Global warming irreversable?

[Durakken]

So according to this new study mentioned in an article global warming is now irreversable...and I think ok...but then something in my head says, wait a sec! Aren't these the same people claiming global warming is man made? If something is done by man then man should be able to reverse it in most cases. Even the big ones were are thinking we can reverse but no matter what we can't reverse a climate change? That just sounds silly if we're the ones doing it.

Anyone else ever think this?

[jlhredshift]

So according to this new study mentioned in an article global warming is now irreversable...and I think ok...but then something in my head says, wait a sec! Aren't these the same people claiming global warming is man made? If something is done by man then man should be able to reverse it in most cases. Even the big ones were are thinking we can reverse but no matter what we can't reverse a climate change? That just sounds silly if we're the ones doing it.

Anyone else ever think this?

Could you please tell us which report you are referring to.

[orionjim]

Could you please tell us which report you are referring to.


I think they are referring to an article in "Universe Today" today 1/28/2009


A new paper published by a leading researcher says many effects of climate change are already irreversible. Susan Solomon, a leader of the International Panel on Climate Change and a scientist with National Oceanic and Atmopheric Association (NOAA) said even if carbon emissions were stopped, temperatures around the globe will remain high until at [...]

More...


Jim

[Swift]

I suspect Durakken is talking about the study discussed in this article (from the Christian Science Monitor) (http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/27/report-calls-climate-change-irreversible/).

Even if all the world’s smokestacks and tailpipes were to suddenly stop spewing CO2, if all the trees everywhere were to be left standing, and if all the remaining coal, oil, and gas were to stay in the ground, the planet would still feel the effects of global warming a millennium from now.

That’s the conclusion of a sobering new report published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The study found that, even as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide decline, the oceans, which are slowing down global warming by absorbing heat, will seek equilibrium with the atmosphere by re-releasing it.

On the Horizons blog, the Monitor’s Pete Spotts quotes Susan Solomon, a senior researcher with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the lead author of the study: “The same thing that is holding back climate change today will keep it going in the very long term, and that is the oceans.”

So, not quite "irreversable" (seems like a lot of news sources used that term, even if not correct), but more long lasting than maybe believed.

And yes, I think man could reverse it, but it will take a long time and a lot of effort. We've taken a long time and a lot of effort to create it, why should it get easier in reverse.

[GOURDHEAD]

When one uses a term like irreversible to characterize climate change, one has assumed much more is known about the possible feedfack loops than I believe is supported by the record. I think a better approach would be to guess at the "recovery times" from various excursions from the mean (once the mean is determined). If the recovery times are sufficiently long, they approach the functional equivalency of irreversible for humans.

[Ilya]

I suspect Durakken is talking about the study discussed in this article (from the Christian Science Monitor) (http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/01/27/report-calls-climate-change-irreversible/).
I was rather surprised by the concluding quote:


“I guess if it’s irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it,” she says. “Because committing to something that you can’t back out of seems to me like a step that you’d want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse.”

My conclusion would have been "if global warming is irreversible, we should seriously start thinking how to ADAPT to it" rather than how to stop it (which is presumably futile).

But then, that's what I have believed for years, and not just with regard to global warming. Few things are more stupid than building seawalls in order to (literally) stop the tide, instead of finding ways to USE the said tide.

[mugaliens]

Perhaps we can't reverse it to, say, 1950 levels. But as it's nowhere near the high temps that have cyclically been present many times throughout Earth's history, I'm hardly worried.

Change isn't to be feared. It's normal.

[BigDon]

Well, I hope this means an end to ice ages.

[GOURDHEAD]

Well, I hope this means an end to ice ages.Not likely.

[BigDon]

Why not?

[BigDon]

If this is to be believed then all we are doing is correcting this incident.


The Azolla event occurred in the middle Eocene period,[1] around 49 million years ago, when blooms of the freshwater fern Azolla occurred in the Arctic Ocean. As they sank to the stagnant sea floor, they were incorporated into the sediment; the resulting draw down of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere helped transform the planet from a "greenhouse Earth" state, hot enough for turtles and palm trees to prosper at the poles, to the icehouse Earth it has been since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event

[Tarkus]

I'm looking forward to a warmer climate AND a shoreline closer to home...

[Swift]

I'm looking forward to the extinction of thousands of species. It will make teaching biology much easier. Since change is inevitable, which is often argued as a reason to do nothing about global warming, why don't we just astroturf the entire planet.

[Tucson_Tim]

I look at it this way: I'm not sure about global warming, climate change, or whether or not humans are responsible, but I sure don't see anything wrong (aside from some added expense) with attempting to reduce the pollution we dump into the atmosphere and water. I guess excess CO2 in the atmosphere may delay or prevent the next Ice Age but at what cost?

[BigDon]

I'm looking forward to the extinction of thousands of species. It will make teaching biology much easier. Since change is inevitable, which is often argued as a reason to do nothing about global warming, why don't we just astroturf the entire planet.


I'm looking forward to the developement of thousands more. Makes teaching biology that much more interesting. Larger range = greater diversity. Among humans, heat kills the aged and sick. Cold kills everybody. A biologist would know that. One of the biggest uses of power consumption is to produce heat!

Who decided 1960 was the way the world had to remain static at? Was that date chosen because most of you don't remember it, so it had to be good? I missed the memo on the planetary "Ideal" and when that was, anybody care to point it out?

And we HAVE improved air quality. Sulfer compounds, lead, and nitrates! That isn't insignificant by a long shot!

[mugaliens]

I'm looking forward to the extinction of thousands of species.

Me too, as the extinction of species, as well as the creation of new ones is an exciting, normal Earth process that's been going on since Earth's first life made it's first branch into a separate species.

Over the next billion years, most of the current species of life on Earth will die, but there will as many species then as there are right now, if not many more than there are today.

That's just life. Breathing requires exhalation just as much as it requires inhalation. Our planet, it's geology, and it's biosphere, breaths. Life both ebbs and flows. It's normal, as any look at the historical record clearly shows.

Someone sold us humans a whopping bill of goods when they got us to believe that keeping things as they current are was somehow "healthy." It's not healthy. In fact, the stagnation that would result is about as unhealthy as throttling Earth's throat and preventing her from breathing at all.

Change is normal, folks. Let Mother Nature breath, even if it's in response to something we, one of her many species, are doing. Remember: Termites, another of her many species, put out more methane (a greenhouse gas) than we do. Bacteria. another species, probably put out much, much more.

[Swift]

I've said this multiple times... I'm not sure why I'm bothering again.

Yes, change, extinction, new species, etc. are normal parts of the cycle of life on Earth. But there are several things that make AGW different.

First, other than major extinction events, like a big comet impact, these climate changes are happening much faster than such things normally go. So species and ecosystems are not able to adapt to them as quickly as the changes are happening. Yes, over some long period of time (probably thousands of years), everything will catch up. But it will take a long time.

But the biggest difference is that we are doing it. Saying that species go extinct and therefore its ok, is like say that all humans eventually die, and therefore murder is ok. It makes a moral difference whether someone is murdered, or they die of natural causes. I feel the same way for such environmental changes.

Since this is purely a moral position, I can not justify it scientifically.

[Stroller]

these climate changes are happening much faster than such things normally go.

Do you have data to support this statement? There seem to have been rapid meltoffs etc in the recent geological past.

In any case, 0.6C/ century doesn't seem very fast to me. 1C is equivalent to about 200 miles of latitude. Even a toitoise can make 120 miles in 100 years.

:)

[Disinfo Agent]

Anyone else ever think this?Sure. But irreversible does not mean unstoppable. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/irreversible-does-not-mean-unstoppable/)

[mugaliens]

Saying that species go extinct and therefore its ok, is like say that all humans eventually die, and therefore murder is ok.

Equating 2.5 degrees of climate change, in a climate that swings an average of 50 degrees every year, to murder, is way overstating the case, swift. It's inflationary, and misleading.

A long-term temperature increase will stress our environment. A few (very few) species will die as a result. The overwhelmingly vast majority will adapt and overcome, just as they do from January to August.


It makes a moral difference whether someone is murdered, or they die of natural causes. I feel the same way for such environmental changes.

I'm sorry you feel that way, as it's a technological issue, not a moral issue.


Since this is purely a moral position...

Therein lies the fork in the road you took which is preventing you from looking at this objectively. I'm no tree-hugger, and see the same passionate lack of objectivity throughout antagonists of clear-cutting and overfishing. What most people never understand is that clear-cutting (or burning) has been going on for thousands of years - wildlife have already adapted, while overfishing is a much more current problem, and a very grave one at that, as it's impacting the entire oceanic food chain with disasterous results.

Two very different things with very different effects, yet the passionately non-objective lump them together as if they were both having similar impacts on our environment, which couldn't be further from the truth.


I can not justify it scientifically.

We're not here to "justify" it. It's simply happening, and there remains grave doubts as to just how much "A" there is in GW. Correlation does not imply causation, and historical records show high CO2 concentrations during previous warm periods, long before man had any measurable effect.

It's ok to be passionate about something, including the protection of our planet - I am extremely passionate about protecting our oceans against pollution and overfishing, two areas in which humanity has received a triple-F in the last century.

But I use science and objectivity to keep my passions in check. Thus, I do not see the same crisis in the forest industry, except for old growth. There's absolutely no need to cut down old growth, as it's less than 8% of all harvestable growth. As for clear-cutting and the wrongly proclaimed rampant deforestation - those poor folks are unaware we have more board-feet of lumber now than we did in 1950, and the renewable supply is exceptionally well-managed.

Nor do I see any need to passion with respect to global warming. It's not because I don't believe we're having an impact on it - we are. It's because the degree of that impact has been repeatedly questioned by far too many reknowned scientists who have nothing to gain, and much to loose, by speaking out against the AGW war cry. It's because trillions of dollars and years of effort would have but a scant percent or two effect in either the short run or the long run.

That's why I'm not only not passionate about global warming, particularly AGW, but I'm also contrary to turning over heaven and hell in what I believe, based on sound, scientific data, will be almost totally useless, but extremely tax-dollar-costly attempts to do anything about it.

If you want to turn global warming into something positive, why not instead put your efforts towards things that will bear fruit?

1. Encourage those living along the shorelines to move to higher ground. Oh, they're houses aren't in danger of being swamped any time in the next 50 years. It's just that after then, they don't want to be holding onto property whose value is decreasing.

2. Figure out a way to collect all the methane that will be released from the peat bogs. Not only is methane a greenhouse gas in it's own right, but it's also an excellent, pollution-free source of energy. Whether nor not these efforts will collect more methane-sourced energy than it takes to collect it, however, remains to be seen.

These are just two. I'm sure there are many more.

Here are some other thoughts and questions which I believe would be far more productive with respect to reducing the effects of AGW:

1. The overfishing of the oceans is rampant, to the point where current numbers of large ocean fish are at just 10% of 1950 levels. That's right - 90% have been decimated. Ocean ecosystems are well into the process of breaking down. Most reefs are dying, many are already dead, due to overfishing and pollution.

What effect does the ocean have on global warming? Sure, it's a CO2 sink, but that's just it's ability to absorb CO2 in the water. What then? Is that CO2 ever fixed in any matter, say, by algae? How does that algae grow without nutrients and in the presence of all that pollution?

Have you measured the correllation between overfishing, reef death, and the rise of CO2 levels???

While rising CO2 harms oceanic systems, perhaps this is yet another case of correlation without causation. Or perhaps, it's the other way around, with the massive changes in the oceans leading to serious increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Wouldn't that be a hoot? Spending trillions upon trillions of dollars to curb out production of CO2 only to discover later on that it was our pollution of the oceans which caused the increase of the CO2, not our direct contributions (or not a significant percentage, anyway).

It's easy to point fingers in the same direction other people are pointing. It's quite difficult, however, to step back, reexamine conclusions which most people believe are foregone, and to honestly, and objectively see whether they're correct, or whether other information, or new information casts new light on the issues, and casts doubt on the previously-held tenets of belief.

So, yes, Swift. I remain a skeptic. There are simply far too many unanswered questions, way to much bandwagon effect, and entirely too many reputable scientists objecting to the current courses of action. Then there's the mass psychological effects which are in full play, here, even among the best informed (none of us are immune).

Time will tell.

[Swift]

Equating 2.5 degrees of climate change, in a climate that swings an average of 50 degrees every year, to murder, is way overstating the case, swift. It's inflationary, and misleading.

And seasonal temperature changes are completely different from long term climate changes.

[BigDon]

Since this is purely a moral position, I can not justify it scientifically.

Cool.

Justify the morality of terrifiing and depressing children with this, when there is nothing they can do about it that won't plunge their standard of living to "bushman" level, okay a strawman, like "justifiing murder", Soviet Union in the early '50's then, for the next twelve generations? (They're listening too)

This heating trend is on for the next thousand years. It's obvious to me now that it was irreversible on first discovery back in '72 when I was in junior high. It was scarey then. and we didn't have Mr. Gore fanning the flames. There was no consensus we wouldn't "go Venus" at that level of education. And you scare mongers have just either gotten shriller or have a hissy like above.

He was a fine politician, too bad the carbon credit greenbacks have blinded him and reduced him to "snake oil salesman". He owns the only two companies in the United States allowed to sell them. (Two companies, so there is no monopoly) Mr. Gore CANNOT be considered a neutral expert in this. This will be bigger for his portfolio than Microsoft was for Mr. Gates.

[BigDon]

The above post is no disrespect to Swift's moderatorness.

[EricM407]

It's fun to watch the evolution of an argument.

"Warming? What warming?"
"Okay, it's warmer, but we didn't do it."
"Okay, it's our fault, but changing would be impossible."
"We could change, but it wouldn't do any good."
"I like it warm. Any species that deserves to live agrees with me."

[mugaliens]

Cool.

Justify the morality of terrifiing and depressing children with this...

I agree, Don, and spent a more than a few minutes de-presurizing my son from the effects of well-intended, but unnecessary hyperscare tactics promulgated by his teachers and his Mom. He arrived worried about a great many things, and left, a week later, happy-go-lucky, reassured that things are ok in the world, that the sky is not falling, and free to go back to school to do what he's there to do - get an education.

We've become so used to the media hype tactics that we think they're normal, too. They're designed to kick in our body's fight or flight response systems, get us spooled up, so we buy papers and magazines on the topics, and stay glued to the advertising-revenue rich TV programs on the subject.

Kids don't need that crap! Adults could do without it, too.

[Stroller]

It's fun to watch the evolution of an argument.

"Warming? What warming?"
"Okay, it's warmer, but we didn't do it."
"Okay, it's our fault, but changing would be impossible."
"We could change, but it wouldn't do any good."
"I like it warm. Any species that deserves to live agrees with me."

I don't think we got from proposition two to three yet.

It's also fun to watch the oscillation of an argument.

"Cooling Antarctica? what cooling Antarctica?"
"OK, Antarctica is cooling, but our model is consistent with that."
"Our new study shows Antarctica is warming...."
"....And our model is consistent with that too." :)
"OK, our data is FuBaRred, but it doesn't matter...."
"Because science sometimes has to serve policy"

[Jens]

BTW, I wonder if a moderator could correct the title of this thread. It gives me a headache to have to keep looking at it. . .

[EricM407]

I don't think we got from proposition two to three yet.


Some evolve more quickly than others.

[ryanmercer]

Global Warming = naturally occurring phenomenon beyond our control, not caused by us, possibly not even contributed to by us.

[jlhredshift]

Global Warming = naturally occurring phenomenon beyond our control, not caused by us, possibly not even contributed to by us.

The problem with this statement is that, if true, an awful lot of political agendas would lose their justification.

[Stroller]

Some evolve more quickly than others.
Some jump to conclusions more hastily than others. Then cling to their pet theory even in the face of contradictory evidence. It's quite a common phenomenon in science. Even more common in matters of faith and belief.

Can anyone explain why it is that if CO2 is as strong a climate forcing as the Modelling Team say it is, that temperatures haven't risen for a decade while human output of CO2 has risen by around 15%?