Humanity on a ticking time bomb?

[Sehrish]

Is Humanity sitting on a ticking time bomb? If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced. Do you think we should be doing something like alerting people who have no idea about this? Or do you think this is just a made up story?

 

[russ_watters]

Well, I've never heard any talk about global warming the way you are, except for the unlikely concept of a "tipping point" (no such thing has ever been seen in our planet's history).

Humans can adapt to the worst of the mainstream predicted changes without major upheaval in most places.

 

[Andre]

The erroneous tipping point / flickering climate hypothesis is brilliantly but erringly explained by Richard Alley in the price winning book "The two mile time machine"

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0691102961/?tag=pfamazon01-20

It is based on the extreme fluctuations of methane and ice isotopes in the Greenland Ice Cores, known as the Dansgaard Oeschger events and the Bolling Allerod events during the last glacial transition.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data_glacial2.html

Now there is a firm and wide believe all the way from the most notorious climate sceptics to the most prominent climate alarmists, that those spikes are about dramatic warming and cooling in a few decades.

However this is demonstratably wrong, I've done that here before. It's about arid and moist episodes although it will probably take another generation to clear the cognitive dissonance, aka the Alfred Wegener syndrone (at least by me).

These events are also the strongest reason that almost all ice core specialists are firm global warming believers. Another reason why it's virtually impossible to have the truth accepted.

 

[Andre]

Is Humanity sitting on a ticking time bomb? If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced. Do you think we should be doing something like alerting people who have no idea about this? Or do you think this is just a made up story?

Why not ask 15 year old Kristin?

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/index.html

She gets about 100K hits per week BTW.

Alternatevely, it may be a good idea to browse this area a bit, for instance:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=124770
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=127482
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=149342
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=49049
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=105248
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=108165
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=163931
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=162192

 

[Mk]

Is Humanity sitting on a ticking time bomb? If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced. Do you think we should be doing something like alerting people who have no idea about this? Or do you think this is just a made up story?

How many degrees do you think it will go up by 2016?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/00fig1.gif
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/NPC-NewVersion_files/image023.jpg
Since it looks to me like he's basically throwing http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/3422/untitled1xd0.jpg" says, maybe if the catastrophe is coming and we can't stop it, why don't we start adapting to it and developing technologies to take advantage of it?

 

[BillJx]

Is Humanity sitting on a ticking time bomb? If the vast majority of the world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced. Do you think we should be doing something like alerting people who have no idea about this? Or do you think this is just a made up story?

"Could". Rapid climate change has happened in the past, and I don't think the mechanisms (in most cases) are understood well. There are some educated guesses, but no credible source as far as I know has said that by such and such a date, at such and such a temperature rise, such and such will happen.

There does seem to be some risk. What that would involve, who knows? Climatologists aren't predicting it in the short term. I don't know how much comfort that is, because they really don't know one way or another. http://www.wunderground.com/education/abruptclimate.asp

It seems to me, and I have no qualifications for my opinions, that there are lots of more minor scenarios that are more likely in the short term:
1) Crop losses due to changes in weather patterns. Whatever products are affected would become expensive.
2) Heat waves and/or droughts causing the public to accept or demand measures like carbon taxes and fuel rationing. Higher prices for almost everything. A very low demand for homes that are hard to heat. No value whatsoever for motor homes and other wasteful toys.
3) An increase in the rate of sea level rise, causing people to realize that low-bank waterfront property ownership is, at best, a long term lease with Nature holding the lease.
Etc. Use your imagination, but keep it on a short leash.

 

[Andre]

Bill,

Your link brings us to the Dansgaard Oeschger events of the last 100,000 years, terminating with the last major ones, the Bolling Allerod events between 14,500 and 11,800 years ago preceding the Younger Dryas.

I have presented http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/refuting%20the%20Greenland%20paleo%20thermometer1.pdf that those events did not synchronize with the Northern hemisphere warming but they do synchronize with Northern Hemisphere arid and moist events.

Furthermore, the ratio of isotopes in precipitation -thought to be paleo thermometer- is mainly depending the temperature during condensation. But this temperature has nothing to do with the ambient temperature but is a direct function of the moisture of the air, also known as dew point. Moist air, high dewpoint, dry air, low dew point. Therefore, there is both a mechanism and supporting evidence that those spikes are not about temperature but about precipitation.

Do we have to wait a generation to understand that?

 

[delta001]

It won't be some spiral of disaster, as Al Gore and his eco-terrorist ilk like to claim. It will be a gradual heating up of the atmosphere, aided by increased greenhouse gasses, which will take a long while to correct itself, but eventually it will. Earth's systems have ways of correcting themselves, refer to Le Chatelier's Principle.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This report discusses worst case scenarios that scientists imagine might be possible. As the article specifies, this is not a forecast.

February 9, 2004
...The result is an unclassified report, completed late last year, that the Pentagon has agreed to share with FORTUNE. It doesn't pretend to be a forecast. Rather, it sketches a dramatic but plausible scenario to help planners think about coping strategies. Here is an abridged version: [continued]

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/02/09/360120/index.htm

I didn't spot the .gov or .mil version but it all seems to be legit.
http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf

 

[Evo]

This report discusses worst case scenarios that scientists imagine might be possible. As the article specifies, this is not a forecast.


http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/02/09/360120/index.htm

I didn't spot the .gov or .mil version but it all seems to be legit.
http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf

This report is predicting drastic global cooling starting in 2010, with average temperature drops of 6 degrees F. The Pentagon's weather Nightmare is abrupt global cooling. Good articles showing that warming is not the issue, it's cooling. They are saying that the warming blip is going to cause rapid catastrophic cooling.

"Each of the years from 2010-2020 sees average temperature drops throughout Northern Europe, leading to as much as a 6 degree Fahrenheit drop in ten years. Average annual rainfall in this region decreases by nearly 30%; and winds are up to 15% stronger on average. The climatic conditions are more severe in the continental interior regions of northern Asia and North America.

In the North Atlantic region and across northern Asia, cooling is most pronounced in the heart of winter -- December, January, and February -- although its effects linger through the seasons, the cooling becomes increasingly intense and less predictable. As snow accumulates in mountain regions, the cooling spreads to summertime. In addition to cooling and summertime dryness, wind pattern velocity strengthens as the atmospheric circulation becomes more zonal.

While weather patterns are disrupted during the onset of the climatic change around the globe, the effects are far more pronounced in Northern Europe for the first five years after the thermohaline circulation collapse. By the second half of this decade, the chill and harsher conditions spread deeper into Southern Europe, North America, and beyond. Northern Europe cools as a pattern of colder weather lengthens the time that sea ice is present over the northern North Atlantic Ocean, creating a further cooling influence and extending the period of wintertime surface air temperatures. Winds pick up as the atmosphere tries to deal with the stronger pole-to-equator temperature gradient. Cold air blowing across the European continent causes especially harsh conditions for agriculture. The combination of wind and dryness causes widespread dust storms and soil loss."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This report is predicting drastic global cooling starting in 2010

From the header of the report

Imagining the Unthinkable
The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security.
We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.
We have created a climate change scenario that although not the most likely, is plausible, and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately.

Also, global cooling has always been recognized as a potential result of global warming. That is why is it now properly called Global Climate Change. However, the change is driven by global warming.

The report also suggests that from 2010 through 2020

• Temperatures increase by up to 4 degrees Fahrenheit in key areas throughout Australia, South America, and southern Africa.

 

[BillJx]

From the header of the report


Also, global cooling has always been recognized as a potential result of global warming. That is why is it now properly called Global Climate Change. However, the change is driven by global warming.

Global? Local high latitude cooling has been considered a possible result of global warming. I don't think most scientists are currently expecting that to happen.

In any case, climatology has been progressing so fast - and high latitude climates have been warming noticeably - - that projections from 2003 and 2004 are out of date already. The key issue though isn't any specific scenario, but the finding that climate change can occur quite suddenly and on a global scale.

 

[Evo]

Also, global cooling has always been recognized as a potential result of global warming. That is why is it now properly called Global Climate Change. However, the change is driven by global warming.

It appears that "Global Warming" has been replaced with just "Climate Change", global has been ommited, at least by the EPA.

"EPA's Climate Change Site replaces EPA's Global Warming Site"

http://epa.gov/climatechange/

They are now taking a more realistic approach.

"Because climate is uncontrollable (albeit influenceable by humans), the models are the only available experimental laboratory for climate. They also are the appropriate high-end tool for forecasting hypothetical climates in the years and centuries ahead. However, climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty of interpreting their answers that exhibit almost as much complexity as in nature."

The more realistic tone, the re-focusing on pollution and impacts on regional climate changes are a definite move in the right direction.

 

[Tsu]

Well... we don't have very good news here--

The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is so loaded with carbon dioxide that it can barely absorb any more, so more of the gas will stay in the atmosphere to warm up the planet, scientists reported Thursday.

Human activity is the main culprit, said researcher Corinne Le Quere*, who called the finding very alarming.

The phenomenon wasn't expected to be apparent for decades, Le Quere said in a telephone interview from the University of East Anglia in Britain.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17/climate.ocean.reut/index.html

*I really don't think this woman is a slouch.
Dr. Corinne Le Quéré
Curriculum Vitae, Nov. 2005.
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/~corinne.lequere/cv.shtml

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Global? Local high latitude cooling has been considered a possible result of global warming. I don't think most scientists are currently expecting that to happen.

Funny, I don't remember saying anything that specific.

The point was that some areas will get cooler. This is nothing new. I even remember James Burke talking about this prediction over thirty years ago on one of the first documentaries about global warming. As is expected with something so complex, our understanding of how the climate will change is continually evolving.

 

[Moridin]

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

What is your take on this? It seems a more realistic approach than many other. It does a good job in debunking the most radical conspiracy theories, allowing the real scientific discussion more room.

 

[sneez]

From the article,

...this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.

This is totally bogus , The warming is totally not due to human activity, there is yet to be determined the fraction of contribution to the warming! I stopped reading after this sentence :grumpy:

There is everything wrong with this sentence.

 

[Moridin]

Quote taken out of context. Original quote:

Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.

Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up.

With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories

 

[sneez]

Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.

Yes, there are still big uncertainties in some predictions, but these swing both ways. For example, the response of clouds could slow the warming or speed it up.

With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories

Certainly not out of context. If you insist, let me repeat myself with all of this quote. There is no evidence whatso ever that the warming is human induced! :grumpy: Whoever wrote this nonsense should appologise for misleading and incorrect information. On the cotrary, the evidence and scientific community knows that the warming is natural and we are trying hard to see if humans have any significant contribution to it.

 

[Moridin]

A lot of evidence points to a human contribution to climate change. The important scientific discussion is on how much humans contribute as oppose to contribution from nonhuman source. Both AIT and GGWS has propaganda in it.

Saying that climate change is natural is ambiguous. Humans are a part of nature and all changes are 'natural' as oppose to 'supernatural', contributed by humans or not.

The article series even attacks some of the argument from Gore camp.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11838

Few scientists think there will be a rapid shutdown of circulation. Most ocean models predict no more than a slowdown, probably towards the end of the century. This could slow or even reverse some of the warming due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, which might even be welcome in an overheated Europe, but the continent is not likely to get colder than it is at present.

 

[sneez]

Saying that climate change is natural is ambiguous. Humans are a part of nature and all changes are 'natural' as oppose to 'supernatural', contributed by humans or not.

I don't want you to feel some hostility or whatever, but getting on me that I am implying by statement that GW is not caused by humans that its unatural cause is rethorics. You and I very well know, I hope, what that statement means. This is not philosophy forum.

I currently do my research in GSFC (Goddard space flight center), and I spoke to lot of scientists in gophysical field (which is my field as well) and I would quote if I could, but I do not have their permission, none of them would agree that humans have whatsoever do with global warming. We do pollute, we do waste resources, and all that -> but we did not cause global warming nor can we stop it or reduce it. The 7 +-4 gigatons of CO2 put out by humans compare to milions gigatons of CO2 that are in flux in nature is just not that significant. Note that CO2 concentration in oceans is in huge disequilibrium with atmospheric CO2 concentration. If it was for some reason to quilibriate we would really see some disaster.

I do argued and still stand not corrected that non-linear effects are to be researched, but I do not have nothing firm to stand on to claim that its immediate thread or that it cause GW.

Dont forget that I am reacting to the false article presentation of the issue of evidence. There is non evidence what so ever that humans cause global warming.

 

[Moridin]

The thing is that the world does not need more propaganda from either side. There is a massive amount evidence to suggest that humans influence their environment It is foolish to assume that we can do whatever we wish to nature and not worry about the consequences. The discussion is not and should not be about whether or not humans have a part, but how large that part is.

There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that agrees with humans affecting their environment. To what extent? Research is still being made and some propagandists supported by environmental lobbyists wants to shut it down. Authority is irrelevant in science, but consensus is what is written in textbooks.

I agree that the particular quote could be better written. However, I find it to be of immense value to move away from propaganda from both sides and continue to asses the evidence.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11637

We cannot afford to have convicted people disrupting or distorting scientific methodology. That goes for both sides. AIT is as guilty to this as GGWS.

Climate change is a natural process, influenced by humans or not. This is because humans are a part of nature. Both the terms 'global warming' and 'unnatural' is ambiguous. It should of course be 'climate change' and 'anthropogenic'.

What needs to be done is more research, not more political presentations.

 

[Andre]

Sneez, you're discussing the wrong things. better to go Popperian and demonstrate that the assumptions behind AGW are false and therefore AGW as in terrible and dramatic global warming is falsified regardless of the claims.

Hint

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=169202

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=162192