|
|
Post by distant on Jul 12, 2023 8:01:32 GMT
Some scientists say that we are in a new geological time period called the Anthropocene. Personally I don't think this period will last long before the planet's feedback system destroys the source of the increased temperatures. Of course the planet's ecology will go on with species that can survive the temperatures and then the temperatures will start to fall.
Some people point to the deep past when temperatures were much higher than they are now. This is true but humans weren't around then and would probably never have evolved if those conditions had continued.
There's not much we can do about this due to the nature of humans.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 12, 2023 8:48:00 GMT
Some scientists say that we are in a new geological time period called the Anthropocene. Personally I don't think this period will last long before the planet's feedback system destroys the source of the increased temperatures. Of course the planet's ecology will go on with species that can survive the temperatures and then the temperatures will start to fall.
Some people point to the deep past when temperatures were much higher than they are now. This is true but humans weren't around then and would probably never have evolved if those conditions had continued.
There's not much we can do about this due to the nature of humans.
The temperatures are not rising anywhere near as fast as the doomsayers would have you believe. The optimum level for most vegetation in terms of CO2 is about 800-1000 ppm. we are just over halfway there and vegetation will thrive if we get there and the effect on temperature will be minimal as the effect of CO2 is lessened with level of saturation. The problem is population as anyone in their right mind will see that continued increasing is not sustainable in the long term although CO2 increases will help to feed a growing population. The solution seems to be a Logan's Run type scenario with Canada being at the forefront of the Euthanasia project that is growing apace and selection of those 'permitted' to die ever growing and the parameters ever widening. |
|
|
|
Post by distant on Jul 12, 2023 9:29:44 GMT
Some scientists say that we are in a new geological time period called the Anthropocene. Personally I don't think this period will last long before the planet's feedback system destroys the source of the increased temperatures. Of course the planet's ecology will go on with species that can survive the temperatures and then the temperatures will start to fall.
Some people point to the deep past when temperatures were much higher than they are now. This is true but humans weren't around then and would probably never have evolved if those conditions had continued.
There's not much we can do about this due to the nature of humans.
The temperatures are not rising anywhere near as fast as the doomsayers would have you believe. The optimum level for most vegetation in terms of CO2 is about 800-1000 ppm. we are just over halfway there and vegetation will thrive if we get there and the effect on temperature will be minimal as the effect of CO2 is lessened with level of saturation. The problem is population as anyone in their right mind will see that continued increasing is not sustainable in the long term although CO2 increases will help to feed a growing population. The solution seems to be a Logan's Run type scenario with Canada being at the forefront of the Euthanasia project that is growing apace and selection of those 'permitted' to die ever growing and the parameters ever widening. Well I've always thought that global warming was a symptom of overpopulation. I'm not sure I agree with the solution you outline in your post though. Birth control might be a better option, although I think perhaps that there are no adequate solutions. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 12, 2023 9:34:17 GMT
Some scientists say that we are in a new geological time period called the Anthropocene. Personally I don't think this period will last long before the planet's feedback system destroys the source of the increased temperatures. Of course the planet's ecology will go on with species that can survive the temperatures and then the temperatures will start to fall.
Some people point to the deep past when temperatures were much higher than they are now. This is true but humans weren't around then and would probably never have evolved if those conditions had continued.
There's not much we can do about this due to the nature of humans.
The temperatures are not rising anywhere near as fast as the doomsayers would have you believe. The optimum level for most vegetation in terms of CO2 is about 800-1000 ppm. we are just over halfway there and vegetation will thrive if we get there and the effect on temperature will be minimal as the effect of CO2 is lessened with level of saturation. The problem is population as anyone in their right mind will see that continued increasing is not sustainable in the long term although CO2 increases will help to feed a growing population. The solution seems to be a Logan's Run type scenario with Canada being at the forefront of the Euthanasia project that is growing apace and selection of those 'permitted' to die ever growing and the parameters ever widening. Indeed. Pensioners are the new ‘ social security scroungers (and environment killers)‘ and must be demonised accordingly. They are and will be blamed and shamed for being the cause of a world wide “problem’ that is not properly understood . |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 12, 2023 12:01:04 GMT
Some scientists say that we are in a new geological time period called the Anthropocene. Personally I don't think this period will last long before the planet's feedback system destroys the source of the increased temperatures. Of course the planet's ecology will go on with species that can survive the temperatures and then the temperatures will start to fall.
Some people point to the deep past when temperatures were much higher than they are now. This is true but humans weren't around then and would probably never have evolved if those conditions had continued.
There's not much we can do about this due to the nature of humans.
Yes there was such a period. CO2 levels were about 1000ppm. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 12, 2023 17:37:01 GMT
The temperatures are not rising anywhere near as fast as the doomsayers would have you believe. The optimum level for most vegetation in terms of CO2 is about 800-1000 ppm. we are just over halfway there and vegetation will thrive if we get there and the effect on temperature will be minimal as the effect of CO2 is lessened with level of saturation. The problem is population as anyone in their right mind will see that continued increasing is not sustainable in the long term although CO2 increases will help to feed a growing population. The solution seems to be a Logan's Run type scenario with Canada being at the forefront of the Euthanasia project that is growing apace and selection of those 'permitted' to die ever growing and the parameters ever widening. Well I've always thought that global warming was a symptom of overpopulation. I'm not sure I agree with the solution you outline in your post though. Birth control might be a better option, although I think perhaps that there are no adequate solutions. I was not advocating the solution I was observing that this is what appears to be the process for the future. Birth Control does not work, as it seems many believe fecundity is the Deity's (whichever one one believes in) preference for His followers. Canada seems to have extended Euthanasia to all sorts of people including those unable to afford the treatment they need. |
|
|
|
Post by distant on Jul 12, 2023 19:24:28 GMT
Some scientists say that we are in a new geological time period called the Anthropocene. Personally I don't think this period will last long before the planet's feedback system destroys the source of the increased temperatures. Of course the planet's ecology will go on with species that can survive the temperatures and then the temperatures will start to fall.
Some people point to the deep past when temperatures were much higher than they are now. This is true but humans weren't around then and would probably never have evolved if those conditions had continued.
There's not much we can do about this due to the nature of humans.
Yes there was such a period. CO2 levels were about 1000ppm.
We can see from the above image that in the last 500 million years the Earth has been hotter than it is now for long periods. I suppose one good thing we can deduce from this is that the Earth is unlikely to go the way of Venus. One scary thing is that 23 million years ago the Earth had the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as it has now, but the temperature was 3 to 4 degrees higher than it is now. Could that happen now?
|
|
|
|
Post by distant on Jul 12, 2023 19:25:58 GMT
Well I've always thought that global warming was a symptom of overpopulation. I'm not sure I agree with the solution you outline in your post though. Birth control might be a better option, although I think perhaps that there are no adequate solutions. I was not advocating the solution I was observing that this is what appears to be the process for the future. Birth Control does not work, as it seems many believe fecundity is the Deity's (whichever one one believes in) preference for His followers. Canada seems to have extended Euthanasia to all sorts of people including those unable to afford the treatment they need. Yes of course, I should have read a bit better. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 12, 2023 21:30:30 GMT
Yes there was such a period. CO2 levels were about 1000ppm.
We can see from the above image that in the last 500 million years the Earth has been hotter than it is now for long periods. I suppose one good thing we can deduce from this is that the Earth is unlikely to go the way of Venus. One scary thing is that 23 million years ago the Earth had the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as it has now, but the temperature was 3 to 4 degrees higher than it is now. Could that happen now?
I don't know, but it may be possible to find out on faster super computers. It's such a complicated system that any graph like that is really just chaotic noise. There's no real discernable pattern to it. The other problem we have is understanding the maths of complexity. Some Italian mathematician recently won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on complex systems. I think he said it was applicable to modelling climate systems. You see sometimes maths can find shortcuts to turn a problem too complicated to compute into one we can compute. |
|
|
|
Post by distant on Jul 12, 2023 22:05:29 GMT
We can see from the above image that in the last 500 million years the Earth has been hotter than it is now for long periods. I suppose one good thing we can deduce from this is that the Earth is unlikely to go the way of Venus. One scary thing is that 23 million years ago the Earth had the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as it has now, but the temperature was 3 to 4 degrees higher than it is now. Could that happen now?
I don't know, but it may be possible to find out on faster super computers. It's such a complicated system that any graph like that is really just chaotic noise. There's no real discernable pattern to it. The other problem we have is understanding the maths of complexity. Some Italian mathematician recently won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on complex systems. I think he said it was applicable to modelling climate systems. You see sometimes maths can find shortcuts to turn a problem too complicated to compute into one we can compute. Well the Earth wobbles on its axis but in a predictable way, which is thought to be the main reason for ice ages. The unpredictable factor is volcanic activity which can emit large amounts of CO2. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 12, 2023 23:09:32 GMT
I don't know, but it may be possible to find out on faster super computers. It's such a complicated system that any graph like that is really just chaotic noise. There's no real discernable pattern to it. The other problem we have is understanding the maths of complexity. Some Italian mathematician recently won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on complex systems. I think he said it was applicable to modelling climate systems. You see sometimes maths can find shortcuts to turn a problem too complicated to compute into one we can compute. Well the Earth wobbles on its axis but in a predictable way, which is thought to be the main reason for ice ages. The unpredictable factor is volcanic activity which can emit large amounts of CO2. The rate of precession is once every 26 000 years, so on the scale you show there is averages out. I don't think volcanoes normally emit the amount of stuff that can change the global climate, at least not for more than a very short time. It's more the dust and stuff that blasts into the atmosphere. Anyway the modelling used to predict global warming is more to do with radiation in vs radiation out. The world's weather a systems are complicated. We can be sure there is more co2 going up there, but not too sure how the system would react to it. |
|
|
|
Post by distant on Jul 14, 2023 10:21:14 GMT
On reflection, I think there is a possible explanation why the Earth isn't 3 to 4 degrees centigrade hotter than it actually is. We can see from the graph that 23 million years ago, when the CO2 content of the atmosphere was about the same as it is now, there were no ice caps (see the small spike on the graph). They say the ice caps and glaciers are receding now and there is evidence to support this. The more the ice caps recede the less of the sun's rays get reflected back into space and the warmer it gets until the ice caps disappear. So perhaps it's only a matter of time before we are 3 to 4 degrees hotter than we are are now. I don't know on a human time scale how long this will take but on a geological time scale it should happen very quickly.
I wonder why no one has come up with a way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere at a rate fast enough to stop the warming. It must be possible because vegetation seems to have no problem extracting CO2. Vegetation which we are destroying at an alarming rate. Of course if someone could devise such devices then they would have to be careful not to go to far in case they trigger an ice age.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 15, 2023 14:11:47 GMT
On reflection, I think there is a possible explanation why the Earth isn't 3 to 4 degrees centigrade hotter than it actually is. We can see from the graph that 23 million years ago, when the CO2 content of the atmosphere was about the same as it is now, there were no ice caps (see the small spike on the graph). They say the ice caps and glaciers are receding now and there is evidence to support this. The more the ice caps recede the less of the sun's rays get reflected back into space and the warmer it gets until the ice caps disappear. So perhaps it's only a matter of time before we are 3 to 4 degrees hotter than we are are now. I don't know on a human time scale how long this will take but on a geological time scale it should happen very quickly. I wonder why no one has come up with a way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere at a rate fast enough to stop the warming. It must be possible because vegetation seems to have no problem extracting CO2. Vegetation which we are destroying at an alarming rate. Of course if someone could devise such devices then they would have to be careful not to go to far in case they trigger an ice age. You need some mathematical background to understand what is gong on with these climate patterns.
I found a little tutorial which gives you an introduction.
Regarding extracting CO2, yes it can be done but it needs energy to do it and is fairly expensive, but the price is coming down. It is cheaper to clean up emissions of CO2 from source since the concentrations are much higher.
|
|
|
|
Post by distant on Jul 15, 2023 16:35:39 GMT
On reflection, I think there is a possible explanation why the Earth isn't 3 to 4 degrees centigrade hotter than it actually is. We can see from the graph that 23 million years ago, when the CO2 content of the atmosphere was about the same as it is now, there were no ice caps (see the small spike on the graph). They say the ice caps and glaciers are receding now and there is evidence to support this. The more the ice caps recede the less of the sun's rays get reflected back into space and the warmer it gets until the ice caps disappear. So perhaps it's only a matter of time before we are 3 to 4 degrees hotter than we are are now. I don't know on a human time scale how long this will take but on a geological time scale it should happen very quickly. I wonder why no one has come up with a way to extract CO2 from the atmosphere at a rate fast enough to stop the warming. It must be possible because vegetation seems to have no problem extracting CO2. Vegetation which we are destroying at an alarming rate. Of course if someone could devise such devices then they would have to be careful not to go to far in case they trigger an ice age. You need some mathematical background to understand what is gong on with these climate patterns.
I found a little tutorial which gives you an introduction.
Regarding extracting CO2, yes it can be done but it needs energy to do it and is fairly expensive, but the price is coming down. It is cheaper to clean up emissions of CO2 from source since the concentrations are much higher.
I remember the Lorenz Attractor from the 1990's program Fractint. I think you can still run it by installing DOS in a virtual machine. It could produce some pretty images but I'm not sure it can solve the climate problem. |
|
|
|
Post by distant on Jul 15, 2023 16:43:17 GMT
Well the Earth wobbles on its axis but in a predictable way, which is thought to be the main reason for ice ages. The unpredictable factor is volcanic activity which can emit large amounts of CO2. The rate of precession is once every 26 000 years, so on the scale you show there is averages out. I don't think volcanoes normally emit the amount of stuff that can change the global climate, at least not for more than a very short time. It's more the dust and stuff that blasts into the atmosphere. Anyway the modelling used to predict global warming is more to do with radiation in vs radiation out. The world's weather a systems are complicated. We can be sure there is more co2 going up there, but not too sure how the system would react to it. 
There was something at the back of my mind about volcanic activity in the deep past, and I now remember what it is. Some years ago I read an article on the internet about the Snowball Earth theory. There were two events between 600 and 700 million years ago when the Earth was completely covered in ice, or at least there is evidence for this. I won't try and explain how the Earth got into this state because I don't think anyone is sure.
When you look at the image above you have to wonder how the Earth ever got out of that state because it must have reflected most of the Sun's radiation back into space. The Earth must have seemed totally inert to any passing alien except for one thing. Volcanic activity was still going on and emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. With no precipitation to wash the CO2 out of the atmosphere the temperature just got hotter and hotter until it melted all the ice. The theory goes that this would have produced so much water vapour that it rained continually for about 100 years. This was torrential rain like no one has ever seen.
So at least on these two occasions it seems like it was CO2 which saved the Earth, you might say.
|
|
