Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[carlosy]

Well, their deduction sound reasonable, if correct.

If I understand them right, it goes (in a nutshell)

- Ice free arctic to be expected between 2013 and 2015
- Ice free arctic will result in a tipping point because it will lead to
- methane release which will lead to
- unstoppable global warming

Not that it would end up with an immediate catastrophe, but it is more about that if the arctic becomes ice free, it would lead to a situation that any countermeasures against global warming would become ultimately useless. Therefore the urgency.


ameg.me/index.php/emergency

Why Is Arctic Methane An Emergency?

The reason, in one word, is RUNAWAY.

Runaway is a descriptive term for what the scientists call abrupt irreversible rapid global warming, which would be global climate catatsrophe. It involves tipping points.
...

The Arctic responds to global warming by increasing the rate of warming through several feedback processes, which, if allowed to become established, will inevitably lead to uncontrollable accelerating global warming or what for many years has been called "runaway" climate change. This is not to be confused with the scientific term "runaway greenhouse effect" or Venus syndrome.

There are two general, very large feedback processes in the Arctic that definitely will increase as global warming continues. One is melting Arctic ice and the other is emitting Arctic methane. The loss of ice will definitely increase the emission of Arctic methane to the atmosphere, which makes the Arctic sea ice meltdown the big planetary emergency.

"Runaway" is an apt description as runaway climate change is the result of the combined three following inevitabilities:
Radiative forcing from combined, cumulative, industrial GHG emissions
Climate system inertia (lag time between emission and impact of GHGs)
Increased radiative forcing and inertia from multiple feedbacks
...

The Arctic summer sea ice is in a rapid, extremely dangerous meltdown process. The Arctic summer ice albedo loss feedback (i.e., open sea absorbs more heat than ice, which reflects much of it) passed its tipping point in 2007 – many decades earlier than models projected, and scientists now agree the Arctic will be ice free during the summer by 2030. However, that is not to say it couldn't happen very much earlier.

Models of sea ice volume indicate a seasonally ice-free Arctic likely by 2015, and possibly as soon as the summer of 2013.

Such a collapse will inexorably lead to an accelerated rate of Arctic carbon feedback emissions of methane from warming wetland peat bogs and thawing permafrost.

The retreat of sea ice appears to be leading to the most catastrophic feedback process of all. This is the venting of methane to the atmosphere from frozen methane gas hydrates on the sea floor of the Arctic continental shelf.

If methane release from Arctic sea floor hydrates happens on a large scale — and this year's reports suggest that it will — then this situation can start an uncontrollable sequence of events that would make world agriculture and civilization unsustainable. It is a responsible alarm, not alarmist, to say that it is a real threat to the survival of humanity and most life on Earth.

(bold by me)

 

[aleCcowaN]

Considering the lack of the worlds actions to reduce CO2 emissions and the longer this continues, the closer we will have to take a look at those geoengineering ideas like mirrors in space.

Let me see if I understand: As the patient can't quit smoking and he considers a battery of psychoactive drugs, psychotherapy, sports and nibbling his own elbows during a year, all of it to be extremely demanding and difficult to endure, then, the logical approach is to move onto flash cures for emphysema, pulmonary cancer and coronary disease, which might be just around the corner and be potentially less difficult to achieve.

I don't think so!

Discussing this, no matter how enticing to the imagination it may be, would prove to be the denialist dream come true as it casts the attention far from the present as it is, and it fulfils the double denialist credo: that man was made to rule over the fish of the see and the birds of the air, over the livestock and over all the creatures that move along the ground, and over all the earth (and its atmospheric GHG pool because, after all, if man can bulldoze half the planet, why couldn't he change slightly the contents of the atmosphere with a few of his technological farties?); and the same way the man has the power to do that, he has the power -via technology- to overcome the side effects of his own acts -all of it in a safely far future, the only future that politically matters, that when the words of today have been forgotten or easily forgiven-.

I don't know what kind of stray Mayan omen has permeated this thread, but since December 22th there's a lot of low level speculation going on here while on a neighbour subforum there's a heating debate where one pathetic denialists -who has been coward enough to avoid this thread- is explaining why global warming doesn't exist while a lot of well intentioned but not well versed local forumites are trying to reply in the most ineffective manner, all of it in a thread that is an opportunity -the autopsy of denialism-.

 

[Dancing David]

Considering the lack of the worlds actions to reduce CO2 emissions and the longer this continues, the closer we will have to take a look at those geoengineering ideas like mirrors in space.

Considering that two nations emit most of the carbon, it is the worlds's problem but two countries in particular need to take action.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Well, their deduction sound reasonable, if correct.

If I understand them right, it goes (in a nutshell)

- Ice free arctic to be expected between 2013 and 2015
- Ice free arctic will result in a tipping point because it will lead to
- methane release which will lead to
- unstoppable global warming

Not that it would end up with an immediate catastrophe, but it is more about that if the arctic becomes ice free, it would lead to a situation that any countermeasures against global warming would become ultimately useless. Therefore the urgency.


ameg.me/index.php/emergency


(bold by me)

The short answer: No, no and no.

Why do you consider proper to semi-assert something that contains a hundred times more alarmism than science?

Epistemological hedonism is everywhere, not only in denialism. The hedonist warmer will select semi-old models to forecast temperatures raising several degrees in a few decades but reject the most reputed and modern models that say there's no methane emergency around the corner.

The texts you "linked" look like written by the warmer version of Watts.

 

[DC]

Let me see if I understand: As the patient can't quit smoking and he considers a battery of psychoactive drugs, psychotherapy, sports and nibbling his own elbows during a year, all of it to be extremely demanding and difficult to endure, then, the logical approach is to move onto flash cures for emphysema, pulmonary cancer and coronary disease, which might be just around the corner and be potentially less difficult to achieve. [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=944&pictureid=7051[/qimg]

I don't think so!

Discussing this, no matter how enticing to the imagination it may be, would prove to be the denialist dream come true as it casts the attention far from the present as it is, and it fulfils the double denialist credo: that man was made to rule over the fish of the see and the birds of the air, over the livestock and over all the creatures that move along the ground, and over all the earth (and its atmospheric GHG pool because, after all, if man can bulldoze half the planet, why couldn't he change slightly the contents of the atmosphere with a few of his technological farties?); and the same way the man has the power to do that, he has the power -via technology- to overcome the side effects of his own acts -all of it in a safely far future, the only future that politically matters, that when the words of today have been forgotten or easily forgiven-.

I don't know what kind of stray Mayan omen has permeated this thread, but since December 22th there's a lot of low level speculation going on here while on a neighbour subforum there's a heating debate where one pathetic denialists -who has been coward enough to avoid this thread- is explaining why global warming doesn't exist while a lot of well intentioned but not well versed local forumites are trying to reply in the most ineffective manner, all of it in a thread that is an opportunity -the autopsy of denialism-.

what?

 

[bobwtfomg]

Let me see if I understand: As the patient can't quit smoking and he considers a battery of psychoactive drugs, psychotherapy, sports and nibbling his own elbows during a year, all of it to be extremely demanding and difficult to endure, then, the logical approach is to move onto flash cures for emphysema, pulmonary cancer and coronary disease, which might be just around the corner and be potentially less difficult to achieve. [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=944&pictureid=7051[/qimg]

I don't think so!

Discussing this, no matter how enticing to the imagination it may be, would prove to be the denialist dream come true as it casts the attention far from the present as it is, and it fulfils the double denialist credo: that man was made to rule over the fish of the see and the birds of the air, over the livestock and over all the creatures that move along the ground, and over all the earth (and its atmospheric GHG pool because, after all, if man can bulldoze half the planet, why couldn't he change slightly the contents of the atmosphere with a few of his technological farties?); and the same way the man has the power to do that, he has the power -via technology- to overcome the side effects of his own acts -all of it in a safely far future, the only future that politically matters, that when the words of today have been forgotten or easily forgiven-.
.

I agree totally, the focus needs to stay on mitigation (the move to renewables, increased efficiency, demand limitation/reduction).

Working on a cure for lung cancer is obviously a good thing but over optimistic speculation about such cures is only good for the tobacco industry.

 

[macdoc]

ameg.me/index.php/emergency

umm no.
What a mish mash of half truths and unsupported speculation.

Thermohaline slowing/stopping would indeed impact parts of Europe right quick but there is little global impact and no particular signs of it occurring as yet. That really is immaterial to the article. Impacts would be local but certainly would shift ocean biomes rather dramatically. Can't see it as any immediate concern.

Methane release on a large scale is/would be unstoppable but not "sudden" nor would the climate all of a "sudden" change and the earth will still always be tipped failing an errant moon size bolide so it will still get cold and a warmer arctic in some aspects means colder continents.

It is however a compounding threat for additional warming as an aspect of anthro C02 release and should and is being monitored and incorporated into models.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...ates-and-contemporary-climate-change-24314790

Conclusions
Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years. Most of Earth's gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be affected by warming over even 103 yr. Even when CH4 is liberated from gas hydrates, oxidative and physical processes may greatly reduce the amount that reaches the atmosphere as CH4. The CO2 produced by oxidation of CH4 released from dissociating gas hydrates will likely have a greater impact on the Earth system (e.g., on ocean chemistry and atmospheric CO2 concentrations; Archer et al. 2009) than will the CH4 that remains after passing through various sinks.

Contemporary and future gas hydrate degradation will occur primarily on the circum-Arctic Ocean continental shelves (Sector 2; Macdonald 1990, Lachenbruch et al. 1994, Maslin 2010), where subsea permafrost thawing and methane hydrate dissociation have been triggered by warming and inundation since Late Pleistocene time, and at the feather edge of the GHSZ on upper continental slopes (Sector 3), where the zone's full thickness can dissociate rapidly due to modest warming of intermediate waters. More CH4 may be sequestered in upper continental slope gas hydrates than in those associated with subsea permafrost; however, CH4 that reaches the seafloor from dissociating Arctic Ocean shelf gas hydrates is much more likely to enter the atmosphere rapidly and as CH4, not CO2.

Proof is still lacking that gas hydrate dissociation currently contributes to seepage from upper continental slopes or to elevated seawater CH4 concentrations on circum-Arctic Ocean shelves. An even greater challenge for the future is determining the contribution of global gas hydrate dissociation to contemporary and future atmospheric CH4 concentrations.

Like sea level rise, it is a long term situation better avoided but certainly a part of the process of change and a consequence of our actions.

There is no question the process is beginning - there are a lot of uncertain aspects to it's current impact.
Changes in the biome in the tundra/taiga are a of greater concern as much sequestering is accomplished there.

From Carbon Sink To Carbon Source, Bogs Lose Effectiveness Dues To Increasing Shrub Cover

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-an...s-dues-to-increasing-shrub-cover-2510984.html

 

[BenBurch]

But global warming already is altering the conditions in other countries than the countries that are mainly causing it. I think the major problem would be who will pay for it. It would probably have to be a coalition of the wealthier countries with the capability of actually putting things into orbit.

Another related idea: could balloons be used to lift reflective nanoparticles up into the upper atmosphere and disperse them as a cheaper low tech alternative to rockets?

And understand in reducing the insolation you are also then proportionately reducing photosynthesis, and raising the floor of the photic zone in the oceans, both of which are unknowns in the equation.

 

[bit_pattern]

Great point, Ben. AFICT the only geoengineering scheme that is in anyway anything close to a solution would be removing CO2 from the atmosphere but even that seems technically implausible. Mitigate or die. Mitigate or die.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Psst! ... psst!

More than a half of human CO2 emission is already produced to generate almost exactly half of electric power (not a half of human energy "needs") so, what are you talking about?

Do we have the technologies to generate electric power with less CO2 or without direct CO2? Yes, so the conversation about geoengineering, orbital mirrors and hollywood props is somewhat immaterial.

You have to analyse why Australia produces, uses and exports a lot of coal instead of importing methane and developing solar. If the answer is "obvious", try again, because given the magnitude of our problem that is no longer valid (and our work is explaining people why that is no longer valid).

 

[bit_pattern]

Australia's energy policy is dictated by the "Greenhouse Mafia". And once we develop the Galilee Basin the coal exported from there alone would have us as the worlds 7th largest emitter, were it budgeted that way

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

 

[CapelDodger]

And understand in reducing the insolation you are also then proportionately reducing photosynthesis, and raising the floor of the photic zone in the oceans, both of which are unknowns in the equation.

Indeed. Incoming solar radiation plays more than one role in the biome; it can't be consigned to a box marked "energy budget, income", which is what the simple-minded tend to do.

Geo-engineering will be increasingly discussed, but then so has mitigation been for decades now and essentially nothing has been done. Kyoto and the IPCC, classic examples of apparent action at little or no political, strategic or economic cost. Government support for renewables is miniscule as a proportion of budgets, let alone of the global economy, but is welcome and remarkably effective. However that's the way things would go regardless of AGW, and sensible governments would still be encouraging their national renewables industry as so many industries have been encouraged in the past.

Discuss solutions by all means, but build your house on the high ground .

 

[DC]

Not sure if my post now isn't off topic here, but i would like to ask people what they think about this approach of how to talk to AGW skeptics and deniers.



Didn't want to make a new topic, so i thought i post it here, mods feel free to move it to a better place if you know one

 

[tyr_13]

Cloud ships make more sense.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...-rays-is-favourite-to-cut-global-warming.html

I like that they are controllable in that they can be dialed in for changing conditions. I don't understand why they would not be used to alter rainfall. Some extra rain would be nice in some parts of the world and if it starts being too much, then dial them back.

 

[macdoc]

Yes and there is also a whitening approach using microbubbles - both are much more controllable tho not without side effects. They would be local tho.

http://phys.org/news189059955.html

 

[Megalodon]

It's bad, and it's going to get worse. Ocean acidification will probably slow the ocean's biological pump, the mechanism by which the ocean captures atmospheric CO2 for periods of decades to geological. If you think CO2 is accumulating fast in the atmosphere now, just wait a bit...

It's going to be an interesting century...

 

[macdoc]

so hows this - we strip mine a big chunk of australia of limestone, pulverize it and dissolve it in the ocean by way of microbubbles ? et voila

 

[bit_pattern]

Saw this today - not something I'd previously heard of:

One of the biggest effects of climate change has been to alter the chemistry of Earth's oceans: areas with the highest salt content are getting saltier while those with fresher water are getting fresher.

What is causing the change in salinization -- and what, or who, is responsible -- is a problem that researchers are working to solve.

Salinity plays an important part in the circulation of water between the earth's surface and atmosphere, and therefore global weather.

A team from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. and, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, using models covering 11,000 years and data from 50 modern years, have concluded that the changes in salinization and temperature must be anthropogenic -- caused by human activity.

"It doesn't correlate with anything else," said David Pierce, one of the investigators. "It is not at all likely it could be [due to] natural cycles."

The nature of the changes depends on where in the oceans scientists look, he said.

"It's varied across the Earth. The Atlantic has been getting saltier while the Pacific, especially the north Pacific and western tropical Pacific, have been getting fresher. The change over the past 50 years has been about 0.2 psu (practical salinity units) which is about 0.5 percent."

The Atlantic normally is saltier than the Pacific, mostly because the trade winds blow evaporated, salt-free water from the Atlantic to the Pacific, mostly at the Isthmus of Panama.

The work was published last month in Geophysical Research Letters.

 

[bit_pattern]

Saw this today - not something I'd previously heard of:

One of the biggest effects of climate change has been to alter the chemistry of Earth's oceans: areas with the highest salt content are getting saltier while those with fresher water are getting fresher.

What is causing the change in salinization -- and what, or who, is responsible -- is a problem that researchers are working to solve.

Salinity plays an important part in the circulation of water between the earth's surface and atmosphere, and therefore global weather.

A team from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. and, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, using models covering 11,000 years and data from 50 modern years, have concluded that the changes in salinization and temperature must be anthropogenic -- caused by human activity.

"It doesn't correlate with anything else," said David Pierce, one of the investigators. "It is not at all likely it could be [due to] natural cycles."

The nature of the changes depends on where in the oceans scientists look, he said.

"It's varied across the Earth. The Atlantic has been getting saltier while the Pacific, especially the north Pacific and western tropical Pacific, have been getting fresher. The change over the past 50 years has been about 0.2 psu (practical salinity units) which is about 0.5 percent."

The Atlantic normally is saltier than the Pacific, mostly because the trade winds blow evaporated, salt-free water from the Atlantic to the Pacific, mostly at the Isthmus of Panama.

The work was published last month in Geophysical Research Letters.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Saw this today - not something I'd previously heard of:

...
The Atlantic normally is saltier than the Pacific, mostly because the trade winds blow evaporated, salt-free water from the Atlantic to the Pacific, mostly at the Isthmus of Panama.

...

That is one of several causes, not the main one.

This was indeed part of the exercise involving maps that I intended to pursue dozens of posts ago and one of the first consequences of answering the question that's still unanswered, and I have to say that nothing new comes from that article except the methodical work to prove that natural variability should be downgraded in the equation in this matter.

The problem is the many transient(transient(imbalance))s in the process, and it all points to explain why 10 year-old climate models tend to work like -for the sake of those with a minimal background in statistics- inflation indexes using a fixed basket in times of hyperinflation.

Any model serious enough to be used in doing predictions for the end of the century have to include physical, chemical and biological components for ocean and cryosphere and dynamically represent their changes. The same about human use of soil and even urban heat.