Why the Planet’s Past 485 Million Years Are a Climate Warning

Science and Technology
22

No. The right would go for no income tax and the left would go for a fair and equatable tax. Its the solution for govt in raising revenue with an ageing population and replacing workers with AI.

23

The point of an education can be either following orders or thinking for yourself. If you think following orders from leaders is what Democracy is, I think you have the wrong idea. Democracy is leaders following the direction of “We, the People”. That probably never happened in America in spite of it being called a democracy. I think we should now let the People rule.

24

I would say rules but no rulers Rognaree

25

Oh lordie give me a little more credit.

▼ August 2008
[8-2-8

And if you think pie in the sky is going to solve the problems we created for ourselves, you have the wrong idea about how reality works.

KEY CONCEPT
Soberly and deeply recognizing the Physical Reality ~ Human Mind divide.

It’s the first base prerequisite understanding before the nature of the world and human nature can even begin to make sense to the petty self-absorbed human beings that we are.

26

Reality: We teach children to memorize facts and test them on their memory. We don’t teach them how to think for themselves.
Reality The Constitution calls out the word Representative 16 times, but we elect people who represent an ideology, not us. That is the only choice at election time.
Reality Those who we elect never ask for our suggestions. Electing them gives them free rein to do whatever They want
Reality We have cell phones that operate like computers but we are unable to protect our own identifies from theft
Reality Imagination is what has given us the science and technology we experience every day, but there is no imagination in our politics or society
Reality Challenging what exists (what we have allowed to exist) is not pie in the sky. It is the beginning of wisdom. Wisdom begins with imagination.

27

Okay, all that is true and fair - with the minor flaw that you are discussing political reality - and I’m trying to recognize Physical Reality.

As for “Wisdom” that begins with understand who oneself is and how one fits into the whole, before moving on to greater levels of “wisdom”.

Challenging what exists is fine and dandy, no argument from me.
If you took the time to look at any of my blogs you’d appreciate that I’m no stranger to challenging the status quo.
Oh yeah, it’s right there in my moniker too.

Still there are sober challenges - and there are pie is the sky, disconnected from physical reality challenges. Understanding the difference is key.

1 Like
28

The solution to climate is now understood by all “great thinkers” to involve getting rid of progress, shutting down dirty energy and ending debate about the subject.
This plays directly into Confuscian thinking which led China into its own “Dark Ages” from 1400-1950. (look at the history of Chinese inventions for advances in that period).
China will not join us in limiting dirty energy and will continue to copy what we invent because their ability to invent (imagine) is dependent upon our starting point in our
universities. But this also illustrates another idea about progress. Knowing something is not enough to imagine something new. Knowing something closes your mind
to a new idea that challenges an old idea. It takes some stamina to resist the know-it-alls that insist there is no better way to do something than the way it has always been
done. A Communist country is capable of copying but not able to invent a new thing because it frowns on imagination.
Did you read about the new star, just seen.

A ‘new star’ has exploded into the night sky — and you can see it from North AmericaThis new star has an effect on the Milky Way members including Earth. Perhaps it even has an effect on our climate by activating instability at Earth’s core.

29

You think?
Guess it’s possible depending on the circumstances.

. . . It’s estimated that if a supernova erupted within around 30 light-years of our planet, our atmosphere would be violently ripped away, and all life on Earth would perish. Thus, it stands to reason that if a massive star erupted within hundreds of light-years of Earth, this cosmic blast may not be fatal, but could result in extreme changes to our atmosphere, astronomers say. … (source - also, this is interesting.)

AI Overview. The Lupus constellation is not a single distance from Earth, as its stars are scattered across space. However, the main stars that make up the constellation are typically between 117 and 884 light-years away, according to Universe Guide. The average distance to the major stars is around 384 light-years.

No matter what you throw at it, we can’t escape the physics of CO2 being the big hitters.

30

Very interesting talk by Richard Alley. Especially the speed of the recent change in CO2 and the history of Earth being less icy and more warmth over the past 485 million years.
All I am suggesting is that there are a lot of unknowns in the Universe. Not everything that affects our climate just happens between Sun and Earth. There are probably other factors
in and around the Milky Way that cannot now be normalized like a test tube. If we say the entire problem is now understood, we won’t continue to search for some other cause.
The release of CO2 might have another cause than human fossil fuel burning.

31

It’s in the name of the forum, “inquiry”. Asking question continually is part of the scientific method.

These are not words I would use. Yes there is more than one way to release CO2, but humans are directly causing the current rise. That has been demonstrated.

32

Climate scientists understand that very well, and have been working on understanding the entire shebang.

There are major drivers and lessor drivers, then there’s also how the Earth circulates through the very complex global heat engine, there are also trivial influences. And the timing thing, we are changing physical systems at a rate magnitudes faster than natural drivers have done in the past. It does get complicated:

33

Rognaree,
Are you new to all this climate news stuff?
Or have you never before been interested in Earth’s global heat and moisture distribution engine, or this planet’s deep history?
Have you ever heard of the website Skeptic Science?
You responded to the Richard Alley CO2 video as though you’d never heard it, or of that particular scientist before? Is that the case?

If you want educated background on any of your questions you might give them a try. The give a review of the State of our Understanding, followed by links to the actual science papers. For those with a sincere desire to learn there’s no better way (short of getting a formal education in the subject and digging through the IPCC archives yourself.

34

All I am saying is that if you think you have the final truth, you have closed your mind to any new information.

35

And I already agreed to that. I never said I had the final truth. The IPCC is still gathering data and “doing science”, so they don’t think they have the final truth. If someone says they have the final truth, then they are not a good scientist and are missing one of the principles of good science.

You did not ONLY make a simple statement of truth about “final truth” or “closed minds”. You stepped out of that safe circle and said,

The release of CO2 might have another cause than human fossil fuel burning.

When that was challenged, you retreated into your safe statement as if you had not made a statement about AGW. Pointing out logical problems and flaws in arguments like this is what we do here.

1 Like
36

There isn’t a climate science alive who says they “have the final truth”.

And I suggested you could investigate all curious claims made.
Ask the questions, seek the answer (all it requires is honest curiosity, and some critical thinking skills) - and you will amazed: "Oh, so scientists have looked at that angle too. I’m impressed.
“Now I understand why said claim might have some truth to it, but that it’s trivial compared to other well know and soundly proven facts - such as how much CO2 is humanity adding to our climate system, over and above normal background flux.”

But instead you want to take it down to the level of childish flag waving, red herrings, and innuendo, the object being - multiply the doubt until everyone is paralyzed with ignorance. It’s a disgusting approach, living is about gathering facts, not denying facts..

But I do find that an invitation to add more of the facts most love to ignore. Notice the variety of sources.