Yes it's bad but we have not reached a runaway global warming - the title of thread. The most important point made above was that we should focus our attention on eliminating CO2 emissions first. It would also be useful to severely reduce methane emissions on land too.
Friday • March 12 2010
Environment
Runaway Global Warming - Has Arrived pt 2
Graeme
dohboi
"We should focus our attention on eliminating CO2 emissions first"
First before what? Before doing something about methane hydrates?
Well, duh--there is nothing we can do about those.
First before elimination other sources of methane that are in our control?
I'm not sure why we could do both of these at the same time. As J. Hansen has pointed out, we need to be reducing all GHGs as rapidly as possible, and in some cases, it may be more politically feasible to go after some of the the high-impact but lower visibility ones, even while continuing to press forward on the best CO2 reductions we can get.
Opening line in the quote, about it being a small feedback right now, calls to mind many analogies--
It's only a small fire in the barn right now...
It's only a little water leaking through the dike right now...
It's only a small world wide web right now...
Or the old story about the king who lost a chess game to a mathematician and had to pay the bet in rice grains--one placed on the first square of the board, two on the second, four on the third...I can hear the king saying reassuringly to himself part way down the first row, "Oh, it's only a small pile of rice grains right now..."
Feedback means it is going to keep going forever unless some stronger negative feedback kicks in or until the whole thing has run its course and reached a new equilibrium.
It still baffles me that people don't see this as something that point straight toward hell (or Venus), if not over the very short term, certainly over the long term.
But again, yes, we must still, indeed even more so, do everything in our power to reduce and eliminate CO2 emissions as rapidly as possible, along with natural carbon sequestration through native plantings, and reducing all other GHG emissions.
First before what? Before doing something about methane hydrates?
Well, duh--there is nothing we can do about those.
First before elimination other sources of methane that are in our control?
I'm not sure why we could do both of these at the same time. As J. Hansen has pointed out, we need to be reducing all GHGs as rapidly as possible, and in some cases, it may be more politically feasible to go after some of the the high-impact but lower visibility ones, even while continuing to press forward on the best CO2 reductions we can get.
Opening line in the quote, about it being a small feedback right now, calls to mind many analogies--
It's only a small fire in the barn right now...
It's only a little water leaking through the dike right now...
It's only a small world wide web right now...
Or the old story about the king who lost a chess game to a mathematician and had to pay the bet in rice grains--one placed on the first square of the board, two on the second, four on the third...I can hear the king saying reassuringly to himself part way down the first row, "Oh, it's only a small pile of rice grains right now..."
Feedback means it is going to keep going forever unless some stronger negative feedback kicks in or until the whole thing has run its course and reached a new equilibrium.
It still baffles me that people don't see this as something that point straight toward hell (or Venus), if not over the very short term, certainly over the long term.
But again, yes, we must still, indeed even more so, do everything in our power to reduce and eliminate CO2 emissions as rapidly as possible, along with natural carbon sequestration through native plantings, and reducing all other GHG emissions.
dohboi
Apologies ahead of time if this has already been posted:
link
"Hansen’s conclusions are, frankly, terrifying:
'The paleoclimate record does not provide a case with a climate forcing of the magnitude and speed that will occur if fossil fuels are all burned. Models are nowhere near the stage at which they can predict reliably when major ice sheet disintegration will begin. Nor can we say how close we are to methane hydrate instability. But these are questions of when, not if. If we burn all the fossil fuels, the ice sheets almost surely will melt entirely, with the final sea level rise about 75 meters (250 feet), with most of that possibly occurring within a time scale of centuries. Methane hydrates are likely to be more extensive and vulnerable now than they were in the early Cenozoic. It is difficult to imagine how the methane clathrates could survive, once the ocean has had time to warm. In that event a PETM-like warming could be added on top of the fossil fuel warming.
After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.'"
link
"Hansen’s conclusions are, frankly, terrifying:
'The paleoclimate record does not provide a case with a climate forcing of the magnitude and speed that will occur if fossil fuels are all burned. Models are nowhere near the stage at which they can predict reliably when major ice sheet disintegration will begin. Nor can we say how close we are to methane hydrate instability. But these are questions of when, not if. If we burn all the fossil fuels, the ice sheets almost surely will melt entirely, with the final sea level rise about 75 meters (250 feet), with most of that possibly occurring within a time scale of centuries. Methane hydrates are likely to be more extensive and vulnerable now than they were in the early Cenozoic. It is difficult to imagine how the methane clathrates could survive, once the ocean has had time to warm. In that event a PETM-like warming could be added on top of the fossil fuel warming.
After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.'"
bluekachina
Quote:
We're currently around 387 ppm. And, given the lack of progress so far toward curbing fossil-fuel emissions, we'll be fortunate to stabilize atmospheric concentrations at 450 ppm. Scientists are therefore quite interested in what the world looked like during the early Pliocene, and why. At least in terms of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, that seems to be where we're headed. A new paper in Nature Geoscience concludes that we may, in fact, already be there.
According to current climate models, with each doubling of CO2, Earth warms around 3 degrees C (5.4 degrees F.). Scientists have deduced, therefore, that atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Pliocene must have been between 500 and 600 ppm.
But according to this study, the fossil evidence doesn't support that assumption. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the early Pliocene, as inferred from several sources, were more likely between 365 and 415 ppm. We're already well within that range.
The implications are (at least) two-fold: 1. It takes a lot less CO2 to warm Earth than previously thought. 2. Earth's climate may be more sensitive to increases in CO2 than current climate models assume. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the early Pliocene were significantly lower than previously assumed. They were just 90 to 125 ppm more than preindustrial levels of 280 ppm — in other words, about where we are now.
What do these findings mean? They indicate that the Pliocene might be the best analog for the world in the not-too-distant future. About 4.5 million years ago, during the early Pliocene period (3 to 5 million years ago), temperatures on Earth were some 3 to 4 degrees C (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F.) higher in the tropics, and perhaps 10 degrees C (18 degrees F.) warmer near the poles.
dohboi
And remember that the sun has been gradually warming since the Pliocene, so the same concentration of CO2 will presumably yield a higher average global temp.
Ferretlover
dohboi wrote:
My own theory is that some of the more adamant and intelligent denialists actually in some deep part of their psyche understand what a full acknowledgement of the current predicament would call on them to do and be, and they can't face it. I'm not sure any of us really can.I think I would agree. Those who deny that changes are taking place on our planet--and, it doesn't matter if they are natural or manmade--are, IMO, either incredibly stupid, or, realize how really serious this situation could be for future generations and are Terrified (headlights-in-the-deer's-eyes syndrome).
In both cases, I sometimes think it would be kinder to leave those, who will not or cannot face reality, alone.
Now, if we could just get them to realize that those, who Do understand what is happening and could/will happen in the future, are also afraid. Afraid to retreat into a fantasy world to avoid the topic.
meemoe_uk
Quote:
My own theory is that some of the more adamant and intelligent denialists actually in some deep part of their psyche understand what a full acknowledgement of the current predicament would call on them to do and be, and they can't face it.We think the same about AGW believers and pushers. You can't accept the idea that multinational companys with $trillions in assets, would make a point of buying out all the popular news sources for a few $million ( peanuts to them ) and put an enviromental front on their competiton crushing policys : carbon tax = work tax.
No amount of snow, ice and rapidly cooling climate will make you realise the new ice age due to ionic\magnetic solar collapse.
Cid_Yama
The subsea permafrost on the East Siberian Shelf has been degrading since sea levels rose 10,000 years ago, submerging it, and the warming pulse that moved down through the sediments has been at work dissociating methane clathrates for a very long time.
There is no way to stop or reverse this. The Hydrate Stability Zone is now deeper that the shelf, meaning those hydrates will all dissociate eventually, 100% certainty.
The subsea permafrost is now degraded to the point that there are taliks(large areas where the permafrost is totally gone) and those areas that remain are riddled with holes.
These events are irreversible.
So, although we have not yet experienced the non-linear abrupt climate change that will take place as a result of this, we cannot avoid it.
This is a case of a natural process, no doubt accelerated by anthrpogenic warming, but one that has been going on, slowly but surely over several thousand years.
There is nothing we can do to stop it.
Even if anthropogenic warming had not overwhelmed the astronomical forcing that would have made us cooler, it might not have prevented this.
More and more we are discovering through paleoclimate studies that this is a natural, if rare, part of the carbon cycle.
This time however, since we are already as warm as we are, and because solar irradiance is greater than it had been in the past, it will be an Extinction Level Event.
Societal infrastructure will collapse and we will experience a die-off.(Also a natural process when a species population expands beyond it's resources.)
Runaway Global Warming is when natural positive feedbacks ensure continued warming in a positive feedback loop. No more no less.
Since the negative feedbacks mostly take place over geological time scales; i.e. removal of carbon from the atmosphere through weathering, we are already there.
Whether we will experience a Venus Syndrome is still open for debate.
But the carbon that is in the atmosphere will remain there for millenia .
There is no way to stop or reverse this. The Hydrate Stability Zone is now deeper that the shelf, meaning those hydrates will all dissociate eventually, 100% certainty.
The subsea permafrost is now degraded to the point that there are taliks(large areas where the permafrost is totally gone) and those areas that remain are riddled with holes.
These events are irreversible.
So, although we have not yet experienced the non-linear abrupt climate change that will take place as a result of this, we cannot avoid it.
This is a case of a natural process, no doubt accelerated by anthrpogenic warming, but one that has been going on, slowly but surely over several thousand years.
There is nothing we can do to stop it.
Even if anthropogenic warming had not overwhelmed the astronomical forcing that would have made us cooler, it might not have prevented this.
More and more we are discovering through paleoclimate studies that this is a natural, if rare, part of the carbon cycle.
This time however, since we are already as warm as we are, and because solar irradiance is greater than it had been in the past, it will be an Extinction Level Event.
Societal infrastructure will collapse and we will experience a die-off.(Also a natural process when a species population expands beyond it's resources.)
Runaway Global Warming is when natural positive feedbacks ensure continued warming in a positive feedback loop. No more no less.
Since the negative feedbacks mostly take place over geological time scales; i.e. removal of carbon from the atmosphere through weathering, we are already there.
Whether we will experience a Venus Syndrome is still open for debate.
But the carbon that is in the atmosphere will remain there for millenia .
Newfie
meemoe_uk wrote:
Quote:
My own theory is that some of the more adamant and intelligent denialists actually in some deep part of their psyche understand what a full acknowledgement of the current predicament would call on them to do and be, and they can't face it.We think the same about AGW believers and pushers. You can't accept the idea that multinational companys with $trillions in assets, would make a point of buying out all the popular news sources for a few $million ( peanuts to them ) and put an enviromental front on their competiton crushing policys : carbon tax = work tax.
No amount of snow, ice and rapidly cooling climate will make you realise the new ice age due to ionic\magnetic solar collapse.
Quite to the contrary, I think you make your own point very well. We can and do have paid shills at work. Even here.
Graeme
Cid, I appreciate your dispassionate response. I know you've been following this issue for some time but I think based on the few references (mainly news articles) I've read that your case is overstated. I will look into this more later. In the meantime, I would like to point out that carbon dioxide could be removed from the atmosphere through geoengineerig techniques (e.g. biochar) so it doesn't have to remain in the atmosphere for millenia. I will look for other references.
Homesteader
Ferretlover wrote:
I think I would agree. Those who deny that changes are taking place on our planet--and, it doesn't matter if they are natural or manmade--are, IMO, either incredibly stupid, or, realize how really serious this situation could be for future generations and are Terrified (headlights-in-the-deer's-eyes syndrome). --snip-- Afraid to retreat into a fantasy world to avoid the topic.
Newfie
Graeme wrote:
Cid, I appreciate your dispassionate response. I know you've been following this issue for some time but I think based on the few references (mainly news articles) I've read that your case is overstated. I will look into this more later. In the meantime, I would like to point out that carbon dioxide could be removed from the atmosphere through geoengineerig techniques (e.g. biochar) so it doesn't have to remain in the atmosphere for millenia. I will look for other references.Graeme, first I appreciate both you and Cid for the tone of discourse. Hopefully I can emulate your example.
I hold that it our responsibility to prove Cid wrong, not for him to prove himself correct. Surely there is something to his argument. My own readings of the news articles lead me to believe that the researchers themselves hold this as a dark possibility, if not probability.
Humanity is engaged in dangerous actions the consequences of which no one can predict. Cid is merely pointing out to us, in stark detail, one of the possible paths to our own end. He may well completely believe all he says, or he may be overstating. Who knows? Who cares? Surly the future he paints is POSSIBLE if we continue BAU.
James Hansen has said as much but still holds out some hope of averting a Venus style runaway, although he seems to be getting more discouraged.
Prove him wrong, if you can, you would do us all a great service by pointing out something that we don't have to worry about. God knows we need some good news. But please don't feed the trolls who are simply here to distract without adding meaningful content. If you can't PROVE him wrong, then he may be right. And if he MAY be right, if even a bit overstated, then he is carrying a valuable message. It does not matter if the chances are 90% or 10%, the consequences are so dire they require the same action.
This is not a scientific debate about the outcome of an experiment. This is Russian Roulette with humanity.
Graeme
Newfie, Yes, I do agree that it is one POSSIBLE path but Cid seems to think that this path is inevitable. That is what I am questioning. And I have listened to what other scientists have said. They advise caution. I don't think others are listening.
Newfie
Graeme wrote:
They advise caution.What constitutes reasonable "caution" in this particular case?
At what point do we spring into action?
Or, do we just watch and see if Cid is proved correct?
Lest I be accused of baiting you let me state my position. I believe that humans will take no action until it is too late. Then they may make some wild attempts to get things under control. But it is outside our capacity, as a species, to take prudent action. So in this regard I am a DOOMER. On the other hand, it tells me the path I should take which is to try to set things up so that, in case Cid and I are wrong, my off spring will have a fighting chance.
2¢
Lore
Graeme wrote:
Newfie, Yes, I do agree that it is one POSSIBLE path but Cid seems to think that this path is inevitable. That is what I am questioning. And I have listened to what other scientists have said. They advise caution. I don't think others are listening.I think caution is where the other scientists are making a mistake. A recent post at RealClimate addressed just this conservative outlook by scientists.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... evel-gate/
Cid_Yama
I first began researching this after running across a 2004 article in Energy Bulletin
.
Since then I have made myself more than conversant with the fields of research that impinge on this topic, the actual research papers, and the science behind them.
I approached this as if I was pursuing a graduate degree in the field. That is why I can pull out the relevant research in a variety of fields as they apply to this topic at a moment's notice, making my point and supporting my position.
That is why I can share with you the 'Big Picture', and show how all of these factors weave together to place us in the situation we are in.
I purchased a membership in the AGU and have attended their conferences because I wanted to be privy to the latest research.
I dedicated the last 5 years of my life to knowing where our current understanding of this is. I am retired, and have been living this 24/7.
Opinions are like noses, everyone has one, but excuse me if I don't lend much weight to them.
On this topic, I know what our current undertanding is, and since that understanding is mutidisiplinary, I have a broader perspective than many who have restricted themselves to their own specializations.
Many people lack the time or means to know for themselves, and thus are dependent on relying on 'experts'.
The problem with this is, if you don't know for yourself, at least to some extent, how do you choose which 'experts' to listen to?
Most choose the ones that tell them what they most want to hear.
In other words, 'experts' are useless if you lack the means to sort the wheat from the chaff.
That is why my approach has been to educate. To help people to know enough to begin to see for themselves.
I've never said, "Take my word for it." I have always said, "look at this, look at this, see how this fits with this."
I want you to be able to see for yourselves.
The Day the Earth Nearly Died
Since then I have made myself more than conversant with the fields of research that impinge on this topic, the actual research papers, and the science behind them.
I approached this as if I was pursuing a graduate degree in the field. That is why I can pull out the relevant research in a variety of fields as they apply to this topic at a moment's notice, making my point and supporting my position.
That is why I can share with you the 'Big Picture', and show how all of these factors weave together to place us in the situation we are in.
I purchased a membership in the AGU and have attended their conferences because I wanted to be privy to the latest research.
I dedicated the last 5 years of my life to knowing where our current understanding of this is. I am retired, and have been living this 24/7.
Opinions are like noses, everyone has one, but excuse me if I don't lend much weight to them.
On this topic, I know what our current undertanding is, and since that understanding is mutidisiplinary, I have a broader perspective than many who have restricted themselves to their own specializations.
Many people lack the time or means to know for themselves, and thus are dependent on relying on 'experts'.
The problem with this is, if you don't know for yourself, at least to some extent, how do you choose which 'experts' to listen to?
Most choose the ones that tell them what they most want to hear.
In other words, 'experts' are useless if you lack the means to sort the wheat from the chaff.
That is why my approach has been to educate. To help people to know enough to begin to see for themselves.
I've never said, "Take my word for it." I have always said, "look at this, look at this, see how this fits with this."
I want you to be able to see for yourselves.
The Day the Earth Nearly Died
Graeme
Cid, Just a quick comment before you go for the day. If you are referring to the demise of the dinosaurs
then this is a completely different scenario to the one we are facing now. This was a catastrophic event and is not the same as a gradual release of CO2 into atmosphere by humans.
And guess who survived this event? That's right, mammals - us!
And guess who survived this event? That's right, mammals - us!
Cid_Yama
No, not the dinosaurs. The video is about the Permian-Triassic extinction and how scientific inquiry brought about our current understanding of the event.
The warming, caused by volcanism from the Siberian Traps, warmed the atmosphere and oceans to the point that the methane released catastrophically.
It matters not what caused the initial warming, volcanism or anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Is that all you got out of my previous post?
You should do research before commenting. Your comments show a lack of even rudimentary understanding and borders on trollishness.
The warming, caused by volcanism from the Siberian Traps, warmed the atmosphere and oceans to the point that the methane released catastrophically.
It matters not what caused the initial warming, volcanism or anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Is that all you got out of my previous post?
You should do research before commenting. Your comments show a lack of even rudimentary understanding and borders on trollishness.
Graeme
Cid,
First of all, I don't have time to do the so-called research (especially from published journals) that you are asking for. I'm posting at work.
Secondly, why post an important issue like the Permian-Triassic extinction in a dubious video (in the sense that it could have a virus attached). I won't look at it. See below about the other link.
Thirdly, as I mentioned, catastrophic events have nothing to do with our present predicament. InCIDently, the P-T boundary is now also thought to be caused by a asteriod impact like the K-T extinction.
Fourthly, your tone has now changed from polite to bordering on arrogance. You do not accept any differing points of view. Your anger demonstrates that the points made by other scientists, who have worked on methane discharge, are valid.
First of all, I don't have time to do the so-called research (especially from published journals) that you are asking for. I'm posting at work.
Secondly, why post an important issue like the Permian-Triassic extinction in a dubious video (in the sense that it could have a virus attached). I won't look at it. See below about the other link.
Thirdly, as I mentioned, catastrophic events have nothing to do with our present predicament. InCIDently, the P-T boundary is now also thought to be caused by a asteriod impact like the K-T extinction.
Fourthly, your tone has now changed from polite to bordering on arrogance. You do not accept any differing points of view. Your anger demonstrates that the points made by other scientists, who have worked on methane discharge, are valid.
Cid_Yama
Nonsense. With that last post you have clearly moved into troll territory and will be treated as such.
I have no time for those uninterested in educating themselves and merely snipe at others from a position of ignorance.
Had you watched the video, You would have seen how the asteroid impact hypothesis had been ruled out.
Interesting how those who haven't done the research and don't know what they are talking about, feel that their opinion should carry any weight.
I have no time for those uninterested in educating themselves and merely snipe at others from a position of ignorance.
Had you watched the video, You would have seen how the asteroid impact hypothesis had been ruled out.
Interesting how those who haven't done the research and don't know what they are talking about, feel that their opinion should carry any weight.
Homesteader
The thing about "runaway global warming" is that the scenario that Cid and others started postulating about several years ago is coming to pass as predicted, with no scientifically credible evidence to the contrary.
The global warming models, even the early ones, predicted wild swings in weather, increased precipitation in some areas, reduced in others, changes in precipitation patterns, erratic swings in temperature, acidifcation of oceans etc. . . all of which is occuring.
Calling for continued caution is beyond irresponsible.
The information is available for anyone who wants it. Those who choose not to act on their own behalf but instead wait for governments to provide leadership will be in for bitter disapointment indeed.
The global warming models, even the early ones, predicted wild swings in weather, increased precipitation in some areas, reduced in others, changes in precipitation patterns, erratic swings in temperature, acidifcation of oceans etc. . . all of which is occuring.
Calling for continued caution is beyond irresponsible.
The information is available for anyone who wants it. Those who choose not to act on their own behalf but instead wait for governments to provide leadership will be in for bitter disapointment indeed.