Runaway Global warming

[snowsure]

Quite a different angle for you to view this from. Time for some inductive reasoning.

Assume that GW is happening. One of two things will happen as a result; Either we will have runaway GW or GW will cease at some point. So if we are to have runaway GW then, let us face it, we are done for.

However, if we do not have runaway GW then, at some stage, we will have a cooling event. What I wonder is why are we arguing about whether GW is happening when a more valuable argument would be: "Where will we end up?"

This would unify the 2 camps (not a bad thing) and then we can all deal with the future events. Humans do not deal too well with the future. We appear to be a little short sighted.

Personally, I assume this will be too difficult for some people to deal with.

[Devonian]

Quite a different angle for you to view this from. Time for some inductive reasoning.

Assume that GW is happening. One of two things will happen as a result; Either we will have runaway GW or GW will cease at some point. So if we are to have runaway GW then, let us face it, we are done for.

However, if we do not have runaway GW then, at some stage, we will have a cooling event. What I wonder is why are we arguing about whether GW is happening when a more valuable argument would be: "Where will we end up?"

This would unify the 2 camps (not a bad thing) and then we can all deal with the future events. Humans do not deal too well with the future. We appear to be a little short sighted.

Personally, I assume this will be too difficult for some people to deal with.

I suspect we'll end up with a planet ~2-4C warmer and local weather varying around that new norm. But, doesn't the evidence suggest it will take a long time for C02 concs to fall and thus for a cooling event/the anthro effect to happen/wear off?

[Bobby]

I don't think anybody knows with any real degree with certainty what will happen in the future - things could just steadily warm by say 4c, level off, and then slowly drop off as the CO2 diminishes, or we could have rapid runaway warming where we may warm 10c or more. Or things could stop warming tomorrow due to some feedback mechanism and we could start to cool and return to normal levels.

My punt is that we will warm by a few degrees, stop, and slowly cool. I suppose there is a slight possibility that things could really spiral out of control and we could end up like venus, making Earth completely uninhabitable, but pretty unlikely I think.

[snowsure]

I suspect we'll end up with a planet ~2-4C warmer and local weather varying around that new norm. But, doesn't the evidence suggest it will take a long time for C02 concs to fall and thus for a cooling event/the anthro effect to happen/wear off?

Shame that we can't make the CO2 precipate out of the atmosphere. Any ideas how? How about some endothermic reactions in the atmosphere to cool it down?

If less thermal and radiant energy is reflected back into space we have an energy imbalance to deal with as well.

Many people are starting to think "outside of the box" on this issue. Should we have human intervention with a human caused problem or do we sow as we reap?

[Guest Mike W]

I think we will defiantely have runaway warming as a resulkt of this current warming. Alot of things are happenigm sooner than predicted asell, also methane levels have been underestiamted aswell apparently.

Greenland Ice going so fast it's causing earthquakes:

http://environment.independent.co.uk/clima...icle2941866.ece

Methane levels increasing fast which will increase the warming further:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/110266.html

Edited September 14, 2007 by Mike W

[SP1986]

I think while we continue to pump out CO2 we will keep warming, and there will undoubtedly be a lag effect, so it aint going to stop warming for say maybe another 40-50 year for example. However running out of our non renewable resources could present either a problem or a positive knock on effect. For example where we to run out of non renewable resources this would force us to use renewable resources, which may have the effect of limiting the time in which it can warm, andstop any chance of terminal warming. However the bad point about that is that once non renewable resources run out, the countries that dont really give a damn, ie some Far East countries could start tapping methane trapped under ice in Siberia or something, which wouldnt surprise me, and if the USA has a president like Bush then in all honesty it would probably lead to a war of some kind.

Cynicism aside though, I do believe if we carry on utilising the none renewable energy sources then yes I can see GW occurring for a long time to come, and perhaps becoming to the irreversable or deadly to most animals phase. If we cut short, or stop using non renewable resources, and the vessels that use them, ie cars, I would suggest there is a chance that after a short warming up things would slowly start to cool down.

However I dont think we should start messing with the atmosphere trying to cool the world down - weve already done enough damage to the world, we really dont need to do anymore!

as for getting as hot as Venus - we will one day, but not in our lifetime

[jethro]

Working on the assumptions that we have been warmer and cooler before now and Co2 levels have been higher, I tend to err on the side of a cool down eventually when certain tipping points have been reached. If this were not the case then we would have warmed more and more and more previously until eventually the planet as we know it, would no longer exist already. Quite how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together, what interacts with what, how, when and why is another matter entirely. We do not know and have no way of knowing if, how or when this could, or may happen; all we can do is measure retrospectively.

[parmenides3]

No. We will continue to see a warming trend for as long as we continue to add emissions into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate, and then beyond that for several decades at least.

There is no evidence that a cooldown will follow. What is expected (yes, there is uncertainty), is that the global mean surface temperature will slowly stop rising and stabilise at a new 'baseline' at some point. The idea of runaway GW is speculative at best, and not supported by much evidence if any, only guesswork. However, if it should come to pass that we burn every last drop of oil and coal on the planet, whilst simultaneously cutting down every tree in the tropics, because we just don't care, then increases could go beyond +5C; after this, it's anyone's guess what might happen.

Scientists aren't really sure about how the entire climate system will respond to even the extra 2-3C which is more or less guaranteed by our current emissions pathway, but for the climate to cool down again would require the removal of all that excess CO2 from the atmosphere, and the replanting of half the world tropical forests, just for a start.

Recent research has suggested (again, no certainty) that, following a stabilisation, our climate will stay more or less at the same temperature until the next phase of the Milankovitch cycles kicks in and starts cooling us down because of our relationship to the Sun. The reaearch concludes, however, with the observation that, under some projected scenarios, the extra heat in the system could delay the otherwise expected onset of an ice age by as much as 500,000 years.

So, sorry, there will be no cooldown of the climate for the foreseeable future.

:)P

[TEITS]

Shame that we can't make the CO2 precipate out of the atmosphere. Any ideas how? How about some endothermic reactions in the atmosphere to cool it down?

If less thermal and radiant energy is reflected back into space we have an energy imbalance to deal with as well.

Many people are starting to think "outside of the box" on this issue. Should we have human intervention with a human caused problem or do we sow as we reap?

I mentioned this a few weeks ago but did you know that during the ordovician period there was an ice age whilst CO2 levels were 8 to 20 times higher than they are now!.

http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Ordovician/Ordovician.htm

So, sorry, there will be no cooldown of the climate for the foreseeable future.

:)P

Blimey I have found another Nostradamus on NW :lol: .

Could you please tell me will it be a white Xmas and what will Saturdays Lotto numbers be :lol:

Edited September 15, 2007 by THE EYE IN THE SKY

[parmenides3]

It requires neither a genius nor a fortune-teller to see what is obvious, though it may require a fool to deny that he has a nose on his face.

:)P

[Iceberg]

The science indicates "all things being equal" that any cool down will take the best part of 300-400 years and that's assuming there are no long term lags caused by large positive side effects.

As P3 said it's also realistic to think that the cool down might take 000's of years, but of course over this time frame things don't stay equal so I'd probably stay away from that.

[SnowBear]

The site TIETS posted is quite interesting, in my view it adds to the confusion and uncertainty in all what we are trying to predict.

I do wonder, being as the earth has gone through some pretty big changes from hot to cold, with varying amounts of various gases in the atmosphere, and many varying other factors too, that the changes we see of late are not just the earth going through another of its many natural changes.

I personally think the whole climate thing is at the moment way too complex for us to truly come to any conclusions for the long term but sensibility say we should start to check our greedy over use of the earth's finite resources and the mess we are making in waste and pollution terms regardless. As that article says, it is not known how half the CO2 was removed so quickly with no apparent mechanism present to do it and as yet no successful reason found and why, with 8-20 times the amount of present day CO2 the period was in an ice age, our understanding at the moment would say the contrary would have happened. Are we missing something very important here, what mechanism brought about a reverse effect at that time to what would normally be expected, unfortunately the proof of either side in all this climate stuff is a long way down the line in years I think.

[parmenides3]

No, it doesn't. Look at the timescales; tens of thousands of years. look at the earth; land/sea realtionship; totally different. Effectively, the Ordovician earth is a different planet. As far as the draw down of CO2; over a period of 10-15,000 years, CO2 would be expected to reduce by 75% plus through known processes. All this implies is that there was a change which slowed down the rate of emission of CO2, thus changing the balance, thus effecting the climate. This looks pretty much like further evidence that CO2 effects temperature, so what is there to be confused about?

The 'proof', if you allow inductive reasoning, already exists in spades. OTOH, all attempts at 'disproof' have failed, mostly miserably. If AGW was such a 'sheky' hypothesis, surely soemone clever would have falsified it by now? Gioven the vast financial incentives offered to find such a disproof, the failure to do so is further evidence in support of the hypothesis; IOW; if a hypothesis is tested and the result of the test is that it remains robust, then this enhances its credibility; this is science.

[jethro]

No. We will continue to see a warming trend for as long as we continue to add emissions into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate, and then beyond that for several decades at least.

There is no evidence that a cooldown will follow. What is expected (yes, there is uncertainty), is that the global mean surface temperature will slowly stop rising and stabilise at a new 'baseline' at some point. The idea of runaway GW is speculative at best, and not supported by much evidence if any, only guesswork. However, if it should come to pass that we burn every last drop of oil and coal on the planet, whilst simultaneously cutting down every tree in the tropics, because we just don't care, then increases could go beyond +5C; after this, it's anyone's guess what might happen.

Scientists aren't really sure about how the entire climate system will respond to even the extra 2-3C which is more or less guaranteed by our current emissions pathway, but for the climate to cool down again would require the removal of all that excess CO2 from the atmosphere, and the replanting of half the world tropical forests, just for a start.

Recent research has suggested (again, no certainty) that, following a stabilisation, our climate will stay more or less at the same temperature until the next phase of the Milankovitch cycles kicks in and starts cooling us down because of our relationship to the Sun. The reaearch concludes, however, with the observation that, under some projected scenarios, the extra heat in the system could delay the otherwise expected onset of an ice age by as much as 500,000 years.

So, sorry, there will be no cooldown of the climate for the foreseeable future.

:)P

All well and good P3 but you are talking in terms of your lifetime, I was taking the broader and as I understood the question to mean - eventuality. The whole system and climate has varied up and down with or without us, it will continue to do so. Whether you, or I are alive long enough to witness any of this is irrelevant.

[parmenides3]

Hi jethro. For me, the problem of climate change and AGW is first and foremost a human problem. If we take the long view, we'll probably end up ceasing to exist at some point along the line, I'd just rather it was later than sooner. A world without people may be the ultimate situation, but for me it is not the desirable one. Eventually, everything changes. How quickly it changes, and what role we have in its changing, and the effects on our society of it changing, are all matters we can (and should) address.

:)P

[Thundery wintry showers]

My personal view is that it's possible, though unlikely, that we could see negative feedbacks stabilising the climate in the near future. It is also possible, though unlikely, that positive feedbacks such as the Arctic sea ice melt could create a runaway warming loop.

The most likely scenario, to my mind, is that the climate will continue to change due to natural forcing, but that AGW will add between 2 and 6C to the baseline over the next few hundred years. The AGW component may then gradually fade out of existence over thousands of years thereafter, factoring the extra 2-6C back out of the equation.

[parmenides3]

I'd be inclined to think that we could see some cooling in some regions; for example if the THC is effected by warming. Don't know about a 'runaway warming loop', though; this is just speculative, really. That 2-6c might need to be speeded up to this century, rather than several hundred years, and this is important; how quickly things change has a big effect on how well we can adapt. Other than that, there's not much to argue with, TWS.

:)P

[jethro]

Hi jethro. For me, the problem of climate change and AGW is first and foremost a human problem. If we take the long view, we'll probably end up ceasing to exist at some point along the line, I'd just rather it was later than sooner. A world without people may be the ultimate situation, but for me it is not the desirable one. Eventually, everything changes. How quickly it changes, and what role we have in its changing, and the effects on our society of it changing, are all matters we can (and should) address.

:)P

No disagreement from me P3. I do however think many people suffer from "can't see the woods for the trees" syndrome on all this AGW stuff. Inevitable really, given there is so much to learn, human nature tends to concentrate minds on things we know or can easily understand, we're all guilty of that. I've looked at stuff, science papers full of equations and often I think haven't got time for that now, I'll get back to it, invariably I often don't. In reality this means I could have completely overlooked a hugely important part, I know I'm not alone in that but unless we know all the component parts it's a little tricky to be certain we know enough. When you throw into the equation the lack of communication between disciplines there is bound to be things which have been overlooked or not cross-referenced. All this focus on our contribution is admirable and I agree whole-heartedly but just because we understand that bit and can do something about it, doesn't mean we know enough, we just understand enough to feel as though we have some kind of control. Again that is human nature, danger threatens, we assess the risk to safeguard or remove the risk in order to feel safer; that feeling of safety can be and often is unfounded but the comfort it gives is by far preferable to the feeling of uncertainty and fear.

[parmenides3]

I think Michael Tobis summed up the problem rather well; it isn't a question of controlling the climate, or forcing people to act in different ways, or dealing with CO2 or pollution, the problem is about how we manage the world's resources. Concentrating on one problem can be a way of avoiding dealing with problems which feel too much, too big for cope with. OTOH, it can be way of dealing with what we can when and where we can.

I will risk the danger of becoming boring by repeating that we do know enough, more than enough, about both the climate and the environment, and that what we know is telling us something we don't want to hear; we need to control ourselves, our lust for growth, wealth or 'more'.

'Control' may be an illusion, in one sense, but it is also a necessity, in another. If we don't try to develop sustainable pathways, we really do risk messing everything up for everyone in the future.

:)P

[Thundery wintry showers]

Sometimes when I analyse issues, I find that there's a whole host of problems, but that most of them stem from a common source, such that if you address the common source, most of the problems will decline or even go away.

Maybe "how we manage the world's resources" could be an example?

[snowsure]

Without addressing specific posters on here, it appears that most think GW is not going to be the thing that "wipes us out." It is not perceived as the greatest threat to civilisation. It is happening but something is stopping many intelligent people from doing something about it.

Try this It will ease your conscience if nothing else!

If you don't you become a crash test dummy of earth.

Let's stop arguing about whether it is happening or not. Assume it is and do your bit to make the world a slightly better place.

[BrickFielder]

the problem is about how we manage the world's resources

Yes I think it really is that simple. It is a shame that not more is being done to manage resources other that Carbon fuel as I think steps will be taken to curb oil and coal based energy usage but we may be too late with the oceans and forests.

[Essan]

Without addressing specific posters on here, it appears that most think GW is not going to be the thing that "wipes us out."

No, I'm banking on Apophis doing that. Just need to make the necessary adjustments in 2029

But in any case, all conceivable climate change can be adapted to. And it was, after all, climate change that first prompted us to get down out of the trees, and, much later, to start growing our own food ...... (Pre)historically speaking, climate change is - in the long run - good. Of course, given the massive overpopulation we current have, there may be some short term problems

[jethro]

Without addressing specific posters on here, it appears that most think GW is not going to be the thing that "wipes us out." It is not perceived as the greatest threat to civilisation. It is happening but something is stopping many intelligent people from doing something about it.

Try this It will ease your conscience if nothing else!

If you don't you become a crash test dummy of earth.

Let's stop arguing about whether it is happening or not. Assume it is and do your bit to make the world a slightly better place.

Already doing my bit, always have done, it was the way I was brought up to behave. Being responsible with resources and respecting the planet does not mean you have to believe in AGW as it is thus far understood and reported. Neither does it mean if you doubt some of the conclusions to date then you are selfishly irresponsible; sadly many people are tainted with such assertions purely by dint of their questions and by the moral high ground taken by some to further the AGW case; it's antagonistic and in my view counter productive. Unity from all sides will not be gained with such an outlook.

[Gray-Wolf]

It would be nice to think that when we stop defacing the planet then our forcings will cease, in time. It may prove to be a little bit more awkward than that though. We could just breach unstoppable change by forcing changes that then become self reinforcing. Ask the last Dodo whether our ceasing to hunt them/bring predators to hunt them it makes one jot of difference. If we can do it repeatedly in the animal kingdom then why not elsewhere?.