What do you think are the capabilities of man caused climate change?

[Deuce]

Of course too much warming could be a problem,
But you have not addressed the original question.
What do you all think is the upper limit of AGW capability?

The upper limit depends on how obsessively we burn fossil fuels. You're asking us to predict humanity's behavior going forward centuries.

Answer your own question, and show proof.

 

[Glitch]

We see a lot of hyperbole related to what will happen if we do not fix Human caused climate change.

Can you provide a credible source to any of this alleged "Human caused climate change?"

Can you provide a source to any one change in the climate? Because if you can, you will be the first.

Anything from life will be more difficult to Earth will become uninhabitable.

I do not understand this sentence, but if you are asking what would make Earth uninhabitable, then dropping the atmospheric CO2 levels below ~180 ppmV would just about do it. Once atmospheric CO2 levels drop below ~180 ppmV photosynthesis comes to a grinding halt. Once photosynthesis stops, all plant life and all complex life that depended upon those plants and the animals that consumed them would also cease to exist. Life on Earth would once again return back to a bacterial existence.

Alternatively, as the sun ages its luminosity increases. In another ~500 million years the luminosity of the sun will have increased by ~10%. Which is sufficient to boil off all the world's rivers, lakes, and oceans. The only life that would exist on Earth by then would be extremophiles.

What are the realistic estimates of future CO2 levels, and what do you think the result would be?

As long as Earth remains in the Quantenary Ice-Age, which I expect to last at least another 7.5 million years, the atmospheric CO2 levels will not alter by much. I would expect it to vary between 300 and 600 ppmV.

I found a study, that says unchecked CO2 emissions could reach 2000 ppm
Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years

Unlikely. Atmospheric CO2 has not been 2,000 ppmV since the Devonian, 419.2 million years ago. There was also no ice-age occurring during the Devonian.

So what do you all think is the upper limit of AGW capability?

The same as its lower limit, zero.

There is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean surface temperatures. This has been demonstrated numerous times.

 

[longview]

The upper limit depends on how obsessively we burn fossil fuels. You're asking us to predict humanity's behavior going forward centuries.

Answer your own question, and show proof.

I am asking what the upper limit is if we burned every hydrocarbon we could find?

 

[longview]

Can you provide a credible source to any of this alleged "Human caused climate change?"

Can you provide a source to any one change in the climate? Because if you can, you will be the first.


I do not understand this sentence, but if you are asking what would make Earth uninhabitable, then dropping the atmospheric CO2 levels below ~180 ppmV would just about do it. Once atmospheric CO2 levels drop below ~180 ppmV photosynthesis comes to a grinding halt. Once photosynthesis stops, all plant life and all complex life that depended upon those plants and the animals that consumed them would also cease to exist. Life on Earth would once again return back to a bacterial existence.

Alternatively, as the sun ages its luminosity increases. In another ~500 million years the luminosity of the sun will have increased by ~10%. Which is sufficient to boil off all the world's rivers, lakes, and oceans. The only life that would exist on Earth by then would be extremophiles.


As long as Earth remains in the Quantenary Ice-Age, which I expect to last at least another 7.5 million years, the atmospheric CO2 levels will not alter by much. I would expect it to vary between 300 and 600 ppmV.



Unlikely. Atmospheric CO2 has not been 2,000 ppmV since the Devonian, 419.2 million years ago. There was also no ice-age occurring during the Devonian.


The same as its lower limit, zero.

There is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and mean surface temperatures. This has been demonstrated numerous times.

I am asking for people to state what they think the upper limits of Human caused climate change would be
if we burned every bit of naturally stored hydrocarbon we could find.
When we set up an experiment, it is a good idea to understand the limits, in this case the upper limit would be
if all the fossil fuels were burned. With so much hyperbole out there, I thought this question would be a good
gauge of what people actually believed.

 

[Deuce]

I am asking what the upper limit is if we burned every hydrocarbon we could find?

Easy to calculate, since your napkins are such amazingly accurate predictions. First tell us the exact quantity of every single greenhouse gas that could possibly be put into the atmosphere, including mining the earth's mantle for extra materials.

 

[Glitch]

I am asking for people to state what they think the upper limits of Human caused climate change would be
if we burned every bit of naturally stored hydrocarbon we could find.
When we set up an experiment, it is a good idea to understand the limits, in this case the upper limit would be
if all the fossil fuels were burned. With so much hyperbole out there, I thought this question would be a good
gauge of what people actually believed.

If we made a concerted effort to increase atmospheric CO2 by as much as possible, I don't think we could increase it by more than 10% of the total atmospheric CO2, which is almost ten times the amount we are producing now according to the EPA. That would be 10% of 0.0417%, or ~41.7 ppmV.

 

[longview]

Easy to calculate, since your napkins are such amazingly accurate predictions. First tell us the exact quantity of every single greenhouse gas that could possibly be put into the atmosphere, including mining the earth's mantle for extra materials.

The study I cited, Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years,
seems to think CO2 levels could get as high as 2000 ppm.
If you assume that is a correct upper limit, what do you think the resulting warming would be?

 

[Deuce]

The study I cited, Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years,
seems to think CO2 levels could get as high as 2000 ppm.
If you assume that is a correct upper limit, what do you think the resulting warming would be?

The study you cited does not assume we mine the mantle for additional materials.

You said you wanted a maximum. Why are you citing a study that is not a maximum?

From the study you linked:

A recent study suggested that if both conventional and non-conventional fossil fuel reserves (amounting to ∼12,000 Pg C; ref. 40) were exhausted in such a business-as-usual scenario, atmospheric CO2 could rise to ∼5,000 p.p.m. by 2,400 AD

You need to make up your mind on what it is that you want.

 

[longview]

If we made a concerted effort to increase atmospheric CO2 by as much as possible, I don't think we could increase it by more than 10% of the total atmospheric CO2, which is almost ten times the amount we are producing now according to the EPA. That would be 10% of 0.0417%, or ~41.7 ppmV.

Not out of the question, but I am looking for what people think is the upper limit.
I would see your additional 41.7 ppm as a plausible limit, but not an upper limit.

 

[longview]

The study you cited does not assume we mine the mantle for additional materials.

You said you wanted a maximum. Why are you citing a study that is not a maximum?

Let's limit the discussion to things within today's technology, as we are unlikely to be mining the mantle for a few years yet.

 

[Deuce]

Not out of the question, but I am looking for what people think is the upper limit.
I would see your additional 41.7 ppm as a plausible limit, but not an upper limit.

Glitch's math is absurd because he isn't aware we've already increased CO2 levels by more than 10%. He's got some absurd math error he just can't be convinced of. He thinks yearly CO2 and total CO2 to date are the same figure.

 

[Deuce]

Let's limit the discussion to things within today's technology, as we are unlikely to be mining the mantle for a few years yet.

On a 400 year time scale? I absolutely refuse to accept this limitation. 400 years ago they would have said it was impossible for you and I to talk to each other without sending a letter by horseback. We'll be mining asteroids in 400 years.

 

[longview]

Glitch's math is absurd because he isn't aware we've already increased CO2 levels by more than 10%. He's got some absurd math error he just can't be convinced of. He thinks yearly CO2 and total CO2 to date are the same figure.

Irrelevant, if we go with the Studies high end number of 2000 ppm, What amount of warming do you think would result?

 

[Deuce]

Irrelevant,

You called his math plausible when it is hilariously inaccurate. If you didn't even spot the mistake, why should I assume you're even capable of understanding this topic? 41 ppm as a plausible limit? We've already added over a hundred.

if we go with the Studies high end number of 2000 ppm, What amount of warming do you think would result?

I request that you read posts you respond to. Your study said as high as 5000ppm.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Glitch's math is absurd because he isn't aware we've already increased CO2 levels by more than 10%. He's got some absurd math error he just can't be convinced of. He thinks yearly CO2 and total CO2 to date are the same figure.

I agree the 41.7 is low. We can do better than that, especially if we made an effort to.

The question however, is what would the results of our best efforts be? It took us a long time to get to our almost 50% greater concentration than before we industrialized. 100% over 1750 is so much harder to achieve, because as the imbalance increases, so does the earth's percentage of sinking of it. It might be interesting to have someone model, yet I have not seen that inconvenient truth in the climate sciences yet. Maybe the Heritage Foundation will pay someone for such a study, since the players in AGW research for prestige will not.

It is simple. The greater the imbalance, the larger percentage of the imbalance that would be absorbed.

Anyone who thinks a linear trend will hold as emissions increase, are ignorant to the nonlinear nature.

 

[longview]

On a 400 year time scale? I absolutely refuse to accept this limitation. 400 years ago they would have said it was impossible for you and I to talk to each other without sending a letter by horseback.

But we know roughly how much easy access fossil fuels remain.
It took us 150 years to raise the level of CO2 137 ppm, if you think the level will go to 2000 ppm,
how much warming do you think would result?

 

[longview]

You called his math plausible when it is hilariously inaccurate. If you didn't even spot the mistake, why should I assume you're even capable of understanding this topic? 41 ppm as a plausible limit? We've already added over a hundred.


I request that you read posts you respond to. Your study said as high as 5000ppm.

Still Irrelevant, this is not about what Glitch thinks, but what you think.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

I'd suggest you are then one required to supply those as there is plenty on this thread for you to be getting on with already ..... see post #9 thru #11 for details

Prove the sky is falling and that the west should economically self destruct in order to stop it ?

Climate change is a well proven fact. Deal with it.

Now, can you prove your assertions or not?

 

[longview]

Climate change is a well proven fact. Deal with it.

Now, can you prove your assertions or not?

That really is the question, what do you think is the upper limit of possible Human caused warming from added CO2?

 

[Gateman_Wen]

medieval warm period
Roman warm period
Minoan warm period
Enormous advances in civilization happened during these warm periods.

Those aren't global phenomenons.

 

[longview]

Those aren't global phenomenons.

Still not an answer to the original question.
What do you all think is the upper limit of AGW capability?

 

[Deuce]

Still Irrelevant, this is not about what Glitch thinks, but what you think.

You think 41ppm was a plausible limit and then said we've already raised it 137.

You are being deliberately dishonest, or you're just mindlessly agreeing with random shit on the internet you come across and have no actual understanding of it. Either way, you're not worth the time. Good day.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Still not an answer to the original question.
What do you all think is the upper limit of AGW capability?

Venus is the upper limit to global warming.

 

[longview]

You think 41ppm was a plausible limit and then said we've already raised it 137.

You are being deliberately dishonest, or you're just mindlessly agreeing with random shit on the internet you come across and have no actual understanding of it. Either way, you're not worth the time. Good day.

Still irrelevant, but at the current growth of 2.74 ppm per year, 41 ppm is roughly 15 years away.
15 years ago was when the first i-phone came out (2007), etc. I do not expect the technology advances
in the next 15 years to be any less than the last 15 years, so we could plausibly expect to see big cuts in emissions.
I am still waiting for an answer to what you think is the upper limit on possible warming from Human added CO2?

 

[Deuce]

Still irrelevant, but at the current growth of 2.74 ppm per year, 41 ppm is roughly 15 years away.
15 years ago was when the first i-phone came out (2007), etc. I do not expect the technology advances
in the next 15 years to be any less than the last 15 years, so we could plausibly expect to see big cuts in emissions.
I am still waiting for an answer to what you think is the upper limit on possible warming from Human added CO2?

You think it's plausible humanity will be carbon-neutral in 15 years? I don't.