How long will global temps continue to rise?

[Lettucing Gutted]

How long will global temps continue to rise?

[Mondy]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...global_warming/

[Lettucing Gutted]

Here are your poll options:-

1. 50 years

2. 100 years

3. 200 years

4. 500 years

5. 1000 years

6. 2000 years

7. 5000 years

8. 10,000 years

9. 15,000 years

10. 20,000 years

11. At least 1 million years

12. More than 1 million years

EDIT: I am sorry I did a duplicate of this topic. I had a problem trying to set up this poll.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Craig Evans

[parmenides3]

The effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere will continue for hundreds, maybe a thousand or more, years (and not less than 200). This is the 'official' line. The reason for this is that it takes a long time for the CO2 to dissipate once it is in the system, and because the eco/biosystems which help control CO2, the plants and oceans, are being changed already, leading to a knock-on effect. Note, though, that warming slows down eventually (it isn't a linear rise) if emissions are curbed, and that other factors need to be taken into consideration if certain scenarios unfold in the future (like excessive emissions). As these variables depend on what we do, not the climate, it is impossible to be accurate about how long the impacts of AGW will last.

There is also a theory around at the moment that the climate will stabilise at a new level of atmospheric CO2 at some future date, thus slowing down, and eventually stopping, the warming. Note here, though, that the temperatures never return to their original state (without external forcing).

:)P

[Wynn D Woo]

you need an 'as long as humans inhabit the planet option'!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

How about less than 15 years.

P3 why did higher levels of CO2 in past times lead to iceage yet somehow this time is different. That has never been answered and I suspect it won't this time either. [no disrespect to you but I'm saying the answer is not known]

Also I've got to add that ITV for example really annoys me when they say the antarctic is warming and the ice is melting when 90% has been cooling since 1966...its just the peninsula and sea ice in the area. Also I hate people dumping crap all over the place without recycling or responsible disposal.

BFTP

Edited February 9, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[VillagePlank]

I think you should add 'I don't know' option. As, you'd be surprised to hear, I don't know.

[Gray-Wolf]

Windswept. Your 'required' option is the 100yr answer (LOL).

[noggin]

I think they've probably peaked/plateau'ed (?grammar) as I have mentioned before.

My view has for a long time been that these cycles of warming and cooling are natural. I think too that 2 and 2 have been put together and have come to 5 re Man's effect on global temperature fluctuations. The Sun is a very powerful thing....look at the differences in temperature between day and night and also between the Seasons. Surely imperceptible (to us) changes in the Sun would account for temperature fluctuations. Plus things like tilting. I really cannot believe that we mere mortals are responsible.

Also, look at the article recently linked to on another thread....roughly as follows:

early 20th century.... media reports that global cooldown is imminent

next chunk of 20th century.... media reports that global warm-up on the way

next few decades of 20th century..... media reports that a global cooldown is on the way

recent years.......it's warming up again!

....time for a cooldown now, methinks.

Just like English people are reputed to have "weather" as their favourite topic of conversation, so the media has it as one of their favourite bandwagons and it is the one upon which they are currently riding.

Must dash......off to work!

regards to all

noggin

[Anti-Mild]

All of the research indicates that rising CO2 levels result in rising temperatures. What if it the other way around?

I don't believe that that is the case but I read an article that put forward the idea that the climate leads the CO2.

Re. the poll, there is no option for 'less than 50 years'. That's what I would choose.

[davehsug]

Sorry, but as others have said my preferred option or a dont know option was not available so I was unable to vote

Dave

[Stratos Ferric]

All of the research indicates that rising CO2 levels result in rising temperatures. What if it the other way around?

I don't believe that that is the case but I read an article that put forward the idea that the climate leads the CO2.

Re. the poll, there is no option for 'less than 50 years'. That's what I would choose.

The generally received wisdom is that, as P3 suggests, it would take decades to reverse warming even if we stopped producing CO2 now.

Noggin: we shall see. You only have to look back 2-3 years here on N-W for examples of the "hopeful minority" promising cold winters and a reversal. Each autumn I say pretty much the same thing; that should we have another mild winter then the argument that this is just a normal cycle becomes more tenuous. What I ponder is how many years without any reversal, or (more likely) more trend warming, before you accept that this is a long warming trend. To be fair to you I'll state quite clearly my opposite hypothesis; if we get back to back years with the CET <10 (this is still a historically high level) then I'll start believeing that maybe there isn't anything in AGW. I the meantime, instead of mulling over the "if's, but's and maybe's" I'll go with the numbers, which march relentless upwards.

BF/AM: I'm not sure we'll ever settle that one. It's possible there were other drivers and factors coming together. What we do know is the physical effect of CO2, and the undeniable fact that we are increasing emissions - these two factors together lead to warming. Thereafter there are other feedback mechanisms that might increase CO2 load and speed up warming. Arguing unknown past drivers in the face of considerable present evidence to the contrary is, at best I think, tenuous argument. There are a few misattributions of data Blast, but the fact remains that globally temperatures are warming quite considerably and fairly consistently.

Two or three years ago, on slow-watch, I would readily admit that whilst personally holding the view that we were in the throes of AGW, the statistical case was at best directional. Three years on the statistical case is starting to look more compelling. I know Mondy has said he'll never accept warming / AGW (visions of the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail come to mind), but it would be good to gauge where the rest of the sceptics are: at what point in terms of accrued data / evidence would you accept the thesis of GW / AGW. At least then we know whether your scepticism is founded on a rigorous statistical position, or simply an absoute refusal ever to accept AGW.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't know, but my best guess is 1000 years.

[Optimus Prime]

I think if we knew we would all be billionaires.

So I'll guess more then 1 million years.

[snowsure]

... but it would be good to gauge where the rest of the sceptics are: at what point in terms of accrued data / evidence would you accept the thesis of GW / AGW. At least then we know whether your scepticism is founded on a rigorous statistical position, or simply an absoute refusal ever to accept AGW.

If I think of how weather patterns have changed for me (35 years living in the same locality) I would have to accept that climate change is real and starting to have a major impact on some of the seasons. The climate shift is however still subtle. If I compare this Jan/Feb to Jan/Feb 1998 (this first year of data recording for me) I see no major change. The crocuses were 6cm high on 9th Jan 1998. On Jan 20th this year they were 6cm high.

Feb 8th 1999 was cold with snow flurries.

Feb 2000, dry and mild

Feb 2001, cold and sleety

Feb 2002, cold

Feb 2003, Frosty

Feb 2004, mild

Feb 2005, snowy

Feb 2006, mild

Feb 2007, snow

However, and this is the crux of the matter, we are not limited to local conditions anymore. I see in Kittila that the temp is -20oC just as it has been for the last few weeks. We hear of more odd weather events now. We are starting to think that what is happening to others is also happening to us.

It is surely important to seperate the pre and post internet ages as their influence on our perceptions are very different. I would suggest that people who live in ignorance of other events around the world would have a different take on AGW than some of the anoraks (me included!) on this site who are actively searching for evidence to back-up or help forge their position.

As a one time believer in the climate flip-flop scenario (William H Calvin) I now think that the climate is not on the verge of a massive overnight climate shift. However I reckon that what happens last year will probably happen next year, but to a more or less degree! Subtlety reigns supreme 99% of the time with the earth. We experience chaotic random events on an earth-wide scale very, very rarely.

[Gray-Wolf]

In english law 'ingnorance' isn't a plea as you have a personal duty of care to those around you so post internet we should be utilising this 'greater world view' The nature of climate change is varied and whilst your locale may not be affected a similar sized area in another part of the world may be.

You are right ,'ignorance is bliss' ,but we are no longer ignorant nor can we return to that state so we had better use our 'media senses' to explore our personal world like never before and gain a fuller, more rounded view on what is happening out there.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

SF

More like the response from you I am accustomed to, measured and well presented. My thoughts are, we are increasing C02 without a doubt but what are the effects and what was the 'extra' forcing that caused an iceage to fiollow 'every time' it rose so high. You are right we may never know the answer but my thoughts are that

1] we must be responsible and do what we can to improve the situation

2] CO2 imperially has been higher yet reversal kicked in...why not now..if C02 increase was due to volcanic eruptions it would increase and increase until something caused a switch. Was it due to ocean warming? I believe that is current driver as no way should the oceans be warming as quick as air/land temps...no way but they are!

3] we cannot halt progress, we are destined to fly and fly further and faster..transport if you like. CO2 has an effect but I have not seen evidence about why this time is different to the past....surely CO2 is CO2.

BFTP

[kold weather]

Hard tocall how long warming will go on, i suspect a long term warming woulsd happen regardless of AGW or not so i'll go another 190 years before a slow slow slow cool-down, eventually towards a new ice age in about 20,000 years time!

[Stratos Ferric]

SF

...

2] CO2 imperially has been higher yet reversal kicked in...why not now..if C02 increase was due to volcanic eruptions it would increase and increase until something caused a switch. Was it due to ocean warming? I believe that is current driver as no way should the oceans be warming as quick as air/land temps...no way but they are!

3] we cannot halt progress, we are destined to fly and fly further and faster..transport if you like. CO2 has an effect but I have not seen evidence about why this time is different to the past....surely CO2 is CO2.

BFTP

The only answer I can offer re "what's different [given that CO2 has been higher]" is that other factors must have been present which are not present now. It is also not beyond the bounds of possibility that an as yet unforseen feedback loop might kick in to correct the situation, but let's be clear, there's a considerable mass of brainpower behind the warming thesis, and as I keep pointing out, the longer warming continues unabated the harder this line is to deny.

It's also potentially the case that in the past something else drove warming and that led to a release of CO2, much as is projected to happen now if permafrosts melt. Don't let's any of us fall into the trap of supposing that all similar outcomes have similar drivers, or that similar sequences lead to similar outcomes.

The thing that I suspect is different this time is the rate of increase, the rise is clearly faster than nature herself would muster (without external forcing) ad hence many of the planet's systems will re-equilibrate. It's the latter than I'd be more concerned about, because the outcome of these is harder to know.

[Mondy]

*must resist*

[Mondy]

*Edit - he can't resist*

As North/Central United States is under the coldest temperatures seen in over 60 years the question was asked on CNN "Is Mankind causing Global Warming?"

The reply, "Well, of course, the record low temperatures and snow cover proves that man is causing Global Warming."

Man, ya can't argue with logic like that..

Edited February 10, 2007 by Mondy

[Stratos Ferric]

*Edit - he can't resist*

As North/Central United States is under the coldest temperatures seen in over 60 years the question was asked on CNN "Is Mankind causing Global Warming?"

The reply, "Well, of course, the record low temperatures and snow cover proves that man is causing Global Warming."

Man, ya can't argue with logic like that..

Well, assuming that wasn't taken out of context, and isn't ironic, it is a silly comment, but then attributing significance either way to any single event, however extreme, is a statisitical nonsense.

[Mondy]

Just for you SF!..

Edited February 11, 2007 by Mondy

[Mondy]

Here's how the IPCC actually made their point:

1) Instead of using 95% Confidence Interval (a basic statistical term) as a threshold of Statistical Significance, adjust it down to 80% or 90%. (It's called "new statistics", I believe)

2) Use this process to generate the summary:

3) Math-deficient journalists and politicians will somehow view it more credible if the Summary can be released on Groundhog Day.

4) Withhold the backup data for months until it can be edited "to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers" (their words, not mine).

Reference: http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/

...and they call it science..

PS. After all they have done with the Oil for Food program, who would trust the U.N. to make climate policy?

Edited February 11, 2007 by Mondy

[Methuselah]

Well, more out of hope than any expectation (The short-termist views of the 'skeptics'/vested interests are too well documented for that, I think?), I've gone for 100 years...

Oh dear!