So for the last 270years or so, the CO2 concentration has increased 135 ppmv, which is 0.5ppmv per year, or 500'000 ppmv per million years. That's about 34'000 times the rate of change!!!
You have completely misunderstood the problem, which I believe is something like this:
the change in CO2 concentration is happening so fast that life/evolution cannot keep up, which will have disastrous consequences for most advanced life, including us.
I guess "life/evolution can't keep up" is why greenhouse operators buy or make CO2 to increase their yields.
The beginning of the end of the Little Ice Age occurred between 1695 and 1735, when temperatures in Central England increased by 4° Celsius. No other forty-year period in recent history has seen such an increase. Nobody was driving automobiles or burning coal. How did it happen?
I don't know exactly what you mean by "things I wish were true," but if you're referring to global warming you're as far from the truth that you could possibly be. I don't think anyone wishes for the changes that are predicted to happen, at least I hope not. (It can't be ruled out though, cause some surely see the changes as an opportunity to make even more money/wealth for themselves.)
I sincerely wish we could just continue using cheap energy sources, and have limitless economic growth (though I think it should be more evenly distributed, that's an entirely different question), that would be great! Who wouldn't want that? Even those that will come out with a relative surplus from the expensive (for the society at large) green shift, would probably be able to make even more without the constraints of limited energy and other resources.
Read "Unsettled?" by Steven Koonin. He was Deputy Undersecretary for Science in the Obama Administration Department of Energy. Before that he was Professor of Physics, Vice President, and Provost at Caltech. Now he's University Professor at NYU. He explains that CO2 is not the "control knob" for the climate, and that although human activity probably affects the climate, the effect is quite small. The late Stephen Schneider calculated, when he was an acolyte of the Coming Ice Age cult, before he became the high priest of the Global warming cult, calculated (along with S. Ichtiaque Rasool) that EVERY DOUBLING of atmospheric CO2 concentration ADDS 0.76 degrees Celsius to average temperature: No matter how much coal we burn we cannot prevent the coming ice age. Many other real scientists, going back to Svante Arrhenius in 1896, have reached the same conclusion. Details in my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" Everything is quantified. No vague handwaving. 350 bibliographic citations so you can check that I didn't just make up stuff, as did John Cook, the cartoonist who created the "97% of scientists agree" fiction -- and Barack Obama inflated that to 99%.. Today's global warming climate cult is a massive scheme to transfer wealth from poor to rich, mostly by way of government subsidies and mandates. But none of their proposed "solutions" can possibly work. If you're able to read and understand some real science, start with http://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098
The intention with my first comment was to point out what I think is overlooked in the article, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on that very concrete issue.
To expand a bit more than that simple rate of change calculation:
Sure, life can propably exist with much higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, but acording to evolution theory living things adapt to the environment (through natural selection over many, many generations) and the current living things are probably different from those that existed some million years ago.
Our main concern is of course not the CO2 itself though, but how that and other greenhouse gases affects the climate, and that our way of living is very much dependent on the climate (temperature ranges in air and water, precipitation patterns, wind systems etc) not changing too much. The slight increase in Earth's average temperature would probably be ok if it was a mere shift/offset of the "curve"/timedependent tempearature field, the problem is of course that the "curve" changes (larger amplitudes, even more so if one considers the spatial distribution).
If you haven't noticed, the climate is already changing, and apparently many living organisms struggle with the changes that have occurred thus far (there are other contributions also, such as all the stuff we create that directly poison nature). It doesn't help to say it shouldn't be that way beause of this and that; it is observed for certain, and unless you have another testable hypothesis to explain it, we should stick with the best we have.
I don't think we can afford to believe the few that thinks we (humans) have nothing or very little to do with it. It may be that they're right, but we cannot bet on it because the consequences are so large if they are wrong and we just continue as before (I'm assuming here that our great world leaders will actually be able to cut emissions). If they are infact right, then it should do no harm to burn a little less fossile fuels in the mean time until we reach that conclusion. Doing (and preaching) anything else I think is irresposible.
I'm an expert in my field (a branch within computational mechanics), and I do understand quite a bit about subjects relevant to climate modeling/prediction (physics, mathmatical modelling, etc., as I know you do as well).
Being an expert makes me aware that it is easy for someone with more superficial knowledge (in my field) to think that they have a deeper understanding than they actually do, and I don't want to make the same mistake.
I believe climate modeling is more complex (at least less understood, probably since it's a much younger field than mechanics), and I would not for one second question the vast majority of actual experts in that field based on a few that have differing opinions, as long as I'm not an expert myself.
Why should all of those scientists be in on a big lie? I do not believe in such a conspiracy. It is natural that differing opinions exist in science, but as a layman I think it's wiser to place my/our bet on the many than the few.
It may be that it turns out they are all wrong, and that the few are right, but unless I spent the time to become an expert in the field myself, I wouldn't delude myself into thinking that I know better.
"To thine own self be true, and it follows as the night the day that thou canst not to any man be false."
-- Polonius's advice to Laertes as he was leaving Hamlet's castle for Paris.
"unless I spent the time to become an expert in the field...." I have spent the time to study both sides of the argument. Get back to me when you've invested some effort to push back against propaganda.
"Climate science" is a fiction because there are no falsifiable hypotheses. It should be called "climatology" or "climatism." There are no real "climate scientists," but there are a few scientists who study the phenomenon.
The fabrication that "97% of scientists agree" (which Barack Obama inflated to 99%) was created by a cartoonist named John Cook. He read the abstracts of 14,000 papers (but not the entire papers) about climate. He discarded all the ones that didn't express an opinion whether human activity causes global warming. Then he "adjusted" a large fraction of those opinions. The result was that his "97% of scientists agree" is really "97% of the 3% that I kept agree."
Then read my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" Everything is quantified. My master's degree is in applied mathematics with a minor in system engineering. My career spanned 53 years at the world's leading system engineering organization. I know how to do real science, and it's not by consensus or vigorous handwaving. The book includes 350 bibliographic citations so you can check that I didn't just make up stuff.
As I wrote before, it would be interesting to have your thoughts on my OP, regarding the huge difference in rate of change of [CO2] that you didn't take into account in your text.
So for the last 270years or so, the CO2 concentration has increased 135 ppmv, which is 0.5ppmv per year, or 500'000 ppmv per million years. That's about 34'000 times the rate of change!!!
You have completely misunderstood the problem, which I believe is something like this:
the change in CO2 concentration is happening so fast that life/evolution cannot keep up, which will have disastrous consequences for most advanced life, including us.
I guess "life/evolution can't keep up" is why greenhouse operators buy or make CO2 to increase their yields.
The beginning of the end of the Little Ice Age occurred between 1695 and 1735, when temperatures in Central England increased by 4° Celsius. No other forty-year period in recent history has seen such an increase. Nobody was driving automobiles or burning coal. How did it happen?
You need to stop making excuses for believing things you wish were true but know are not.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "things I wish were true," but if you're referring to global warming you're as far from the truth that you could possibly be. I don't think anyone wishes for the changes that are predicted to happen, at least I hope not. (It can't be ruled out though, cause some surely see the changes as an opportunity to make even more money/wealth for themselves.)
I sincerely wish we could just continue using cheap energy sources, and have limitless economic growth (though I think it should be more evenly distributed, that's an entirely different question), that would be great! Who wouldn't want that? Even those that will come out with a relative surplus from the expensive (for the society at large) green shift, would probably be able to make even more without the constraints of limited energy and other resources.
Read "Unsettled?" by Steven Koonin. He was Deputy Undersecretary for Science in the Obama Administration Department of Energy. Before that he was Professor of Physics, Vice President, and Provost at Caltech. Now he's University Professor at NYU. He explains that CO2 is not the "control knob" for the climate, and that although human activity probably affects the climate, the effect is quite small. The late Stephen Schneider calculated, when he was an acolyte of the Coming Ice Age cult, before he became the high priest of the Global warming cult, calculated (along with S. Ichtiaque Rasool) that EVERY DOUBLING of atmospheric CO2 concentration ADDS 0.76 degrees Celsius to average temperature: No matter how much coal we burn we cannot prevent the coming ice age. Many other real scientists, going back to Svante Arrhenius in 1896, have reached the same conclusion. Details in my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" Everything is quantified. No vague handwaving. 350 bibliographic citations so you can check that I didn't just make up stuff, as did John Cook, the cartoonist who created the "97% of scientists agree" fiction -- and Barack Obama inflated that to 99%.. Today's global warming climate cult is a massive scheme to transfer wealth from poor to rich, mostly by way of government subsidies and mandates. But none of their proposed "solutions" can possibly work. If you're able to read and understand some real science, start with http://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098
The intention with my first comment was to point out what I think is overlooked in the article, and I'd be interested in your thoughts on that very concrete issue.
To expand a bit more than that simple rate of change calculation:
Sure, life can propably exist with much higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, but acording to evolution theory living things adapt to the environment (through natural selection over many, many generations) and the current living things are probably different from those that existed some million years ago.
Our main concern is of course not the CO2 itself though, but how that and other greenhouse gases affects the climate, and that our way of living is very much dependent on the climate (temperature ranges in air and water, precipitation patterns, wind systems etc) not changing too much. The slight increase in Earth's average temperature would probably be ok if it was a mere shift/offset of the "curve"/timedependent tempearature field, the problem is of course that the "curve" changes (larger amplitudes, even more so if one considers the spatial distribution).
If you haven't noticed, the climate is already changing, and apparently many living organisms struggle with the changes that have occurred thus far (there are other contributions also, such as all the stuff we create that directly poison nature). It doesn't help to say it shouldn't be that way beause of this and that; it is observed for certain, and unless you have another testable hypothesis to explain it, we should stick with the best we have.
I don't think we can afford to believe the few that thinks we (humans) have nothing or very little to do with it. It may be that they're right, but we cannot bet on it because the consequences are so large if they are wrong and we just continue as before (I'm assuming here that our great world leaders will actually be able to cut emissions). If they are infact right, then it should do no harm to burn a little less fossile fuels in the mean time until we reach that conclusion. Doing (and preaching) anything else I think is irresposible.
I'm an expert in my field (a branch within computational mechanics), and I do understand quite a bit about subjects relevant to climate modeling/prediction (physics, mathmatical modelling, etc., as I know you do as well).
Being an expert makes me aware that it is easy for someone with more superficial knowledge (in my field) to think that they have a deeper understanding than they actually do, and I don't want to make the same mistake.
I believe climate modeling is more complex (at least less understood, probably since it's a much younger field than mechanics), and I would not for one second question the vast majority of actual experts in that field based on a few that have differing opinions, as long as I'm not an expert myself.
Why should all of those scientists be in on a big lie? I do not believe in such a conspiracy. It is natural that differing opinions exist in science, but as a layman I think it's wiser to place my/our bet on the many than the few.
It may be that it turns out they are all wrong, and that the few are right, but unless I spent the time to become an expert in the field myself, I wouldn't delude myself into thinking that I know better.
"To thine own self be true, and it follows as the night the day that thou canst not to any man be false."
-- Polonius's advice to Laertes as he was leaving Hamlet's castle for Paris.
"unless I spent the time to become an expert in the field...." I have spent the time to study both sides of the argument. Get back to me when you've invested some effort to push back against propaganda.
"Climate science" is a fiction because there are no falsifiable hypotheses. It should be called "climatology" or "climatism." There are no real "climate scientists," but there are a few scientists who study the phenomenon.
The fabrication that "97% of scientists agree" (which Barack Obama inflated to 99%) was created by a cartoonist named John Cook. He read the abstracts of 14,000 papers (but not the entire papers) about climate. He discarded all the ones that didn't express an opinion whether human activity causes global warming. Then he "adjusted" a large fraction of those opinions. The result was that his "97% of scientists agree" is really "97% of the 3% that I kept agree."
The climatist propaganda is ubiquitous, so you can't avoid it. Real science is more difficult to find. Try reading https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Lindzen-Happer-Koonin-climate-science-4-24.pdf
Then read Congressional testimony (under oath) by three real scientists at https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20132171-302668.pdf
Then read my book "Where Will We Get Our Energy?" Everything is quantified. My master's degree is in applied mathematics with a minor in system engineering. My career spanned 53 years at the world's leading system engineering organization. I know how to do real science, and it's not by consensus or vigorous handwaving. The book includes 350 bibliographic citations so you can check that I didn't just make up stuff.
As I wrote before, it would be interesting to have your thoughts on my OP, regarding the huge difference in rate of change of [CO2] that you didn't take into account in your text.