing to rise in spite of reductions in CO2 pollution.  So what does that mean?  How about:  the carbon sinks (forests and oceans) are nearly full.  Without those, temps will continue to climb and probably accelerate.  We are now at 2 degrees above norms.  Four degrees is about what we can tolerate without serious disruptions.  That doesn't seem like much, but consider:  we are already seeing desertification of the Sahel, northern Africa, the American southwest, the northern Gobi and the Mediterranean Basin.

The US current problems in the Near East are the result of 25 years of drought causing crop failures and economic dislocation of the people.  Those people move to cities looking for work, which they can't find.  They expect their governments to do something about the crisis, but their governments have no ability to do anything.  So they blame foreigners who have invested in and exploit their countries - things like oil, for example.  And then they attack whatever is handy.  So, yes.  Climate change is an indirect cause of terrorist attacks - even here in the US.

The last ice age:  the Last Glacial Maximum was between 19,000 and 21,000 years ago.  The warmup started around 17,000 years ago - we have tree ring chronologies going back that far.  By 14,000 YBP the ice had withdrawn to the last row of hills along the south side of Lake Erie.  At 12,900 YBP when the ice stood at the Girard Moraine in New York, the ice dam holding back Lake Agassiz collapsed.  The resulting discharge of cold fresh water into the North Atlantic shut down the Gulf Stream, bringing renewed cold to North America and Europe (the Younger Dryas Cold Period).  That lasted 1300 years and saw the extinction of the mammoth, mastodon, saber-toothed cat, short-faced bear, European cave bear, giant ground sloth and others.  By convention, the end of the Younger Dryas is taken as the end of the ice age; although, temps were already at modern levels centuries earlier.  Also, for another 7000 years, sea levels continued to rise, indicating that somewhere on earth, ice was still melting.

The Younger Dryas ended spectacularly.  The ice dam holding back the Baltic Ice Lake collapsed, spilling it into the North Atlantic.  Though the mechanism is not understood, this appears to have restarted the Gulf Stream, which returned to "normal" over a time span of 40 years.  Snowfall, as recorded on the Greenland ice cap returned to non-glacial conditions in just two years.  Sudden climate change has happened before.

The highest post-glacial sea levels occurred during the Roman Period - about 250 to 400 AD.  At that time, ice was at a minimum.  Sea levels were about 5.6 feet above modern.  I note that this coincided with the high point in the 1500-year Bond Cycle, which is once again just past its high point.  The Bond Cycle is one of those natural cycles that was until recently, contributing to increasing temps.  Since the end of the Roman Period, temps trended upward to the Medieval Warm Period (c. 1200 AD), then downward to a minimum in 1841 (Little Ice Age) (We have Oklahoma weather records going back to July 1, 1824.).  Up to a local high in 1885 and then downward to a low in 1910.  Since 1910, temperature rise has been meteoric, especially since 1976.  That sudden rise is what's new.  Not the absolute temp, but the suddenness of its occurrence.  This has not happened since at least the end of the Younger Dryas.   

The Denier-in-Chief, Trmp, has said that the California drought was made up.  If he's going to lie, why pick something that is so easy to check?  Like rain gauges can't tell the truth?

One question for you:  if human-caused CO2 pollution is not the cause of the temperature rise, what is?  You are making a rather bold statement, but not presenting any evidence to support it.

Doug

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Global mean temps are continuing to rise in spite of reductions in CO2 pollution.  So what does that mean?  How about:  the carbon sinks (forests and oceans) are nearly full. 

Without those, temps will continue to climb and probably accelerate.  We are now at 2 degrees above norms. 

Or perhaps there is a lag between changes in CO2 concentrations, and temperatures ?

And what constitutes the "norms" ? :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

 

Trump-bots are out in full force today, i see.

You say this because Trump is going to transform the earth into a second Venus?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Or perhaps there is a lag between changes in CO2 concentrations, and temperatures ?

And what constitutes the "norms" ? :)

That's true.  At the beginning of the Younger Dryas CO2 concentrations lagged about 300 years behind temps.  That's the ocean slowly catching up with the rest of the climate.  That's "natural."  But what we see now is CO2 concentration changes followed by temperature changes.  That pretty well eliminates the ocean as a source of the problem CO2.  Also, there are a lot of things that cause temperature change to lag CO2.  So lag is probably part of the answer.

"Norms" are long-term averages, of sorts.  They are based on regression models that separate CO2 effects out of the data, then hold CO2 levels constant and re-run the models.  The difference is the amount of temperature change attributable to CO2.  The "norms" are determined without CO2 increases.

Doug

P.S.:  I think Hawking may be a bit alarmist.  Even if we burn all known fossil fuel reserves, earth won't get as hot as Venus.  It will get hot enough to wipe out most life, but it won't be another Venus.  Even that statement is being questioned.  It is based on estimates of climate sensitivity that are now 30+ years old and are increasingly being called into question.  The question is whether we will be among the species that survive.

But I feel optimistic.  I think we will get a handle on this.  Partly because we have no other choice and partly because solutions are starting to be applied, Trmp notwithstanding.  And in the 300 years it would take to raise temps that high, Trmp is going to be a flash in the pan.

It used to be said:  "If we convert to clean energy, but China doesn't, what good would that do?"  Well, China is converting.  So now what's the excuse?

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm amazed that Hawking would make a statement like this , when there are much more dangerous leaders vying for top danger man, from several different countries such as Nth Korea, Russia, Iran, its about time that the men in white coats knocked on Hawkings door.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

they knocked on his door about 50 years ago, and told him that he had 5  years to live. 

And you're suprised that he takes their opinions with a pinch of salt ? :D

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether you believe in global warming or not, surely everyone would want to invest in renewable technology in an attempt to sustain our planet.

Don't get it really, it's the biggest no brainer yet we still have people/corporations putting blocks in the road

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Reepa said:

Whether you believe in global warming or not, surely everyone would want to invest in renewable technology in an attempt to sustain our planet.

You would think so wouldn't you ?

I think this little cartoon sums it up pretty well:

climatesummit.jpg

Edited by Noteverythingisaconspiracy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have hoped that one of science's greatest minds would not be influenced by politics and would look at the raw data. We currently live on a planet that has nearly 8 billion people on it. The problem is not just the burning of fossil fuels which if allowed will be remedied by science(I.E. Next gen Battery tech, Next gen Solar panel tech, next gen infrastructure etc.) it's that we have managed to destroy 50% of the world's species in a very short time. At least if he had mentioned that, I would have agreed with his analysis but to go full blown CNN anchor, well as many have posted above, I think Hawking may be going senile. Talk about ignoring the 8 billion pound gorilla in the room. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Nzo said:

I would have hoped that one of science's greatest minds would not be influenced by politics and would look at the raw data. We currently live on a planet that has nearly 8 billion people on it. The problem is not just the burning of fossil fuels which if allowed will be remedied by science(I.E. Next gen Battery tech, Next gen Solar panel tech, next gen infrastructure etc.) it's that we have managed to destroy 50% of the world's species in a very short time. At least if he had mentioned that, I would have agreed with his analysis but to go full blown CNN anchor, well as many have posted above, I think Hawking may be going senile. Talk about ignoring the 8 billion pound gorilla in the room. 

Yes we have some 8 billion people on this planet, should Hawking or anyone else for that matter be pushing for them to be killed off? Obviously the answer is no, so the next step is to mitigate the damage which that many people living on the planet causes. The Trump regime clearly cares about profits above all else and has zero interest in doing anything which might negatively affect  the corporate bottom line. While somewhat hyperbolic Hawking's point i think stands up pretty well. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Yes we have some 8 billion people on this planet, should Hawking or anyone else for that matter be pushing for them to be killed off? Obviously the answer is no, so the next step is to mitigate the damage which that many people living on the planet causes. The Trump regime clearly cares about profits above all else and has zero interest in doing anything which might negatively affect  the corporate bottom line. While somewhat hyperbolic Hawking's point i think stands up pretty well. 

 

Talking about global climate change, pollution etc. and not talking about the #1 cause(extreme, gross overpopulation) of these problems is akin to coming up with black hole theories and totally forgetting about the black hole.  

He could have spoken about emerging countries that have gross over populations that are becoming industrialized and adopting the same economic policies that have promoted population growth and consumption? Nope! He could have pointed out that the Paris agreement was worth less than used toilet paper because it lacked all enforcement and counted on an honor system for every country to report their data? He could have spoken about how the oceans are becoming a toxic soup of industrial solvents, heavy metals, and even illegally dumped nuclear waste by products? He could have spoken about why there seems to be an extraordinary almost 1-1 correlation to the amount of pesticides/herbicides we use and autism? He could've spoken about the world dwindling water supplies because of overpopulation?

 

No, instead he jumped on the CNN crazy train and decided to criticize Trump for the last 150 years of industry and gross population growth. So, ya I think Hawking is going senile, because a brilliant mind like that that can combine several different areas of physics should not be able to see the world in black and white but glorious shades of all colors and understand the underlying problem is all of us. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2017 at 6:53 PM, Imaginarynumber1 said:

 

Trump-bots are out in full force today, i see.

We Seek the Truth

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

We Seek the Truth

How can you do that when Trmp is well known for lying and his anti-science agenda?  You need a new leader.

Doug

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Doug1o29 said:

How can you do that when Trmp is well known for lying and his anti-science agenda?  You need a new leader.

Doug

Liberals are ignoring the sun. Mankind is innocent.

The sun won't cough up $$$ cash, so they ignore it.

It's a scam.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nzo said:

No, instead he jumped on the CNN crazy train and decided to criticize Trump for the last 150 years of industry and gross population growth. So, ya I think Hawking is going senile, because a brilliant mind like that that can combine several different areas of physics should not be able to see the world in black and white but glorious shades of all colors and understand the underlying problem is all of us. 

During most of that 150 years we had no idea we were damaging the ecosystem.  It's really unfair to blame industry for something neither they nor anybody else knew or could do anything about.  And, of course, population is the fundamental problem, but unless we come up with a new disease that wipes out most of our population, we need to do something to mitigate the effects of that population.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

Liberals are ignoring the sun. Mankind is innocent.

The sun won't cough up $$$ cash, so they ignore it.

It's a scam.

The sun is currently not doing much.  It has now been something like 40 days without showing a single sunspot.  By your reasoning, we should now be experiencing a cold snap.  But we aren't.  Why is that?

It is pretty easy to include a sunspot count (or any other solar variable) into a regression model of a climate-related phenomenon (like tree ring thicknesses or temperatures, for example).  Then all we have to do is look at that term and compare it with others in our model.  Solar variables are usually present and significant, but not nearly as large as the CO2 term.  You're only partly right.  The sun has an effect, but it's a small one.

Doug

About cash:  the multi-billion dollar Plains and Eastern Clean Line is currently stalled, pending the outcome of an imminent domain case in Arkansas.  Construction is expected to resume this fall with the system going on line next year.  This system is being built because wind is cheaper than any other form of electricity.  This is being done with private money.  Yes.  Profits will be made.  And that's good because without them, the conversion to clean energy would not be happening.  This will lower the price Florida residents pay for electricity by about 1.75 cents/kwh.

Tesla has built a plant in Nevada to make batteries for electric cars.  They are expecting battery technology to be economically competitive with gasoline and oil.  Again, profits are the motive.  If they're right, electric cars will be cheaper than gasoline ones in another five years.

What do you think will happen if someone invents a fuel cell or wind-charger or solar system capable of economically furnishing electricity to a single-family dwelling?  That solar system may already be here.  The others still have a ways to go.  But what do you think will happen to the price of electricity when people can generate their own without paying the power company to do it?

You can save a bunch of money with conservation practices like insulating your house, using weather stripping and putting passive solar heaters in your south-facing windows.  I can't figure out why deniers prefer to waste their money rather than taking such simple measures.

So, yes.  Money is an issue and a driver of the new technologies.

The thing deniers seem to forget is that the technologies are getting better and cheaper.  Clean energy is rapidly becoming cheaper than fossil-fuel energy.  It won't cost money to convert; it will save money.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

The sun is currently not doing much.  It has now been something like 40 days without showing a single sunspot.  By your reasoning, we should now be experiencing a cold snap.  But we aren't.  Why is that?

It is pretty easy to include a sunspot count (or any other solar variable) into a regression model of a climate-related phenomenon (like tree ring thicknesses or temperatures, for example).  Then all we have to do is look at that term and compare it with others in our model.  Solar variables are usually present and significant, but not nearly as large as the CO2 term.  You're only partly right.  The sun has an effect, but it's a small one.

Doug

The Sun and El Nino (Geothermal heat) = 99% of the problem : Climate Extremes + Global Warming

Evil Mankind = Less than 1%

 

Edited by CeresExpo2000
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, CeresExpo2000 said:

The Sun and El Nino (Geothermal heat) = 99% of the problem : Climate Extremes + Global Warming

Evil Mankind = Less than 1%

 

The sun is the source of energy that drives the system.  It is mankind's activities that are rearranging the flow of that energy in ways detrimental to life.

Doug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

The sun is the source of energy that drives the system.  It is mankind's activities that are rearranging the flow of that energy in ways detrimental to life.

Doug

Our sun is changing.  It used to be warm and yellow back in the 1980s.

Now we have a Hot Blue / White Star.

Pilots at 32,000 feet are getting high amounts of radiation!

 

 

Sun Changing1.PNG

  • Like 1
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.