Jump to content

What If the Earth needed Global Warming in its Atmosphere.


King David
 Share

Recommended Posts

Perhaps the Earth needs an Atmosphere warming event cycle.

Prior to Man Made Global Warming perhaps the Earths Natural Processes achieved the Cooling and Warming Cycles on its own.

Perhaps a reduction in Volcanic Activity presently. Has created a Man Made need to help the Earth in its next warming and cooling cycle.

These are all questions every young scientist must ask themselves.

Throw out all previous explanations and truly work out these possiblities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that a lot of information is readily available. In fact, I propose that young, critical and open-minded scientists should use these information to answer the questions they might have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, King David said:

We all have that information readily available.

I am asking the scientist in everyone of us to answer the possibility of What if the Earth needed our help in Global Warming.

No one has ever asked these types of questions.

(The emphasis above is mine.)

That's because these types of question are not scientific. The Earth does not have "needs".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, King David said:

We all have that information readily available.

I am asking the scientist in everyone of us to answer the possibility of What if the Earth needed our help in Global Warming.

No one has ever asked these types of questions.

You’re anthropomorphizing the situation. The earth doesn’t “need” anything. It will be here long after we are gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Earth needs a certain atmospheric warmth and make up, or biological life will not survive as well on earth.

I would look to data collected by old scientists about the make up of our atmosphere through time by reading ice samples of varying depths.  I think they already determined what the balance of Co2 has been historically, and used that data to create a norm of Co2 levels.

A very large volcanic plume can add millions of tons of Co2 into our atmosphere.  The industrial revolution has added over 2000 billion tons of Co2.  So if every volcano released 500 million metric tons, how long does it take to get to 2000 billion tons?   4000 large volcanic events.

"Human activities—mostly burning of coal and other fossil fuels, but also cement production, deforestation and other landscape changes—emitted roughly 40 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2015"  So we would need 80 very large volcanos per year to equal that."  So that would take 80 large volcanos in one year.

Using Bayesian methods which remain unclear, even to me, I can say that man made global warming is a huge added factor to our greenhouse gas overproduction and it's effects.  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

The Earth needs a certain atmospheric warmth and make up, or biological life will not survive as well on earth.

In the context of Area54's and my comments, one might say "biological life on the planet needs a certain atmospheric warmth and make up"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

The Earth needs a certain atmospheric warmth and make up, or biological life will not survive as well on earth.

In support of @swansont's observation I add, from a slightly different perpsective, that the bulk of the Earth (literally) has no need for, interest in, or dependence on biological life. The core of the Earth would still slowly cool, the geodynamo would still generate its field and the solid mantle would continue to convect. Plate tectonics would likely be modified, but should still exist.

You have made meaningful observations, but have misinterpreted them. There are cycles, cycles of climate, of weathering, of atmospheric composition, of sedimentation, of ocean currents, of continental movement, of vulcanism. Life has adapted to, and to some extent, influences these cycles, but they are most accurately described and studied without using the word "need".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Area54 said:

In support of @swansont's observation I add, from a slightly different perpsective, that the bulk of the Earth (literally) has no need for, interest in, or dependence on biological life. The core of the Earth would still slowly cool, the geodynamo would still generate its field and the solid mantle would continue to convect. Plate tectonics would likely be modified, but should still exist.

You have made meaningful observations, but have misinterpreted them. There are cycles, cycles of climate, of weathering, of atmospheric composition, of sedimentation, of ocean currents, of continental movement, of vulcanism. Life has adapted to, and to some extent, influences these cycles, but they are most accurately described and studied without using the word "need".

My sentence formation and grammar made complete sense and was totally accurate.  "Needs" is a verb, which refers to an earth state, to support biological life.  If the Earth is going to support biological life, then it needs certain atmospheric conditions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

My sentence formation and grammar made complete sense and was totally accurate.

Such a conclusion is best left to the reader, not to the author. To this reader your post appeared to implicilty support the position adopted by the OP. I was correcting that impicltly expressed support. So, either I have reading comprehension difficulties, or you made - in context - a potentially ambiguous post by duplicating the use of "need" from the OP, the contentious point in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

My sentence formation and grammar made complete sense and was totally accurate.  "Needs" is a verb, which refers to an earth state, to support biological life.  If the Earth is going to support biological life, then it needs certain atmospheric conditions.  

The objection is that the earth does not need to support biological life. Many planets most likely do not support life (and if they do, then that blows the argument that you must have a certain composition out of the water, so to speak). "Need" is not the proper way to address this; it anthropomorphizes the dynamic and that's not warranted.

It's also a small detail in a larger discussion, but unfortunately the OP introduced this awkward phrasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

The objection is that the earth does not need to support biological life. Many planets most likely do not support life (and if they do, then that blows the argument that you must have a certain composition out of the water, so to speak). "Need" is not the proper way to address this; it anthropomorphizes the dynamic and that's not warranted.

It's also a small detail in a larger discussion, but unfortunately the OP introduced this awkward phrasing.

Nothing in my sentence makes any conclusions about the earth's needs aside from the requirements to maintain biological life, which it doesn't need to do.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Nothing in my sentence makes any conclusions about the earth's needs aside from the requirements to maintain biological life, which it doesn't need to do.   

I explained to you why, in the context of this thread, your post was ambiguous. I regret I was unable to make this clear enough for you to recognise and accept the ambiguity of your post. I'll try harder next time.

I note that in another thread you are also asserting clarity of writing, while taking a snide swipe at the reading comeptence of a senior member. Perhaps your writing is not always as clear as you think it is. That is true of most people. I know it is true of me. If one of my posts is misunderstood the first person I suspect of incompetence is myself, not the reader. I commend this approach to you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Area54 said:

I explained to you why, in the context of this thread, your post was ambiguous. I regret I was unable to make this clear enough for you to recognise and accept the ambiguity of your post. I'll try harder next time.

I note that in another thread you are also asserting clarity of writing, while taking a snide swipe at the reading comeptence of a senior member. Perhaps your writing is not always as clear as you think it is. That is true of most people. I know it is true of me. If one of my posts is misunderstood the first person I suspect of incompetence is myself, not the reader. I commend this approach to you. 

You only see me taking snide swipes?  Perception and subjectivity are amazing things.  I dont feel I was snide, only pointing out the realities in the context of my use of language.  I will stop replying to people who simply cannot understand what I am saying, and who would rather make their own points, than address mine.   I can do that.  Ive been here before, I know the routine.  Snideness is subjective.

The oven needs to stay on to cook chicken. 

Im not asserting that the oven has any needs.

The Earth needs a certain atmospheric warmth and make up, or biological life will not survive as well on earth.

Im not asserting that the earth has any needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnSSM said:


Im not asserting that the earth has any needs.

Emphasis added below.

16 hours ago, JohnSSM said:

The Earth needs a certain atmospheric warmth and make up, or biological life will not survive as well on earth.

That is very clear. You stated that the "Earth needs". What you seemingly meant was "biological life on Earth needs a certain warmth and make up or it will not survive. "

This is not rocket science. Your post was ambiguous, now you are just digging a deeper hole by denying the ambiguity. I've already noted that I, and most others, can make the same sort of ambiguous statements. Had you just acknowledged that, instead of doubling down on your denial, then these last few posts would have been unnecessary.

By the way I've cancelled out one of the neg. reps someone gave one of your posts. I didn't think your intransigence merited it. And now I'm done with this aspect of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Area54 said:

Emphasis added below.

That is very clear. You stated that the "Earth needs". What you seemingly meant was "biological life on Earth needs a certain warmth and make up or it will not survive. "

This is not rocket science. Your post was ambiguous, now you are just digging a deeper hole by denying the ambiguity. I've already noted that I, and most others, can make the same sort of ambiguous statements. Had you just acknowledged that, instead of doubling down on your denial, then these last few posts would have been unnecessary.

By the way I've cancelled out one of the neg. reps someone gave one of your posts. I didn't think your intransigence merited it. And now I'm done with this aspect of this thread.

John needs to stay here or we may miss the arrival of the package.

You cannot just take one part of a sentence to find meaning.  That is not how sentences work.  They become one unit of expression.  John does not need to stay anywhere and we have no idea about John's needs,  but the sentence still contains "John Needs".  Im done too.

32 minutes ago, Area54 said:

What you seemingly meant was "biological life on Earth needs a certain warmth and make up or it will not survive. "

You also used the statement "earth needs".   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To exist, life needs enough warmth, within a range.

I suppose some crude measure such as total bio-mass could be used for the range between Earth too cold and Earth too hot as a better or worse for life global temperature indicator. But it will be crude and not really encompass the complexities of diverse ecosystems or the impacts of periods of climate stability versus periods of change. I am not sure the concerns that a species like homo sapiens, that has thrived within the range of temperatures of the recent past, have can be reduced to such simplicity as more or less global bio-mass being good or bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2021 at 7:45 AM, JohnSSM said:

You also used the statement "earth needs".   

Not really....

On 3/23/2021 at 7:23 AM, Area54 said:

"biological life on Earth needs a certain warmth and make up or it will not survive. "

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Mars needs global warming more badly than Earth. Some comments here strike me as very discriminatorily anti-Martian. And Venus could use some air-conditioning.

Mars only needs global warming if it could ever support biological life that developed on Earth.  If that is the case, then it does need global warming.

55 minutes ago, beecee said:

Not really....

My perception must be way off...all this time I thought i saw the word "earth needs" in both explanations, and all it takes is prepositional phrases to change where we place it in a sentence.  Silly me.

On 3/22/2021 at 1:45 PM, JohnSSM said:

biological life on Earth needs a certain warmth and make up or it will not survive. 

Earth needs a certain warmth and make up, or biological life will not survive.
Survival may not proceed, because earth needs a certain warmth or make up for biological life.
A certain warmth and make up, is needed by the earth, or it will not support biological life.

There is nothing different about the meanings of any of these sentences.  

 

Edited by JohnSSM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JohnSSM said:

Mars only needs global warming if it could ever support biological life that developed on Earth.  If that is the case, then it does need global warming.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Then you concede that it's life that has needs, not the planets, as others are trying to tell you. Or is it the case that planets need life so that they can need something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And for anyone who didnt know David's title did not insinuate that he thought earth was alive, or had needs, you may miss the forrest for the trees often as you get sidetracked by meaningless language that trips up your ability to understand other people.  Does anyone here actually believe that David honestly believed that earth had any needs, that weren't connected to sustaining biological life?  Not me.  Id rather assume he made a mistake in expressing himself than accusing him of being delusional.  Especially when it's this obvious to note.

19 minutes ago, joigus said:

Then you concede that it's life that has needs, not the planets, as others are trying to tell you. Or is it the case that planets need life so that they can need something?

John needs to stay here, or we will miss the delivery.

Does john have needs defined in this sentence?  Is the sentence false in anyway?  How else could you express this message?

John may need to get to the dentist.  But if john goes to the dentist, he will miss the delivery.  The original statement is still true.

John needs to stay here, or we will miss the delivery.

"Need" is not attributed to either noun in this sentence.  Need is not a one direction thing.  There are things that have need, and things which supply need.  Need does not mean force.  Need means "a necessity".  It does not infer that you are receiving a need, or supplying a need, it only shows a relationship of necessity between two things.

Earth necessitates biological life, to survive, with it's warmth and make up.

Earth gives needs to biological life, to survive, with it's warmth and make up.

Edited by JohnSSM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.