Mathematical Formula Predicts Global Mass Extinction Event in 2100

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
A new paper finds that a mass-extinction period mirroring ones from our planet's ancient past could be triggered when humanity adds a certain amount of carbon to the oceans, which are home to the majority of all plants and animals on our planet. The paper pegs that amount at 310 gigatons. According to lead author Daniel Rothman of MIT, based on projections from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we're on course to hit that number by 2100.

We will easily hit that 310-gigaton threshold by 2100, or sooner, unless something changes: Worst-case projections put 500 gigatons of carbon into the oceans by 2100. Passing over this carbon threshold moves us "to the other side of the stability boundary," Rothman told me. It's not that on Jan. 2, 2100, all species on our planet begin to apocalyptically die off. "The next day, everybody wakes up and goes to work as normal," he said. It might take 10,000 years for a true disaster to play out.
 
Hundreds of billions of dollars funds global warming disaster scenario's from academia. There is a lot of money to be made being an alarmist. Statisticians like Stephen McIntyre and David Hand find significant flaws in studies form the Climate Research Unit and the NOAA, forcing retractions, but the onslaught of bogus research continues fueled by the big money. All the previous dire predictions have failed to come true why should this one be believed? Me thinks the boy has cried wolf too often...
 
Hundreds of billions of dollars funds global warming disaster scenario's from academia. There is a lot of money to be made being an alarmist. Statisticians like Stephen McIntyre and David Hand find significant flaws in studies form the Climate Research Unit and the NOAA, forcing retractions, but the onslaught of bogus research continues fueled by the big money. All the previous dire predictions have failed to come true why should this one be believed? Me thinks the boy has cried wolf too often...
Really? Where is all of this big money? When was the last time you seen a scientist rolling around in a 2 million dollar sports car spending money on stupid shit? Have you met any scientists? Ever? While this scenario is not the top of the heap for emergency, I would like you to tell m where this is making this scientist all of the outrageous money... Show me a link to some checks or pics to his new found wealth for selling his soul to Big Environment".... fuck...
 
Given the interconnectedness of species, it's easy to predict humanity's end on a long enough timeline as the rest of our support structure (all observable animals and most plant life) perishes around us. Then the only task is figuring out when that criteria is met - which this article appears to clearly identify.

So long, Earth - and thanks for all the fish.
 
Hundreds of billions of dollars funds global warming disaster scenario's from academia. There is a lot of money to be made being an alarmist. Statisticians like Stephen McIntyre and David Hand find significant flaws in studies form the Climate Research Unit and the NOAA, forcing retractions, but the onslaught of bogus research continues fueled by the big money. All the previous dire predictions have failed to come true why should this one be believed? Me thinks the boy has cried wolf too often...

So your cool with thousands of tons of plastic being dumped into the oceans as well? Or the fact that Wisconsin's fish populations are often low due to pollution from car exhaust which reeks havoc on fish eggs? It is one thing to deny predictions and another to deny reality. I dont want to eat fake meat created in a lab since we built buildings on top of farms to make a few people richer. There is no reason if why 2050 we cant replace most forms of major pollution.
 
So your cool with thousands of tons of plastic being dumped into the oceans as well? Or the fact that Wisconsin's fish populations are often low due to pollution from car exhaust which reeks havoc on fish eggs? It is one thing to deny predictions and another to deny reality. I dont want to eat fake meat created in a lab since we built buildings on top of farms to make a few people richer. There is no reason if why 2050 we cant replace most forms of major pollution.
This isn't a comment on on your arguments on what someone is "cool" with, just a comment that there is no free lunch yet. There might be around the corner, but today it just shifts what the pollution is and where it happens.
 
So how does that prediction work out when we're actually in the middle of an global extinction period now?
 
Really? Where is all of this big money? When was the last time you seen a scientist rolling around in a 2 million dollar sports car spending money on stupid shit? Have you met any scientists? Ever? While this scenario is not the top of the heap for emergency, I would like you to tell m where this is making this scientist all of the outrageous money... Show me a link to some checks or pics to his new found wealth for selling his soul to Big Environment".... fuck...

Put it this way.

Where do you think the easier money is?

Screaming "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Give me money to research it!"

OR

Engineering and implementing something designed to keep the sky from falling?

Sure, LESS money is probably involved in the "research" side. But the have only to sit at a desk and go "WE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!"


Honestly, I'm sick of the alarmism.

Simply label CO2 as a pollutant, slap some realistic limits on artificial exhaust.

Then start going full-tilt into sequestration tech and nuclear power. And yes, if we want to be serious about cutting CO2 without killing millions of people and destroying our standard of living, nuclear power is pretty much a MUST at this point.

Also, tighten up building codes with regards to energy efficiency using NetZero and Passivehaus as gold-standard benchmarks. Both for new construction and for retrofits. Not saying make Passivehaus "code minimum". But even just adopting a few items out of the standard would yield massive energy efficiency gains.

Simply doing these things could allow us to cut 1/3 to 1/2 of our carbon output at a minimum.
 
Really? Where is all of this big money? When was the last time you seen a scientist rolling around in a 2 million dollar sports car spending money on stupid shit? Have you met any scientists? Ever? While this scenario is not the top of the heap for emergency, I would like you to tell m where this is making this scientist all of the outrageous money... Show me a link to some checks or pics to his new found wealth for selling his soul to Big Environment".... fuck...

Since 1989, the US federal government alone has funded global warming studies in excess of 30 *billion* dollars. That much money doesn't evaporate into thin air. It goes to researchers whose livelihood depends on the "correct" answer. Imagine earning your living performing such research. What's the likelihood of you concluding everything's fine, please don't send me more grant money to study further. Zilch.

Al Gore's net worth is $200 million dollars, a lot of it from investing in carbon credit trading companies. You know, the scheme that allows big companies to pollute just as much as long as they buy unused credits from smaller companies and Al Gore get's his percentage cut.
 
Then again, it might be easier to nuke just Asia, India and Africa.

It'd drastically reduce the population (from 7.5 billion down to about 0.7 billion), and thus CO2 outputs.

o_O
 
Since 1989, the US federal government alone has funded global warming studies in excess of 30 *billion* dollars. That much money doesn't evaporate into thin air. It goes to researchers whose livelihood depends on the "correct" answer. Imagine earning your living performing such research. What's the likelihood of you concluding everything's fine, please don't send me more grant money to study further. Zilch.
Researchers get paid salary, regardless of the result of the study. There are things such as peer review and honest researchers who perform their own studies to point out bias and conflicts of interest. The amount of people who would have to go along with it, in any field of research, is absolutely insane.
 
This isn't a comment on on your arguments on what someone is "cool" with, just a comment that there is no free lunch yet. There might be around the corner, but today it just shifts what the pollution is and where it happens.

Yeah... I agree. I think if the costs transition to simple renewable energy based on renewable resources or less invasive resources it will help. However if solar panels utilizes a large amount of precious materials or requires a ton of pollution (batteries), were just moving and kicking the can.... although the reduction of carbon may benefit over time. Nuclear has a ton of issues but maybe they will sort those out in the next 100 years. There is hope, humans are smart. 500 years ago most of the "civilized world" were slaves and serfs. We really have had only 100+ years to evolve like crazy (or devo .. my wife watches teen mom)
 
Honestly, I'm sick of the alarmism.

Consider: If the Titanic is full-steaming into a field of icebergs and the collision alarm is ringing, do you do your best to avert the collision? It probably takes time and effort before collision is no longer imminent, correct?

It's taken us decades of CO2 emissions to begin to see these effects. In the meantime, we've built systemic, structural inertia towards dumping more CO2 into the air and sea. We have ever louder signals alarming us to catastrophe. Do we blame the alarms for alerting us to problems?
 
Researchers get paid salary, regardless of the result of the study. There are things such as peer review and honest researchers who perform their own studies to point out bias and conflicts of interest. The amount of people who would have to go along with it, in any field of research, is absolutely insane.


Not to mention, a study that found CREDIBLE contradictory evidence to climate change would be so much bigger news than yet another confirmatory study, that it would literally make that researchers career.

The incentives don't line up the way the conspiracy theorists think they do.
 
If carbon is the main issue, nuclear is an easy way out, available since the end of WWII. Thorium based nuclear, without most of negative side effects and plentiful fuel, could have been in production 50 years ago.

Energy as such is not the problem, or carbon, nor the overpopulation. The issue is the way the world runs, this whole thing is just one of the side-effects. While not completely irrelevant, more pressing issues like current economic order, wars around the world, WWIII being in play again - will get us all a lot sooner than greenhouse gas emissions and the side effects.
 
The time for alarmism is over honestly. There is no going back, there is no correcting of the problem. We need to start thinking long term and working out how we will live and move forward. Don't stop trying to reduce emissions I guess, but we need to start being proactive as a species instead of reactive.

Lets see how much researchers get paid, like their salaries are so huge. Ask or work with any scientist or researcher and they are always begging for money. The first thing that gets cut every time a budget cut happens is research, and most of those are bodies..... I guess if you want, we could start teaching them to go back into the transportation and manufacturing industries....
 
Researchers get paid salary, regardless of the result of the study. There are things such as peer review and honest researchers who perform their own studies to point out bias and conflicts of interest. The amount of people who would have to go along with it, in any field of research, is absolutely insane.

And yet, there is large scale suppression and outright shaming/shunning of any research or results that counters alarmism.
https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/i...s-all?ID=865dbe39-802a-23ad-4949-ee9098538277

I thought scientists are supposed to have some of the most open minds of anyone on the planet? Funny, because more and more it seems to me that a desired result has been decided long ago, and it is now just a matter of using "science" by any means necessary to get to that conclusion. Settled science!!!
 
Researchers get paid salary, regardless of the result of the study. There are things such as peer review and honest researchers who perform their own studies to point out bias and conflicts of interest. The amount of people who would have to go along with it, in any field of research, is absolutely insane.

Yes. But researchers coming to the "wrong" conclusion don't necessarily see further funding for more studies.

And yes, there are such things as peer review. Just like open source makes all bugs shallow.

And how often do we hear about something in open source that's dangerous that wasn't caught for a while because nobody was actually looking?

You DO know that a lot of these reports being published are essentially aggregates of several studies which turns into a big circular reference fest after while.

Also, we've ALSO seen peer review journals publishing complete CRAP submitted to show the problems with peer review journals. The Star Wars sting in July, 107 cancer papers in April. Theranos last August. London BioMed last August as well.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...itation_slips_into_peer_reviewed_journal.html

So while it may not be EASY to fake a paper. It's not particularly hard, nor does it require the level of collusion you think it does.
 
Really? Where is all of this big money? When was the last time you seen a scientist rolling around in a 2 million dollar sports car spending money on stupid shit? Have you met any scientists? Ever? While this scenario is not the top of the heap for emergency, I would like you to tell m where this is making this scientist all of the outrageous money... Show me a link to some checks or pics to his new found wealth for selling his soul to Big Environment".... fuck...
The Climate Research Unit of which Michael E. Mann is a member receives nearly half a billion dollars in research grants. Instead of debating the issue in Scientific Journals he sues people he disagrees with. I would suggest that is evidence of scientific corruption.
 
So your cool with thousands of tons of plastic being dumped into the oceans as well? Or the fact that Wisconsin's fish populations are often low due to pollution from car exhaust which reeks havoc on fish eggs? It is one thing to deny predictions and another to deny reality. I dont want to eat fake meat created in a lab since we built buildings on top of farms to make a few people richer. There is no reason if why 2050 we cant replace most forms of major pollution.
Misuse of analogy... It is one thing to maintain clean lakes and oceans, it is another thing to claim the world is going to end based upon hysteria and blatant disregard for valid scientific research that contradicts the mythology of catastrophic climate change.
 
bad premises lead to bad extrapolation. There's no correlation to carbon and water to mass extinction.
 
The best thing you can do to save the environment is have a vasectomy/tubal ligation. Hands down.
 
Yes. But researchers coming to the "wrong" conclusion don't necessarily see further funding for more studies.

And yes, there are such things as peer review. Just like open source makes all bugs shallow.

And how often do we hear about something in open source that's dangerous that wasn't caught for a while because nobody was actually looking?

You DO know that a lot of these reports being published are essentially aggregates of several studies which turns into a big circular reference fest after while.

Also, we've ALSO seen peer review journals publishing complete CRAP submitted to show the problems with peer review journals. The Star Wars sting in July, 107 cancer papers in April. Theranos last August. London BioMed last August as well.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...itation_slips_into_peer_reviewed_journal.html

So while it may not be EASY to fake a paper. It's not particularly hard, nor does it require the level of collusion you think it does.
I'm well aware of how easy it is to get a bogus study published through a crappy journal. It is very easy to disprove a fake study by doing your own study with proper methodology. A few studies aren't conclusive. People who perform meta-analysis studies know that and often include a chart of potential design flaws and unintentional bias in those studies. They also look for gaps in research to have more exhaustive studies performed in the future. When enough studies are done, that's when you can start to draw conclusions. In the case of global warming, there is a strong consensus among researchers. So you're implying that a majority of all climate change researchers, as well as their journals, experts, peers, organizations, and universities are corrupt.


Edit: I guess all of our medicine are placebo pills. Technology never progresses and therefor this forum isn't real. 9/11 was an inside job. It's all a ploy to make money. Sigh.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, I'm sick of the alarmism.

Simply label CO2 as a pollutant, slap some realistic limits on artificial exhaust.

Then start going full-tilt into sequestration tech and nuclear power. And yes, if we want to be serious about cutting CO2 without killing millions of people and destroying our standard of living, nuclear power is pretty much a MUST at this point.

Also, tighten up building codes with regards to energy efficiency using NetZero and Passivehaus as gold-standard benchmarks. Both for new construction and for retrofits. Not saying make Passivehaus "code minimum". But even just adopting a few items out of the standard would yield massive energy efficiency gains.

Simply doing these things could allow us to cut 1/3 to 1/2 of our carbon output at a minimum.

CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant. More CO2=Better crop yields=More food with less chemicals.

I'll agree with you on nuclear power being the only solution at this time, but the hate for nuclear is strong among the greens, so it's not going to happen.

Building codes with regards to energy efficiency?

They are already excessive out here in California, and significantly increase the cost of housing, to the point that most people can no longer afford to buy a house.
Even a simple room addition can cost thousands more due to the "green" requirements.
Years ago we planned to add a small room addition to the back of the house.
We eventually gave up due to all the added "green" costs. It would have required bringing many of the systems in the house up to current code.
This was in a mid 70's track home, that was already reasonably energy efficient.
Much of the money would have been wasted hiring "certified" experts to test everything to make sure it was in compliance with current codes or making minor changes which would have had little effect on energy usage.

When I replace my air conditioner a couple years ago, I had to pay a few hundred dollars to have the new system tested to make sure it was in compliance.
The tester spent maybe 15 minutes doing a visual check and a simple temp check, and then signed off the rest saying he couldn't do the rest of the tests since the old ductwork might have asbestos in it.
At least they didn't require me to destroy half my house tearing out the old duct work. :banghead:
 
It is very easy to disprove a fake study by doing your own study with proper methodology.

And who pays for it? And where do you get your data from?

So you're implying that 97% of all climate change researchers, as well as their journals, peers, organizations, and universities are corrupt.

Not necessarily "corrupt". But be honest, do you ACTUALLY think enlightened self-interest doesn't play into this at all?
 
The Climate Research Unit of which Michael E. Mann is a member receives nearly half a billion dollars in research grants. Instead of debating the issue in Scientific Journals he sues people he disagrees with. I would suggest that is evidence of scientific corruption.

As is usually the case, follow the money.

In the case of global warming, there is a reported 97% consensus (90-100%) among researchers. So you're implying that 97% of all climate change researchers, as well as their journals, peers, organizations, and universities are corrupt.

You entire premise is wrong, since that 97% number itself is a complete falsehood.

Try a little research into where that fake number comes from https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexep...e-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#4274bfcc3f9f
 
Excellent! Now I have a date for my calendar. Since I expect to be dead and have 'got mine' why should I care either? Good luck suckers and hasta la vista!
 
CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant. More CO2=Better crop yields=More food with less chemicals.

Thing is, CO2 is also considered a greenhouse gas. And supposedly excessive amounts of it are creating environmental problems.

If we can sequester some of it in a longer-term form (there are methods for pumping CO2 into various types of rock, etc).

I'll agree with you on nuclear power being the only solution at this time, but the hate for nuclear is strong among the greens, so it's not going to happen.

Then we're all dead in the long run. At some point these people need to be told to go pound sand. Because their ideal would have everyone revert to hunter-gatherer lifestyles and shiver in caves, reducing lifespans to 30-odd years again...

Building codes with regards to energy efficiency?

They are already excessive out here in California, and significantly increase the cost of housing, to the point that most people can no longer afford to buy a house.
Even a simple room addition can cost thousands more due to the "green" requirements.
Years ago we planned to add a small room addition to the back of the house.
We eventually gave up due to all the added "green" costs. It would have required bringing many of the systems in the house up to current code.

There are ways to build (and renovate) that don't require enormous capital investment.

And forgive me for slightly snickering the second you said "California". The entire state is completely and utterly out of control economically.

The other problem is, people spend ENORMOUS amounts of money on flashy shit inside a sub-standard house.
Never mind that the house bleeds energy through the walls and around every window. That code-minimum stick-built houses are DESIGNED to do this...

And many builders have problems even building to such shitty minimum codes!

Granted, Cali has other considerations as well (earthquakes). So there are times that standards can run cross-purposes.

This was in a mid 70's track home, that was already reasonably energy efficient.

Yeah. I'm gonna laugh at that...

I'm betting with a couple hundred bucks of caulk and canned spray foam could change your mind on exactly how energy efficient your house is.

Much of the money would have been wasted hiring "certified" experts to test everything to make sure it was in compliance with current codes or making minor changes which would have had little effect on energy usage.

And a lot of these stupid regs came about before things like NetZero and Passivehaus. When the understanding of building science (and yeah, it's an actual science) was incomplete.

When I replace my air conditioner a couple years ago, I had to pay a few hundred dollars to have the new system tested to make sure it was in compliance.
The tester spent maybe 15 minutes doing a visual check and a simple temp check, and then signed off the rest saying he couldn't do the rest of the tests since the old ductwork might have asbestos in it.
At least they didn't require me to destroy half my house tearing out the old duct work. :banghead:

The problem is "stupid government regulations", where the Letter becomes more important than the intent.
That and people realized they can make easy money off bullshit like your "inspection" when they should have had a wavier system in place.

Things look much better when I close quotes properly....
 
Back
Top