Scientists say the runaway greenhouse effect is worse than thought

Mod edit: the premise of the OP was somewhat misleading, but some posters invested a lot of effort into some cogent posts. It's not fair to them to delete the thread if it's possible to save it, but the thread belongs in Science, and the off-topic posts have been deleted. Let's give it another chance to go somewhere interesting and build off of some of the more insightful remarks

 

According to the study, burning fossil fuels will not trigger the Venus syndrome. To produce a runaway greenhouse, there would have to be about ten times more carbon dioxide placed into the atmosphere as you would get from burning all the coal, oil, and gas on the planet. Nevertheless, the consequences would be grave, said Goldblatt. “It won’t sterilize the planet,” he remarked, “but it might topple Western civilization.”

Eventually–in a billion and a half years or so–the sun’s brightness will increase and Earth will transition to a runaway greenhouse. At that point, Earth’s future will look like Venus’s past, the authors write.

Because the astronomers used a clear-sky model in their computer analysis, they say more research is necessary to factor in the moderating effect of clouds. Goldblatt said the researchers started off using the simplest model they could and plan to build in complexity as they continue to refine their results.

Read more: http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news...ns-boiling-away-say-scientists/#ixzz2abjtHECE


Close as in 1 1/2 billion years? *Gasp* what are we ever going to do ! (sarcasm)

 

Maybe after 1.5 billion years we already inhabit a lot of planets aside earth.
But a lot of freaky weather condition did occur nowadays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_extreme_weather_events

 

Well at least I won't be here to see it.

 

They said no such thing. They don't even so much as mention the GOP.

All they are saying is that they are revising the circumstances which could cause a runaway greenhouse. Not that that is actually happening or even will happen.

 

Planet Earth will be fine....Us, not so much.

 

TheBlackPearl, question. Did you not read the article (which clearly states that global warming would not cause this runaway phenomenon), or did you expect us to not read the article? Come on man, this is just bad.

 

1) You admit you're neutral and don't have the expertise to say one way or the other (no one on this forum does despite everyone else pretending).

2) You therefore don't take a ridiculous polarized stance, either mankind alone will destroy the planet, or nothing mankind can do whatsoever can have any impact at all, ever (the truth is in the middle).

So I would give you a double-like.

 

Humans won't destroy the planet. The planet has been through worse.. In fact, as I recall, the Earth used to be both a frozen ice world and a firy inferno at different stages.

Humans can't get rid of this planet. She's too resilient. Humans can however, and may, ruin the planet so that we ourselves can't live here. If we died off, the planet would recover from whatever we did to it, new species would fill new niches and life would go on, humans being a distant memory.

The thing about GW is, it will cause disruption. Agricultural and coastal and on ecosystems. That won't stop people from insisting that anyone who mentions GW is being a "chicken little".

Rather than bicker about who caused it, we should argue about what we can do to minimize the disruption it will cause, and plan for it.


Now that I think about it though, we could survive by going underground.. The same way the mammals emerged after the mass extinction of the dinosaurs.. We've adapted and that's why we're a successful species. In fact, according to some anthropologists, we can thank climate change.

Many species similar to us also walked the Earth at the same time. So they think that our brain evolved in order to figure out how to survive the drastically changing climate. The adaption worked and it should come in handy again.

 

Democrats are why roads cost so much. Prevailing wage laws, the environmentalists challenges.

Unions get more per student adjusted for inflation then ver before and teach smaller classes. They and democrats protect adult teachers from standards and quality is poor.

The earth is cooling at the moment, but that won't stop scientists with their hand out look for a stack of government cash. They need the cash more then struggling Americans. After all, they plan to use it on another study where they claim the world is ending but can't explain when or even the average temperature for next year.

- - - Updated - - -

You start digging your tunnel them if you actually believe in global warming and don't think it is chicken little stuff. Me, I won't hold my breath because i know you don't actually believe in global warming either.

 

Please can you name even one study that made such a conclusion?

My extra paragraph was just about describing the extreme things humans could be able to survive through. I doubt there's any climate change that could kill us off.

I believe in global warming sure, but I would never say it is apocalyptic. It will be for some species, but not us. For us, we will face disruption.

I would ask you about this cooling trend. When did it start? Is it a snapshot of a few years or less, or averaged out across decades?

 

Like global warming data, it is also just a small sample.

OK, maybe not the literal end of the world, but an "end of days" type disaster:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...million-could-die-from-climate-change-by-2030

"Scientists" also have found that 400k people died from global warming last year. Also they found that last year had the highest life expectancy for any human so far.

 

Pure pseudo-science. Governments have NEVER done proper science. I repeat NEVER. Not the FDA, not the NIST, not the EPA, NOBODY. That includes other similar bureaucracies from around the world. They issue "summaries" and "reports" (like this one) which aren't actually peer reviewed scientific studies.

If you are trying to make the argument that a lot of scientists are trying to hype a phony claim, I'd say you're right. As evidenced by what you've just shown..

Because they aren't real scientists and they have bypassed the scientific method.

ALWAYS.. I repeat ALWAYS look at actual scientific studies. These don't come from the government. Conflict of interest creates all sorts of scientific biases, especially observation bias and selection bias.

The same reason as DDT, asbestos, leaded gasoline (and currently GMO) are all summarily deemed safe.

Humans do affect the climate, but other factors affect it much much more.

 

Well that I can agree with. It is the alarmists that bother me. World of difference between rational weighing of costs and benefits of proposals, and the "The sky is falling we must act now, send billions to whomever wherever we are dying rawr!" crowd. You know, Obama, and his friends.

 

Overreaction is 90% of the global warming debate. The entire Kyoto agreement, some hundreds of billions, and other similar programs - all over reactions. Big money on little results because the populace is in fear mode, and the politicians are raking in the cash money because of it. Nothing pays out like fear and overreaction from the public. What you saw from OP is being played out all over America, all the time, every day.

 

Good thing we will have the safety of eastern civilization to rely upon.

 

Oh, you were agreeing with me. I thought you were referring to me overreacting.

 

Oh no, I was commenting on the current state of panic.

 

I agree.

While I am by no means a "leftist", I am a hardcore environmental advocate.

And that's why government psuedo-science pisses me off so much. It's discrediting real science which gets lumped in with the "tin foil hat" crap.

Also what is annoying is when people are barking up the shorter trees.. Take for example the rainforest demolition.. Let's put an end to that as it has more biodiversity than anywhere else on the planet and possibly more biodiversity that has ever existed on our planet (or the universe depending on how far you want to go).. PLUS, the trees eat Co2 anyway.

Saving the rainforests is the best goal right now in my opinion.

 

If you want me to better illustrate the inherent bias of government science, think about the carbon credits! Or whatever you call them. Yet another FAKE financial instrument in which thin air is traded... In fact there's not even any Co2 in that thin air.

 

climate-change deniers: those of these who have a principled denial possess a superior intellectual conscience; “principled” here means, generally, sound reasons.

corporate greed monsters: this doesn’t mean corporations who sell greed, there being no such commodity for sale. The number of Corporations with owners, operators, stock-holders and board members with the Democrat designation are too numerous and obvious to list here.

Ethical Capitalist have the resources to avoid Planetary death, as do unethical ones.

I have spoken <*cough*>.

 

hahaha, carbon credits, that is another one. Cap and trade is a goldmine for established business interests.

I say through private donations it is OK to save the rainforest, but I dont think the US should put political pressure on Brazil, Belize etc.. But this is why I am for lower taxes, so we can afford to donate to such luxuries.

Protecting ecosystems and the like is fine with, me I think the government should manage its commons, when it can clearly define them and show progress. Saving the rainforest is a good example, protecting wild fish/bird/beast stocks etc.. As long as we are doing it in a balanced way with measurable successes and results. I think that is best accomplished at the local level as close to the people affected as possible. Let Florida get their portion of environmental spending and let us restore the wetlands the government rearranged, instead of trying to educate all the divers in the world to not step on the reefs, why don't we just build them, it is cheaper and more effective, etc...

 

Any time you're cool with protecting biodiversity and life you get a like.

We need to do something internationally. Because they need farmland, resources etc.. So they are using what's available. If we want them to not use what's on their own land we have to offer replacements.

Similar to the concept behind providing energy grade uranium to stop a country from enriching their own.

 

I actually think bio diversity tends to take of itself. It is really the biomass we have to watch. Rain forests are not that old in terms of habitat. Most date from after the last ice age. Even the Great Barrier reef post date the last glacial period. I am all for conservation, I think it is grossly wrong to tear up resources just because we can, but to argue in favor of conservation we must choose the right arguments to present.

 

Of course.

The argument I present is that the rainforests, and trees in general, are not a separate topic to climate, in fact they are an integral part in the climate system. The whole world works together. That's nature.