andypro7 said:
I don't know where you're getting your information, unless there happens to be a swami sitting next to you. The actual carbon outputs are here: Uh, that doesn't address the issue, which is this: We are also at the highest carbon content ever recorded, which has always been followed by a rise in temperature What you did is show a graph that shows CO2 content. I did not argue the first part (though I could), but rather the second, that it is ALWAYS followed by a rise in temps. Again, that's simply not true. The reason that we can see carbon content OVERTAKE the temperature rise in the natural cycle is because of a positive feedback loop What about negative feedbacks? Here's a great article on how nature deals with positive feedbacks:
Nature abhors a positive feedback | Watts Up With That? And if that's not enough, here's how the IPCC sees it in AR4: “A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.” Even the IPCC admit they can't accurately assess climate sensitivity to feedbacks. we would be in the midst of a cooling trend We ARE in the midst of a cooling trend. You didn't address the ice core temp data set. This current modern, less-than-a-degree warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is a tiny tiny blip on the overall 10k year cooling trend.
We aren't in the midst of a cooling trend. I said we ought to be. But for the last century, we have been in a warming trend. It's a fact. Nature hates positive feedbacks only because the system needs multiple feedback loops to work. Usually, when carbon is released in the atmosphere, the trees absorb it through photosynthesis and the oceans absorb it and it is used by animals to create the shells they use. Those two negative feedbacks USED to reverse warming trends. But they aren't now. We've destroyed large amounts of forest land. The giant carbon sinks that used to exist in the rainforests of Africa and South America are being destroyed by developments and lumber farms. They may be planting new trees here in America, but those manmade forests boast a much weaker level of biodiversity and carbon sink capabilities. The only forest biome that has lost less than 10% of its area is the boreal forests of Canada and Siberia, though logging in Siberia has started to threaten that.
That's usually ok, but oceans have reached saturation with carbon dioxide, and instead of the carbon dioxide being used by shellfish, it's chemically reacting with the water to make carbonic acid, that dissolves the shells of the very fish that require carbon dioxide.
Ok, but what about the reflecting ice in the poles? Well that reflecting ice is melting, making way for dark, heat absorbing water, which is carried through the hydrothermal belt currents. As the heat builds to about another half degree, that hydrothermal belt will shut down, and two things will happen:
1. Deep water species will experience a mass extinction event as oxygen from the surface no longer comes to the bottom of the ocean. Most likely, 80% of all species that live along the ocean floor will die out and the anaerobic creatures will flourish at the bottom
2. Those anaerobic bacteria have a very potent side effect: the production of more methane, which will be an unstoppable source of carbon in our atmosphere. Instead of being a feedback loop, methane from anaerobic organisms is a direct feedback that grows exponentially regardless of the extenuating circumstances. More methane means more heat. Also, they produce sulfur compounds, which not only stink like rotten eggs, but are also poisonous to mammals. So you could say goodbye to going to the beach. Unless a smelly death is your idea of a good vacation.
If this is sounding like part of the book of revelation, that's probably because you'll see a massive extinction of marine wildlife, the destruction of coral, and a likely reddish yellow tinge to the water.
Oh, and water will start to stay in the atmosphere as it gets hotter. It will simply stay evaporated in our atmosphere. Funny thing about that is. That water is even more effective as a greenhouse gas than any carbon molecule.
Before you ask how we know what a runaway greenhouse death of the planet would look like, we can look at one in our own solar system. Venus is in the right area to have liquid water and could support life if it weren't for its runaway greenhouse effect.
Essentially, if we do nothing, we may as well make all future satellites bear the sign: "welcome to hell: we hate our own planet"
