Global Warming | Fact or Fiction?

[painted wolf]

Permian level? Really? Wouldn't take a super-volcano eruption or a astroid hit to get that extreme?

Nope... just the let go of the methane and carbon hell in the permafrost... and the release of the methane hydrates in the North Sea. (the highest temperatures on the planet were actually during the Eocene, another major extinction horizon)
Permafrost carbon cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Methane hydrate is also implicated in the Permian Extinction and there is a lot of in the North Sea. Monitoring of these Hydrate layers has shown that the small increase in temperatures is already increasing the rate at which the hydrate is converting into gas and entering the atmosphere.
Methane clathrate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ocean levels of Carbonic acid are already reaching dangerous levels for many shelled inverts... from forams to corals to clams to lobsters.
Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This was one of the major problems for sea life in the Permian extinction and the ocean has been the major sink of anthropogenic CO2 with a rise of 30% acidity since the industrial revolution started.

Here is the most important thing!
We are also already in the middle of an extinction event (almost entirely anthropologically driven) and a vast number of species are already vulnerable to extinction. They don't have the genetic variation to protect them from further pressure.
40% of all known species are endangered. We just had to declare the West African Black Rhino Extinct.
This doesn't include the species threatened with endangered status or account for general declines in population in other "healthy" species.

wa:do

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Nope... just the let go of the methane and carbon hell in the permafrost... and the release of the methane hydrates in the North Sea.

Scary stuff. I read that currently they don't believe it can happen fast enough to cause a runaway climate change but that's the thing about theories, you don't really know what's going to happen. Ultimate worst case scenario Earth becomes another Venus. Now that's really scary.

 

[Alceste]

Permian level? Really? Wouldn't take a super-volcano eruption or a astroid hit to get that extreme?

With only a few degrees of warming there is a risk of oceanic algal blooms large enough to turn the air we breathe to poison. Toxic algae had already begun to hit the coast of France before we entered the current cooler cycle.

 

[Alceste]

Scary stuff. I read that currently they don't believe it can happen fast enough to cause a runaway climate change but that's the thing about theories, you don't really know what's going to happen. Ultimate worst case scenario Earth becomes another Venus. Now that's really scary.

You should read Six Degrees if you want to understand the worst case scenario.

 

[painted wolf]

Scary stuff. I read that currently they don't believe it can happen fast enough to cause a runaway climate change but that's the thing about theories, you don't really know what's going to happen. Ultimate worst case scenario Earth becomes another Venus. Now that's really scary.

I'm not sure that the Venus scenario is all that likely. I think the Permian/Eocene scenario is much more likely.

wa:do

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I'm not sure that the Venus scenario is all that likely. I think the Permian/Eocene scenario is much more likely.

wa:do

You mean this.

The consequences of a methane-driven oceanic eruption for marine and terrestrial life are likely to be catastrophic. Figuratively speaking, the erupting region "boils over," ejecting a large amount of methane and other gases (e.g., CO2, H2S) into the atmosphere, and flooding large areas of land. Whereas pure methane is lighter than air, methane loaded with water droplets is much heavier, and thus spreads over the land, mixing with air in the process (and losing water as rain). The air-methane mixture is explosive at methane concentrations between 5% and 15%; as such mixtures form in different locations near the ground and are ignited by lightning, explosions and conflagrations destroy most of the terrestrial life, and also produce great amounts of smoke and of carbon dioxide. Firestorms carry smoke and dust into the upper atmosphere, where they may remain for several years; the resulting darkness and global cooling may provide an additional kill mechanism. Conversely, carbon dioxide and the remaining methane create the greenhouse effect, which may lead to global warming. The outcome of the competition between the cooling and the warming tendencies is difficult to predict.

Rather scary, even if it does sound like a Saturday night SyFy movie.

 

[painted wolf]

Definately... I think the effects will clear like they have before, given time. But how well life handles that time again is up for grabs.

Even if nothing happens we are sill faced with the fact that 40% of life on this planet is facing extinction in the immediate future and very few of the "successful" species have stable populations not seeing some sort of decline.

That is really scary. Unfortunately we tend to see biodiversity as an obstacle rather than as a necessity.

wa:do

 

[work in progress]

I'm not sure that the Venus scenario is all that likely. I think the Permian/Eocene scenario is much more likely.

wa:do

Since you mentioned the dangers of sudden release of methane clathrates or hydrates previously, it's worth noting this report that just popped up a few days ago about the PETM: Methane May Be Answer to 56-Million-Year Question: Ocean Could Have Contained Enough Methane to Cause Drastic Climate Change

ScienceDaily (Nov. 9, 2011) — The release of massive amounts of carbon from methane hydrate frozen under the seafloor 56 million years ago has been linked to the greatest change in global climate since a dinosaur-killing asteroid presumably hit Earth 9 million years earlier. New calculations by researchers at Rice University show that this long-controversial scenario is quite possible.

While the event that began the carbon-discharge cycle remains a mystery, the implications are clear, Dickens said. "I've always thought of (the hydrate layer) as being like a capacitor in a circuit. It charges slowly and can release fast -- and warming is the trigger. It's possible that's happening right now."
That makes it important to understand what occurred in the PETM, he said. "The amount of carbon released then is on the magnitude of what humans will add to the cycle by the end of, say, 2500. Compared to the geological timescale, that's almost instant."
"We run the risk of reproducing that big carbon-discharge event, but faster, by burning fossil fuel, and it may be severe if hydrate dissociation is triggered again," Gu said, adding that methane hydrate also offers the potential to become a valuable source of clean energy, as burning methane emits much less carbon dioxide than other fossil fuels.
​

For some crazy reason the global warming deniers think the rapid (in geologic time scales) spike in global temperatures during the PETM means that we have nothing to worry about regarding the human-caused spike in greenhouse gases and temperatures today. Nevermind that there were no humans or primate ancestors around at that time -- a similar sudden release of methane from permafrost and deep ocean sediments today would wipe out the global agribusiness system we have now...which is struggling right now to maintain present levels of production of grains and other basic commodities. And, with our 7 billion people, cities, and thousands of miles of roads and highways blocking animal migration routes, an increase in temperatures similar to the PETM would greatly accelerate the present extinction that is already under way.

But, sudden releases of stored methane in permafrost and ocean sediments are not the only places to worry about; even more temperate zones have large carbon sinks that could be unleashed at some point in the future when temperatures hit the level where stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere: Long-Term Carbon Storage in Ganges Basin May Portend Global Warming Worsening

ScienceDaily (Nov. 9, 2011) — Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) scientists have found that carbon is stored in the soils and sediments of the Ganges-Brahmaputra basin for a surprisingly long time, making it likely that global warming could destabilize the pool of carbon there and in similar places on Earth, potentially increasing the rate of CO2 release into the atmosphere. The study, published in the current online edition of Nature Geoscience, examined the radiocarbon content of river sediments collected from the Ganges-Brahmaputra system draining the Himalayas.
​

 

[Alceste]

It may be worth mentioning that, as far as I recall, these positive feedbacks are not included in the IPCC models. So the reasonable assumption is that the warning will be much faster than predicted. Of cost, that's what we see. Each successive report shortens the time scale.

 

[work in progress]

It may be worth mentioning that, as far as I recall, these positive feedbacks are not included in the IPCC models. So the reasonable assumption is that the warning will be much faster than predicted. Of cost, that's what we see. Each successive report shortens the time scale.

From my pov, this is why I consider the denialists to be either dishonest or self-deluded! Ten or 20 years ago, it may have been plausible to have some skepticism about human-caused climate change; but the discrepancies between the IPCC predictions and the actual results is that the IPCC is too conservative in their forecasts...likely largely for the reason you mentioned -- they aren't considering, or are unable to predict the positive feedback effects of methane release from Arctic tundra and the Arctic Ocean.
Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases

In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution. Boden said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees.
Even though global warming skeptics have attacked the climate change panel as being too alarmist, scientists have generally found their predictions too conservative, Reilly said. He said his university worked on emissions scenarios, their likelihood, and what would happen. The IPCC's worst case scenario was only about in the middle of what MIT calculated are likely scenarios.
​

It's disturbing to realize that the pessimists, like E.O. Wilson or James Lovelock...who have predicted a rapid collapse of the human population at the end of this century, and the probable collapse of civilization as well -- have made the most accurate forecasts so far:
James Lovelock: The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years

 

[Reverend Rick]

From my pov, this is why I consider the denialists to be either dishonest or self-deluded! Ten or 20 years ago, it may have been plausible to have some skepticism about human-caused climate change; but the discrepancies between the IPCC predictions and the actual results is that the IPCC is too conservative in their forecasts..

20 years ago, we where told we where headed for an ice age.

The last eight years, the planet has not got warmer, or at least that is how I view the graph.

When all the nations gathered for meeting last year, it snowed that day where they had not had snow for decades.

I'm not in denial nor am I self deluded. I love green technology. I was planting trees before it was all the rage.

What I am saying is, one locality cannot "save the planet". The whole planet has to act as group or it will accomplish nothing.

Global warming is a religion, not true science.

I am a global warming agnostic. I have yet to see any proof positive.

What I have seen is alot of opinion and conjecture.

I am keeping an open mind, but I am yet to be convinced.

I believe science is looking for supporting data and disregarding anything to the contrary.

I think we should all become as green as possible, but I don't see too many clothes lines out there yet. :no:

 

[painted wolf]

20 years ago, we where told we where headed for an ice age.

The last eight years, the planet has not got warmer, or at least that is how I view the graph.

When all the nations gathered for meeting last year, it snowed that day where they had not had snow for decades.

I'm not in denial nor am I self deluded. I love green technology. I was planting trees before it was all the rage.

What I am saying is, one locality cannot "save the planet". The whole planet has to act as group or it will accomplish nothing.

Global warming is a religion, not true science.

I am a global warming agnostic. I have yet to see any proof positive.

What I have seen is alot of opinion and conjecture.

I am keeping an open mind, but I am yet to be convinced.

I believe science is looking for supporting data and disregarding anything to the contrary.

I think we should all become as green as possible, but I don't see too many clothes lines out there yet. :no:

Not to be a pain... because I do respect you... but this is full of contradictions.

You can't "keep an open mind" or claim to be "agnostic" while at the same time insisting that "global warming is a religion" and that scientists are "disregarding anything to the contrary".

Discussing any of the rest of the statements is useless.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

20 years ago, we where told we where headed for an ice age.

The last eight years, the planet has not got warmer, or at least that is how I view the graph.

When all the nations gathered for meeting last year, it snowed that day where they had not had snow for decades.

I'm not in denial nor am I self deluded. I love green technology. I was planting trees before it was all the rage.

What I am saying is, one locality cannot "save the planet". The whole planet has to act as group or it will accomplish nothing.

Global warming is a religion, not true science.

I am a global warming agnostic. I have yet to see any proof positive.

What I have seen is alot of opinion and conjecture.

I am keeping an open mind, but I am yet to be convinced.

I believe science is looking for supporting data and disregarding anything to the contrary.

I think we should all become as green as possible, but I don't see too many clothes lines out there yet. :no:

Rick, you may not be "in denial", but you have clearly been exposed to a huge dose of misinformation. Your opinion is hinges on taking nonsense like the junk you posted earlier at face value and ignoring climate scientists. IOW, you are forming your own opinions based on an assumption that the unscientific opinions of non-scientists like the anonymous blogger you linked to is equal in value to the published research of all the world's climatologists, so you're free to pick whichever "side" you prefer.

Maybe you aren't deluded - maybe you have an honest difficulty distinguishing between scientific research and opinion and that has made the issue too confusing for you to be able to take an informed position.

Nevertheless, given that the science supporting anthropogenic climate change is very well-established and well over 90% of experts in the field agree that human activity is having a potentially disastrous impact on the climate, you can't really expect to be taken any more seriously by people familiar with the subject than a creationist can expect to be taken by people who are well-read in the subject of biology.

 

[Revoltingest]

In a sense, climate change beliefs are much like economic beliefs, which operate similarly to religion. People have beliefs & values which are a function
of the culture around them. Only a small percentage have experience & expertise, so they look for confirmation by citing this cherry picked scientist
or economist. This is easy, since all perspectives are confirmed on the internet, allowing lefties & righties to remain entrenched in their positions.
It reminds me of Al Gore chastising scientists for not supporting him far earlier than they did. This is ironic, because if AGW is science based,
then shouldn't he be looking at scientific consensus? Belief appears to have preceded actual knowledge.
But we are fortunate in one way. Many measures to mitigate GW are also just good public policy for largely undisputable reasons,
eg, less pollution, energy independence. So we can sally forth making progress while continuing to understand climate change.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

you have clearly been exposed to a huge dose of misinformation.

One thing that you need to understand is that there is a great deal of propaganda and misinformation coming from the more militant environmentalists out there as well as from those with their heads stuck in the sand. All the doom sayers who flood the internet with made up data and exaggerated consequences do more harm than good because they make the moderates who would like to see real data hesitant to accept anything at face value. This is why I really hate hear the phrase "We're killing the planet". We aren't, we can't. The planet will be just fine no matter what we do. It is ourselves we are endangering, not the planet.

 

[Alceste]

One thing that you need to understand is that there is a great deal of propaganda and misinformation coming from the more militant environmentalists out there as well as from those with their heads stuck in the sand. All the doom sayers who flood the internet with made up data and exaggerated consequences do more harm than good because they make the moderates who would like to see real data hesitant to accept anything at face value. This is why I really hate hear the phrase "We're killing the planet". We aren't, we can't. The planet will be just fine no matter what we do. It is ourselves we are endangering, not the planet.

That is why I stick to reading what scientists have to say on the subject.

The insistence of deniers and agnostics that I take the opinions of each "side" of any factual question to be equally valuable is tiresome. If a fact exists, science is the way to find it. If we want to know what science has found, scientists are the people to ask.

Not economists, for the love of God. Why would anyone ask an economist, or a statistician, or a petroleum geologist, or any of the other well-funded non-experts who aggressively chase down airtime to deny climate science, what climate science shows?

 

[Alceste]

In a sense, climate change beliefs are much like economic beliefs, which operate similarly to religion. People have beliefs & values which are a function
of the culture around them. Only a small percentage have experience & expertise, so they look for confirmation by citing this cherry picked scientist
or economist. This is easy, since all perspectives are confirmed on the internet, allowing lefties & righties to remain entrenched in their positions.
It reminds me of Al Gore chastising scientists for not supporting him far earlier than they did. This is ironic, because if AGW is science based,
then shouldn't he be looking at scientific consensus? Belief appears to have preceded actual knowledge.
But we are fortunate in one way. Many measures to mitigate GW are also just good public policy for largely undisputable reasons,
eg, less pollution, energy independence. So we can sally forth making progress while continuing to understand climate change.

I know this will come as a shock, but lots of people rely primarily on published, credible research in any given field of science to determine the facts.

If you prefer simply seeking out affirming opinions to educating yourself, that's your prerogative. The objectionable aspect of your attitude is the insistence that because you choose not to be well-informed, NOBODY can ever be well-informed.

 

[painted wolf]

In a sense, climate change beliefs are much like economic beliefs, which operate similarly to religion. People have beliefs & values which are a function of the culture around them. Only a small percentage have experience & expertise, so they look for confirmation by citing this cherry picked scientist or economist. This is easy, since all perspectives are confirmed on the internet, allowing lefties & righties to remain entrenched in their positions.

Indeed.. I think this is going to be growing problem in the "internet age".

It reminds me of Al Gore chastising scientists for not supporting him far earlier than they did. This is ironic, because if AGW is science based,
then shouldn't he be looking at scientific consensus? Belief appears to have preceded actual knowledge.

I think Al is silly for chastising scientists for being scientific about Climate Change... but that is the luxury of being able to back the work of a few "cutting edge" researchers without the need to check the work and give due diligence to the data.

But we are fortunate in one way. Many measures to mitigate GW are also just good public policy for largely undisputable reasons,
eg, less pollution, energy independence. So we can sally forth making progress while continuing to understand climate change.

Agreed... This is the tactic I generally use in such discussions.

How can reducing pollution, increasing energy independence and sustainability and encouraging local economies be a bad thing?
Even if countries like China don't do it too, we still get the benefits from it ourselves.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

I know this will come as a shock, but lots of people rely primarily on published, credible research in any given field of science to determine the facts.

But they are not in the majority, who typically get their views from peers, radio & TV.
They typically don't read scientific publications or listen to detailed lectures.

If you prefer simply seeking out affirming opinions to educating yourself, that's your prerogative. The objectionable aspect of your attitude is the insistence that because you choose not to be well-informed, NOBODY can ever be well-informed.

You infer some things which I don't imply. I merely commented upon how most view GW & economics.
This is not to say that their methods are admirable. Play nice now.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed... This is the tactic I generally use in such discussions.
How can reducing pollution, increasing energy independence and sustainability and encouraging local economies be a bad thing?
Even if countries like China don't do it too, we still get the benefits from it ourselves.

Your post gave me the warm fuzzies.
With obvious common ground about benefits, even the most vociferous GW deniers can get on board with many good solutions.