NAS says it would take 1,000 years to reverse climate change?

Question

NAS says it would take 1,000 years to reverse climate change?

Answer 1

It may be past the point of no return, but you know things can always get worse and we are continuing to make them worse for our future generations. Will they thank us for that?



We still need to change our ways. We are almost systematically destroying the planet. We cannot do that for long. So, no, I don't believe we'll be dropping the subject.



In fact, it needs to be broadened to include species and habitat loss, human population, pollution, chemical usage and of course, adapting to the changing climate, which will not be easy.



It is inconvenient, but we are left with no choice.

Answer 2

Your logic, as usual, is bizarre. Let me give you a medical metaphor that uses the same reasoning:



"It will take time to heal from our self-inflicted wounds, so let's stop even trying and just make them worse."



Sounds pretty dumb, doesn't it?



EDIT for jim z: I don't spend my time reading blogs, right wing or left wing. The only talk shows I ever hear are the conservative garbage on Fox News (when I visit my mother). Unlike you, I spend my time reading about science, particularly atmospheric science. Stop by my house sometime, and I'll show you my collection of approximately 600 advanced texts on physics, meteorology, mathematics and yes, even geology. As a geologist you should realize that there is a huge difference when things change on geologic time scales and on human time scales. So what if normal was different 10,000 years ago? We're changing things so fast now that normal today is different than 20 years ago, and it may be vastly different from normal 50 years from now.



If you don't understand that it's better all around if some things change on geologic time scales rather than human time scales, you're one uninformed geologist.



Also, if you are so interested in science, you should have corrected the misinformation you have spread about hurricanes in the past--I not only told you how you were wrong, I gave you references to the equations and even to works by Dr. William Gray, AGW denier that supported what I was saying and showed that you were wrong.



I believe in science whether it agrees with my politics or not. You might try being a scientist first and an ultra right-wing mouthpiece second, you might actually learn something.



EDIT for Meadow: I have found that what's in your links is usually much more logical than what is in your questions, so I spend more time refuting the nonsense that you write in your questions than commenting on your links. I certainly read the quotes in your question, which made sense, and your question, which I rightfully pointed out was based on fallacious logic. You are the one that doesn't make sense--not the NAS.

Answer 3

yes it probably would take as long as that, although it is better to stop it from getting worse and for the planet to live much much longer than for us to keep going the way we are going and destroying it in 100 years.

Answer 4

i think the time to debate is over and the time to act is upon us.

Answer 5

Better get started now...

Answer 6

Assessments of global warming have regularly used cost/benefit analysis, rather than the black/white thinking that you're currently engaging in.







'Dr. Susan Solomon of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research laboratory led the study. "People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would GO BACK TO NORMAL in 100 years, 200 years; that's not true," she said, adding the effects are well nigh irreversible.'



'If CO2 is allowed to peak at 600 parts per million from current 385, icebergs in the polar areas will quickly melt, causing sea levels to rise by 0.4 to 1 m. If it goes up to 1,000 parts per million, sea levels will rise 2 m, inundating islands and coastal towns.'











There's your answer. Last paragraph of the article you referenced; the scale of future climate impacts depends on how much CO2 we emit.

Answer 7

You should consider the meaning of the old adage "If you're trapped in a hole, stop digging."



And, for what it's worth, this is a relatively old article from Solomon et al. As always, your arguments are kind of stale. Here is the article in question, from over a year ago:



http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.abstract



The idea that there is change in the pipeline that we can do nothing about is not new. Jim Hansen has been warning about this for 20 years.



And why do you care anyway? According to you, it's all natural variation and Solomon et al. is wrong.



This question of yours returns me to my contention that most skeptics are not motivated by science or anything remotely resembling a rational objective, they are motivated by fear that they will lose even a small part of their current lifestyles. You've demonstrated this, by coming up with a not-very-unique rationalization for doing nothing to mitigate carbon emissions. In other words, any reason will do for skeptics, so long as they don't have to suffer the loss of any privilege they have mistaken for a right, or personal convenience they consider a necessity.

Answer 8

Have you heard about the Carbon Cycle? The Carbon cycle tends to keep things in balance. For example when carbon dioxide increase in the air the green plants increase in growth and rate of growth. This results in more carbon dioxide uptake which in time tends to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Temperature increases also increase growth as long as it does not get too hot, and this increase in growth and rate of growth due to temperature increases, results in more uptake of carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gases, of which carbon dioxide is only one, trap heat that is formed when the sunshine strikes the earth. The amount of and intensity of the Sun is obviously a factor. It normally varies only + or - 3% during the almost 11 year solar cycle. Occasionally there is a lot of solar flare activity and is know as a solar storm. These storms put out increased energy from the Sun.



It is interesting that this report came from NOAA. In 2003, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration discovered hot springs in the Arctic Ocean. Do you think this might have anything to do with the ice melting?



Water expands when temperature increases. This could account for at least part of the rising sea levels. As far as the ocean temperatures increasing do not forget that everyday there are nuclear plants discharging hot water into the ocean. This water becomes heated when it cools the nuclear reactor, and then it is discharged into the ocean.

Answer 9

there is some scientific proof that the "tipping point" is real but michael jackson is not proof one tipping point is if it gets too hot, 1. permafrost melts and the defrosted organic material starts to rot and 2. methane hydrates start to sublimate. For 1 and 2, methane is released into the atmosphere. Methane is a really good greenhouse gas so the gas released makes the earth hotter so more permafrost and methane hydrates melt releasing more methane which makes it more hot, etc etc there are a few other factors which contribute to the tipping point

Answer 10

I think they are talking rubbish, but if they are not, then there is no longer any point in reducing CO2 output. Thanks for clearing that up, NAS. There is no longer any point in an ETS - amazingly both sides of this debate can now agree on something.

Answer 11

The NAS has learnt it lesson well from the medieval 'end of the world' prophets. Make your prophesy for longer than your projected life time, so you can never be held to account for your errors, and you can spend your whole life feeding off this prophesy.

The idea of a normal climate is nonsense. The climate is in a constant state of change influenced by biological, geological and cosmological factors. Humans are one biological factor, and working out what the climate would be without our technological civilisation is a theoretical exercise with no relevance to the real world.

Without powered machinery it is likely that the planet could only support the population it had before the start of the industrial revolution, less than one billion (it is now about seven billion). Until we develop practical and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels, we are stuck with them.

Answer 12

Who has to disagree with NAS, It's always hard to tell if you are just pretending or you really are this silly. The statement "it will take at least 1,000 years to reverse the climate change effect that have already taken hold" is pretty clear.

The effects to date are just the start, if things got no worse than they are now there would be no real problem, if you pulled your head out of denier blogs and read some of the actual science you would discover scientists stopped talking about reversing effects some time ago and are now talking of trying to hold temperature rise to 2c by the end of the century



Oh no! fake anger and insults from the fake scientist, "Normal", 'jim' within the context meant here or as suggested by Dr Solomon is the approximate range the Earth should be at given the main variables being at the level they used to be at (like Co2 levels)

"normal" does not mean an eternal fixed number, but any real scientist would understand that concept. Ranting about Earth's ideal temperature, which is what you seeming to be trying to infer from the term 'normal' is something I leave to uninformed deniers.

Answer 13

I disagree with the NAS. I believe global warming hysteria is a precursor to climate control.



We will not go "back to normal", ever. We will decide what climate we want and make it so.



Right now, rain making has been focused on cloud seeding, which is stupid. The water has to be already in the clouds. New rain production will be based on accelerated evaporation. Milder summers and winters to reduce heating and cooling costs, and extend growing seasons. Carbon belching wildfires in California will be supressed by gentle manmade rains in the future. Hurricanes will be suppressed before they can form. ETC. The first step is to blame hurricanes and wildfires on global warming. :) Now mankind is no longer interfering with nature, but undoing prior inferference :)

Answer 14

As usual antarctic and pegminer showed their bias and lack of knowledge of the real world. I wonder if these people ever look outside of a leftist blog for their information. It is offensive to me that she would suggest we would return to normal. There is no normal. That is the lie or ignorant fantasy that alarmists just can't seem to fathom. Why not go back 1000 years? Why isn't that normal? Or how about 15,000 years ago when we were in the grip of an ice age. In reality that is far more nomal in the last 2 million years than our relatively warm period. If they didn't claim to have science on their side, I would be a little more civil to these ignoramouses but I feel I should defend science from these idiots.

Answer 15

The whole theory is rubbish, and the audacity of a 1000-years claim is absurd on so many levels that I'm beginning to suspect that doctorates are included in even the small boxes of Cracker Jack.

Answer 16

Funny how temps rise BEFORE the increase of CO2 so the point is mute. We do need to pollute less however.