Scientists Simulate "Runaway Greenhouse Effect" That Turns Earth Into Uninhabitable Hell

[EMH]

Liar. Pathetic lies.

You cannot refute one word of that...

 

[otto105]

No different than it's been for the past 3 million years, dummy.

Hilarious

Maga must mean a return to life on earth 3 million years ago.

 

[ding]

Hilarious

Maga must mean a return to life on earth 3 million years ago.

It's hilarious you think 120 ppm of CO2 will override 3 million years of trending to colder temperatures.

 

[Crick]

It's hilarious you think 120 ppm of CO2 will override 3 million years of trending to colder temperatures.

It's not hilarious at all. The rate at which temperatures have been changing is a direct measure of the strength of the forcing factor. The cooling over the last 3 million years is running about 4C over 3 million years. That's 0.00133C/millennia. Current warming is taking place at the rate of 8C/millennia. That indicates current AGW forcing is 6,000 TIMES as powerful as the forcing decline pushing temperatures down throughout the Quaternary.

Once again you're statements seem to indicate you believe systems have 'momentum' in ways that simply do not exist.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Earth could become an uninhabitable HELL, study shows

Earth could look like Venus due to the 'runaway greenhouse effect' - a dramatic escalation in temperatures, report scientists at the University of Geneva.

www.dailymail.co.uk

The linked story talks about this simulation. The reason I am posting about it here is to point out what is going on here. These "climate scientists" have been pulling stunts like this for years now. They run these concocted computer models that are dependent upon multiple variables, many combinations of which either do not occur in nature or are highly unlikely to occur. Some of their modeling runs mathematical equations that work going forward, but do not work in reverse. For example, 10 plus 10 equals 20. 20 minus 10 equals 10. But in the climate scientology world, where ongoing life-and-death crisis is necessary to keep the funding flowing, 10 plus 10 equals 20, but 20 minus 10 may equal 3. This is the sort of end-result focused, corrupt modeling that the "climate scientists" are dealing with. They seemingly attempt to justify such an unscientific approach with the rather base ethic of "Yeah, but what if it IS true?!? Then we are all going to die!!"

This "simulation" is dependent upon the equations and variables these "climate scientists" programmed. I mean, they could just as easily create a simulation of another ice age. It depends on who is writing the code in the modeling software. Why aren't people asking for independent evaluations of these models? I could create a modeling system on paper that determines for every cigar I smoke I get a sloppy hummer from Erin Burnett. That may be what I want to happen, but I can tell you with a very high degree of certainty that it ain't gonna happen.

The purpose of this end of the world simulation is to keep people upset in order to (1) keep the money flowing to these half-assed scientists, because this is how they are getting paid; and (2) to further the neo-Marxist narratives that keep people on edge and falsely believing that every day they wake up on the precipice of death due to one of many non-existent crises.

I can write a software program to simulate whatever outcome I want too.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's not hilarious at all. The rate at which temperatures have been changing is a direct measure of the strength of the forcing factor. The cooling over the last 3 million years is running about 4C over 3 million years. That's 0.00133C/millennia. Current warming is taking place at the rate of 8C/millennia. That indicates current AGW forcing is 6,000 TIMES as powerful as the forcing decline pushing temperatures down throughout the Quaternary.

Once again you're statements seem to indicate you believe systems have 'momentum' in ways that simply do not exist.

Current warming is taking place at the rate of 8C/millennia.

1.2C per 140 years? Hilarious!

 

[Weatherman2020]

Current warming is taking place at the rate of 8C/millennia.

1.2C per 140 years? Hilarious!

As we leave the ice age that ended just over a century ago we can expect warming to be part of the ‘no longer in an ice age’ climate.

 

[Crick]

As we leave the ice age that ended just over a century ago we can expect warming to be part of the ‘no longer in an ice age’ climate.

The ice age we are currently in began 2.58 million years ago. We shifted from a glacial to an interglacial period roughly 12,000 years ago. Prior to the onset of AGW, the world had been cooling for over 5,000 years.

 

[Crick]

Current warming is taking place at the rate of 8C/millennia.

1.2C per 140 years? Hilarious!

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of rates?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of rates?

Do you really think it's good science to compare a 140 year rate with a 3 million year rate?

 

[ding]

It's not hilarious at all. The rate at which temperatures have been changing is a direct measure of the strength of the forcing factor. The cooling over the last 3 million years is running about 4C over 3 million years. That's 0.00133C/millennia. Current warming is taking place at the rate of 8C/millennia. That indicates current AGW forcing is 6,000 TIMES as powerful as the forcing decline pushing temperatures down throughout the Quaternary.

Once again you're statements seem to indicate you believe systems have 'momentum' in ways that simply do not exist.

How many glacial cycles occurred during those 3 million years? Because it seems like you are making an apples to oranges comparison. So your math is grossly flawed. Not to mention you are attributing 0.9C of natural warming to CO2 when it can only be counted on providing 0.5C from the simple physics of radiative forcing.

 

[ding]

Do you really think it's good science to compare a 140 year rate with a 3 million year rate?

Especially one that had over 30 glacial cycles with wild temperature swings on much much shorter timescales. He's desperate.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The ice age we are currently in began 2.58 million years ago. We shifted from a glacial to an interglacial period roughly 12,000 years ago. Prior to the onset of AGW, the world had been cooling for over 5,000 years.

It began in the late 1700’s and ended around 1900. We’re still warming from that last freeze.

 

[otto105]

It's hilarious you think 120 ppm of CO2 will override 3 million years of trending to colder temperatures.

We would all be better off at 120ppm instead of current 425+ppm.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We would all be better off at 120ppm instead of current 425+ppm.

Moron.

Agriculture | Province of Manitoba

Province of Manitoba - Agriculture

www.gov.mb.ca

 

[otto105]

Moron.

View attachment 887514

Agriculture | Province of Manitoba

Province of Manitoba - Agriculture

www.gov.mb.ca

Hilarious fuckup

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hilarious fuckup

Yeah, tell me how awesome things would be at 120 ppm of CO2
and then back it up with evidence, you silly moron.

 

[otto105]

Yeah, tell me how awesome things would be at 120 ppm of CO2
and then back it up with evidence, you silly moron.

The impact of 120ppm of carbon dioxide on plant life is not a straightforward answer. However, it is known that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere helps plants grow . In fact, the increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has led to a phenomenon called the “carbon dioxide fertilisation effect” which boosts photosynthesis and plant growth.

I prefer that CO2 levels in our atmosphere be determined by nature, not the burning of fossil fuels.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The impact of 120ppm of carbon dioxide on plant life is not a straightforward answer. However, it is known that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere helps plants grow . In fact, the increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has led to a phenomenon called the “carbon dioxide fertilisation effect” which boosts photosynthesis and plant growth.

I prefer that CO2 levels in our atmosphere be determined by nature, not the burning of fossil fuels.

You said atmospheric levels of 120 ppm would be better than 425 ppm.

You were comically wrong.

 

[otto105]

You said atmospheric levels of 120 ppm would be better than 425 ppm.

You were comically wrong.

How so?

Have we not seen enough coral bleaching, growing heat island rendering places too hot for people and increasing extreme weather all over the planet.

And that we may be entering a mass extinction event.