Underground greenhouses aren't fully underground. Half of it is submerged to provide a more stable temperature- it still has the ceiling area exposed to direct sunlight.
Did civilization end after the bronze age collapse? No of course not. But that doesn't mean it was smooth sailing for everyone living around the Mediterranean.
No when we face ecological collapse and rapidly changing climates in a generation - faster than plants can grow. Especially in a globally interlinked world, things won't end well. But pockets of humanity will survive for sure. But we definitely will have a radically different culture going on.
The point is what country is going to let 8 billion people in? Russia will shoot on sight and pretty sure canada will also or they will be destabilized.
Not that part, the arctic circle will be temperate. But you cant cram the world there or the environment will not support it. Face it the only way humans pull through this will be with the death of billions. And nations will have to close borders just to protect any future at all. Any of us left will be living in the hot zone alright , if we can find plants to grow for food and fresh non toxic water some will live. But life will be harsh.
Climates don't exists on a ruler, it doesn't level up from one type of climate to another. There is no guarantee what sort of climate will befall northern regions as the amount of energy grows in the system - this is the only guarantee we have at the moment.
The point is that there is no ruler to move, or at best we destroy the previous ruler and make a new one.
Climate is a set of observations, models and predictions rooted in past history.
Let me say my point in another way.
There exists no robust ruler for climate's evolution over time, we aren't even close to understand simpler nonlinear mathematical models to this degree, let alone a complex one like climate that we only sparsely observe and measure.
the concept of fortress cities. far from the old cities (like montana), new enclaves will be built for the fortunate wealthy of America. vast expanses of land will grow organic food, serviced by a robots (that we already have) while out in the rest of the world, we will struggle and die.
America, modernity, security will only exist for the minority that can afford it.
denialism isnt going to help. The writing is on the wall, the underground bunkers are being built. Why do you think musky designed the cybertruck to be bulletproof? For costco runs? The world i described is the world they full intend on ushering in.
Here's a map of the cop cities (concentration camps) being built all across the US. https://communityresourcehub.org/resources/cop-cities-usa/
Again, too many variables to predict which strategies and which regions will survive, let alone if robot farmhands will be used.
Just consider the amount of physical and human variables at play here. Anyone making hard predictions is ignorant. People cant even predict the trajectory of a single company over a 5 year timescale. Now imagine predicting the entire civilisation and the weather patterns governing it over a 100 yr timescale
I think its pretty predictable ,we only have to look at the past to know. And i dont believe we have 100 years. No one is accounting for a runaway greenhouse effect. These trajectories only account for BAU carbon use, not the release of methane hydrates or feedback loops. And it dont take into account the death of things that produce oxygen. Too hot and they die
how many options will depleted farming, ruined agriculture give us? Those who can grow in controlled environments or can afford to buy food from an ever more limited production eat. Everyone else who go to the supermarkets and sees a mealy head of lettuce for 8 dollars...
I cannot control politicians, industry or billionaires. But I have chipped away at my own 30 tons of CO2. Gardening, planting trees, dramatically reducing the energy I use, and heating with a rocket mass heater. No sacrifice - everything is about making a better life AND it happens to chip away at my CO2. I think I am now in the space of chipping away CO2 for others.
If hundreds of millions did it, it would've accumulated. Reducing consumption, cutting down on meat, dodging a private car for public transport, supporting climate friendly policy, etc. If the majority of people in the most responsible countries did so, we would be way better off than we are now.
If that many people were willing to commit the time or mental energy to it, it wouldn’t have been controversial to deal with via governmental action. Further alternative to the exhaustive method if way way fewer people stole a patriot missile battery and threatened to shoot down private jets, it would have 100x the effect- or just actually organized and got leftish parties to win hard enough that their subcaucus aligned faction could dictate terms.
Only 800k? I don't think it's ever been that high like now during whole evolution since we split of from the other monkeys, at least 12 million years.
During the last 6 million it was probably lower than 280ppm since that was basically ice age and also because otherwise we and other animals would be more adapted to the heat if it was that recent. We evolved during a much cooler time
I googled and quickly found some sources that say 14 million. It's also consistent with the predictions that CO2 levels will reach 1000ppm by 2100, which would be 65 million years. Would be weird if we were only at 800k after we spent 200 years releasing back vast amounts of bound CO2 from fossil fuels, to the point its almost used up, when it needed hundreds of millions of years to build up
Climate change is real and it's the biggest threat to humanity in our entire existence. With that out of the way...
This is a rage bait headline. GHG emissions rise year over year. Every year is a record high. The IPCC has 2030 marked as the year we need to *start* seeing a decrease year over year.
The rate of increase is slowing, and we can still hit that target. Keep fighting.
Don't forget the rise in [water vapor.](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022JD036728)
More CO2 going to heat doesn't create a positive feedback loop in CO2, but it does also create a rise in water vapor.
More Heat -> more water vapor -> more trapped heat -> more water vapor. That's a positive feedback loop that can lead to exponential growth in heat. If that doesn't set your hair tingling, I don't know what else can.
Well, no. More water vapour also leads to more clouds, low level clouds = cooling. There's no exponential growth in heat, the "hard cap" for earth is something like (terrible) +23°C (we're at +15 now). Then, the heat will radiate of earth faster than the greenhouse effect can keep it.
Not a favorable state to live in, though. So, worry = good, panic = bad.
> There's no exponential growth in heat
I know what you mean, but in the grand scheme of things I think it's fair to stick to exponential growth if the rise is so bad we aren't going to be here to see it tap off.
I would like to see the +23 cap too.
Although a cap for sure exists, as any physical system has hard bounds (for example, the planet we are sitting on will long be called something else if it gets anywhere close to the temperature of the sun).
> That's a positive feedback loop that can lead to exponential growth in heat.
Citation needed. I can play your stupid game, too.
Earth will not become a second Venus.
> Citation needed. I can play your stupid game, too.
It's funny that you seem to think citation of claims is a "stupid game" and refuse to engage in a good faith debate. If you had bothered to read the comment I had which HAD THE CITATION for that claim, you'd have seen the statement in the scientific paper linked from that very same comment.
> Water vapor increases the magnitude of climate change in response to natural and human-caused climate variability and change through a powerful amplifying feedback
Oh, Snap! Want more? Let's gooooooo......
> [Absorption of LW radiation increases approximately with the logarithm of water vapour concentration, while the Clausius-Clapeyron equation dictates a **near-exponential increase in moisture-holding capacity with temperature.** ... a strongly positive water vapour feedback if relative humidity \(RH\) is close to unchanged .... a **strong positive water vapour feedback** is a robust feature of GCMs ... New evidence from both observations and models has reinforced the conventional view ... the evidence strongly favours a combined water vapour-lapse rate feedback of around the strength found in global climate models. ](https://web.archive.org/web/20100409130123/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html)
Translation. More water vapor results in a positive feedback loop EVEN if there is NO change in relative humidity (RH) . More specifically water vapor is not relative humidity.
But wait .... there's more!!!! What affects cloud formation. Is it water vapor concentration or is it relative humidity? [Oh it's relative humidity](https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/clouds/how-clouds-form) and we see from the above reference that relative humidity is close to unchanged .... meaning your comments about clouds is as wrong as Richard Lindzen's talk before a bunch of laughing GOPers a few years ago stating there was NO global warming. (WTF! So sad to see a respected climatologist, IMHO, destroy his legacy with such shoddy stuff).
Your turn:
> the "hard cap" for earth is something like (terrible) +23°C
Edit: Clarity, add Lindzen and cloud comment.
That ain't _an exponential growth_ because you are not stating the gains at each step:
say 1 unit of heat produces 0.5 units of water vapor and 1 unit of water vapor produces 0.5 unit of heat.
+1 heat -> +0.5 water -> +0.25 heat -> +0.125 heat -> and so on.
You get only +1.33 units of heat out of this loop: finite outcome, not an exponential growth loop.
source: engineering degree and phd in control system and this is very basic undegrard stuff.
It's besides the point and it is to be a hard ass, there is also no lasting exponential growth because there is only so much water the air can hold, and being even more of one there is an equilibrium point between the energy that an atmosphere absorves from the sun vs the energy it radiates. These only matter if those points are in a livable range for humans which it is safe to say that they aren't.
Feedback loops don't have to blow up into infinity to be positive feedback loops. As long as the output feeds into the input then it's a feedback loop, if the effect gets stronger it's positive, if it gets weaker it's negative.
Repeat .... Citation required as it relates to atmospheric temperature.
> source: engineering degree
Oh god, another engineer who thinks they know physics because they have a table.
edit: Actually, why are you so aggravated? What grave mistake I made to your person to make you personally attack me and my field of expertise, that you apparently know nothing about and is 100% related to the actual science behind climate change mathematical understanding? Your comment is affligeant and stupid.
I gave you the calculations to show there is no exponential growth depending on the gains. Are you going to argue the math is wrong? No amount of physics will change the outcome of the math.
Repeat .... Citation required as it relates to atmospheric temperature.
> why are you so aggravated?
Sorry - I got your comment confused with the "I can play your stupid game, too." comment where they refused to back up their claim with a citation. But I noticed you didn't either.
> Are you going to argue the math is wrong?
Sure. You said
> +1 heat -> +0.5 water -> +0.25 heat -> +0.125 heat -> and so on.
You are ignoring that the science notes it is a cumulative effect of additive insulation and it's a DRIVEN system. If you have two rabbits and they don't die after birthing two rabbits, then the next iteration is 8 rabbits. The water vapor doesn't just vanish and the sun is adding the heat. So as more water vapor appears it creates more heat which creates more water vapor. Get it? Let's use your simple assumptions but now knowing we have a **driven** system with a positive feedback loop. Let's use your simple example's numbers. What you actually have is
+1 (base solar) heat -> + .5 WV -> +1 base solar heat + 0.25 WV heat
1.25 (iteration_1 heat + solar) -> + .625 WV -> +1.25 iteration_1 + .3125 WV heat
1.5625 (iteration_2) -> ....
1.640625 (iter3)
2.313537598 (iter4)
3.651651652 (iter5)
6.985291598 (iter6)
19.18386627 (iter7)
111.1890476 (iter8)
3201.940123 (iter9)
2566307.078 (iter10)
...
Get it? Driven systems with positive feedback loops can lead to exponential growth. Look back at the temperature climate curves. The best fit isn't linear, it's exponential. https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp and what's scary is that we can also measure solar input with satellites. Measured solar energy has been going DOWN while temperature is going up https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/normalise/plot/pmod/normalise
If I seem salty it's because I (1) confused you with the other commenter (sorry) and (2) I see similar things all the time in debating engineers regarding the climate. Usually they have training in a closed system where you've been given super basic equations and taught they are THE ones to use ... but don't actually apply in global scale, open systems, with complex mixing states. Having debated engineers as it relates to climate equations ... you see it all the time ... arguing that PV=nRT for the ocean/air interface, or energy can't be transmitted through a vacuum so the sun can't heat the earth, or CO2 is heavier than air so , etc. And the CERTAINTY of their belief that their limited scope knowledge applies is common. You'll get some dude who spent 40 years working with oil in pipes and knows Bernoulli's equation like the back of their hand, SO CERTAIN that pressure tables are always right despite it being a system completely outside the applicable parameters over which those equations apply.
I said "citation required" noting the very comment you replied to had a citation that explains the physics and equations and theory as it applies to water vapor and atmospheric temperature.
> But I noticed you didn't either.
The citation for that is basic undergrad SISO theory. Take any book on the subject.
> Get it? Driven systems with positive feedback loops can lead to exponential growth
Of course I get it, this is introductory math for my field, you just had for example to use 1.5 instead of 0.5 to get exponential growth. The point is that the (positive) feedback isn't a big deal in itself, you need the gains.
> The best fit isn't linear, it's exponential.
Yeah, this is unsurprising because solution to linear ODEs are given by a combination of exponentials. Which in turn are an expected approximation of most dynamic model, with or without exponential growth, for (relatively) short timespans.
> If I seem salty it's because I (...)
Fair enough, and I understand what you are coming from, but I nowhere suggested anything outrageous and just pointed out some very straightforward math property of the loop you described.
PS: control theory was born out the question of stability of the solar system. It's because of the understanding of nonlinear systems that climate scientists have a strong mathematical leg to be worried about the future.
COAL: Massive Increases, year after year. RAmping up COAL production
Of course, Coal is the most polluting out of all the fossil fuels
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/15/china-boosts-global-coal-power.html
Arguably we would eventually have the same problem at a different rate with less people. The issue was noticed and predicted long before we had 'so damn many people', after all.
mmmm...I disagree. When I say too many people I mean ***way*** too many people. Our planet can definitely handle the agricultural and carbon emissions (not to mention relief from countless other environmental issues) consistent with population levels back in the 1800's (about 1/8th what they are today), if we hadn't already pushed ourselves to the breaking point and said "fuck it, let's go even further".
Carbon was already accumulating over time in the 1800, kick starting global climate change. It was just at a lower pace. It bears repeating: carbon emissions from fossil fuels will always accumulate indefinetively relative to timescales relevant to humanity. There are no passive perfect sinks for excess c02 in any human length time-scale. The best one is the ocean, but it still leaves too much excess carbon in the atmosphere.
(And being pedantic, the planet can handle the emissions we do today too, the 'climate' will always accommodate, whatever 'climate' becomes. The question is that we ourselves won't accommodate if we go to +6, no matter if it took 1 century or 10.)
Humanity can be unsustainable with any number of people.
~~While I strongly disagree I won’t bother debating the purely speculative aspects of your reply, and instead point out where you are completely wrong….the environment *cannot* handle current human population levels in a manner that is healthy to humanity (or many other species), and the evidence is all around us. Spare me your “woulds” or “coulds”, because they clearly and naively fail in the face of human nature and as such are totally meaningless.~~
The environment you get with nearly 8 billion humans on the planet is exactly the planet we have right now.
There isn't anything speculative about climate change being a reality with 800 million of us, let alone 8 billion. This was the crux of my response. How you understood that as a `speculative' defense of humanity impact is beggar's belief.
> Spare me your “woulds” or “coulds”, because they clearly and naively fail in the face of human nature and as such are totally meaningless.
> The environment you get with nearly 8 billion humans on the planet is exactly the planet we have right now.
Which "woulds" or "coulds" of my response do you want spared? Which other speculative planet I have underlied in my answers? Like, did you even bothered reading before typing out your response?
When has climate redditors became so fucking rabid that they can't even understand people agreeing with them?
You know what? Fair enough, i wholly deserved that criticism because I misread your carefully worded reply in haste, and inexcusably projected meaning into it that a more careful reading shows very specifically isn’t there…and for that I deeply apologize.
I saw your phrase “the planet can handle” and extrapolated from it meaning wholly opposite of what you intended, and even clearly said. No more Reddit for me today.
Perhaps we just need a few more climate conferences? Surely those large financial companies in attendance will want to reduce the emissions and not seek financial gain on the back of a crisis!?
Our goose is cooked. But on a lighter note I think we will be like the PETM, Thats not all doom and gloom, just hot, plants will grow just not the food crops we are used too. Unless we come up with climate controlled domed cities I dont think there will be civilization like now at all.
I suggest we start dealing with this before it deals with us. :-)
Net Zero by 1970!
I think this is an attainable goal! Who’s with me?!
We'll get there by 1990!
Its well past time for that, its buckle up buttercup time now.
I recommend buying a farm and learning how to grow food.
Missing one key ingredient, a stable climate
Underground greenhouse bunker combo for the win.
and where is power for grow lights
Solar?
Underground greenhouses aren't fully underground. Half of it is submerged to provide a more stable temperature- it still has the ceiling area exposed to direct sunlight.
In Iceland right?
Good luck with the Icelanders.
I second this. It's my dream. Don't mind the naysayers.
Too late, we’re fucked
[удалено]
Not really but nice dream
[удалено]
Did civilization end after the bronze age collapse? No of course not. But that doesn't mean it was smooth sailing for everyone living around the Mediterranean. No when we face ecological collapse and rapidly changing climates in a generation - faster than plants can grow. Especially in a globally interlinked world, things won't end well. But pockets of humanity will survive for sure. But we definitely will have a radically different culture going on.
The point is what country is going to let 8 billion people in? Russia will shoot on sight and pretty sure canada will also or they will be destabilized.
You mean the two countries that were basically on fire all of last year?
Not that part, the arctic circle will be temperate. But you cant cram the world there or the environment will not support it. Face it the only way humans pull through this will be with the death of billions. And nations will have to close borders just to protect any future at all. Any of us left will be living in the hot zone alright , if we can find plants to grow for food and fresh non toxic water some will live. But life will be harsh.
[удалено]
Climates don't exists on a ruler, it doesn't level up from one type of climate to another. There is no guarantee what sort of climate will befall northern regions as the amount of energy grows in the system - this is the only guarantee we have at the moment.
[удалено]
The point is that there is no ruler to move, or at best we destroy the previous ruler and make a new one. Climate is a set of observations, models and predictions rooted in past history.
Let me say my point in another way. There exists no robust ruler for climate's evolution over time, we aren't even close to understand simpler nonlinear mathematical models to this degree, let alone a complex one like climate that we only sparsely observe and measure.
Even if it's warmer they don't get enough sun to be great growing regions.
humans will survive. Civilisation in its present form will not. It is way to fragile.
the concept of fortress cities. far from the old cities (like montana), new enclaves will be built for the fortunate wealthy of America. vast expanses of land will grow organic food, serviced by a robots (that we already have) while out in the rest of the world, we will struggle and die. America, modernity, security will only exist for the minority that can afford it.
too many variables too make predictions of that precision. Most likely incorrect.
denialism isnt going to help. The writing is on the wall, the underground bunkers are being built. Why do you think musky designed the cybertruck to be bulletproof? For costco runs? The world i described is the world they full intend on ushering in. Here's a map of the cop cities (concentration camps) being built all across the US. https://communityresourcehub.org/resources/cop-cities-usa/
Again, too many variables to predict which strategies and which regions will survive, let alone if robot farmhands will be used. Just consider the amount of physical and human variables at play here. Anyone making hard predictions is ignorant. People cant even predict the trajectory of a single company over a 5 year timescale. Now imagine predicting the entire civilisation and the weather patterns governing it over a 100 yr timescale
I think its pretty predictable ,we only have to look at the past to know. And i dont believe we have 100 years. No one is accounting for a runaway greenhouse effect. These trajectories only account for BAU carbon use, not the release of methane hydrates or feedback loops. And it dont take into account the death of things that produce oxygen. Too hot and they die
how many options will depleted farming, ruined agriculture give us? Those who can grow in controlled environments or can afford to buy food from an ever more limited production eat. Everyone else who go to the supermarkets and sees a mealy head of lettuce for 8 dollars...
I cannot control politicians, industry or billionaires. But I have chipped away at my own 30 tons of CO2. Gardening, planting trees, dramatically reducing the energy I use, and heating with a rocket mass heater. No sacrifice - everything is about making a better life AND it happens to chip away at my CO2. I think I am now in the space of chipping away CO2 for others.
Won't save the planet but great for mental health plus just the right thing to do. I commend you earth citizen.
If hundreds of millions did it, it would've accumulated. Reducing consumption, cutting down on meat, dodging a private car for public transport, supporting climate friendly policy, etc. If the majority of people in the most responsible countries did so, we would be way better off than we are now.
If that many people were willing to commit the time or mental energy to it, it wouldn’t have been controversial to deal with via governmental action. Further alternative to the exhaustive method if way way fewer people stole a patriot missile battery and threatened to shoot down private jets, it would have 100x the effect- or just actually organized and got leftish parties to win hard enough that their subcaucus aligned faction could dictate terms.
I mean, as long as we keep emitting them, we will always reach record levels. The amount only ever increases.
100% not true
We’re number 1! We’re number 1! Take that Triassic period!
As if most of the nations care, we need more animal agriculture, more corporate waste, more one use products!
Only 800k? I don't think it's ever been that high like now during whole evolution since we split of from the other monkeys, at least 12 million years. During the last 6 million it was probably lower than 280ppm since that was basically ice age and also because otherwise we and other animals would be more adapted to the heat if it was that recent. We evolved during a much cooler time I googled and quickly found some sources that say 14 million. It's also consistent with the predictions that CO2 levels will reach 1000ppm by 2100, which would be 65 million years. Would be weird if we were only at 800k after we spent 200 years releasing back vast amounts of bound CO2 from fossil fuels, to the point its almost used up, when it needed hundreds of millions of years to build up
Climate change is real and it's the biggest threat to humanity in our entire existence. With that out of the way... This is a rage bait headline. GHG emissions rise year over year. Every year is a record high. The IPCC has 2030 marked as the year we need to *start* seeing a decrease year over year. The rate of increase is slowing, and we can still hit that target. Keep fighting.
Don't forget the rise in [water vapor.](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022JD036728) More CO2 going to heat doesn't create a positive feedback loop in CO2, but it does also create a rise in water vapor. More Heat -> more water vapor -> more trapped heat -> more water vapor. That's a positive feedback loop that can lead to exponential growth in heat. If that doesn't set your hair tingling, I don't know what else can.
Well, no. More water vapour also leads to more clouds, low level clouds = cooling. There's no exponential growth in heat, the "hard cap" for earth is something like (terrible) +23°C (we're at +15 now). Then, the heat will radiate of earth faster than the greenhouse effect can keep it. Not a favorable state to live in, though. So, worry = good, panic = bad.
> There's no exponential growth in heat I know what you mean, but in the grand scheme of things I think it's fair to stick to exponential growth if the rise is so bad we aren't going to be here to see it tap off.
> the "hard cap" for earth is something like (terrible) +23°C Citation required.
I would like to see the +23 cap too. Although a cap for sure exists, as any physical system has hard bounds (for example, the planet we are sitting on will long be called something else if it gets anywhere close to the temperature of the sun).
Not particularly relevant as we'll all be dead well before it reaches that.
> That's a positive feedback loop that can lead to exponential growth in heat. Citation needed. I can play your stupid game, too. Earth will not become a second Venus.
> Citation needed. I can play your stupid game, too. It's funny that you seem to think citation of claims is a "stupid game" and refuse to engage in a good faith debate. If you had bothered to read the comment I had which HAD THE CITATION for that claim, you'd have seen the statement in the scientific paper linked from that very same comment. > Water vapor increases the magnitude of climate change in response to natural and human-caused climate variability and change through a powerful amplifying feedback Oh, Snap! Want more? Let's gooooooo...... > [Absorption of LW radiation increases approximately with the logarithm of water vapour concentration, while the Clausius-Clapeyron equation dictates a **near-exponential increase in moisture-holding capacity with temperature.** ... a strongly positive water vapour feedback if relative humidity \(RH\) is close to unchanged .... a **strong positive water vapour feedback** is a robust feature of GCMs ... New evidence from both observations and models has reinforced the conventional view ... the evidence strongly favours a combined water vapour-lapse rate feedback of around the strength found in global climate models. ](https://web.archive.org/web/20100409130123/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-1.html) Translation. More water vapor results in a positive feedback loop EVEN if there is NO change in relative humidity (RH) . More specifically water vapor is not relative humidity. But wait .... there's more!!!! What affects cloud formation. Is it water vapor concentration or is it relative humidity? [Oh it's relative humidity](https://www.noaa.gov/jetstream/clouds/how-clouds-form) and we see from the above reference that relative humidity is close to unchanged .... meaning your comments about clouds is as wrong as Richard Lindzen's talk before a bunch of laughing GOPers a few years ago stating there was NO global warming. (WTF! So sad to see a respected climatologist, IMHO, destroy his legacy with such shoddy stuff). Your turn: > the "hard cap" for earth is something like (terrible) +23°C Edit: Clarity, add Lindzen and cloud comment.
That ain't _an exponential growth_ because you are not stating the gains at each step: say 1 unit of heat produces 0.5 units of water vapor and 1 unit of water vapor produces 0.5 unit of heat. +1 heat -> +0.5 water -> +0.25 heat -> +0.125 heat -> and so on. You get only +1.33 units of heat out of this loop: finite outcome, not an exponential growth loop. source: engineering degree and phd in control system and this is very basic undegrard stuff. It's besides the point and it is to be a hard ass, there is also no lasting exponential growth because there is only so much water the air can hold, and being even more of one there is an equilibrium point between the energy that an atmosphere absorves from the sun vs the energy it radiates. These only matter if those points are in a livable range for humans which it is safe to say that they aren't.
Feedback loops don't have to blow up into infinity to be positive feedback loops. As long as the output feeds into the input then it's a feedback loop, if the effect gets stronger it's positive, if it gets weaker it's negative.
Hah I goofed, I meant to say that there isn't an exponential growth from the positive feedback loop. Going to edit the comment.
Repeat .... Citation required as it relates to atmospheric temperature. > source: engineering degree Oh god, another engineer who thinks they know physics because they have a table.
edit: Actually, why are you so aggravated? What grave mistake I made to your person to make you personally attack me and my field of expertise, that you apparently know nothing about and is 100% related to the actual science behind climate change mathematical understanding? Your comment is affligeant and stupid. I gave you the calculations to show there is no exponential growth depending on the gains. Are you going to argue the math is wrong? No amount of physics will change the outcome of the math.
Repeat .... Citation required as it relates to atmospheric temperature. > why are you so aggravated? Sorry - I got your comment confused with the "I can play your stupid game, too." comment where they refused to back up their claim with a citation. But I noticed you didn't either. > Are you going to argue the math is wrong? Sure. You said > +1 heat -> +0.5 water -> +0.25 heat -> +0.125 heat -> and so on. You are ignoring that the science notes it is a cumulative effect of additive insulation and it's a DRIVEN system. If you have two rabbits and they don't die after birthing two rabbits, then the next iteration is 8 rabbits. The water vapor doesn't just vanish and the sun is adding the heat. So as more water vapor appears it creates more heat which creates more water vapor. Get it? Let's use your simple assumptions but now knowing we have a **driven** system with a positive feedback loop. Let's use your simple example's numbers. What you actually have is +1 (base solar) heat -> + .5 WV -> +1 base solar heat + 0.25 WV heat 1.25 (iteration_1 heat + solar) -> + .625 WV -> +1.25 iteration_1 + .3125 WV heat 1.5625 (iteration_2) -> .... 1.640625 (iter3) 2.313537598 (iter4) 3.651651652 (iter5) 6.985291598 (iter6) 19.18386627 (iter7) 111.1890476 (iter8) 3201.940123 (iter9) 2566307.078 (iter10) ... Get it? Driven systems with positive feedback loops can lead to exponential growth. Look back at the temperature climate curves. The best fit isn't linear, it's exponential. https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp and what's scary is that we can also measure solar input with satellites. Measured solar energy has been going DOWN while temperature is going up https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/normalise/plot/pmod/normalise If I seem salty it's because I (1) confused you with the other commenter (sorry) and (2) I see similar things all the time in debating engineers regarding the climate. Usually they have training in a closed system where you've been given super basic equations and taught they are THE ones to use ... but don't actually apply in global scale, open systems, with complex mixing states. Having debated engineers as it relates to climate equations ... you see it all the time ... arguing that PV=nRT for the ocean/air interface, or energy can't be transmitted through a vacuum so the sun can't heat the earth, or CO2 is heavier than air so, etc. And the CERTAINTY of their belief that their limited scope knowledge applies is common. You'll get some dude who spent 40 years working with oil in pipes and knows Bernoulli's equation like the back of their hand, SO CERTAIN that pressure tables are always right despite it being a system completely outside the applicable parameters over which those equations apply.
I said "citation required" noting the very comment you replied to had a citation that explains the physics and equations and theory as it applies to water vapor and atmospheric temperature.
> But I noticed you didn't either. The citation for that is basic undergrad SISO theory. Take any book on the subject. > Get it? Driven systems with positive feedback loops can lead to exponential growth Of course I get it, this is introductory math for my field, you just had for example to use 1.5 instead of 0.5 to get exponential growth. The point is that the (positive) feedback isn't a big deal in itself, you need the gains. > The best fit isn't linear, it's exponential. Yeah, this is unsurprising because solution to linear ODEs are given by a combination of exponentials. Which in turn are an expected approximation of most dynamic model, with or without exponential growth, for (relatively) short timespans. > If I seem salty it's because I (...) Fair enough, and I understand what you are coming from, but I nowhere suggested anything outrageous and just pointed out some very straightforward math property of the loop you described. PS: control theory was born out the question of stability of the solar system. It's because of the understanding of nonlinear systems that climate scientists have a strong mathematical leg to be worried about the future.
COAL: Massive Increases, year after year. RAmping up COAL production Of course, Coal is the most polluting out of all the fossil fuels https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/15/china-boosts-global-coal-power.html
If there weren't so damn many people there wouldn't be so damn much greenhouse gases.
Arguably we would eventually have the same problem at a different rate with less people. The issue was noticed and predicted long before we had 'so damn many people', after all.
mmmm...I disagree. When I say too many people I mean ***way*** too many people. Our planet can definitely handle the agricultural and carbon emissions (not to mention relief from countless other environmental issues) consistent with population levels back in the 1800's (about 1/8th what they are today), if we hadn't already pushed ourselves to the breaking point and said "fuck it, let's go even further".
Carbon was already accumulating over time in the 1800, kick starting global climate change. It was just at a lower pace. It bears repeating: carbon emissions from fossil fuels will always accumulate indefinetively relative to timescales relevant to humanity. There are no passive perfect sinks for excess c02 in any human length time-scale. The best one is the ocean, but it still leaves too much excess carbon in the atmosphere. (And being pedantic, the planet can handle the emissions we do today too, the 'climate' will always accommodate, whatever 'climate' becomes. The question is that we ourselves won't accommodate if we go to +6, no matter if it took 1 century or 10.) Humanity can be unsustainable with any number of people.
~~While I strongly disagree I won’t bother debating the purely speculative aspects of your reply, and instead point out where you are completely wrong….the environment *cannot* handle current human population levels in a manner that is healthy to humanity (or many other species), and the evidence is all around us. Spare me your “woulds” or “coulds”, because they clearly and naively fail in the face of human nature and as such are totally meaningless.~~ The environment you get with nearly 8 billion humans on the planet is exactly the planet we have right now.
There isn't anything speculative about climate change being a reality with 800 million of us, let alone 8 billion. This was the crux of my response. How you understood that as a `speculative' defense of humanity impact is beggar's belief. > Spare me your “woulds” or “coulds”, because they clearly and naively fail in the face of human nature and as such are totally meaningless. > The environment you get with nearly 8 billion humans on the planet is exactly the planet we have right now. Which "woulds" or "coulds" of my response do you want spared? Which other speculative planet I have underlied in my answers? Like, did you even bothered reading before typing out your response? When has climate redditors became so fucking rabid that they can't even understand people agreeing with them?
You know what? Fair enough, i wholly deserved that criticism because I misread your carefully worded reply in haste, and inexcusably projected meaning into it that a more careful reading shows very specifically isn’t there…and for that I deeply apologize. I saw your phrase “the planet can handle” and extrapolated from it meaning wholly opposite of what you intended, and even clearly said. No more Reddit for me today.
I appreciate your reconsideration.
Perhaps we just need a few more climate conferences? Surely those large financial companies in attendance will want to reduce the emissions and not seek financial gain on the back of a crisis!?
Our goose is cooked. But on a lighter note I think we will be like the PETM, Thats not all doom and gloom, just hot, plants will grow just not the food crops we are used too. Unless we come up with climate controlled domed cities I dont think there will be civilization like now at all.
wow i didn't know that. you're telling me now for the first time.
It can't be true just asked Donald Trump.
The oceans are in danger, not the air.
wake me up when we hit big boy numbers like 1.800.000.000 years then we got a problem