The Earth's Tipping Point

[Trippy]

I think you have it backwards. It's only if greenhouse gasses increase or remain the same that we will not experience an ige age. If we cut hydrocarbons, then the natural cycle of ige ages might continue.

We don't need the extra carbon in the atmosphere yet - as evidenced by the fact that we're causing warming. So we're using up a finite resource at an unsustainable pace, at a time when the effects of doing so are not beneficial for staving off an iceage. Cutting hydrocarbons so that we still have them to burn when we actually need to burn them is precisely what we need to do - assuming that you want to follow down that path and maintain the climate we currently have. There's a paper somewhere discussing the details of when we need to burn them, and how much we need to burn.

[spidergoat]

But they will remain in the environment for thousands of years, it's very difficult to get rid of them.

[Trippy]

But they will remain in the environment for thousands of years, it's very difficult to get rid of them.

No. Carbondioxide has a residence time of 100 years in Earths atmosphere.
It takes one hundred years to reduce to 33% of the original amount with no new input, and one thousand years to reduce to 20%. Orbital periodicity occurs over a time scale of tens of thousands of years and the plan I have seen which calls for a reduction in consumption now could postpone the next iceage by either 50k or 500k years (I forget which it is).

As I said, it's not my assertion that we need to reduce usage now to conserve hydrocarbons for future usage.

[FTLinmedium]

Uthe spatial distribution of Albedo variations on Earths surface is not uniform, so changing which part of the earth recieves peak insolation, when that peak insolation occurs, and how much the insolation varies is going to affect climate.

I see what you're getting at. Albedo is pretty trivial and easy to control, though.

We can spray black stuff, or shiny white stuff, on any surface (or even mirrors).

Only that's not what happens. The carbonic acid doesn't leach into the soil, the carbondioxide either dissolves directly into the oceans or it reacts in the presence of water with freshly exposed silicates.

I'm talking about from rain. That's only part of it, of course.

You apparently haven't stopped to consider what those changes in weather patterns might be, how many people might be affected, what those effects like be, or indeed if they might accelerate the onset of the iceage.

We can compensate for any rapid changes in albedo- I don't believe that such changes would accelerate the onset of the ice age if we were vigilant.


How many people might an ice age affect? It's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

I'm just arguing with your assertion that an ice age is inevitable. We have the technology to avert any potential ice age, as long as our infrastructure doesn't collapse. Climate change is still potentially disastrous either way.

[Trippy]

And then there's Hamakers work. Hamaker is convinced that increasing ppCO2 results in increasing temp, but that increasing temp is largely confined to the tropics. His hypothesis continues that when this happens, there is increased transport of moisture to the poles, which results in increased precipitation as snow, and storage as ice. His hypothesis is that there is a tipping point where the increased area of the polar ice fields is sufficient to cause cooling. Once this tipping point is reached, the climate begins cooling, however, the poles are now cooling efficiently enough to maintain the temperature difference between the poles and the equator, which means the continue growing, and a glaciation occurs.

Note that I'm not commenting on the merit of the hypothesis.

[Trippy]

I see what you're getting at. Albedo is pretty trivial and easy to control, though.

We can spray black stuff, or shiny white stuff, on any surface (or even mirrors).

Quite, and as I have mentioned, increasing the albedo of cities is one of the geoengineering projects that has been considered to combat climate change.

We can compensate for any rapid changes in albedo- I don't believe that such changes would accelerate the onset of the ice age if we were vigilant.

I understand your point in that regard. What I am concerned about, however, is the law of unintended consequences, and mother natures propensity for springing surprises upon us.

How many people might an ice age affect? It's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

:Shrug:

I'm just arguing with your assertion that an ice age is inevitable.

Call it a personal opinion then.

Orbital changes are inevitable, the only question then becomes whether or not we can alter our environment without upsetting its delicate checks and balances in just the right way.

We have the technology to avert any potential ice age, as long as our infrastructure doesn't collapse.

Even if we assume you're right - my statement is as mucha social statement and a statement about international politics as it is technology, but the question also remains of whether or not we can reverse those changes quickly enough should we discover some unintended adverse consequence.

Painting everything black doesn't just change the albedo, it potentially creates a stationary low pressure system, which in turn is going to influence global atmospheric circulation. That in turn is going to potentially have follow on consequences of at least a hemispheric scale.

Climate change is still potentially disastrous either way.

Agreed.

[StrawDog]

@ Trippy

Many thanks for your informed insights. Really learn a lot from your posts. Its folk like you that give me hope that perhaps - eventually, sanity will prevail over endemic ignorance and capitalist malfeasance.

[KilljoyKlown]

This problem happens when the Earth warms up.

Ocean surface currents redistribute heat around the world and have a profound effect on the world’s climate. Nowhere is this clearer than in the North Atlantic Ocean. The Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current ferry huge volumes of warm salty tropical water north to the Greenland coast and to the Nordic Seas. Heat radiating off of this water helps keep the countries of northwest Europe, which are at the same latitude as Labrador and Greenland, relatively comfortable places to live.

Many scientists, however, are warning that the North Atlantic might cool down, perhaps by the turn of the century. Paradoxically, global warming would be to blame. Rising temperatures may trigger events that could not only slow the supply of tropical water flowing north, it could disrupt the entire ocean circulation pattern.

This scenario has led to wild talk of the start of a new ice age, a notion that climate scientists universally dismiss. Still the impact on the world’s climate could be profound. Scientists are therefore scrambling to gather data on ocean circulation and the forces that drive it.

Complete article at: http://oceanmotion.org/html/impact/conveyor.htm

[FTLinmedium]

I understand your point in that regard. What I am concerned about, however, is the law of unintended consequences, and mother natures propensity for springing surprises upon us.

That's true, but the surprises tend to be pretty slow. The most disastrous thing would be severe storms which destroy our infrastructure and interfere with our ability to continue our climate engineering efforts.

Orbital changes are inevitable, the only question then becomes whether or not we can alter our environment without upsetting its delicate checks and balances in just the right way.

Yes, though we can always avoid an ice age by producing a runaway greenhouse effect and turning the planet into Venus.

Stability is delicate- but going for the other extreme wouldn't necessarily be. I think we can safely say that Venus is not at any immediate risk of another ice age.

Even if we assume you're right - my statement is as mucha social statement and a statement about international politics as it is technology, but the question also remains of whether or not we can reverse those changes quickly enough should we discover some unintended adverse consequence.

That's fair, but I wouldn't call any statement about politics and society 'inevitable'- that's an extreme evaluation of certainty, and international politics tend to be very uncertain.

'Very probable' I would accept. Inevitable is just too extreme for me- it rejects any possibility (no matter how slim) to the contrary. My suggestions for climate engineering assume a little good luck (in the sense of positive outcomes where the result is currently unknown), and unprecedented (but possible) global cooperation- which is a possibility based on our current knowledge.

[Trippy]

That's true, but the surprises tend to be pretty slow. The most disastrous thing would be severe storms which destroy our infrastructure and interfere with our ability to continue our climate engineering efforts.

I can think of worse scenarios. Not all surprises are slow.

Yes, though we can always avoid an ice age by producing a runaway greenhouse effect and turning the planet into Venus.

Stability is delicate- but going for the other extreme wouldn't necessarily be. I think we can safely say that Venus is not at any immediate risk of another ice age.

I don't recall advocating reaching for an extreme, or, for that matter, implying that one would be desirable. I was simply saying that there are a whole bunch of finely tuned interlocking mechanisms, and it's very difficult to change one without affecting change in others. Again, we come back to chaotic behaviour, and the fact that a even a relatively simple system acting in a quasi-periodic fashion can be driven into a chaotic state. It just requres the right push at the right place at the right time.

That's fair, but I wouldn't call any statement about politics and society 'inevitable'- that's an extreme evaluation of certainty, and international politics tend to be very uncertain.

'Very probable' I would accept. Inevitable is just too extreme for me- it rejects any possibility (no matter how slim) to the contrary. My suggestions for climate engineering assume a little good luck (in the sense of positive outcomes where the result is currently unknown), and unprecedented (but possible) global cooperation- which is a possibility based on our current knowledge.

Attribute it to my cynicism in humanity then, if it makes you more comfortable with my certitude. Take aspects of the discussion in this thread as an empirical demonstration of the foundation of that cynicism. This isn't the first time I've had these disucssions. This isn't even the first time I've had these discussions with The Estoricist. I have recently been reminded that I had almost exactly the same discussion with him twelve months ago, only this time I chose to go into more depth for the benefit of the 'third parties' in the conversation.

I work for the government in environmental law enforcement. I'm a warranted enforcement officer. I have the legal authority to fine people for dumping crap in rivers, and have taken on corporations such as Kentucky Fried Chicken in doing so. I don't get a lot of field work though, my boss decided I was more useful in the office doing statistics than I was out in the field doing investigations. I will be honest though, my certainty in this matter is something that I sincerely hope I will see proven misguided.

I do appreciate the feedback I have had though.

[FTLinmedium]

I can think of worse scenarios. Not all surprises are slow.

I would be very interested to hear some of your ideas on possible scenarios, if you care to share.

Maybe my imagination is stopping short at severe storms. I could use some fresh nightmares

I don't recall advocating reaching for an extreme, or, for that matter, implying that one would be desirable.

I didn't mean to suggest it; just that it's another viable possibility. Maybe more likely than humans actually getting their acts together.

Attribute it to my cynicism in humanity then, if it makes you more comfortable with my certitude. Take aspects of the discussion in this thread as an empirical demonstration of the foundation of that cynicism.

That's more understandable. Faith in human idiocy may be one of the most justified faiths there are. I'm still inclined towards agnosticism, even on that though.

I will be honest though, my certainty in this matter is something that I sincerely hope I will see proven misguided.

Maybe this is just me, but I'd like to live long enough to be proven right OR wrong on the subject

[citizen477]

I, too, share your frustration.

Just the other day, I mentioned to a neighbor of mine who used to be my bus mate on the Route 183 Local on the same route to work how -- since the recession -- there has been less over-dumping in our dumpsters and that the apartment complex has been generally cleaner. I jokingly added, "It's [the recession] a good thing since now we are consuming a bit less and, maybe... just maybe... we are finally living below our means," insinuating that our natural environment will be getting a break from over-consumption.

She literally gasped and reprimanded me for my comments, and went into a diatribe about "...putting myself in the business owner's shoes..." and how I was "...inconsiderate for not thinking about the amount of people out there without jobs..." and "... families who have lost their homes..." and on and on. Let's just say, I felt like the very trash in the dumpster when she was finished with me. Since then, she has stopped sitting next to me on the bus.

Perhaps, I should not have said what I said, but the point I'm making is that so many people are caught up with the current economic situation that it is making any debate about the environment even more difficult to have.

[Oystein]

Humans are like locusts. No, they are much worse than locusts. (Sorry, I didn't mean to insult locusts.) Humans are sucking every last resource from the Earth, managed and used mostly by the wealthier nations. In George Carlin's wise premonition: "The Earth will shake off people like a bad case of fleas." What was God thinking when he created Man? Was he drunk that night? Or hungover the next day?

[scheherazade]

Originally posted by Trippy

I work for the government in environmental law enforcement. I'm a warranted enforcement officer. I have the legal authority to fine people for dumping crap in rivers, and have taken on corporations such as Kentucky Fried Chicken in doing so. I don't get a lot of field work though, my boss decided I was more useful in the office doing statistics than I was out in the field doing investigations. I will be honest though, my certainty in this matter is something that I sincerely hope I will see proven misguided.

I do appreciate the feedback I have had though.

Most of my adult life, I have observed and questioned the activity and trends around me from the perspective of an average female 'consumer' who has a strong affinity for nature having spent many years living 'off the grid'. For a time I was somewhat intrigued by the many new offerings designed to save time and make one's life less arduous. Then I became annoyed at the redundancy of options and the increasingly short lifespans of so many consumer products designed to fail and require replacement and the huge amount of waste, much of it toxic, being generated by this pattern, and how best to properly deal with it.

While the developed nations have been enjoying this carnival of commodities, aging infrastructure is crumbling in many older cities, much of the global population remains still without the bare necessities of life and we have increasing loss of jobs and homelessness in Canada and the U.S., among the wealthiest of the world's nations.

From involvement with volunteer firefighting, I have first hand experience of how reluctant our species is to invest money in infrastructure that is preventative and proactive, emergency equipment and training that needs be kept current and in readiness though one hopes to deploy it only seldom. We are a species that is fascinated with the 'now' and an apparent reluctance to deal with unpleasant realities though they be staring us in the face.

Sometimes I feel like a shepherd for lemmings: I do my utmost to lead by example and share what I have experienced, providing effort and attention to the well-being of others, though I rather suspect they are going to race to the brink of the precipice and only then realize that there is no turning back.

I, too, hope that I am proven wrong.

[kx000]

May good man stand all at once and say this is ours (the earth)?

[kx000]

Humans are like locusts. No, they are much worse than locusts. (Sorry, I didn't mean to insult locusts.) Humans are sucking every last resource from the Earth, managed and used mostly by the wealthier nations. In George Carlin's wise premonition: "The Earth will shake off people like a bad case of fleas." What was God thinking when he created Man? Was he drunk that night? Or hungover the next day?

Don't lump me in.

[The Marquis]

You're a fool, brucep, if you think you can narrow down this debate anything so simple as the "ruling elite". Can you not cast your prejudices aside for just one moment, long enough to reslise that it is fact you, and everyone else, who is responsible?

The problem you really face is that you don't know where power actually resides.
Your "ruling elite" do. Which is, of course, why they are what they are, and will be, as long as the status quo remains.

[Billy T]

... I could use some fresh nightmares...

This should satisfy you:

Scientists say supervolcanoes may buildup toward eruption faster than previously thought, and that the Yellowstone supervolcano may be due for eruption.
According to Vanderblit News, super volcano eruptions have "potential to end civilization." New studies show they have "surprisingly short fuses."
Eruptions are known as super-eruptions because "they are more than 100 times the size of ordinary volcanic eruptions... They spew out tremendous flows of super-heated gas, ash and rock capable of blanketing entire continents and inject enough particulate into the stratosphere to throw the global climate into decade-long volcanic winters."

With no food production (little sunlight) for more than a decade everyone dies, but hot ash and toxic gases initially at 300C or so would kill nearly all living in North America in the first day.

If that is not scary enough, try CNN's video at: http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/27/p...can-do-is-run/ With this lead in text:
"... There's no way to determine precisely when the explosion will occur but scientists say the ground around the volcano has started to swell, indicating subterranean activity. It was a similar volcano that helped bring an end to the dinosaurs and this one will 'wipe out the United States as we know it', Dr. Kaku says. But Dr. Kaku is also telling people not to panic because the volcano could blow at any moment.." (or not for 100,000 years, but it WILL blow up.)

[KilljoyKlown]

This should satisfy you:

With no food production (little sunlight) for more than a decade everyone dies, but hot ash at 300C or so would kill nearly all living in North America in the first day.

If that is not scary enough, try CNN's video at: http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/27/p...can-do-is-run/ With this lead in text:
"... There's no way to determine precisely when the explosion will occur but scientists say the ground around the volcano has started to swell, indicating subterranean activity. It was a similar volcano that helped bring an end to the dinosaurs and this one will 'wipe out the United States as we know it', Dr. Kaku says. But Dr. Kaku is also telling people not to panic because the volcano could blow at any moment.."

Yep! Looks bad for the U.S. and the rest of the world will mostly die too, but they'll just take a bit longer. There's lots of things that might get us and we can't prepare for them all. Anyway if it doesn't happen within the next 30 years, I won't be to worried about it. Also, I think I'll mostly be safe from global warming problems. Once again after my time here.

[Billy T]

Yep! Looks bad for the U.S. and the rest of the world will mostly die too, but they'll just take a bit longer. There's lots of things that might get us and we can't prepare for them all. ...

True but at about 1% of the annual cost of manned Mars mission we could plan for some humans to survive the supervolcano and 99+% of all big asteroid hits.

A couple hundred or more young (25 > age > 18) well above average intelligence women, all vegitarians as no animals survie either, with no known serious genetic defects should be identified, who would be willing to preserve the species by living in well stocked shelter when suppervolcano was highly likely (large earth quakes in the Yellowstone area more often than monthly). Say 40 or 50 young ones replace the older ones each year on the "stand by list." Shelter would have at least 5 years of food*, air purification and power generation system with about a years capacity (but that is just my guess - studies need to be done).

They would be trained in artificial insemination and have a few LN containers of sperm, but no men in the shelter. A male and female society of unrelated kids would be born to replinish the earth after all others are dead.

Norway has created a seed depository on an artic island to protect against global grain diseases. US should do the same for human species, IMHO before wasting a lot of money sending men to Mars.

*Oldest replace annually and given to the poor.

BTW, you quoted my post before I noted I had forgotten to add "and toxic gases" after "hot ash" as what kills nearly all in N. America in the first day.

... if it doesn't happen within the next 30 years, I won't be to worried about it.

I do. Other than the pleasure you can get by doing so, the only point to living is to keep the species alive.