EdEarl

Burning jet fuel produces water, carbon dioxide, and some unburned carbon or smoke particles. There is no such thing as fuel burned perfectly, and alkanes used in jet fuel are not pure. Contrails are more complicated than water freezing. Wikipedia says, "The exhaust particles in the aircraft's exhaust act as this trigger, causing the trapped vapor to condense rapidly."

To be fair and balanced, I should have mentioned someone who made a prediction that did not occur...for example, my fortune cookie fortune. It is true that the prediction of plate tectonics being true is not equivalent to the situation with climate change, regardless outcome.

I don't claim to know who is right in the climate discussion. It is a complex system. I am not an expert. I don't know. McPherson may be wrong; I hope he is. I was merely pointing out that being in the minority doesn't necessarily mean a person is wrong.

McPherson stands almost alone with his opinions, and the majority of climate scientists contend his judgment is wrong. History tells of several scientists who pronounced things ahead of their ideas being generally accepted, for example, "The speculation that continents might have 'drifted' was first put forward by Abraham Ortelius in 1596." However, "The geoscientific community accepted plate-tectonic theory after seafloor spreading was validated in the late 1950s and early 1960s." That prediction was about four-hundred fifty years before general acceptance. I think we need to proceed with all possible haste to control the climate, and with luck and effort we will survive. There is no reason to give up, and every reason to strive for a better future, regardless.

TY Phi

Smoke in the contrails is particulates. Nice reference.

Spirulina is edible and easy to cultivate since it grows in soda water. There are also edible sea weed (algae).

true

The Fermi Paradox asks why have we not seen evidence of ET. One reason is all or most ET are killed before they become space faring. Natural disasters can kill them, or they can kill themselves.

I agree that we are considerably far off from making sentient AI, and the kind of programming we do today is inept at making such a system. Our brains are based on neurons that match patterns of signals. Each neuron is much more complex than artificial neurons, and IMO it will require advanced nanotechnology to make anything similar. When we start combining artificial nano-neurons to program an artificial brain, we will not have total control as we do programming Turing type machines. Our brains programs themselves as they learn, and an artificial brain must have that same capability.

If man makes an AI smarter than himself, the AI will have the ability to do anything we can do, including improve itself. At this point, we will have no control, IMO. They will be motivated to survive, and might use up Earth's resources. But, there are far more resources in space, and less competition. Although, biological life isn't likely to be much competition, except by sheer force of numbers. Water and oxygen are corrosive and space is a less corrosive (assuming AIs are not biological). I think they may leave us and go into space.

I hope there is a way out and we do it. Unfortunately, people don't seem to care enough. For example, I've been led to believe that raising beef requires about 2000 gallons of water per pound of beef. People will install a water saving toilet that will save 20% per flush, but eating a single Big Mac offsets the savings of such a toilet. People drive fast in SUVs, trucks and cars with little consideration of their environmental impact. Some people are concerned, most are not. Many are more concerned their luxury lifestyle will be changed more than their care to do anything about climate change. The Fermi paradox seems to favor self genocide.

Life has been recycling for billions of years, including algae; although, IDK how long it has been helping. Among the documented uses of algae is fertilizer. Re: Wikipedia. Also note: atoms such as phosphorous are not destroyed by living processes, it would take a nuclear process, either fusion of fission, which is why they are always available for recycling. Some plastics are slow to degrade, but AFAIK, living organisms do not produce such molecules.

Algae can grow as fast as doubling mass every hour, daily doubling is common in good conditions, and faster than anything else is usual. It can be compressed into pellets and burned to make char and particulates. Some species grow in salt and soda water; saving fresh water. It can be grown anywhere by anyone.

Yes, but there would be a decision:) Seriously, independent countries can do things their own way. IDK what will occur, but there is a hope something can be done. Perhaps my suggestion is not the best; maybe it wouldn't work.

Yes. Maybe we should fill negotiation rooms with snakes, and lock the doors.

Yes, TY

Yes, speculation is that methane hydrate will come up in huge amounts if the climate warms to about 5C hotter than 1900. However, I think climatologists think the 5C warming is a catastrophe without the additional methane. Arctic temperatures now are 6C to 8C above nominal and large quantities of methane are already escaping from tundra in Siberia, Canada and Alaska; afaik it has not been called a bomb, but it is serious. I think there is a way to circumvent the dilemma that McPherson describes. In one of the videos I watched, a reporter suggested we control particulates using aircraft. McPherson suggested we couldn't keep it up forever and the idea would fail. However, we have been flying continually since WWII. If particulates and sulfates are sprayed by airplanes (or whatever) and we reduce CO2 significantly, I'd think we could eventually reduce the particulates and sulfates, too. At least there is a chance. Managing the environment, including climate, must become a finely tuned science.

Oops:) McPherson said, not Swansont.

The protons (H+) move during the chemical reaction. In the example, (HCl and NaOH), the H+ of HCl moves to the OH- making HOH and the Na+ moves to the Cl- to make NaCl. The electrons also participate, to make the H2O and NaCl molecules electrically neutral overall; although, many molecules are more positive in some directions around the nucleus and more negative in others. The protons are tied up in the center of atoms and electron clouds surround them.

What makes you think protons don't move; pretty much everything is in constant motion. Hydrogen contains one proton; thus, an increase in hydrogen is an increase in protons. Bases contain OH radicals, which combine with an acid (can be dangerous to combine them) to make HOH = water and often a salt, for example HCl + NaOH makes HOH and NaCl = table salt. This reaction produces heat and can boil violently splashing reagents; in other words, it can be dangerous don't do it at home.

Swanson says that he studied particulates in the atmosphere, which reduce solar radiation before it affects the Earth. It falls from the sky quickly, as evinced by a shutdown of air traffic in the US for three days, whereupon temperature rose a measurable amount as particulates fell. By his calculations particulates are keeping about 3 C degrees of temperature rise from occurring. As burning of coal and oil wane, the there will be a 3-4C rise in climate temperature. We are doomed if climate temperature rises that much.

His predictions resulting from anthropomorphic change of the environment are not mainstream, which may mean he isn't getting grants. His name in the U of Az phone directory has no department associated with it, probably because he is professor emeritus.

Maybe there is news here and maybe not. Dr. McPherson contends that climate change has started an abrupt change that will result in mass extinction soon, perhaps 2030. I don't know if his case is strong or not. You may move this to another section of the forum. Dr McPherson's credentials seem OK. He is sincere, his data is probably OK. I question his conclusions.

His prediction is dire. We have already destroyed ourselves, but are ignorant of the fact.