Physicists predict Earth will become a chaotic world, with dire consequences

[syo]

People are greedy to a fault. We are doomed.

 

[Balthazzar]

It's inevitable anyway, but I suppose the timeline may be altered in our favor - If we can manage to ... accomplish this, that, and that too, oh and then another wall necessitating even greater efforts not soon after. Realistically speaking, we could use a slow down across the board, but then what happens to global exchange and commerce? Us country simpletons may be ok with it, but how about more industrious territories and cultures? Money, meh - what's next? The next "new" thing better than sliced bread gimmicky creation based on need and necessity - that ... umm ... we learn years later we never really needed after all, just some variant of.

Resources and survival vs. fair market and capitalism vs. I want it all or the largest piece of pie mentalities. It's already chaos - and here we sit as concerned citizens, who could, if we so chose to, live in a manner more condusive to the greater necessitated goals. I think we're heading there anyway, motivated by necessity no less, and capitalistic, resource depleting industry continually set up for the rap...unless the spin doctors can spin the depletion of and the industrious greed ridden conglomerates - in a way that makes them appear as being "the good guys", which is typically the way it goes, given individual and family needs in terms of pay checks and salaries for --- the services offed to.

We've gotten too comfortable -

 

[wellwisher]

"If the Earth System gets into the region of chaotic behavior, we will lose all hope of somehow fixing the problem."
Humans aren't just making Earth warmer, they are making the climate chaotic, a stark new study suggests.


The new research, which was posted April 21 to the preprint database arXiv (opens in new tab), draws a broad and general picture of the full potential impact of human activity on the climate. And the picture isn't pretty.

While the study doesn't present a complete simulation of a climate model, it does paint a broad sketch of where we're heading if we don't curtail climate change and our unchecked use of fossil fuels, according to the study authors, scientists in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Porto in Portugal. .


"The implications of climate change are well known (droughts, heat waves, extreme phenomena, etc)," study researcher Orfeu Bertolami told Live Science in an email. "If the Earth System gets into the region of chaotic behavior, we will lose all hope of somehow fixing the problem."

First of all this theory does not take into the account natural cycles of the earth based on 500 million years of geological evidence. The average earth temperature over that time is over 15 degree warmer than today. We are still in a glacial cycle that is warming up. The earth has done this many times. No glaciers is far more common to the earth, than having glaciers. Below is a graph posted on NOAA from the Smithsonian Institute. It is within a Q&A article about the warmest the earth has ever been.

If look at the far right of the graph the little dot is today. We are part of a warming trend from that has been going on for centuries before 1880, when the official record keeping started. If you look at the graph the earth has gained about 8 degrees since the temperature bottomed out. The Physics theory appears to be out of context with natural earth cycles.

Even if we got rid of fossil fuels, the earth will still warm up since natural CO2 generation is what drives the natural warming cycles. Most of the CO2 comes from the shifting of the earth's crust; plate tectonics and volcanoes. If we get rid of fossil fuels we will be screwed unable to meet the natural challenges of an earth warming trend. We will need will be more air conditioning to keep us cool. This takes a lot of energy.

Florida is a nice place with AC. but would be very harsh without it. How will green energy keep us cool? California is now restricting charging electric cars, since their grid cannot take it, when it gets too hot. The bone heads in California want to add another 20 million electric cars that cannot be charged all the time. They are setting themselves up for a nightmare. Maybe we need to let them, so the boneheads can learn.

Fossil fuel needs to part of the blend, to help keep cool during this next earth warming cycle. I like natural gas for electricity generation. We may have to change where we grow food. But we need all our energy options open. The fear mongering needs to stop. Let us man up and face the challenges of tomorrow, with all our tools, so we are not under prepared.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all this theory does not take into the account natural cycles of the earth based on 500 million years of geological evidence. The average earth temperature over that time is over 15 degree warmer than today. We are still in a glacial cycle that is warming up. The earth has done this many times. No glaciers is far more common to the earth, than having glaciers. Below is a graph posted on NOAA from the Smithsonian Institute. It is within a Q&A article about the warmest the earth has ever been.

If look at the far right of the graph the little dot is today. We are part of a warming trend from that has been going on for centuries before 1880, when the official record keeping started. If you look at the graph the earth has gained about 8 degrees since the temperature bottomed out. The Physics theory appears to be out of context with natural earth cycles.

Even if we got rid of fossil fuels, the earth will still warm up since natural CO2 generation is what drives the natural warming cycles. Most of the CO2 comes from the shifting of the earth's crust; plate tectonics and volcanoes. If we get rid of fossil fuels we will be screwed unable to meet the natural challenges of an earth warming trend. We will need will be more air conditioning to keep us cool. This takes a lot of energy.

Florida is a nice place with AC. but would be very harsh without it. How will green energy keep us cool? California is now restricting charging electric cars, since their grid cannot take it, when it gets too hot. The bone heads in California want to add another 20 million electric cars that cannot be charged all the time. They are setting themselves up for a nightmare. Maybe we need to let them, so the boneheads can learn.

Fossil fuel needs to part of the blend, to help keep cool during this next earth warming cycle. I like natural gas for electricity generation. We may have to change where we grow food. But we need all our energy options open. The fear mongering needs to stop. Let us man up and face the challenges of tomorrow, with all our tools, so we are not under prepared.

Have you even considered that they just might improve the infrastructure in California? In fact there is a major bill being worked on that will do that.

And you should not be calling others "boneheads" when you claim that climate scientists have ignored the past climate. How many times do you need to be told it is not the amount of warming that is so bad, it is the rate of warming.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, well I can't do that. Most of humanity can't actually do this. We need energy to survive. Current energy production emits contaminants.

IMO scientists not only need to point out the problem, they are going to have to come up with the solution as well.

I've got a solution, but most people don't want to know.
..nothing new there.

"For the rich man to enter heaven is like the camel passing through the eye of the needle."

I often here politicians claiming that we have to look after the rich, as they are the ones who look after the poor.
That attitude will never save the planet.

 

[Nakosis]

I've got a solution, but most people don't want to know.
..nothing new there.

"For the rich man to enter heaven is like the camel passing through the eye of the needle."

I often here politicians claiming that we have to look after the rich, as they are the ones who look after the poor.
That attitude will never save the planet.

So the problem seems to be with the politicians we elect to represent us?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So the problem seems to be with the politicians we elect to represent us?

..which means that the problem is with us..
Most people vote for the party more likely to favour them financially.
..call me cynical, if you like.

 

[wellwisher]

Have you even considered that they just might improve the infrastructure in California? In fact there is a major bill being worked on that will do that.

And you should not be calling others "boneheads" when you claim that climate scientists have ignored the past climate. How many times do you need to be told it is not the amount of warming that is so bad, it is the rate of warming.

The problem they will face with building the power infrastructure will be the same left wing resistance to building anything that will have an environmental impact. If we need 100 miles of towers and wires and power stations to fix a small part of the grid, and a little frog is in the cross hairs, this will be resisted and it will take decades with cost overruns.

The same environmental concerned screwed nuclear power, since the 1960's. If they had not been there to obstruct, nuke power may have prevented the current greenhouse affect; short sighted people. We could be 50 years ahead and not behind.

If the environmentalists soften their stance about environmental purity, to allow the gird, then others things, they do not like, will slide in. In the Inflation Bill that the Democrats pass there is a fast track law for building that includes power infrastructure and fossil fuels. The Democrats party is now divided about the fossil fuel aspect, with some wanting to renege on the deal but keep the bill; bait and switch.

Glad You Asked: Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? – Utah Geological Survey

The link above is from the Utah Geological Survey. It is part of Q&A response about ice ages. The article starts out with a respectful bow to the science connected to manmade climate change. This bow include links to more reading about industrial climate impact. It then presents the geological data and analysis. Below is a quote from that article.

Records show that ice ages typically develop slowly, whereas they end more abruptly. Glacials and interglacials within an ice age display this same trend.

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.

For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?

Picture if New York,London or Paris broke a daily temperature record by 20 degrees. We have not seen anything quite like that, since we live in a stable time of slower change.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem they will face with building the power infrastructure will be the same left wing resistance to building anything that will have an environmental impact. If we need 100 miles of towers and wires and power stations to fix a small part of the grid, and a little frog is in the cross hairs, this will be resisted and it will take decades with cost overruns.

The same environmental concerned screwed nuclear power, since the 1960's. If they had not been there to obstruct, nuke power may have prevented the current greenhouse affect; short sighted people. We could be 50 years ahead and not behind.

If the environmentalists soften their stance about environmental purity, to allow the gird, then others things, they do not like, will slide in. In the Inflation Bill that the Democrats pass there is a fast track law for building that includes power infrastructure and fossil fuels. The Democrats party is now divided about the fossil fuel aspect, with some wanting to renege on the deal but keep the bill; bait and switch.

Glad You Asked: Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? – Utah Geological Survey

The link above is from the Utah Geological Survey. It is part of Q&A response about ice ages. The article starts out with a respectful bow to the science connected to manmade climate change. This bow include links to more reading about industrial climate impact. It then presents the geological data and analysis. Below is a quote from that article.

Records show that ice ages typically develop slowly, whereas they end more abruptly. Glacials and interglacials within an ice age display this same trend.

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.

For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?

Picture if New York,London or Paris broke a daily temperature record by 20 degrees. We have not seen anything quite like that, since we live in a stable time of slower change.

And yes, glacial periods ended "abruptly". but far less abruptly than our current rise in temperatures. Also we still are technically in an ice age. Though it would take hundreds of years, instead of thousands as in the end of a glaciation, we may be ending the ice age right now. Also please note in your article that the temperature spikes they were talking about were local. Science deniers always grab on to these local claims as if they were meaningful. We are talking about Global Warming. That means an average increase over the entire planet. I used to make the same errors when I argued against AGW. I would find an article about local climate changes and try to make a big thing about it.

And there have been people that were doom and gloomers that had beliefs of your faulty 20 degree record heat. We are not going to see that. What we are going to see is a steady increase in temperatures over a period of five years or so. You might see an occasional 5 degree record jump, but most jumps are going to be just a degree or two. What you should be looking at are the number of new highs to new lows. And you will see that new record highs outstrip new record lows by a factor of more than two. If we were not warming or cooling they would be almost equal. If the world was cooling we would see more new record lows than new record highs.

For example the ten hottest records years since we could directly measure temperature are all in the 21st century. The are all from 2005 to 2019:
Hottest Years on Record

You are currently grasping at straws when it comes to AGW. It is going to warm for quite some time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

..which means that the problem is with us..
Most people vote for the party more likely to favour them financially.
..call me cynical, if you like.

Or the party that can convince that they are for them, even if a close examination of their policies demonstrate that they really are not. It is at times easy to fool people.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And now for a bit of hopeful news:

A breakthrough discovery in carbon capture conversion for ethylene conversion​

Impressive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And now for a bit of hopeful news:

A breakthrough discovery in carbon capture conversion for ethylene conversion​

Impressive.

Hopeful. But not very. I would like to see some of their numbers. It obviously could not convert the CO2 from power plants since the process that they are talking about still takes quite a bit of energy to make. It does appear that the production of ethylene itself could become fairly "green". And that will help. Every little bit helps. But this will do nothing when it comes to taking existing CO2 out of the atmosphere or lowering it from such sources as transportation. But still, every step forward should be welcomed. I just don't want people getting false hope up an buying that Ford 550 pickup truck.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And now for a bit of hopeful news:

A breakthrough discovery in carbon capture conversion for ethylene conversion​

Impressive.

Mmm .. every little helps, I suppose.
..but you can't stop everything from "farting"

No .. we have to change our attitude.
We simply have to use less energy.
..and the rich use a lot more than the poor.

The poor use less for heating/cooling .. eat less meat .. drive less miles etc.

 

[wellwisher]

And yes, glacial periods ended "abruptly". but far less abruptly than our current rise in temperatures. Also we still are technically in an ice age. Though it would take hundreds of years, instead of thousands as in the end of a glaciation, we may be ending the ice age right now. Also please note in your article that the temperature spikes they were talking about were local. Science deniers always grab on to these local claims as if they were meaningful. We are talking about Global Warming. That means an average increase over the entire planet. I used to make the same errors when I argued against AGW. I would find an article about local climate changes and try to make a big thing about it.

And there have been people that were doom and gloomers that had beliefs of your faulty 20 degree record heat. We are not going to see that. What we are going to see is a steady increase in temperatures over a period of five years or so. You might see an occasional 5 degree record jump, but most jumps are going to be just a degree or two. What you should be looking at are the number of new highs to new lows. And you will see that new record highs outstrip new record lows by a factor of more than two. If we were not warming or cooling they would be almost equal. If the world was cooling we would see more new record lows than new record highs.

For example the ten hottest records years since we could directly measure temperature are all in the 21st century. The are all from 2005 to 2019:
Hottest Years on Record

You are currently grasping at straws when it comes to AGW. It is going to warm for quite some time.

The geological evidence shows 24 sudden changes in climate over just the past 100,000 years. How times have we had man made climate change over that time? The answer we are in the middle of one, at the best. Cold fusion also had one at best.

The scientific method requires more than one example of any phenomena in question, before it it can become a fact. Other labs tried to create cold fusion and were not able. One cycle of cold fusion was not enough for science. Why is the standard being watered down for manmade climate change? The geological claim has met the burden of science proof 24 times and we are supposed to say that is wrong and one partial experiment is right?

The hottest days on record is misleading. This is based on a record book that started in 1880 or so. The earth was thousand of degrees in its real record days. Manmade record days are different.


The way the earth naturally reverses the build up of CO2 is with rain water and the silicates soil. There is a chemical reaction that fixes the CO2 into minerals. Geologists can see this in layers. As the earth warms, more water is in the atmosphere, so we get more rain and more natural CO2 fixation. Hurricanes can only start in warm tropical places since warm is where atmospheric water concentration is highest.

During glacial cycles the earth is colder and more of the atmospheric water is falling as snow and ice. Snow and ice are not reactive states of water for carbon fixation. This causes CO2 to linger. This is seen as gaps in the CO2 rock layers. As CO2 slowly builds from natural sources, the earth warms again.

If we melt the glaciers, there is more global rain water, and less ice and snow, so the global CO2 fixation rates will increase even more. The 24 cycles of warm and cool is part of a self regulating earth feature connected to water and the phases of water.

Most of the natural CO2 comes from seismic activity such as crustal movement and volcanoes above and below the ocean. La Niña, which is impacting our current world weather is connected to cold ocean water that periodically pools in the equatorial Pacific Ocean.

This cold water come from down deep in the ocean. It is being pushed up from below by activity on the ocean floor. Cold water should sink and never reach the surface. For it to be rising means it is being pushed upward by seismic activity and gas vents. CO2 in the atmosphere will not cause cold water to rise and impact global weather.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The geological evidence shows 24 sudden changes in climate over just the past 100,000 years. How times have we had man made climate change over that time? The answer we are in the middle of one, at the best. Cold fusion also had one at best.

The scientific method requires more than one example of any phenomena in question, before it it can become a fact. Other labs tried to create cold fusion and were not able. One cycle of cold fusion was not enough for science. Why is the standard being watered down for manmade climate change? The geological claim has met the burden of science proof 24 times and we are supposed to say that is wrong and one partial experiment is right?

The hottest days on record is misleading. This is based on a record book that started in 1880 or so. The earth was thousand of degrees in its real record days. Manmade record days are different.


The way the earth naturally reverses the build up of CO2 is with rain water and the silicates soil. There is a chemical reaction that fixes the CO2 into minerals. Geologists can see this in layers. As the earth warms, more water is in the atmosphere, so we get more rain and more natural CO2 fixation. Hurricanes can only start in warm tropical places since warm is where atmospheric water concentration is highest.

During glacial cycles the earth is colder and more of the atmospheric water is falling as snow and ice. Snow and ice are not reactive states of water for carbon fixation. This causes CO2 to linger. This is seen as gaps in the CO2 rock layers. As CO2 slowly builds from natural sources, the earth warms again.

If we melt the glaciers, there is more global rain water, and less ice and snow, so the global CO2 fixation rates will increase even more. The 24 cycles of warm and cool is part of a self regulating earth feature connected to water and the phases of water.

Most of the natural CO2 comes from seismic activity such as crustal movement and volcanoes above and below the ocean. La Niña, which is impacting our current world weather is connected to cold ocean water that periodically pools in the equatorial Pacific Ocean.

This cold water come from down deep in the ocean. It is being pushed up from below by activity on the ocean floor. Cold water should sink and never reach the surface. For it to be rising means it is being pushed upward by seismic activity and gas vents. CO2 in the atmosphere will not cause cold water to rise and impact global weather.

I see that you are not listening. You need to find examples of global climate change that is occurring at our present and accelerating rate.

 

[wellwisher]

I see that you are not listening. You need to find examples of global climate change that is occurring at our present and accelerating rate.

This is the first example, in the 5 billion year history of the earth, where we have, what is claimed to be, Manmade climate change. This is a very unique event, even compare to sending a man to the moon. We need a second example to make sure this not a fluke or an illusion. It is like me sinking a basketball, full court, once, and then claiming I am one of the best shooters of all times. People would like to see more than one example to support this provocative claim. I would prefer call it a done deal, and enjoy the sunshine.

Science is about being able to repeat claims, to show there is a solid basis for that claim. My position is climate change is natural to the earth with this claim having lots of verifying examples. This claim has been verified by more than one example and one than one team. Geology uses a long time scale to let each global experiment run its course. Based on the philosophy of science, one claim, somewhere in the middle of an experiment is not enough. We need this experiment to complete and then a second test, if the philosophy of science matters.

Has anyone ever tried to recreate the exact climate monitoring stations, placements, techniques and tools of 1880, today, so we can compare their data, with the logistics of today, to make sure we have a level observational playing field? Our tools of today are more advanced and are far more vast in terms of numbers and placement. We can take readings all over the earth from satellite. They could not do this in 1880. Their numbers may be a high or low due to their tech and placement limitations.

The earth's surface is mostly water; 71%, with very few people living on the water, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in 1880, to measure that water-air temperature. They had ships to help in 1880, but they often took trade routes; currents, and that would still leave lots of holes in the ocean data. The devil is in the details. Satellites can add to the average, what once could not are added.

For example, today every hurricane and typhoon is monitored and named. One can watch the radar on TV to see origins. In 1880 many hurricanes were never seen, since there were no satellites. They had some good data, some anecdotal information and blanks. Their official record count would be low. Better tracking and reporting of hurricanes allows us to set and break official records even with the same number of hurricanes.

I would like to see a study using the exact 1880 standards to measure 2023, to see if there is tech based bias. We should also use modern tech as the control. The 1880 team would need to be off the tech grid, so there is no cheating; mercury thermometers, pen and paper. Teams may not see each other except by telegraph. There would be no automation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is the first example, in the 5 billion year history of the earth, where we have, what is claimed to be, Manmade climate change. This is a very unique event, even compare to sending a man to the moon. We need a second example to make sure this not a fluke or an illusion. It is like me sinking a basketball, full court, once, and then claiming I am one of the best shooters of all times. People would like to see more than one example to support this provocative claim. I would prefer call it a done deal, and enjoy the sunshine.

Science is about being able to repeat claims, to show there is a solid basis for that claim. My position is climate change is natural to the earth with this claim having lots of verifying examples. This claim has been verified by more than one example and one than one team. Geology uses a long time scale to let each global experiment run its course. Based on the philosophy of science, one claim, somewhere in the middle of an experiment is not enough. We need this experiment to complete and then a second test, if the philosophy of science matters.

Has anyone ever tried to recreate the exact climate monitoring stations, placements, techniques and tools of 1880, today, so we can compare their data, with the logistics of today, to make sure we have a level observational playing field? Our tools of today are more advanced and are far more vast in terms of numbers and placement. We can take readings all over the earth from satellite. They could not do this in 1880. Their numbers may be a high or low due to their tech and placement limitations.

The earth's surface is mostly water; 71%, with very few people living on the water, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in 1880, to measure that water-air temperature. They had ships to help in 1880, but they often took trade routes; currents, and that would still leave lots of holes in the ocean data. The devil is in the details. Satellites can add to the average, what once could not are added.

For example, today every hurricane and typhoon is monitored and named. One can watch the radar on TV to see origins. In 1880 many hurricanes were never seen, since there were no satellites. They had some good data, some anecdotal information and blanks. Their official record count would be low. Better tracking and reporting of hurricanes allows us to set and break official records even with the same number of hurricanes.

I would like to see a study using the exact 1880 standards to measure 2023, to see if there is tech based bias. We should also use modern tech as the control. The 1880 team would need to be off the tech grid, so there is no cheating; mercury thermometers, pen and paper. Teams may not see each other except by telegraph. There would be no automation.

I stopped reading at "claimed to be manmade".

We know that it is manmade. You don't seem to realize that. Do you know how we know how we know that AGW is manmade?

 

[muhammad_isa]

We know that it is manmade..

Of course we do .. it's a scientific fact.
Can scientific facts be wrong? Yes.

Do many scientists think that man-made climate change is false?
.. I don't know of any.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course we do .. it's a scientific fact.
Can scientific facts be wrong? Yes.

Do many scientists think that man-made climate change is false?
.. I don't know of any.

Of all of the facts out there scientific facts tend to be the most reliable. So if you ever called anything a fact then yes, it is a fact that AGW is manmade. It is also not all that hard to understand why.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It is also not all that hard to understand why.

No, it isn't.
We have been burning more fossil fuels year on year.
The only time when emissions slowed down is in the pandemic, when lockdowns took much traffic off the roads, and slowing down factory production.