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 -
UM-Bot

Scientists warn of dangers of 'Hothouse Earth'

90 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

seanjo

Close to 8 billion people on the planet (and rising) all wanting energy and food...can't be done.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fred_mc

I don't think it will work to drastically reduce carbon emissions since that would mean a pretty drastic reduction in living standard, which very few people would accept. Therefore, I think we will continue heading for a disaster.

Actually, I think there is a bigger chance for one-party states that realize the problem to do anything about it than there is for democratic states, since very few people would vote for a party that makes their life more difficult, even if it will save the planet in the long run.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kartikg
2 hours ago, seanjo said:

Close to 8 billion people on the planet (and rising) all wanting energy and food...can't be done.

We need to approach this problem from Thanos view point. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
Quote

A runaway global warming effect may still occur even if countries do manage to slash CO2 emissions.

The troubling news comes courtesy of a new study by an international team of climate researchers who warn that mankind's impact on global temperatures could turn Earth's natural forces against us.

Right now, 4.5 billion tonnes of carbon that would otherwise end up in the atmosphere are absorbed by the Earth's rainforests, oceans and land each year, protecting us from runaway global warming.

What a ridiculous bag of Alarmism here! CO2 is already saturated in its main absoption band between 14-16 microns. And the Earth already naturaly flucutates more than 2 degrees C across all reagions. These so called Climate Scientists need to take a physics class! And no I'm not a professional before you guys berate me, Science is a hobby of mine. CO2 levels in the atmosphere can double the current levels and it would only amount to a fraction of a degree C. 

These people who claim to know what they are talking about believe the faslehood that Infrared photons (Black body longwave Radiation) will increasing be traped in our Planets thin Atmosphere as CO2 concentrations increase. This is true with small concetrations of CO2 but our Planets atmosphere has always had a CO2 concentration above that level for the Earth's entire history. The CO2 absorption/radiative effect contributes around 3 degrees C heating to the Atmosphere and always has even when CO2 levels where much higher than they are today. We can see evidence of higher temperatures in the past when CO2 levels were much higher in Rock formations and other proxy data, but this is simple assiciation not direct evidence that CO2 concentrations were the cause of that heat. In the past all the contenents we have today were all grouped together in one giant landmass or Super contenent called Pangaea. Over time the contentents as we now know them broke apart and slowly drifted away and or collided with eachother. This movement of land masses over very large amounts of geological time did have a direct effect on Temperatures as they moved around and thusly affected Ocean currents or restricted them and this also affected Atmospheric jet streams and convection patterns. So simply blaming higher temperatures in the past geologic time frames and saying CO2 was at igher concentrations too then CO2 must be the reason for the higher Proxy Teperature data is sophmoric.

So what happens if we double current CO2 concentrations? Almost nothing. At current levels all the Black body longwave infrared radiation that the Earth emits is already absobed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore any radiative forcing that would then re-heat the Earths surface or lower Atmosphere is already occuring at 100% of CO2's capacity to do this. Now The Earth's Atmosphere like all other matter in the universe also radiates black body longwave radiation based on it temperature so you might think that more CO2 would then warm the upper atmosphere since CO2 is a well mixed gas in the Atmosphere. 

Maybe this latter fact mentioned above is what Climate Alarmist Scientists are worried about? Nope, you see in the upper layers of the atmosphere the Black body radiation and aborption will canel eachother out. Every CO2 molecule in the upper Atmosphere that radiates Black body radiation cools and at the upper levels CO2 concentrations are very low so Blackbody radiation from the Atmosphere is much more likely to radiate into space. 

Also at the surface, at sea level where we would supossedly experience the imaginary extra heat Heat from more CO2, there is Wein's wavelength displacement constant. This is basic physics, if temperatur rises the Black body radiation Flux increases in intensity and the wavelegth peak moves to shorter Wavelengths. This means if surface tempurature rises then the intensity of the Fux increases while ate the same time the waveleght displaces to shorter bands and thus more and more black body longeave radiation by passes H2O and CO2 absorption bands that are static. 

And finally CO2 molecules that do absorb a BBKW Photon near the sureface of the Earth don't re-emit a photon as Climate Alarmist Scientists assume actualy collide with othe atmospheric moleicules before they they can re-emit a photon and there for the return to an unexcited state without raditating heat in the IR spectrum and since the atmosphere is saturated already this just contribute heat to the atmosphere in the form of convection as oppesed to re-emiting heat back to the Earths suface.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seti42

FAKE NEWS! China invented climate change to mess with USA manufacturing! LOCK HER UP!1! (Mussolini mug at camera, wait for redneck applause)

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
21 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

. These so called Climate Scientists need to take a physics class! And no I'm not a professional before you guys berate me, Science is a hobby of mine.

 

Yes, it's very likely that you are correct.  And thousands of physics professors are wrong :)
 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

We're screwed and the elite know it.

They just wanna keep raking in the cash, and if a bunch of us peasants die off, they figure it's a win-win. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
4 minutes ago, Essan said:

Yes, it's very likely that you are correct.  And thousands of physics professors are wrong :)

These people are not Physics professors, otherwise they would say something that has to do with the physics right? You don't see any of that here do you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
3 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

These people are not Physics professors, otherwise they would say something that has to do with the physics right? You don't see any of that here do you? 

Well, this particular study isn't about the physics - it's about the consequences of the physics.  

But I am pretty sure all the physics professors who have studied atmopsheric science for the past 150 years really are physics professors who have actually studied advanced physics and understand a lot more about the processes than you or I.   

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Essan said:

Well, this particular study isn't about the physics - it's about the consequences of the physics.  

You assume that wrongly. 

 

15 minutes ago, Essan said:

But I am pretty sure all the physics professors who have studied atmopsheric science for the past 150 years really are physics professors who have actually studied advanced physics and understand a lot more about the processes than you or I.   

These days all the knowledge they have is basically on my laptop too. The difference between you and I is that I actively study these things just like they do. I don't get paid for it that's all. 

Edited by lost_shaman
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon the frog
4 hours ago, seanjo said:

Close to 8 billion people on the planet (and rising) all wanting energy and food...can't be done.

Thanos have a good way to stop this....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
28 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

You assume that wrongly.


Have you read the study?

The abstract:
 

Quote


We explore the risk that self-reinforcing feedbacks could push the Earth System toward a planetary threshold that, if crossed, could prevent stabilization of the climate at intermediate temperature rises and cause continued warming on a “Hothouse Earth” pathway even as human emissions are reduced. Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene. We examine the evidence that such a threshold might exist and where it might be. If the threshold is crossed, the resulting trajectory would likely cause serious disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies. Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like state. Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System—biosphere, climate, and societies—and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values.


Unfortunately I don't have access to the full paper, but as far as I can see it's not about the physics behind global warming, but the consequences of those physics (and possible means of mutigation).

Of course, if you don't believe the Earth is (or could ever be) warming due to human activities, including increased atmospheric CO2, (and resultant feebacks) I guess it's really not of much interest.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calibeliever
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

And finally CO2 molecules that do absorb a BBKW Photon near the sureface of the Earth don't re-emit a photon as Climate Alarmist Scientists assume actualy collide with othe atmospheric moleicules before they they can re-emit a photon and there for the return to an unexcited state without raditating heat in the IR spectrum ... blah blah

It sounds like you're trying to put forward a hypothesis but this long winded speech has so many problems I don't even know where to start. You obviously have an axe to grind but all you've provided is a screed filled with assumptions and errors, which isn't going to make your point. You may have a lot of information on your laptop but you aren't demonstrating much knowledge, and your rant sounds more like a conspiracy theory than a hypothesis. If you're serious, then back up your claims with evidence (something climate scientists have been doing for decades), present your own model and publish.

Edited by Calibeliever
Tone
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UFOwatcher

Just watched a rerun of the old fictional 1996 movie "The Arrival" with Charlie Scheen having to do with Aliens coming to Earth and 'Terraforming' to raise the temperature and make it more habitable for them. That's it, dang ALIENS.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Socks Junior
1 hour ago, Essan said:

Unfortunately I don't have access to the full paper, but as far as I can see it's not about the physics behind global warming, but the consequences of those physics (and possible means of mutigation).

Of course, if you don't believe the Earth is (or could ever be) warming due to human activities, including increased atmospheric CO2, (and resultant feebacks) I guess it's really not of much interest.

If any of y'all want the full paper I can snag it from behind the paywall. I'd link the PDF here but the file size limit is a problem.

This paper is a wee bit misleading in its language; uses all sorts of quantitative system analysis language that is backed up with...some pretty cartoons.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paperdyer
2 hours ago, Jon the frog said:

Thanos have a good way to stop this....

Don't worry, Part 2 will bring almost everyone back in one actor or another.  Great way to reboot when the actors get too expensive.

 

Seriously, for the CO2 to increase, the other gases need to decrease in percentage, correct?  Otherwise wouldn't atmospheric pressure increase?  Is it measurably increasing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aerosol
4 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

What a ridiculous bag of Alarmism here! CO2 is already saturated in its main absoption band between 14-16 microns. And the Earth already naturaly flucutates more than 2 degrees C across all reagions. These so called Climate Scientists need to take a physics class! And no I'm not a professional before you guys berate me, Science is a hobby of mine. CO2 levels in the atmosphere can double the current levels and it would only amount to a fraction of a degree C. 

These people who claim to know what they are talking about believe the faslehood that Infrared photons (Black body longwave Radiation) will increasing be traped in our Planets thin Atmosphere as CO2 concentrations increase. This is true with small concetrations of CO2 but our Planets atmosphere has always had a CO2 concentration above that level for the Earth's entire history. The CO2 absorption/radiative effect contributes around 3 degrees C heating to the Atmosphere and always has even when CO2 levels where much higher than they are today. We can see evidence of higher temperatures in the past when CO2 levels were much higher in Rock formations and other proxy data, but this is simple assiciation not direct evidence that CO2 concentrations were the cause of that heat. In the past all the contenents we have today were all grouped together in one giant landmass or Super contenent called Pangaea. Over time the contentents as we now know them broke apart and slowly drifted away and or collided with eachother. This movement of land masses over very large amounts of geological time did have a direct effect on Temperatures as they moved around and thusly affected Ocean currents or restricted them and this also affected Atmospheric jet streams and convection patterns. So simply blaming higher temperatures in the past geologic time frames and saying CO2 was at igher concentrations too then CO2 must be the reason for the higher Proxy Teperature data is sophmoric.

So what happens if we double current CO2 concentrations? Almost nothing. At current levels all the Black body longwave infrared radiation that the Earth emits is already absobed by the CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore any radiative forcing that would then re-heat the Earths surface or lower Atmosphere is already occuring at 100% of CO2's capacity to do this. Now The Earth's Atmosphere like all other matter in the universe also radiates black body longwave radiation based on it temperature so you might think that more CO2 would then warm the upper atmosphere since CO2 is a well mixed gas in the Atmosphere. 

Maybe this latter fact mentioned above is what Climate Alarmist Scientists are worried about? Nope, you see in the upper layers of the atmosphere the Black body radiation and aborption will canel eachother out. Every CO2 molecule in the upper Atmosphere that radiates Black body radiation cools and at the upper levels CO2 concentrations are very low so Blackbody radiation from the Atmosphere is much more likely to radiate into space. 

Also at the surface, at sea level where we would supossedly experience the imaginary extra heat Heat from more CO2, there is Wein's wavelength displacement constant. This is basic physics, if temperatur rises the Black body radiation Flux increases in intensity and the wavelegth peak moves to shorter Wavelengths. This means if surface tempurature rises then the intensity of the Fux increases while ate the same time the waveleght displaces to shorter bands and thus more and more black body longeave radiation by passes H2O and CO2 absorption bands that are static. 

And finally CO2 molecules that do absorb a BBKW Photon near the sureface of the Earth don't re-emit a photon as Climate Alarmist Scientists assume actualy collide with othe atmospheric moleicules before they they can re-emit a photon and there for the return to an unexcited state without raditating heat in the IR spectrum and since the atmosphere is saturated already this just contribute heat to the atmosphere in the form of convection as oppesed to re-emiting heat back to the Earths suface.

There is so much wrong with the physics of your story.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aerosol
38 minutes ago, paperdyer said:

Don't worry, Part 2 will bring almost everyone back in one actor or another.  Great way to reboot when the actors get too expensive.

 

Seriously, for the CO2 to increase, the other gases need to decrease in percentage, correct?  Otherwise wouldn't atmospheric pressure increase?  Is it measurably increasing?

I think the pressure would increase, but co2 only count for about 400 ppm (parts per million), which corresponds to 0,04% of the atmosphere, double that number and it is still such a small percentage that the difference is barely measurable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
1 hour ago, paperdyer said:

Seriously, for the CO2 to increase, the other gases need to decrease in percentage, correct?  Otherwise wouldn't atmospheric pressure increase?  Is it measurably increasing?

I can quite understand why people ask this, but as Aerosol says, CO2 constitutes a very small (though not insignificant) part of the atmosphere.   Most of which is actually nitrogen!   

Nitrogen = 78%, CO2 - 0.04%

If all other gases remain the same, a doubling of CO2 will not mean any noticeable change in pressure.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Carlos Allende

To be honest, I'd sooner my kids burst into flames like vampires than have to live under capitalism.

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
5 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

What a ridiculous bag of Alarmism here! CO2 is already saturated in its main absoption band between 14-16 microns. And the Earth already naturaly flucutates more than 2 degrees C across all reagions. These so called Climate Scientists need to take a physics class! And no I'm not a professional before you guys berate me, Science is a hobby of mine. CO2 levels in the atmosphere can double the current levels and it would only amount to a fraction of a degree C. 

The original article is an opinion piece.  It is not science, but speculation; but at least, it is informed speculation.  The article calls for 7 to 9 degrees of warming.  To reach 7 degrees would require more than 1000 ppm CO2 - that's 2.5 times what is in the air right now.  And reaching 9 degrees would require over 4000 ppm.  Humanity will not put that much carbon into the air.

However, there's another source of carbon:  methane.  Warming oceans melt frozen methane on the ocean floor.  That bubbles to the surface and mixes with the air.  Methane is a more-powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.  It causes more heat to be retained in the atmosphere, which further warms the oceans, which melts more methane.  It's called the methane gun and it has been responsible for at least one mass extinction.  It's a feedback loop that if we get into it, we probably can't stop it.  We've already had one scare from this cause.  Nobody can say when the process will become self-sustaining.

Methane has a ten-year half-life before it oxidizes to CO2.  So in the long run, CO2 is the problem.

 

48 minutes ago, Carlos Allende said:

To be honest, I'd sooner my kids burst into flames like vampires than have to live under capitalism.

I wouldn't give up totally on capitalism.  We need "free" markets to make the carbon fee system work.  Private companies are the only things out there that have an incentive to develop and implement green energy.  Trump is demonstrating that government isn't motivated to do so.

But capitalism without competition is called faschism.  Rule by a wealthy elite is just as evil, if not more so, than totalitarianism a la' Hitler or Stalin.

Doug

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon the frog
7 hours ago, paperdyer said:

Don't worry, Part 2 will bring almost everyone back in one actor or another.  Great way to reboot when the actors get too expensive.

 

Seriously, for the CO2 to increase, the other gases need to decrease in percentage, correct?  Otherwise wouldn't atmospheric pressure increase?  Is it measurably increasing?

Well CO2 don't have a big percentage... and co2 going up normally will make O2 drop if it's with combustion of a carbon product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jules99
7 hours ago, paperdyer said:

Don't worry, Part 2 will bring almost everyone back in one actor or another.  Great way to reboot when the actors get too expensive.

 

Seriously, for the CO2 to increase, the other gases need to decrease in percentage, correct?  Otherwise wouldn't atmospheric pressure increase?  Is it measurably increasing?

Looks like it is...

https://www.nature.com/news/2003/030320/full/news030317-6.html

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.