Global Warming Is Irreversible, Study Says

by: Richard Harris  |  NPR News

Global Warming Is Irreversible, Study Says
A mountain's reflection in a bay that used to be covered by a glacier. A new report concluded that global warming is not reversible. (Photo: Reuters)

Climate change is essentially irreversible, according to a sobering new scientific study.

    As carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, the world will experience more and more long-term environmental disruption. The damage will persist even when, and if, emissions are brought under control, says study author Susan Solomon, who is among the world's top climate scientists.

    "We're used to thinking about pollution problems as things that we can fix," Solomon says. "Smog, we just cut back and everything will be better later. Or haze, you know, it'll go away pretty quickly."

    That's the case for some of the gases that contribute to climate change, such as methane and nitrous oxide. But as Solomon and colleagues suggest in a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it is not true for the most abundant greenhouse gas: carbon dioxide. Turning off the carbon dioxide emissions won't stop global warming.

    "People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide that the climate would go back to normal in 100 years or 200 years. What we're showing here is that's not right. It's essentially an irreversible change that will last for more than a thousand years," Solomon says.

    This is because the oceans are currently soaking up a lot of the planet's excess heat - and a lot of the carbon dioxide put into the air. The carbon dioxide and heat will eventually start coming out of the ocean. And that will tak' place for many hundreds of years.

    Solomon is a scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Her new study looked at the consequences of this long-term effect in terms of sea level rise and drought.

    If we continue with business as usual for even a few more decades, she says, those emissions could be enough to create permanent dust-bowl conditions in the U.S. Southwest and around the Mediterranean.

    "The sea level rise is a much slower thing, so it will take a long time to happen, but we will lock into it, based on the peak level of [carbon dioxide] we reach in this century," Solomon says.

    The idea that changes will be irreversible has consequences for how we should deal with climate change. The global thermostat can't be turned down quickly once it's been turned up, so scientists say we need to proceed with more caution right now.

    "These are all ... changes that are starting to happen in at least a minor way already," says Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University. "So the question becomes, where do we stop it, when does all of this become dangerous?"

    The answer, he says, is sooner rather than later. Scientists have been trying to advise politicians about finding an acceptable level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The new study suggests that it's even more important to aim low. If we overshoot, the damage can't be easily undone. Oppenheimer feels more urgency than ever to deal with climate change, but he says that in the end, setting acceptable limits for carbon dioxide is a judgment call.

    "That's really a political decision because there's more at issue than just the science. It's the issue of what the science says, plus what's feasible politically, plus what's reasonable economically to do," Oppenheimer says.

    But despite this grim prognosis, Solomon says this is not time to declare the problem hopeless and give up.

    "I guess if it's irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it," she says. "Because committing to something that you can't back out of seems to me like a step that you'd want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse."

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



Susan Solomon thinks that

Susan Solomon thinks that this news will give people more reason to act swiftly on climate change? She understands climate, but not human psychology. This sort of story will more likely have two effects, one negative and one positive. (1) It will serve as an excuse for doing nothing - the damage is already done, no going back you know . . . (2) It will give ammunition to the camp of scientists who want to take active steps to reverse global warming, the would-be planetary engineers. I see (2) as positive, even though it is obviously scarily dangerous too.


Time to stop loitering and

Time to stop loitering and get to stopping coal burning and start using electric cars. the sooner the better. It's time to put the oil heads with there coal breath to pasture but int his case to walk the dust bowl plains for eternity.


The global warming deniers

The global warming deniers are eerily like the creationists, the Republicans, (and dare I say religious people in general?) Nothing, no facts or empirical studies, no data, no events of any kind, will ever shake their beliefs, will ever give them pause to consider that they are wrong. Let us just hope that the GWDs don't have the same influence as these other groups, and that we will eventually get our act together. Ironically, if we don't, we're going to run out of the fossil fuels (except for coal, the worst of all) that caused the problem in the first place. Are we going to war over the dwindling supplies of petroleum before we have sense enough to develop alternatives? Are we going to divert all our financial resources to failing Wall Street institutions instead of solving the greatest crises of the 21st century? Probably. That "stimulus" could have done wonders for us. Now it's a watered down mess of pork and more tax cuts.


This is why I work for

This is why I work for Environment America and walk 2 miles each way to work. Companies don't get big by themselves, but by each of us buying a $1 here, a gallon there. They will shrink and go away quickly (or reinvent and invest in renewables, hopefully) when they see the jig is up. It is we who are addicted to oil. Just say no to the suppliers. Yes, it takes commitment, and possibly lifestyle changes. But you can, if you put your mind to it. The market rules in USA, and we are the market.


There are none so blind as

There are none so blind as those who will not see. There are none so deaf as those who will not hear. There are none so stupid as those who will not learn. There are none so obstructive as those who will not think. These are the behaviors by which the"right" has driven us so wrong. They may now pray, as they have preyed. The rest of us will have to think, work, and act. It's time for the perpetrators to shut up and get out of the way.


If I understand this

If I understand this correctly, cutting back emissions and other precautions won't have a noticeable change for the next few hundred years. It is still necessary and worth it to cut back on emissions, CO2 and other harmful toxins in order to save the planet because even though the extra heat we have put into the oceans is irreversible, putting more in would make the consequences of its release last longer. Is that right?


Why is it that we almost

Why is it that we almost never hear of the pollution that is being produced by the guys producing products? Do they have too much money to be blamed for their part in making everything disposable which in turn fills up the land fills to the brim and we already know that much of these things will still be there for many years to come but yet the focus is not on what they are doing but the focus in on the Carbon and the tax that can ensue...Why? I guess it is more profitable to tax millions of people rather than to fine a few companies for producing so much garbage that is also very harmful so let us decide that this carbon is bad and tax all..None can deny that they contribute to this problem because after all if your breathing your guilty unless of course you simply inhale and never exhale but we know how long you would last if you did that right? Yeah, a good idea to just blame this whole problem on the majority and tax them.. More profitable that way ...right?


Scientists are allowing the

Scientists are allowing the general public to believe things that are not so, as long as the erroneous idea favours elimination of carbon dioxide. Even this author Richard Harris is so misled as to state: "it is not true for the most abundant greenhouse gas carbon dioxide". Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and all of the other trace gasses are responsible for less than 5% of the greenhouse gasses. ref. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html Humanity puts vast quantities of the principal greenhouse gas into the atmosphere each day and more and more each year as our population increases but this gas is almost impossible to measure and in the present and certainly no history is of its concentration is possible. Presuming, that we could switch to all nuclear we would still be putting massive amounts of the principal greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. This principal gas also has positive feedback. I have questioned modellers and have never had a reply as to what in their models explains the ending of other interglacial periods and similarly the ending of the various glacial periods. I'd love to survey the general populace regarding the understanding they have been lead into regarding the fraction of the greenhouse effect attributable to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Hugh Jones Toronto


I began making lifestyle

I began making lifestyle changes 8 years ago. I choose not to own a car and use mass transit seven days a week. I do whatever I can to minimize my carbon footprint. Yet it is all but impossible for me to get most of my coworkers to do the same. I am laughed at because I packed up my computer printer two years ago and began saving everything digitally. I do not buy material things any longer that have digital equivalents which are purchased instead (music, movies, etc.). Instead of printing to paper, I save PDF files to my computer and have not had to print anything at all. We need to be totally done with fossil fuels and get people OUT of their cars.


I don't think any of the

I don't think any of the respondants understood the message. Science can not assure us that reducing carbon emissions will significantly reduce global warming nor delay significantly sea level rise. This problem, like all the other environmental problems, can only be ameliorated by slowly reducing the human population to the carrying capacity of Mother Earth. Instead we concentrate all our efforts on items that increase the population and increase the properity of each and thus the footprint.


Hugh Jones: the water vapor

Hugh Jones: the water vapor myth is b.s. GW is real, and we are causing it. http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/ algae is the solution. it's coming.


Hugh, the link you posted at

Hugh, the link you posted at Tue, 01/27/2009 - 19:50 contains bogus data. In table 1 it asserts "man-made additions" and "natural additions" and claims in the caption that the data is from the DOE. Follow the respective footnote 1 on that page. The first link to the DOE http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html has no such data, so the attribution is false. The second claimed source is the IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. That organization refers its readers to the IPCC reports for details http://www.ieagreen.org.uk/climate.html Given that the IPCC attributes the change in CO2 concentration to human activities, I somehow doubt that the IEA are the source of the bogus columns in table 1. So Monte Hieb on the site you linked to bases all his conclusions on unsourced data, which are in conflict with generally accepted findings. The fake attributions do make the data highly doubtful.


pharmacy hours rite aid

pharmacy requirements http://pharmacyxl.net/kop-kamagra-danmark.html#48626 pharmacy onesource sentri7



designer fashion online

designer online store online shopping udoRTabP http://designerbagsonline.urbanblog.dk/



burberry scarves

purchase burberry glasses suprisely gJzAoNNq http://www.burberryoutlet--online.com/



online shopping lv

view louis vuitton shop online online shopping qstxYvbf http://www.louis-vuittononline-shop.com/



ghd australia ozodmr

ghd ynizrcga GHD Hair Straightener kcklhgby GHD Australia fquwgetu cheap ghd