Select to expand quotecammd said..fangman said..cammd said..
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adk3705
Cenzoic period looks like its been getting chilly
I thought perhaps an explainer for the cycles in the plot above might be helpful.
Cambrian Explosion (~540 million years ago):Warm, greenhouse conditions with high CO? levels, likely due to volcanic activity and the absence of significant polar ice.
Late Ordovician (~450-440 million years ago):Glaciation caused by declining CO? levels due to silicate weathering and burial of organic carbon.
Permian-Triassic (~252 million years ago):The greatest warming in Earth's history due to Siberian Trap volcanism. GMST increased by ~8-10?C.
Cretaceous Thermal Maximum (~94 million years ago):Exceptionally warm period due to high CO? from volcanic activity and reduced carbon burial.
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, ~56 million years ago):A rapid spike in GMST (~5-8?C) caused by massive carbon release, possibly from methane hydrates or volcanic activity.
Pleistocene Glaciations (~2.5 million to ~11,700 years ago):Alternating glacial and interglacial periods driven by orbital changes (Milankovitch cycles).
Anthropocene (~Industrial Era to present):Modern warming due to anthropogenic CO? emissions is unprecedented in rate and scale compared to natural drivers. On the time scale above, this is just a couple of pixels at the far right. It has happened within a century, compared to previous events measured over millions of years.
All those periods are measured in tens of millions or hundreds of millions of years. You mention Anthropocene has seen the emissions increase at unprecedented rates and scale.
A few of points.
The Anthropocene can only be what 150 or 200 years of emissions. Why does temperature begin to increase at the "unprecedented" rate from the moment the industrial revolution starts. Surely emissions at the beginning had zero effect as they had no time to build.
How do you compare emissions over 100s of millions of years to emissions over decades and state they are unprecedented, it's BS. No one knows what happened 450 and 350 million years ago. It's an educated guess at best.
Which brings me to the last point, we know a big volcanic eruption releases more emissions in 1 hour than china does in a year. If periods like the Cambrian, Permian and Cretaceous were highly volcanic I find it difficult to believe the start of Industrial revolution instantly reached unprecedented rates of emissions compared to a highly volcanic period.
So I call BS on 99 percent of claims about anthropogenic climate change. It's a sale pitch.
I will work on the rest of the inaccuracies tomoz, but for a start:
Claim: "A big volcanic eruption releases more emissions in 1 hour than China does in a year.
Reality:Volcanic eruptions do emit significant amounts of gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), but the total annual emissions from all volcanic activity (both eruptions and degassing) are estimated to be around 0.26 gigatons of CO2 per year.
In contrast, China alone emitted approximately 12 gigatons of CO2 in 2022, far surpassing annual volcanic emissions.Even the largest eruptions (e.g., Mount Pinatubo in 1991 or Krakatoa in 1883) emitted only a fraction of the CO2 released by human activities in a single year.
Modern human emissions dwarf volcanic emissions by at least two orders of magnitude.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
I noted the climate has never been static and mostly a lot warmer than it is now, I asked remery for his thoughts on those observations and he posted a dumb meme instead of attempting some original thought.
I'm a busy man, I only have time to help people who want to learn (ie, not you).
According to this graph the CO2 had to drop to below todays level for temp to slowly get back to what it is today. ie 3 million years to self-correct. (Well that's just me going on those 2 graphs with mis-matched x axis, What do you make of it?)
It was 280 ppm before the industrial revolution, but a couple of blacksmiths WW1 and WW2 had only raised it to 300ppm. It's risen another 125ppm since I was born. If we do nothing, just carry on as normal it'll rise at least another 125ppm in the next 70 years. That's definitely into the hot zone. In 350 years we'd be back in the +14 C range. When do you think we should start doing something about it?
(Apparently there's heaps of coal to last well beyond 350 years. Not sure about oil but they seem to keep on finding it.)
Another interesting fact, at 700ppm, the concentration of CO2 in a crowded physics 101 lecture theatre for instance, we become drowsy and susceptible to nodding off. That's only 200 years away, can we evolve to remain alert outdoors in 6 or 7 generations?
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
Another interesting fact, at 700ppm, the concentration of CO2 in a crowded physics 101 lecture theatre for instance, we become drowsy and susceptible to nodding off. That's only 200 years away, can we evolve to remain alert outdoors in 6 or 7 generations?
That is an interesting fact, its rather alarming. It's also an interesting fact that you need to look at what people do rather than what they say in order to get to the truth of what makes them tick.
With that in mind I have to assume no one in Australia really believes in man made climate change. It's all well and fine to talk about saving the world ....... but not if you have to turn your aircon off right. I don't think you really believe net zero is a solution to a man made problem, if you did you would be acting differently.
www.best-selling-cars.com/germany/2024-full-year-germany-car-market-overview-and-analysis/
Not so keen on ev,s no more in the land of net zero.
EVs of course will only make a minor dent in emissions, but as cammd said, actions rather than words. They are an easy no-compromise-to-lifestyle option to demonstrate you are a little concerned about the climate.
As for turning off the aircon!
Select to expand quotecammd said.. >>> I have to assume no one in Australia really believes in man made climate change. It's all well and fine to talk about saving the world ....... but not if you have to turn your aircon off right. I don't think you really believe net zero is a solution to a man made problem, if you did you would be acting differently.
I disagree, a lot of people are aware of the problem, but look around them and see how bad the situation is, and think how much difference can I make, it's up to the powers that be to do something.
The trouble is, all the misinformation from the fossil fuel lobby, is having a huge impact on political will.
We haven't got our use down to 0 but it's getting close.
There's just no incentive to do so, people look at you strange when you talk about minimising your carbon foot print.
In the end net 0 will have to be the answer, if there's anybody serious enough to achieve it.
Time will tell, but I won't be here to see it.
Net zero is all that'll do it. Volcanoes raised it in the past during times of intense activity. What's intense acticity? Lets say, at a guess, it's 10 times what it is today. Then that is, according to Fangman's googling, 0.26 times 10 = 2.6 gigatonnes per year. China's currently doing 12 gigatonnes pa. So even a small amount above what the natural sinks can pull out will get levels too high, just takes a bit longer.
Select to expand quoteIan K said.. >>> As for turning off the aircon!
You can design houses so they need almost no aircon.
Our bodies can adapt to a wide range of temperatures, it doesn't have to be at a constant 24C
That's another strange facet of human nature I don't understand, in Winter a lot of people set their temps very high, up to 26C, in summer they set it very cold down to 19C. This makes no sense and isn't healthy.
In summer 24-25 should be fine, a bit lower 22-23 should also be fine.
Then there's the people that don't understand thermostat control , thinking setting to a more extreme temp will get it there quicker.
When the powers that be finally get around to putting the infrastructure in so we can connect out car to the grid, then we'll go close to carbon neutral. Store solar during the day, and power the house at night.
Yes ours needs very little AC, and it was built in 1952. Big front and rear doors, the Fremantle Doctor blows right through. Only had it on 2 maybe 3 times this summer so far. Cold in winter though, a lot more heating than cooling needed.
Freo Dr is fantastic, but you also need North facing glass for the Winter sun, just how much depends on your thermal mass.
Select to expand quotecammd said..Ian K said..
Another interesting fact, at 700ppm, the concentration of CO2 in a crowded physics 101 lecture theatre for instance, we become drowsy and susceptible to nodding off. That's only 200 years away, can we evolve to remain alert outdoors in 6 or 7 generations?
That is an interesting fact, its rather alarming. It's also an interesting fact that you need to look at what people do rather than what they say in order to get to the truth of what makes them tick.
With that in mind I have to assume no one in Australia really believes in man made climate change. It's all well and fine to talk about saving the world ....... but not if you have to turn your aircon off right. I don't think you really believe net zero is a solution to a man made problem, if you did you would be acting differently.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29789085/
Need to make life and death decisions in a sub ,they do ok with much higher levels.Its just zealotry that co2 must be bad in every single respect.
Select to expand quoteRango said..cammd said..Ian K said..
Another interesting fact, at 700ppm, the concentration of CO2 in a crowded physics 101 lecture theatre for instance, we become drowsy and susceptible to nodding off. That's only 200 years away, can we evolve to remain alert outdoors in 6 or 7 generations?
That is an interesting fact, its rather alarming. It's also an interesting fact that you need to look at what people do rather than what they say in order to get to the truth of what makes them tick.
With that in mind I have to assume no one in Australia really believes in man made climate change. It's all well and fine to talk about saving the world ....... but not if you have to turn your aircon off right. I don't think you really believe net zero is a solution to a man made problem, if you did you would be acting differently.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29789085/
Need to make life and death decisions in a sub ,they do ok with much higher levels.Its just zealotry that co2 must be bad in every single respect.
Maybe you can toughen up. Maybe adrenaline can negate the CO2 as a stimulus for sleep. But that reference does report that impaired decision making has been recorded at 1000ppm.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..
....Cold in winter though, a lot more heating than cooling needed.
So even in a relatively hot city like Perth, WA more energy is consumed (and CO2 emitted) by heating than cooling.
So a warmer world would result in overall less enegy consumption and be better ?
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
Freo Dr is fantastic, but you also need North facing glass for the Winter sun, just how much depends on your thermal mass.
Hard to ensure north facing sun in suburbs with your own and neighbour's trees. Good in summer but sometimes too shady in winter. And breezeways. Not fashionable today, but we have one by default. They really are good, will funnel a breeze for a wide variety of wind directions. Lowers the apparent temp by nearly 10 degrees. Don't sit out there in winter though.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..cammd said.. >>> I have to assume no one in Australia really believes in man made climate change. It's all well and fine to talk about saving the world ....... but not if you have to turn your aircon off right. I don't think you really believe net zero is a solution to a man made problem, if you did you would be acting differently.
I disagree, a lot of people are aware of the problem, but look around them and see how bad the situation is, and think how much difference can I make, it's up to the powers that be to do something.
The trouble is, all the misinformation from the fossil fuel lobby, is having a huge impact on political will.
We haven't got our use down to 0 but it's getting close.
There's just no incentive to do so, people look at you strange when you talk about minimising your carbon foot print.
In the end net 0 will have to be the answer, if there's anybody serious enough to achieve it.
Time will tell, but I won't be here to see it.
This argument drives me nuts on more than one level, its such a cop out.
"Its up to the powers that be". BS that's just an excuse to whinge without sacrificing any of your own comforts, your not serious.
Meanwhile you blame the fossil fuel industry for misinformation whilst simultaneously enjoying all the 21st century first world safety, health, comfort, security and leisure that the fossil fuel industry provides. The hypocrisy is astounding. How do you blame others and expect others to do something while you do nothing but virtue signal. Your not serious.
But you say how much difference can I make, how much difference can Australia make, sweet FA on both accounts right. So unless you are prepared to fore go all your fossil fuel 1st world luxuries stop calling for Australia to be Net Zero because one it will do Sweet FA and two your being a massive hypocrite.
edit: btw if your thinking your close to net zero personally but your using solar panels and batteries and wind generators etc etc to do it your dreaming. All that stuff is made with fossil fuels, none of it is possible without fossil fuels. Live pre industrial revolution style if you want to be net zero
Select to expand quoteIan K said..Rango said..cammd said..Ian K said..
Another interesting fact, at 700ppm, the concentration of CO2 in a crowded physics 101 lecture theatre for instance, we become drowsy and susceptible to nodding off. That's only 200 years away, can we evolve to remain alert outdoors in 6 or 7 generations?
That is an interesting fact, its rather alarming. It's also an interesting fact that you need to look at what people do rather than what they say in order to get to the truth of what makes them tick.
With that in mind I have to assume no one in Australia really believes in man made climate change. It's all well and fine to talk about saving the world ....... but not if you have to turn your aircon off right. I don't think you really believe net zero is a solution to a man made problem, if you did you would be acting differently.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29789085/
Need to make life and death decisions in a sub ,they do ok with much higher levels.Its just zealotry that co2 must be bad in every single respect.
Maybe you can toughen up. Maybe adrenaline can negate the CO2 as a stimulus for sleep. But that reference does report that impaired decision making has been recorded at 1000ppm.
You said 700 in a boring lecture makes you sleepy.
I,m pretty sure human physiology can adapt its like those people that carry rich guys up Mount Everest who have not adapted to thin air.
I hope you never drove your car wearing your covid mask your co2 levels were peaking behind that thing.
Select to expand quotecammd said..>>> This argument drives me nuts on more than one level, its such a cop out.
That actually was my point.
If we're serious we need to take personal responsibility for our own actions and the results thereof.
I am intrigued by the use of hypocrisy as a tool in this forum, as It often seems to be a double-edged sword that cuts both ways with ease.
My initial searches for examples found this fella, Jason Isaac in the New York Post. nypost.com/2024/09/22/opinion/climate-week-fantasy-vs-truth-carbon-is-no-enemy/The opinion piece appears to be the framework for the Net Zero opposition. It's written by a Texas oilman in a Rupert Murdoch/News Corp. publication. The researcher cited has been roundly discredited by the scientific community, but that didn't worry Jason, who served it up yet again.
Strewth, Murdoch yet again publishing malarkey to suit his business portfolio! Who saw that coming?
I digress. The best piece of reasoned investigation into the use of hypocrisy as a tool by climate debaters I found was the below research paper. It's rather long and not for anyone who wants a clickbait headline or 30 second sound bite. I think it gives some useful insight into why hypocrisy is a favoured tool, how its deployment serves varied rhetorical and ideological purposes, and how it reflects deeper societal conflicts over responsibility and action in the face of environmental challenges.
www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00049/full
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..cammd said..>>> This argument drives me nuts on more than one level, its such a cop out.
That actually was my point.
If we're serious we need to take personal responsibility for our own actions and the results thereof.
oh ok sorry, I didn't get that from your post, upon re reading I can see the last sentence touches on that.
Your point about misinformation got me going. I hate the term its so Orwellian, arguments should live or die on their merits, like that saying that goes something like "the truth is like a Lion, you don't have to defend it, it can defend itself". The term misinformation reeks of a narrative that cannot defend itself and therefore needs to be protected.
I saw a link to an article about Albo warning Musk to stay away, we have political interference laws. I couldn't read it as it was behind a pay wall but what's he scared of. Its not Musk that has been using partisan fact checkers to bias social media. Musk has made X a free for all.
Any politician citing mis or dis information or political interference etc raises a red flag straight away. For the record Dutton is just as bad, the liberals started down this road in the first place.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
you are prepared to fore go all your fossil fuel 1st world luxuries stop calling for Australia to be Net Zero because one it will do Sweet FA and two your being a massive hypocrite.
Should have said the "hypothetical net zero" We certainly won't get there by 2050. So if globally we all did the right thing, cut our personal footprint by 50% - about all you can do and still be part of society. Then all that would do is delay crunch time by a couple of decades. If rising temperatures and sea levels is going to take down human civilisation then for the rest of the planet, maybe the sooner the crunch comes the better.
Overall, species diversity could be affected more by habitat loss than temperature gain.
Turn the airconditioning up then, what's a couple of decades in the history of the earth.
Ps. regarding crunch time, pretty sure David Attenborough already declared the moment of catastrophe had arrived back in the 2019 bushfires.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
Turn the airconditioning up then, what's a couple of decades in the history of the earth.
Ps. regarding crunch time, pretty sure David Attenborough already declared the moment of catastrophe had arrived back in the 2019 bushfires.
That could be the choice. Get our global act together to pull the human race through this climatic glitch with technology intact to go on to make the 6th great mass extinction one for the record books, or self-destruct in the next hundred or so years in a Mad Max./Water World type scenario leaving mother earth to regroup from a relatively moderate 6th great mass extinction.
Select to expand quotecammd said..
Turn the airconditioning up then, what's a couple of decades in the history of the earth.
Our children won't be thanking us for what we leave them.
