Is it too late?

a reply to: mOjOm

You mean the Permian–Triassic extinction event about 250 million years ago. I think it was a grand total of closer to 96% of life wiped out. Took about 60,000 years or so, CO2 rose to about 2,000 PPM, with temps on the average soaring up by 14 deg F, globally.

Earth had a supercontinent, Pangaea at the time, and a warmer global climate then.

Yah, heard about it.

a reply to: eriktheawful

That's the most major extinction we know of yes. But I'd hope it doesn't get that bad because there is no way we'd survive that. It's too sever and way too long for anything like us to make it through.

But that is one of the extinctions they try and study though as it is the biggest one of it's kind. But yeah, it took thousands of years to manifest and things were quite different as well so it's not going to be an exact map of how things work.

But it can give clues to the systems which are disrupted and why and their effects.

originally posted by: TheBulk
a reply to: lostbook

If the science is settled, why are all the predictions wrong?

2 straight days here the entire media has covered sometimes at length that Vancouver B.C. will be slightly warmer than San Diego is now, by 2050.

They claim a 10 Fahrenheit rise in 33 years, with a further 10 degrees by 2080.

Then they go on to claim they need this so we can plan for the dry summers and incredibly rainy warm winters.

I would say if the temps rose that much the entire world would be screwed, but they only wanted to talk about getting massive amounts of air conditioning installed so we don't die.

I love how the media does not question, just nods and look interested.

a reply to: mOjOm

Fear not.

Most climate scientist have said they're not expecting that type of extreme change.

a reply to
How about living together in peace through the storm? Different colors, different races, different religions - but guess what y'all need food, shelter. companionship. You're all human. That's what matters.

does Trump know that it's already too late to slow down the rapid Earth warming

No, he only knows that he can make more money by not giving a damn about the earth, like every other Republican (except one from my state who would be a democrat in most other states).

If climate science was settled, the "scientists" wouldn't have to keep fudging the data to get the warming outcome they seek to show. That whole 97% of scientists claim is B.S. itself. Gullible schmucks.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

CO2 is going to be sucked out of the atmosphere and put to use.

Yes, it's called photosynthesis.

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

www.nasa.gov...

I came across a David Grinspoon book yesterday which might be of interest:

Earth in Human Hands: Shaping Our Planet's Future:

"Grinspoon suggests that our present moment is not only one of peril, but also great potential, especially when viewed from a 10,000-year perspective. Our species has surmounted the threat of extinction before, thanks to our innate ingenuity and ability to adapt, and there's every reason to believe we can do so again. Our challenge now is to awaken to our role as a force of planetary change, and to grow into this task. We must become graceful planetary engineers, conscious shapers of our environment and caretakers of Earth's biosphere."

David Grinspoon Sees Earth in Human Hands: Learning to Drive a Planet

For those of you who don't have any understanding of how equilibrium works in natural systems...

Global warming due to excessive CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere will result in another ice age.

And as far as colonizing other planets nonsense, do you really think you're broke ass is gonna get a seat on the rocket?.

A lot of us will be left " out in the cold"...

This isn't frickin Star Trek, it's a corrupt capitalist system that exploits and neglects the weak for the profit of the powerful, and colonization of other planets won't happen for any other reason than to harvest the resources of those planets to sell back to all you suckers.

...Has nothing to do with you, other than you'll be forced to pay for it in one way or the other...

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
CO2 is going to be sucked out of the atmosphere and put to use.

It can already be done. All that is really needed is a way to process mass quantities and enough supercritical CO-2 turbines. Then a good use of all he used CO-2 like making carbon nanotubes. CO-2 is going to be a commodity and everybody will be stepping on their grandmother's back to get their greedy little hands on it!

What is really needed is a method of scrubbing all the soot and other gasses out (sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide). That is where acid rain starts which causes all kinds of problems which are worse than CO2.

The point of no return has not been reached. This is coming from a doom porn fan!

These forest structures will take care of the CO-2 and depending upon the plant species, nitrogen dioxide and other contaminants from the air can be metabolized.

Trees and plants have been labeled as the “lungs of cities” because they have the ability to remove contaminants from the air that is breathed. The amount of air-borne pollutants removed increases with leaf surface area. Therefore, trees tend to be better filters than shrubs and grasses. Due to their large surface area and year round coverage, conifers (evergreens) are very good pollution filters. Many species of ornamental shrubs and herbaceous landscape plants have been identified as phytoremedator to improve indoor and outdoor air quality. Stomata density can be used as an indicator for the efficiency of plants in the absorption of air pollutants. Biowalls were developed due to the evidence of plants as efficient filters of air. One potted plant per 100 square feet of indoor space in an average home or office was sufficient to cleanse the air of pollutants. Based on available literature it could be concluded that ornamental plants and trees have the ability to filtrate the air from the contaminants.

www.researchgate.net... iew

More on sulphate metabolism in plants:

The rapid economic growth, industrialization and urbanization are associated with a strong increase in energy demand and emissions of air pollutants including sulfur dioxide (see also acid rain) and hydrogen sulfide, which may affect plant metabolism. Sulfur gases are potentially phytotoxic, however, they may also be metabolized and used as sulfur source and even be beneficial if the sulfur fertilization of the roots is not sufficient. Plant shoots form a sink for atmospheric sulfur gases, which can directly be taken up by the foliage (dry deposition). The foliar uptake of sulfur dioxide is generally directly dependent on the degree of opening of the stomates, since the internal resistance to this gas is low. Sulfur is highly soluble in the apoplastic water of the mesophyll, where it dissociates under formation of bisulfite and sulfite. Sulfite may directly enter the sulfur reduction pathway and be reduced to sulfide, incorporated into cysteine, and subsequently into other sulfur compounds. Sulfite may also be oxidized to sulfate, extra- and intracellularly by peroxidases or non-enzymatically catalyzed by metal ions or superoxide radicals and subsequently reduced and assimilated again. Excessive sulfate is transferred into the vacuole; enhanced foliar sulfate levels are characteristic for exposed plants. The foliar uptake of hydrogen sulfide appears to be directly dependent on the rate of its metabolism into cysteine and subsequently into other sulfur compounds. There is strong evidence that O-acetyl-serine (thiol)lyase is directly responsible for the active fixation of atmospheric hydrogen sulfide by plants. Plants are able to transfer from sulfate to foliar absorbed atmospheric sulfur as sulfur source and levels of 60 ppb or higher appear to be sufficient to cover the sulfur requirement of plants. There is an interaction between atmospheric and pedospheric sulfur utilization. For instance, hydrogen sulfide exposure may result in a decreased activity of APS reductase and a depressed sulfate uptake.

en.wikipedia.org...

Indeed, we need to study the role of plants and water plants, as well as corresponding organisms that purify our air and water.

en.wikipedia.org...

I am not giving up yet.

I tend to think [the Universe/God/Karma/Fate] is somewhat smarter than humans. There's a good reason we're sitting here arguing about a minor life-dependent gas while ignoring sulfur compounds, particulates, and nitrates/nitrites... we're not intelligent enough as a species to handle one planet, much less several. Maybe that's why the inhabitable planets are so far away?

I seriously doubt we'll set foot on another earth-like planet in our lifetime. We still have to get past the warning space buoys the aliens have placed around our solar system... you know, the ones that say "DANGER! PRIMITIVE, AGGRESSIVE ANIMALS BEYOND THIS POINT! KEEP OUT!"

TheRedneck

a reply to: lostbook

...what if the sudden push by scientists to find life elsewhere is indeed not a search to find life but a search to find another home planet.....?

Probably. But don't be thinking we all get to go along.

Global warming and all the damage we have done to this Earth and animal life, oceans and nature is irreversable.
But, we can stop doing what we are doing so it wont get worse. I can't see that happening though.

a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

I would rather die on Planet Earth, even as it is crumbling in front of me, than to take my chances in outer space before we have streamlined and had several generations of working problem free craft. Even if they said, "Hey, your going to die in five minutes if you don't leave with us, for free, RIGHT NOW!" I will just sit back and enjoy the end before the next journey of existence. I would probably be like Woody Harrelson's character in 2012 whether we have the capability or not to safely leave Earth honestly.


I could never leave Earth behind forever. I feel like thats leaving your mom in a burning house fire or left in a sinking boat. Regardless whether your own chance of survival goes or not, we can't just leave behind mom!

originally posted by: lostbook
An idea has been swirling around my head for a while now and I finally decided to make a thread about it. My question is this: does Trump know that it's already too late to slow down the rapid Earth warming which is caused by Man? Could this be why he dismisses any Global Warming alerts by scientists and even wants to enact more drilling in order to boost oil capacity? Could Trump be looking at it as a kind of "we're screwed anyway so let's drill baby drill!" attitude...?

Carbon in the atmosphere has already passed the 400ppm threshold:
www.climatecentral.org...

This is a big deal. Extra Carbon will lead to serious problems to the World in the near future including: doom for low-lying small island states, more extreme heat waves, droughts, coastal flooding, and the extinction of many coral reefs. Trump says Climate change isn't real so some people would rather listen to him instead of real scientists.

In another conspiracy twist: what if the sudden push by scientists to find life elsewhere is indeed not a search to find life but a search to find another home planet.....? The focus does seem to be toward finding Earth-like planets.......interesting.......So, I ask, Is It Too Late? What says ATS?

It's not too late, we can rehabilitate our environment. I recently made this thread about a technology that can do just that:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm not sure I agree with you on carbon dioxide levels being the cause of this problem. Haven't carbon dioxide levels been much higher, and temperatures much lower, at the same time, during prehistoric time periods? I haven't seen the causation evidence to convince me that carbon dioxide produced by man is the cause of our warming environment. The planet undergoes periodic warming and cooling cycles, and has for the last several million years at least. Volcanoes have spewed far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in the distant past than we ever have, as well as toxic chemicals. Besides, I don't think the fossil fuels vs. nuclear energy paradigm will persist forever. I give it another hundred years tops.

Pollution, now, there's an environmental hazard I can sink my teeth into! Nuclear, biological, or chemical, it's all bad. It's all fixable, too, without seriously hampering human evolution and development. You change the paradigm, and the rest will follow naturally. We just have to change the way we do things, use our science a little more wisely.