4 ms·

Myth #3 is about comparing CO2-levels from hundreds of million years ago. In about 4:03 it is showing solar output superimposed on top of the graph of CO2+temp

by loopz 5y ago

Myth #3 is about comparing CO2-levels from hundreds of million years ago. In about 4:03 it is showing solar output superimposed on top of the graph of CO2+temp etc. The meaning is that with higher solar output today, greenhouse gases will have more effect, than they did hundred million years ago. The updated graph is probably just to show there's more nuance to the graph than the old version. It doesn't make sense to use very old graphs outdated by the author. CO2 emissions are accellerating over time: https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html The runaway effects will be from thresholds being broken, like acification of the ocean, burning of the tundra, deglacification and other events that humanity cannot influence or stop directly. https://www.quora.com/When-will-the-world-s-oceans-lose-their-ability-to-absorb-carbon-dioxide-and-what-will-be-the-consequences?share=1 https://www.quora.com/When-will-the-world-s-oceans-lose-thei... https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-co... https://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/the-ocean-cannot-absorb-much-more-co2-4990 https://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/the-ocean-cann... While we do have negative feedback loops, lately, temperature looks to be accellerating as well: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... Netflix has this documentary that explains further, ie. why biodiversity is needed. David Attenborough: A Life On Our Planet - "vision for the future" on 'how to fix' climate change : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KglanVLBVrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KglanVLBVrc

flavius29663 5y ago
I feel like we're speaking 2 different languages here. I am talking about runaway global warming. You're posting links about global warming. The difference is in "runaway". I have the feeling you didn't read what I wrote in the thread, I specifically decried the loos of biodiversity in my first comment. My question and point of view was: is there evidence of previous runaway global warming caused by CO2. There were enough CO2 induced global warming events, but not runaway. My point being that at some point it will stabilize, we're not going to end up like Venus. If you're not going to talk specifically about what I'm saying, what's the point of flooding me with links? I am aware and agree with what's in there.
- loopz 5y ago
  Sorry, I misunderstood the question then. This article goes a bit into it, so might be an interesting lead: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151130-how-hot-could-the-earth-get http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151130-how-hot-could-the-ea... Since Earth is not like Venus now, this wouldn't have happened as Earth would've lost most of its atmosphere. But Earth have been a fireball very early on, and cooled down from that since solar output was much lower then. As the solar output continue to increase, Earth will become like Venus or a fireball, before it's engulfed. As solar output "only" increased 4% over some hundred of million years it would seem unlikely to occur from greenhouse gases alone.

by loopz 5y ago

flavius29663 5y ago

I feel like we're speaking 2 different languages here. I am talking about runaway global warming. You're posting links about global warming. The difference is in "runaway". I have the feeling you didn't read what I wrote in the thread, I specifically decried the loos of biodiversity in my first comment. My question and point of view was: is there evidence of previous runaway global warming caused by CO2. There were enough CO2 induced global warming events, but not runaway. My point being that at some point it will stabilize, we're not going to end up like Venus. If you're not going to talk specifically about what I'm saying, what's the point of flooding me with links? I am aware and agree with what's in there.

loopz 5y ago
Sorry, I misunderstood the question then. This article goes a bit into it, so might be an interesting lead: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151130-how-hot-could-the-earth-get http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151130-how-hot-could-the-ea... Since Earth is not like Venus now, this wouldn't have happened as Earth would've lost most of its atmosphere. But Earth have been a fireball very early on, and cooled down from that since solar output was much lower then. As the solar output continue to increase, Earth will become like Venus or a fireball, before it's engulfed. As solar output "only" increased 4% over some hundred of million years it would seem unlikely to occur from greenhouse gases alone.