• Welcome to Discovery Month - prizes, podcasts and more await! Explore the thread here.
  • Want to win Lego Fossils and a bundle of Live Science swag? Share your favourite discovery and enter the giveaway here!

10 Ways Earth Revealed Its Weirdness in 2019

Dec 28, 2019
0
1
5
Interesting article but it is not based on facts in some portions. The earth has been warming and cooling for eons and contrary to what some believe, man has littile to do with it. We are just not that important in the grand scheme of things. Also contrary to the article, the earth is not human and does not decide to do things such as making diamonds or creating faults. Those are just natural occurances that occur throughout the universe. I know it must be difficult but humans are just non-iimportant, temporay occupants and will eventually become extinct as changes in the universe occur and natural changes come about. Our climate is controlled by the Sun mainly but also by changes that are happening in the earths interior - things such as underwater volcanos, thermal exhaust vents, ocean life. Above the ground, we still have volcanic activity, decaying plants, wildlife and many other factors that are totally unrelated to the human animal. Just like on other planets, where there are no humans, climates change and things come and go. Would be great to see Live Science actually base their articles on proven science instead of the group-think of the week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aquatrek
Dec 28, 2019
0
0
0
I agree 110% - this site is often spoilt by the ingress of political nuances like human enhanced climate change is actually causing anything [yet to be scientifically proven]. Geologically humans dont even exist. Cheers, Steve
 
Dec 28, 2019
0
0
0
That we are currently changing the temperature in the lower trophosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels over and above the other drivers has been established scientifically. The longer term consequences of this have a much higher degree of uncertainty but that is a reason for exploring and understanding them better not ignorng them. The fact that the earth has warmed and cooled in the past is an irrelevancy compared with the factual evidence that our use of fossil fuels is currently driving a warming of the lower trophosphere and at a slower pace the oceans. In the longer term this may be dominated by events which are undoubtedly beyond our control. However in the shorter term we do have the possibility of reducing the effects of greenhouse gases because we are producing and releasing them and we can decide to stop doing so. The use of the "out of our control" argiument is just a cop out. Of course understanding what happened in past climate excursions may or may not also be of any relevance. The Earth has been continually evolving since it was formed ~4.5 bilion years ago. The initial conditions for a climate excursion today are unlikely to be the same as climate excursions or even necessarily similar to those earlier in the Earth's history. We can however understand the mechanisms and if we do we can introduce different initial conditions - it's called a climate model. Not as certain as waiting until we go extinct but a better decision making tool than ignorance. It is not political nuance to discuss such issues providing the relevant supporting science is presented or referred to. It is equally politcal nuance not to discuss them at all. I note you don't point out what in the article was actually not factual and reference your reasons for believing this to be the case.
 
Dec 28, 2019
0
0
0
Its not a case of being ignorant and not studying the planet at all. Not a sane person on the planet is suggesting that. The mix and everchanging greenhouse gas concentrations due to seasonal and climate variability throughout the entire atmosphere is an essential part of the current non-stop scientific studies. Yet, all models are static in their outcomes. They require constant adjustment as new knowledge is learnt. Just recently it was NO2 data. Politically a global tax on CO2 is not likely to be agreed unilaterally. Its the 'alarmism' based on the modelled projections that is also part of the 'political' aspect.
 
Dec 28, 2019
0
0
0
The identification and inclusion of the effects of other potential greenhouse gases does not change the situation. Any gas which has an increased refelectance in the LWIR region is going to alter the balance between incoming and outgong radiation from the Earth and increase the temperature and energy retained in the trophosphere and ultimately the oceans. Methane currently at ~1803+-1.2 ppb has increased from 722+-25ppb in 1750 for example, part of that is agricultural and part industrial. One of the difficulties is when Hansen and colleagues first suggested the possibility of global warming based on the study of Venus' atmosphere and the dominance of CO2 in maintaining its abnormally high surface temperatures, we had relativiely little data about Earth. That has changed dramatically since the 1980s. Another significant greenhouse gas is SF6 used in high voltage insulation. It virtually didn't exist before 1937 and doesn't occur in nature. In 1970 it was first measured at 0.03 pptv reached 2.8pptv in 1992 and is increasing at 8.3% pa. It's LWIR reflectance dwarfs CO2. The early climate models didn't incorporate gases that weren't known to be relevant at the time. As we gain more knowledge, why would we not modify the models to incorporate the effects of more greenhouse gases as these effects are going to be cumulative until the reflection back of the LWIR radiation emitted from the earth is 100%.
The uncertainty in the model predictions is certainly used to advantage by both sides of the political debate. Alarmism is an expected political response from those who perceive that little or no action is being taken. The nuanced scientific position is not much use as a tool for obtaining a change to a policy of treating the problem seriously. The position of denying the problem exists is equally one that is politically useful for those with an interest in maintaining the status quo re fossil fuel usage. Any political system has a degree of inertia and is not going to move in any direction unless considerable force is applied to it (voting power being the relevant force equivalent). Lies are going to be prevalent in the political process (I'm a cynic) from both sides. All we can do is try to expose and limit the influence of those who are propagating lies through promotion of informed debate. There is no guarantee we will succeed.
 
Dec 28, 2019
0
0
0
As was admitted earlier the possibility of humans actually altering the greenhouse gasses so that an absolute climate altering change occurs is, in the short term say 50 years, not at all likely. If changes were able to be made before then, or even after, then the lag time affects would be extrapolated out ...... Humankind had better have some good adaptation policies/actions in place if events like the continental low lying coastlines were to be inundated by ocean/sea level rise. Every western nation already knows which coastal areas are at risk. I wish I was going to be here to see how it all pans out.
 
Dec 30, 2019
0
0
0
Interesting article but it is not based on facts in some portions. The earth has been warming and cooling for eons and contrary to what some believe, man has littile to do with it. We are just not that important in the grand scheme of things. Also contrary to the article, the earth is not human and does not decide to do things such as making diamonds or creating faults. Those are just natural occurances that occur throughout the universe. I know it must be difficult but humans are just non-iimportant, temporay occupants and will eventually become extinct as changes in the universe occur and natural changes come about. Our climate is controlled by the Sun mainly but also by changes that are happening in the earths interior - things such as underwater volcanos, thermal exhaust vents, ocean life. Above the ground, we still have volcanic activity, decaying plants, wildlife and many other factors that are totally unrelated to the human animal. Just like on other planets, where there are no humans, climates change and things come and go. Would be great to see Live Science actually base their articles on proven science instead of the group-think of the week.
Yes, of course, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the thousands of scientists worldwide who have been studying the causes of climate change for decades are just "group-think of the week," and you, with your vast reservoir of misspellings, know far more. It's probably just an oversight on your part that you didn't cite a single scientific source for your conclusions, right? As to "Also contrary to the article, the earth is not human and does not decide to do things": your naivete is showing. Of course the Earth is not human. It's a way of writing. Anyone with a modicum of sophistication understands that.
 
Dec 30, 2019
0
0
0
[QUOTE="aquatrek, Its the 'alarmism' based on the modelled projections that is also part of the 'political' aspect.
[/QUOTE]

Alarmism. You mean like the alarmism a person feels going through the windshield in a car crash because he didn't buckle his seat belt? Alarm is the appropriate, rational response to what anthropogenic climate change is doing to the Earth.
 
Jan 2, 2020
3
0
10
That we are currently changing the temperature in the lower trophosphere as a result of the burning of fossil fuels over and above the other drivers has been established scientifically. The longer term consequences of this have a much higher degree of uncertainty but that is a reason for exploring and understanding them better not ignorng them. The fact that the earth has warmed and cooled in the past is an irrelevancy compared with the factual evidence that our use of fossil fuels is currently driving a warming of the lower trophosphere and at a slower pace the oceans. In the longer term this may be dominated by events which are undoubtedly beyond our control. However in the shorter term we do have the possibility of reducing the effects of greenhouse gases because we are producing and releasing them and we can decide to stop doing so. The use of the "out of our control" argiument is just a cop out. Of course understanding what happened in past climate excursions may or may not also be of any relevance. The Earth has been continually evolving since it was formed ~4.5 bilion years ago. The initial conditions for a climate excursion today are unlikely to be the same as climate excursions or even necessarily similar to those earlier in the Earth's history. We can however understand the mechanisms and if we do we can introduce different initial conditions - it's called a climate model. Not as certain as waiting until we go extinct but a better decision making tool than ignorance. It is not political nuance to discuss such issues providing the relevant supporting science is presented or referred to. It is equally politcal nuance not to discuss them at all. I note you don't point out what in the article was actually not factual and reference your reasons for believing this to be the case.
It has NOT been established scientifically, only politically by communists wanting to destroy western nations.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY