Does anyone know, of a "worst case scenario" for Global Warming?

[Ophiolite]

The worst case scenario is that the methane hydrate at the bottom of the world’s oceans begins to melt, releasing methane into the atmosphere. Methane is ten times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.

The more the hydrate melted, the more the temperature would rise, and so the more it would melt - in a run away feedback loop which couldn’t be halted until the Earth was an oven.

And that, dear friends, answers Fermi's question "Where is everybody?"

 

[ralfyman]

Probably the clathrate gun hypothesis.

 

[HitchSlap]

Probably the clathrate gun hypothesis.

Well, that made my day.

 

[hedrick]

Isn’t there a similar possibility from release of methane due to warming permafrost? The permafrost bomb is ticking » Yale Climate Connections

 

[Brightmoon]

I'm talking to myself - this a bad sign.

I may have been unnecessarily confusing in my water comments.

For any lurkers let me explain:

• Warm water expands. Warmer water takes up more space because the water molecules are further apart due to the energy input (the 'warmness').
• Frozen water also expands compared to not-frozen water. This is related to the crystal lattice structure taken on by frozen water. Once again the molecules are further apart.

So... we have a weird situation where warm water has more volume than cooler water and frozen water has more volume than not-frozen water.

Don't blame me. I'm just the messenger.
OB

. the atoms in the crystal lattice takes up more room so the ice is less dense . Same amount of atoms as in liquid water but further apart . That’s why ice floats

 

[hedrick]

Another effect that wouldn't be a global problem but would certainly be a big deal for the US East Coast and the UK: weakening of the Gulf Stream.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

The extinction of Humans. I think that would be worst case.

 

[Ophiolite]

The extinction of Humans. I think that would be worst case.

Many mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates "inconvenienced" by human activity would view this as a plus.

 

[hedrick]

Many mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates "inconvenienced" by human activity would view this as a plus.

Except humans wouldn't be alone. Many species are dying off already. I don't believe extinction of humans is likely, at least not by climate change. Most likely is lots of displaced people. Extinction is unlikely unless the situation provokes a full-scale nuclear war. In that case not many other mammals will be left either, though the cockroaches might rejoice.

 

[Ophiolite]

Except humans wouldn't be alone. Many species are dying off already. I don't believe extinction of humans is likely, at least not by climate change. Most likely is lots of displaced people. Extinction is unlikely unless the situation provokes a full-scale nuclear war. In that case not many other mammals will be left either, though the cockroaches might rejoice.

The longer mankind survives, the more species are eliminated. I'm just speaking out for all those that are threatened by our activity. I'm not saying I agree with the position, but my cat insisted I make the point, as she is not currently a forum member.

 

[AV1611VET]

If we just keep using resources, at the rate we are, will we pollute the Earth beyond all reasonable use?

No.

Back in the 70s, we were told we'd run out of food w/i fifty years, assuming we didn't overpopulate ourselves out of house and home.

Well ... here we are fifty years later with almost twice the population, and we're still going strong; in spite of what the Doomsday Clock says.

Wasn't it the Gulf War that was supposed to choke out the sun if Saddam Hussein set fire to the oil fields?

He set fire to the oil fields and guess what?

Here we are posting.

Then Y2K was supposed to get us (assuming we survived through the Harmonic Convergence) ... and on and on it goes.

 

[sjastro]

No.

Back in the 70s, we were told we'd run out of food w/i fifty years, assuming we didn't overpopulate ourselves out of house and home.

Well ... here we are fifty years later with almost twice the population, and we're still going strong; in spite of what the Doomsday Clock says.

Wasn't it the Gulf War that was supposed to choke out the sun if Saddam Hussein set fire to the oil fields?

He set fire to the oil fields and guess what?

Here we are posting.

Then Y2K was supposed to get us (assuming we survived through the Harmonic Convergence) ... and on and on it goes.

My failure not to get a visual field test didn't result in me going blind from Glaucoma is just as valid as any of your examples.............

 

[hedrick]

Back in the 70s, we were told we'd run out of food w/i fifty years, assuming we didn't overpopulate ourselves out of house and home.

This thread of the discussion (which is not due to you) is a straw man. The claim isn't that humans will go out of existence. It is more frequent disasters, particularly in areas near the oceans. And more refugees.

 

[AV1611VET]

This thread of the discussion (which is not due to you) is a straw man. The claim isn't that humans will go out of existence. It is more frequent disasters, particularly in areas near the oceans. And more refugees.

Okay, thanks.

 

[hedrick]

FEMA is currently proposing protection for many cities. It's not clear that it can be funded. Even if it is, smaller cities are unlikely to get it. Things don't happen dramatically. We're not going to get the whole population of a major city moving out. What we will get is increasing numbers of residents and businesses not rebuliding after disasters. The US will survive this. In my opinion the real concern is poorer countries, where the combination of hideous climates in some areas and increased disasters will produce even more refugees than we have now. And in some areas, deaths. Here's one worst-case situation: South Asia May Become Too Hot for Humans to Survive by 2100. Note that this is in an area that's already too hot for comfort, so that a few degrees can make a big difference. It's even happening in the US, but numbers are small: Our cities are getting hotter—and it’s killing people. Forest fires in California, and indirectly large blackouts, are almot certainly related.

None of this will cause humans to die out, and in the long run people will move (or in the worst case, die in certain areas) but people will die, refugees will cause all kinds of problems, and in situations like this, wars are not impossible.

 

[AV1611VET]

None of this will cause humans to die out, and in the long run people will move (or in the worst case, die in certain areas) but people will die, refugees will cause all kinds of problems, and in situations like this, wars are not impossible.

Okay, thanks.

 

[carlv_52]

Another effect that wouldn't be a global problem but would certainly be a big deal for the US East Coast and the UK: weakening of the Gulf Stream.

Fun aspect of the shutdown of the Thermohaline Circulation in the Atlantic is that it would cause Western Europe to get COLDER even though (and actually BECAUSE) the globe is getting warmer. This would be seriously confusing to climate skeptics but makes perfect sense if one understands a bit of science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Fun aspect of the shutdown of the Thermohaline Circulation in the Atlantic is that it would cause Western Europe to get COLDER even though (and actually BECAUSE) the globe is getting warmer. This would be seriously confusing to climate skeptics but makes perfect sense if one understands a bit of science.

Well if the globe is actually getting warmer, it could be due to this:

Isaiah 5:14a Therefore hell hath enlarged herself,

 

[Caliban]

Hi there,

So I actually mailed my government about this and did not get an answer: is there a "worst case scenario" for Global Warming?

If we just keep using resources, at the rate we are, will we pollute the Earth beyond all reasonable use? Or is there a slow ebb of fossil fuels that will eventually take second place to renewable energy sources? How much pressure are we under?

I never hear about the pros and cons of Global Warming, it's always "alarm! catastrophe!", but no detail?

Thanks, for your help.

Here is a January article from The Atlantic.
Are We Living Through Climate Change’s Worst-Case Scenario?

 

[hedrick]

Well if the globe is actually getting warmer, it could be due to this:

Isaiah 5:14a Therefore hell hath enlarged herself,

Yes, but probably not in the sense you're thinking.

If you look at the whole context, starting around 5:11, this is a condemnation of national leaders who are more concerned about their own ease that the job God gave them. Sheol enlarging its mouth and taking more people in is a consequence of that. You can make a good case that global warming is at least in part due to global leadership not being willing to face a difficult task.