Stephen Hawking: Earth will turn into fireball in less than 600 years

Humans aren't made to be able to use their senses to directly detect climate change. But, we can certainly

I agree that what was said was too pessimistic.

However, there are factors that could become essentially impossible to fix merely by altering human behavior.

For example, a melted tundra is likely to start giving off methane in huge volumes, and methane is far worse than CO2 for warming. Also, as ice melts, the less reflective water and land is exposed, increasing warming.

Plus, I really don't believe there will be a point at which the price of carbon will be enough to make significant inroads on the costs of mining it from the air. Carbon is just too available. And, detaching it from oxygen takes energy.

 

With the illusion of a federal government doing anything is about as useless like Rehnquist abandoned the US Constitution, the congress abandoned election fixing problems in politics & now a leader abandoning the climate accord just as a predecessor abandoning America for the second coming......

 

There have been many periods when the Earth has warmed this much and more. Yet the Earth cooled again, even after all the nasty methane and whatnot was released. Without assistance. And if methane or something else becomes a significant issue, we could target that too.

Well, it's the way this carbon is formed that makes it so valuable. From my cited article:

 

The computer he uses translated incorrectly. He said he thought that damnably hot cinnamon atomic fireball he was sucking on was going to last 600 years.

 

You know that because climatologists figured that out for you.

Now, you propose that climatologists are not just ignorant, but malicious.

One way or the other, bud.

Let me know when you make up your mind.

 

What he actually said is that at current population growth trends by 2600 our population will be packed shoulder to shoulder and combined with our energy use our planet will be red hot. I don't know if it was a literal prediction or more of a dramatic way of showing the threat of over-consumption and over-population at current trends. I do wish he had been a bit more realistic with his statements.

 

Uh, what? How do you come to the conclusion that I'm saying climatologists are ignorant and malicious? The only thing I'm saying they are ignorant of is the future. Must I declare them prophets with sure knowledge of technologies to come?

 

Not going to last with that Christian Nation business as usual national religion lynching enforcement homicidal sociopsychopathic super ego Islam Christiananality pedophile mentality ChristHitler still passing "man is God" off as under God.

 

lol

 

whatever cant go on, doesnt. Its as simple as that. If we want to keep increasing our population without restraint...who here thinks thats going to end well? I dont know how its possible to think its going to. Humans are an invasive species and when we are done stripping the earth....we will become nothing more than an interesting fossil record a million years from now. You dont need to be a scientist to figure this out.

 

So, they only know about the past? But, that really makes little sense. It's not like the laws of physics change over time this short. And, you still need to explain the world wide conspiracy aspect of your declaration.

There may be possible ways to artificially cool the earth, but there are serious problems in that range.

 

I get the politics from both sides, who happen to be diametrically opposed on this issue. There certainly is a science at the root of all this but it becomes 100% political when solutions/options are introduced to the public. So for many the bogus solutions/options help denigrate the discipline of science which leads all of us away from discussing facts/data and into the arena of politics. Once here there can never be any consensus.

I keep harping that IMO humans in today's society/culture have basically reached their limits of capability. This is as good as it can be today because of the obvious factors and it paralyzes us, makes us ineffective, while we achieve nothing.

I wish change can be effected at the ballot box but I can't see this happening any time soon. And although politically it appears only the right-wing are the problem, I'm thinking both sides are to blame due to their constant focus on self-serving positions...winner take all...NIMBY, etc. Basically we can't get out of our own way so we'll just stay in this limbo while the problems facing mankind are growing by the day...

 

What's ignorant is believing solutions are going to be falling from the skies therefore do nothing.

I talk about facts while you use meaningless words like 'alarmist' and 'pessimistic' and 'doom and gloom'.

There are a million critical things today we can't seem to solve yet you believe humans can suddenly suck all the carbon from the atmosphere?

You know why we talk about stuff happening 100 or 600 years in the future? It's because this is how long it takes us to achieve anything!

You're all talk with zero substance! You believe we can do so many things to solve global climate change yet we are doing none of them? Instead of all the pie-in-the-sky BS about filtering all of Earth's atmosphere why not just greatly reduce fossil fuel emissions...why not?

 

And during these periods, how many humans were in existence? How many humans depended on food from land and oceans? How many humans at that time depended 100% on a fragile economic system? When you figure out the answer to these questions you will know why climate change potential can be so devastating to mankind today and into the future. It's not pessimism and doom and gloom...it's the reality of what we are/will be facing on Earth. I won't be here so why should I care at all? It's because in the grand scheme of things, the Universe, we don't yet know how precious life might be, and due to the astronomical distances and challenging physics, we're not going to be given do-overs when we screw up Earth. It sickens me that most of what we do is 'take' from Earth and when the time comes when we need to stop taking, we just talk about it as if it's no more important than who got killed on last night's TV soap opera...

 

I agree that it has become a purely partisan issue.

But, I don't accept your idea of how we got there. Those who accept science have been highly flexible about response.

Remember that we've known of this problem for 20 years. By the time Obama became president, the issue was already totally partisan, with Republicans rejecting science. Yet, for the previous years there was NO plan to which Republicans could object. All that existed was the known fact that carbon in the atmosphere was the seat of the problem. There was debate about how carbon emissions might be limited. Ideas covered ways to limit emissions, conservation, clean energy ideas for more use of electricity (requiring technology investment), nuclear, direct tax on carbon, a carbon credit system (allowing corporations and individuals the broadest range of economic control), seeding oceans to cause greater absorption of carbon, agreements with other nations for mutual action (to prevent it from being an economic impact on just those who took action), possibilities of modifying the behavior of other countries that use worse fuels, etc., etc.

You can NOT claim that one solution was being forced down anyone's throat during that period.

What we saw during that pre-Obama period was strong Republican opposition to taking ANY action. Period. We saw the rise of "science" from the fossil fuel industry - even when the fossil fuel industry is on record as knowing that humans are the primary cause of the climate change we see today.

And, those are the sources of the Republican opposition climatology - a logical result of the search for reasons to oppose ANY action.


Once science is rejected (leaving no objective guide), there is NO POSSIBILITY of it being anything BUT purely political.

 

I have not proposed that laws of physics will change. I have proposed that technology will continue to improve in unpredictable ways, a variable that cannot be accounted for in climate models.

I honestly have no clue what you're talking about.

Again, I have faith in the ingenuity of future generations to solve those problems. After all, necessity is the mother of invention.

 

Do nothing? I said no such thing. We should get behind technologies like the one described in the cited article. Since you believe in a "point of no return" that may have already been passed (thus making your suggestions pointless), those technologies are the most rational next step, as they may be able to "move the line".

Those words all have meanings; take a look at a dictionary. They are not only meaningful, but apt.

Dude, G.T.F.O. We've only had electricity for about a century! In that time, we have straight kicked an ass. Split the atom. Gone to the moon. Oh yeah, it takes us 100 years to do anything, even simple stuff like progressing from nobody having electricity to everybody having a supercomputer in their pocket called a smartphone, connected to a World Wide Web through satellites in space.

Actually, I think we should do that, not because of sky-is-falling hysteria, but because alternatives are getting cheaper all the time, and I want us to save that oil to make things like plastic instead of burning it.

 

OK - I see.

But, I see this as a statement of total irresponsibility. We know we're making the problem significantly worse. We know we're adding feedback loops such as thawing the tundra to emit methane and reducing earth's albedo. We know there is a long lead time on anything we do about earth's temperature. And, we know we can make a difference today, without taking radical steps involving such ideas as attempting to change earth's atmosphere.

I didn't understand that you believe scientists, but just don't want to act on their analysis.
[/QUOTE]
Again, I have faith in the ingenuity of future generations to solve those problems. After all, necessity is the mother of invention.[/QUOTE]
Again, this is just a statement of phenomenal irresponsibility. You seem to want to trust the possibility of some future direct action to modify the chemistry of our atmosphere to such an extent that it overcomes the changes we are making today. The problems with any solution to direct manipulation of earth's atmosphere has numerous serious associated problems.

 

Twice here you have seemingly proclaimed that it is implausible that humans could, with intent, change the Earth's atmosphere. While simultaneously holding the view that humans have already unintentionally changed the atmosphere, AND that we need to take action to change the Earth's atmosphere back (but through abstinence, not technology).

Yes, I trust science (properly done) to produce highly reliable descriptions, but not necessarily reliable proscriptions.

 

Wow!

No, I'm saying that it is grossly irresponsible to knowingly screw up earth's atmosphere to the point where it would become a critical issue for some future generation to try to fix.

We've know we were screwing up earth's atmosphere enough to change our climate for 20 years now. So NO, we have no excuse such as not knowing.

Nobody thinks we can "change the earth's atmosphere back" through "abstinence". All that is proposed is that we slow down how much we're screwing it up.

No, those interested in being responsible are NOT ignoring technology today. And, that goes for other nations as well. The US is certainly not leading in this effort, but that's not the fault of those who accept science.



So, you believe scientists can figure out how to fix earth's atmosphere, but you think that scientists are "not necessarily reliable in proscription". Really???

 

Because you need the public interest in manned space flight to procure the budget for NASA. People lose interest in unmanned space exploration too quickly. Personaly I'd rather see the money spent on developing clean energy or clean drinking water for all.

 

Correct, because science is not a method of forming a plan of action. Science can inform the plan by describing things like optimum levels of certain gases, but as far as the best way to achieve those goals, that is outside the purview of the scientific method. A good plan must work scientifically, but it must also work economically, culturally, etc.

 

Maybe or maybe not.

But, it looks to me like you aren't accepting what they are saying today, so why would you put faith in what they say in the future - surely even LESS worthy of trust than what they say today.

 

I'm more into the moment on this topic not caring how we got to where we are today. We are where we are today because in general this is what the US and it's citizens want. Also because this climate change topic is not high on many people's priority. We've elected a president, and VP, and Congress and we've given them the next 4-8 years to manage the nation. I hate the president and I hate what's happening but I also respect the fact that Americans voted them in office. So when I talk about how we can't find consensus, how we do basically nothing on this topic, I'm talking about the collective 'we' which represents who the US is today. The collective 'we' includes both parties and all of those in the middle. Even though more liberals seem to embrace science, where we fall flat on our face is when we ask all Americans to help effect change. 50-60% of Americans, from all political parties, live pay check to pay check and many from no check so trying to convince this group to reduce fossil fuel consumption, install alternative energy, drive hybrids and electrics, or to consider higher consumer costs due to carbon taxes...is almost impossible. These topics are dead on arrival to this group of people. In the remaining socio-economic groups they are mostly divided down the middle. So as a nation, as a planet, precisely what are we doing today on the topic of climate change and what do the metrics of these actions tell us? As I stated before, I am unaware of a single thing that my government and society has tried to either educate me on this topic or ask that I take a different path where possible to be a better steward of Earth...

 

'We should' is nice but what are we truly doing? What precise actions are the collective Earthlings taking each day?

I don't believe in a point of no return? I suggested no one knows if we have reached one.

Rational and logical and we should are great ideas but reality presents an entirely different perspective.

Yes we have technological advances, innovation, discoveries, etc. but all of them are impeded by what mankind decides to implement and fund. Surely we can build a geodesic glass dome over a large city and not worry about outside climate but is this feasible in the next 100-200 years...I doubt it. Surely we can suck most of the carbon out of our atmosphere but the time and money to do this, as well as the will of the people, remain questionable. Meanwhile, the climate change time bomb is ticking!