Global warming: already screwed up?

[Christophe]

Warming is irreversible Louis-Gilles Francoeur

"We must at all costs avoid the runaway threshold", says a specialist

Winters as aberrant as the one we are experiencing now, although they are not necessarily an effect of global warming, give us a very clear idea of ​​what is to come between now and 2050, because the climatic mega-phenomenon is now "irreversible".

“Irreversible, of course, and that is why we must be intensely concerned with preparing for it by studying the best coping strategies. But not yet in a runaway phase, which would make it out of control by humans, "explains in an interview to Devoir André Musy, the director of the Ouranos Center in Montreal, who specializes in the study of global warming.

We have known for several years - because dozens of studies confirm it - that global warming is accelerating, to the point of reaching some of the most pessimistic scenarios, adds the director of Ouranos. But it is not yet known exactly where the threshold at which global warming would get carried away is due to the release of millions of tonnes of CO2 trapped in permafrost or millions of tonnes of solid methane - 22 times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas (GHG) - which sleep on the ocean floor at very great depths. Not to mention the impact of stopping the oscillation of the Atlantic Ocean and the Golf Stream, on which the European climate depends.

"What we do know, however, explains André Musy, is that it is almost inevitable that the planet's climate will warm by 4 to 5 ° C by 2050, because we cannot remove it from the atmosphere the huge quantities of GHGs emitted over the last 10 or 15 years, which will remain there for a long time. The effect of this warming will vary by region. In northern Canada, there is talk of a warming that could reach 7 to 8 ° C if the snow cover changes significantly. Even if the margin of error in this area remains relatively large, it should be noted that all the mathematical models converge in the same direction. ”

It was a warming of the Earth's mean climate of this magnitude, between 3,5 and 4 ° C, which melted the ice cap, about two kilometers thick, that covered Montreal 15 years ago. One can hardly imagine what the metropolis would look like if the climate were to warm as much in less than two generations. But this is what the models predict from the current situation, and that, adds André Musy, even if we were starting a drastic reduction in our GHG emissions now

The following: http://www.ledevoir.com/2007/01/04/126390.html

[magnetic pole]

I would even go further by saying that we are going to witness new phenomena if not little known or little investigated.

There is one thing that it is desirable to do is to try to understand why the geomagnetic field is falling in power, and the magnetic north pole, in the process of moving faster and faster.
The science of atmospheric electrodynamics, for example, should provide a lot of knowledge about the Earth's climate.
The ionosphere is destroyed more than ever.
And unlike the film by AL Gore where he is pleased that the ozone hole has been defeated, we learn after the creation of the film that last October the ozone hole broke all previous records!
The ionosphere, CO2, the geomagnetic field all have a link to the global problem that is happening to us in the face.

I'm going to go further on a theory that only concerns me because I haven't yet found someone who says the same thing on the web.

There is controversy over the geomagnetic field and its genesis, we talk about convections underground to induce it. I would rather talk about the existence of the ionosphere and the atmosphere in general to induce it.
Those who know of Thomasi's experience of magnetization by water vapor we can think of similar properties of the Earth's atmosphere and water, such as the traces of the fossil geomagnetic field of Mars, some of which say that the presence of massive water and the global magnetic field at one time was inseparable.

To come where?

to the fact that today we are witnessing a warming of the atmosphere, a leak and weakening of the geomagnetic field, and a thinning of the ionosphere, everything has accelerated since the industrial era and the growing human activity , and overcrowding.

No connection between all of this?
I say that if and we must work to understand the implications between these phenomena.

As not bad not by fashion but by conviction for many years we are going straight to the wall and we will witness much faster than the most fiery scientists say unparalleled changes from a geoclimatic point of view, but not only .

Ultimately it is the risk of destroying our tenuous atmosphere, the risk of seeing solar storms reach and pass our atmospheric barrier.
To know a technological crack by loss of control of electrical equipment.
Can the various gases in the atmosphere or the rise of methane burn in the atmosphere at high altitude and disturb the air currents or trigger other unknown phenomena?
The expansion and rise of the oceans will accelerate, with seismic phenomena evident due to the change in masses, the earth will crack to rebalance.
Underwater landslides on the most fragile slopes are to be feared, therefore tsunamis much more frequent. Even more intense rain or hail.
Deadly hailstones because some consider the size of 3,5 pounds, we can easily imagine the danger of taking such a weight on the head.
It reminds me of the Dolmen, maybe hailstones of this size have existed in the past and the dolmens were protections against severe thunderstorms when people vacated their occupations.

It's a grim and catastrophic scenario but it would be silly not to imagine the worst.
We are asked to respect the highway code and imagine the worst if we drink or phone while driving. (finish paraplegic for example). nothing prohibits scaffolding disaster scenarios, but I agree it lacks the proof or scientific rigor.

You have to think and try to guess what is going to happen and constantly postpone this reflection to adapt it to current events. Easy to do not easy to live.
Let us remain optimistic.

[jean63]

Christophe: read the entire article well, this confirms an acceleration of the process and I do not see how modern man is going to stop his frantic production of consumer goods with increasingly important GHG production. The excitement is first of all economic (globalized liberalism) always more growth, products to sell and throw away quickly to buy new ones. Modern man walks on his head: long live the American Indians and all the primitive societies which were not "madmen of God" but respected NATURE.

Ultimately it is the risk of destroying our tenuous atmosphere, the risk of seeing solar storms reach and pass our atmospheric barrier.
To know a technological crack by loss of control of electrical equipment.

I really believe that ==> techno crash = more computers etc ... ==> CRASH of the global economy (including all modern electronically driven cars !!!) ==> back to square one : without heating, without electricity, without drinking water (polluted) ... etc. It would really be a good reconditioning for the modern man who believes himself to be all-powerful and all-permitted.

So much for the disaster scenario, but it's something I must have dreamed of and that goes through my mind when I hear all these modern humans with all their CERTITUDES.

In another genre, I just read a little booklet entitled "Pentagon secret climate change report"which has been kept well hidden thanks to W. Bush.
It is easily found on the online book sales site and inexpensive 5 euros. They beat records of optimism: between 2010 and 2020, a dizzying drop in temperatures in the northern hemisphere following the cessation of ocean currents (Gulf Stream type) which began to slow down in 50 years (scientists). Based on the ice cores of the poles dating back 150000 years, the observation is always the same: after a period of warming, there is always a cooling and there everything goes much faster than during other periods.

So, there is more to see coming, for the cata scenarios there is a choice.

[Exceed]

Hello everyone,

It doesn't really sound like optimism ....
Indeed, it gives a "little" to the chips to see a winter without snowflakes and shrubs with their buds .... we had our cold period (-12 °), very short, and again the temperatures rose. .. it's true that the weather changes ... every year, we go from surprise to surprise .... I just hope that climatologists have followed the same style of training as meterologists ...... ......
Like that, we still have a few chances that they got it wrong !!!

A + Serge.

[gegyx]

Those responsible for global warming?

Two articles taken from Nexus n ° 46, give other leads…





Our pollution is responsible for the greenhouse effect, but it should not be the only contributor.
They participate in part, but in a more global and larger process.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to tackle it vigorously, because they add a little bit, which eventually could pack the Earth machine, irreversibly for our survival.
Talk about it and act, with daily gestures, to change people's mentalities and behaviors. We must be aware of the need to improve our lifestyle choices, which are currently suicidal.
Even if the beneficial results will be physically "minimal", as for the general global warming in progress, we will act, and, in a good way, by elevating our reflection towards a universal philosophy, different from our current egocentrism.
And for the rest: "Insh'Allah"!

[denis]

[jean63]

Thank you gegyx for this info.

One who will be happy is Allègre =>
reviews about Allègre
Allegre response

it is still a variant on the causes and interpretation of global warming.

The history of the activity of the sun has already been advanced, but I no longer know by whom (I believe a young Dutch or Danish scientist). I saw a program on it.

Perhaps the 2 phenomena are cumulative. It remains to be seen whether the CO2 emission by humans is predominant compared to solar activity ..... anyway it is time to act so as not to add more ..... and there I think it's a very bad start !!!

[Christophe]

Not much to say about this speech ... I thought Alègre more negationist than that ...

What I dream of is that ecology is the engine of economic development and not an obstacle creating fear.

So he dreams of an econological society ... he passes when we say hello?

[Other]

Hello,
I think that at this stage it is more urgent, to prepare to face the big heatwaves as well as the disruption of the weather, which accentuates in a rapid way, it is like a fire it starts with a very small fire, it gets bigger quickly if you do nothing, at this time, it is better to protect yourself, than to look for the cause of the fire. (especially when the cause is known but not prove beyond a doubt and that everyone is ostrich) Obviously the decision makers seen their ages will be dead.
Because of the way in which the (big) of this world get soaked and still seeks why this is heating up and seeks nothing but to reassure the population, the fire is gaining momentum and it will become uncontrollable.
we could develop many theories for global warming but that does not solve the problem (see wild geese sailors bustards in December, (normally at the end of October they all went to the south) see crow's gatherings in mid January while we only see this at the beginning of April, see the St. Lawrence river not frozen in January, too many indications of nature indicate that it is out of whack, no need for scientists to tell us that all and normal, this is only temporary, but the reality is ...

[jean63]

I find Allègre's response well sent.

Apparently, there was no return following this last statement by Allègre!

Warming = no snow in the ski resorts (even with all snow cannons which only work from -3 ° C = huge investments). If it does not snow in February, they will be very bad this year.

Today people were in swimsuits and bathing on the French Riviera !!

Other infos in Futura sciences (forum on warming? in 1998 and 2005):

Re: No global warming between 1998-2005?

-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------

[I] Quote:
Posted by muller.charles
(...) A stupid and general question that I ask myself: where does the infernal cycle of positive feedbacks in interglacials stop? We can clearly see that increase in T> increase in GHGs> increase in H20 atmos. > loss of aldebo glac. etc. But do we know how this process ends up stabilizing, before the earth-sun positions decide on the next glaciation?

You answer your question yourself: the process begins to slow down and then to reverse following the gradual modification of the orbital parameters (phenomena of inertia etc.). But what is important to remember is that a "small" change in the amount of solar energy reaching the earth (orbital variations) can have colossal climatic consequences given the positive feedbacks.

The current situation is delicate and the timescale is very different: it is not "slow" modifications of the orbital parameters which are at the origin of the warming but the HYPER-fast human greenhouse gas emissions. In the past, the earth has experienced periods with high atmospheric CO02 contents but solar activity was much lower. Conclusion: the average temperature of the earth has probably never exceeded 22 degrees since the beginning of the Paleozoic. It is possible (not certain and really not desirable!) That we pulverize this record very quickly if we do not control our GHG emissions quickly.

We are therefore entering an unknown phase: strong solar activity (compared to what the earth has known in the past) and HYPER-rapid increase in the atmospheric C02 content. The first worrying signs (increase in cyclonic activity, regression of the mass of Antarctic ice, etc.) should lead us to be cautious.
The recent dispatch of two Calipso (Cloud Aerosol Lidar Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations) and Cloudsat satellites allowing us to study the atmosphere in three dimensions will be very useful to better understand the role of clouds, aerosols and to refine the models.


Quote:
(...) The clouds play a complex atmospheric "double game". By a parasol effect, they cool the planet by reflecting back into space a large part of the Sun's rays. But they also contribute to the greenhouse effect, because they retain part of the solar radiation reflected by the ground, acting as a kind of cover.

Aerosols, on the other hand, also have a dual function. By absorbing part of the sunlight, they tend to cool the earth's surface. And they are essential for the formation of clouds, because they serve as condensation nuclei. Each year, 3 billion tonnes of mini-particles are sent into the air, either by natural phenomena or by human activity. (...) [/i]

access forum full on warming ?? between 1998 and 2005 (very interesting) =>
link1