Baseless Speculations Involving the Consequences of Global Warming

[Exsubmariner]

Hello all,
I had the misfortune of deciding to watch a rerun of Tom Brokaw's Global warming special last night on the Science Channel. It originally aired on Discovery.

Aside from being annoyed by Tom Brokaw's drunken sounding slurring hickuppy voice and his glazing over incomplete environmental data and leaping to conclusions based on what he wanted it to mean, it got me thinking.

Namely about hurricanes and the weather. Now, I live on the Gulf Coast. This year, I am all geared up for big bad powerful hurricanes. I was expecting at least five by now. So far, there has only been one and it wasn't that big of a deal. I know that the water in the Gulf of Mexico is 4 degrees Celcius hotter than average this year. This will provide lots and lots of energy in the form of heat for a hurricane entering the gulf to suck up and become bigger and stronger. I know a little bit about thermodynamics, it happens, and last year's storms got me interested in thinking about weather in terms of heat and energy cycles.

Well, as I said, this year we haven't had all the intense storms so far that I expected. Instead, where I live, we have had rain. Lots and lots of rain. It seems that all that warm water in the Gulf is making it easier for water to evaporate and form clouds. Those clouds blow inland and rain. I've seen weeks of rain for the first time in years. Everything is green and lush. Plants are growing like mad.

Now let's extrapolate a little. We know there is a carbon cycle. Releasing CO2 into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels puts more carbon into the cycle. That means there is more CO2 that plants can use to grow. Combined with increased Ocean temperatures, vegetation on the planet as a whole would increase because the two things that plants need on land, CO2 and water, are suddenly more abundant.

It seems to me that there are mechanisms in the ecosystem which would serve to stabalize things. Perhaps we have not yet reached a tipping point where they begin to assert themselves. I find it hard to imagine that with so much water on the planet, that all the land mass is doomed to dry out and become a giant desert in the event of climate change.

Local ecosystems might rearrange themselves as weather patterns rearrange, but the planet as a whole would regulate itself.

Something else occurs to me, too. In the absolute worst case scenario, there is a whole continent for people to go settle on called Antartica which is currently under ice. Also, there is Siberia and the upper reaches of North America. There is plent of newly warmed climate to move into in the event the planet heats up. People will just migrate.

So what I want to know is why is this thinking so silly. Is it totally unreasonable to expect that the biggest regulator of climate on the planet, namely water, has in the past and will continue to make the planet habitable for life? Am I out to lunch when I think that perhaps biomass would increase as a result of warmer oceans and more CO2 in the atmosphere, and would, in fact, serve to regulate the CO2 levels and consquently the climate?

[StupidAcesSigh]

If global warming is a huge deal and we ignore it alot of people could die. If it is not, and we do something, we lose some production / economic gains and a few people drive crappier cars.

[Phil153]

A few points:

- You're correct in assuming that some things will offset the effect of warming. Increased plant life (especially ocean plankton) is one. But we're pumping so much CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the air the system is overwhelmed and CO2 levels are steadily rising. It's truly a staggering number. 5.5 billion tons of CO2 go into the atmosphere a year, and this number is rising. The earth and oceans are able to absorb a net of about 2.4 billion tons at most.

- You severely underestimate the effects of global warming. Yes, humanity will survive. But rising sea levels will wreck many coastal cities and displace hundreds of millions of people - who have to live somewhere else. The cost will be trillions and trillions of dollars, but is unlikely to come in our lifetimes. A more pressing concern is that agriculture may be greatly affected by weather changes, possibly wiping out vast quantities of arable land, especially at the margins of deserts where staples such as wheat are grown.

- An even more terrifying (and likely) threat is that ocean warming and the melting of sea ice in the Artic could cause changes in the massive ocean currents which warm the Atlantic coast, putting North America and Europe into the equivalent of an ice age. This possibility is very real. Read here and here for a quick summary. There is a real chance that global warming could destroy all of Western civilization. This is NOT scaremongering, the science behind this is solid and well understood.

- Global warming will also have a terrible effect on the environment. Apart from the inundation of coastal areas, huge forests, especially in temperate zones, may die; desert will grow at an increasing rate, enroaching huge quantities of land each year, bird and animal migration will be severely disrupted. Over several thousand years this may stabilize again, but over the human time scale this means a hundred generations that live in a changed world.

[Exsubmariner]

Thanks for the links. I have read quite a bit about ice ages and am generally familiar with the theory.

One thing that comes to mind about the increase in ocean temperatures leading to more water vapor in the air is that as clouds travel north and snow, they may check the regression of glaciers as ice would build up at the poles again.

Are there any studies that you know of which concern themselves with rainfall on a global stage in relation to CO2 concentrations?

[Phil153]

Also, further indications backed by solid data that sea ice is melting in significant quantities (relevant to the gulf stream discussion):

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928...scontinue.html
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

[hawk59]

Your migration theory is silly because Antartica is currently at the bottom of the world and is 96% covered by ice. If it got warm enough for the ice to melt then the rest of the planet would be way outside any sort of reasonable climate scenario.

Also, having a place to live is not important as people can just pile into cities in areas that retain good climates. The important thing is having places to grow food.

It's not unreasonable to say that there might be negative feedback that will mitigate the warming we see. But the big problem is this: the world works for us the way it is right now. It is beyond our power to predict the real effects of significant climate change. So climate change will take us from a situation that we KNOW is good for us, into a situation where we really don't know what we can expect. That is why it is better to be safe than sorry.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not unreasonable to say that there might be negative feedback that will mitigate the warming we see. But the big problem is this: the world works for us the way it is right now. It is beyond our power to predict the real effects of significant climate change. So climate change will take us from a situation that we KNOW is good for us, into a situation where we really don't know what we can expect. That is why it is better to be safe than sorry.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that I agree with this line of reasoning. It's like saying let's keep the candlestick because the light bulb is a threat.

I am speculating that there may be unforseen positive results that happen with global warming. It is human nature to assume the worst and be cautious. Perhaps this predisposition influences the present scientific thinking and it is not getting the whole picture.

Just a thought....

[hawk59]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not unreasonable to say that there might be negative feedback that will mitigate the warming we see. But the big problem is this: the world works for us the way it is right now. It is beyond our power to predict the real effects of significant climate change. So climate change will take us from a situation that we KNOW is good for us, into a situation where we really don't know what we can expect. That is why it is better to be safe than sorry.



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure that I agree with this line of reasoning. It's like saying let's keep the candlestick because the light bulb is a threat.

I am speculating that there may be unforseen positive results that happen with global warming. It is human nature to assume the worst and be cautious. Perhaps this predisposition influences the present scientific thinking and it is not getting the whole picture.

Just a thought....

[/ QUOTE ]

Ex,

A week or two ago there was an article on the front page of the WSJ about the effect of global warming in Greenland. And global warming has been a huge benefit to them, their growing seasons are a few weeks longer now then they were a couple decades ago and every year things get a little bit better for them. They have never been able to grow enough food to support themselves and have relied on subsidies from Denmark to get by, but now there is talk that in a couple more decades they might actually become self-sufficient which is exciting to a lot of people there.

So what I am saying is that obviously there will be benefits, especially for people at high latitudes. There will probably be other benefits that we can't predict. But there will also be negatives that we can't predict, and there is no way to know if the negatives will outweight the positives. So given that state of affairs I think the only rational way to go forward is to do our best to mitigate human warming. You can't just hope that everything will be ok, when in reality nobody knows what the results will be.

I recommend you read "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum" by Ruddiman. It's a very apolitical book that barely touches on the current state of global warming, but instead does a good job explaining the science behind climate cycles and it made me a think a lot differently about both sides of the debate.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
A week or two ago there was an article on the front page of the WSJ

[/ QUOTE ]

The WSJ's journal reporting on science can only be described as criminal. They report entire groups of scientists that quit in protest due to ethical reasons and political censoring as being "fired" or "layed off". They give an insane amount of airtime to "pundits for hire". They also twist facts beyond belief and just about every science blog spends a considerable amount of time documenting this. The WSJ simply can not be trusted regarding scientific stuff.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it hard to imagine that with so much water on the planet, that all the land mass is doomed to dry out and become a giant desert in the event of climate change.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exsubmariner,

This shows that you simply don't understand what is going on. Many areas of the planet will dry up but others will get swamped. Malaria is expected to become common in the US while china dries up. The ocean is turning acidic and James Hansen says 50% of the planets species are expected to go extinct in our lifetime. The entire country of Bangladesh could go completely under water. Compare that to smalleys 5 cent gas tax. I guess that's politics though..... I really don't have the will to write more.