In complex systems, especially big complex systems, feedback loops can develop. Lets take the earth as an example. It is by just about everyones measure a very large, and very complex system, it has many feed back loops. A good example might be the melting of arctic sea ice, the ice melts (due to global warming) exposing more dark sea water which absorbs more heat than the reflective ice, which warms the water, which melts more ice…it’s a vicious cycle. There comes a point in that process, a tipping point, in which the system spirals rapidly out of control, a victim of its own feedback. Arctic sea ice melting is not the only process on earth with a feedback loop, and it is not the only one that could experience a tipping point.
A number of key components of the earth’s climate system could pass their ‘tipping point’ this century, according to new research led by a scientist at the University of East Anglia.
Published by the prestigious international journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), the researchers have coined a new term, ‘tipping elements’, to describe those components of the climate system that are at risk of passing a tipping point.
The term ‘tipping point’ is used to describe a critical threshold at which a small change in human activity can have large, long-term consequences for the Earth’s climate system.
In this new research, lead author Prof Tim Lenton of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and colleagues at the Postdam Institute of Climate Impact Research (PIK), Carnegie Mellon University, Newcastle University and Oxford University have drawn up a shortlist of nine tipping elements relevant to current policy-making and calculated where their tipping points could lie. All of them could be tipped within the next 100 years.
It reads like a recipe for disaster. None of these sound very nice, and the fact that all of them could happen in the next couple hundred years makes it even more scary. If any of these events were to occur it could set off others on the list, meaning that we had better do something about green house gas emissions very very soon.
The nine tipping elements are (includes how long it might take for it to happen, and the level of uncertainty):
- Melting of Arctic sea-ice (approx 10+ years, small uncertainty). As sea-ice melts, it exposes a much darker ocean surface, which absorbs more radiation than white sea-ice so that the warming is amplified. This causes more rapid melting in summer and decreases ice formation in winter. Over the last 16 years ice cover during summer declined markedly. The critical threshold global mean warming may be between 0.5 to 2 degrees Celsius, but could already have been passed. One model shows a nonlinear transition to a potential new stable state with no arctic sea-ice during summer within a few decades.
- Decay of the Greenland ice sheet (more than 300 years, small uncertainty). Warming over the ice sheet accelerates ice loss from outlet glaciers and lowers ice altitude at the periphery, which further increases surface temperature and ablation. The exact tipping point for disintegration of the ice sheet is unknown, since current models cannot capture the observed dynamic deglaciation processes accurately. But in a worst case scenario local warming of more than three degrees Celsius could cause the ice sheet to disappear within 300 years. This would result in a rise of sea level of up to seven meters.
- Collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet (more than 300 years, large uncertainty). Recent gravity measurements suggest that the ice sheet is losing mass. Since most of the ice sheet is grounded below sea level the intrusion of ocean water could destabilize it. The tipping point could be reached with a local warming of five to eight degrees Celsius in summer. A worst case scenario shows the ice sheet could collapse within 300 years, possibly raising sea level by as much as five meters.
- Collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (approx 100 years, intermediate uncertainty). The circulation of sea currents in the Atlantic Ocean is driven by seawater that flows to the North Atlantic, cools and sinks at high latitudes. If the inflow of freshwater increases, e.g. from rivers or melting glaciers, or the seawater is warmed, its density would decrease. A global mean warming of three to five degrees Celsius could push the element past the tipping point so that deep water formation stops. Under these conditions the North Atlantic current would be disrupted, sea level in the North Atlantic region would rise and the tropical rain belt would be shifted.
- Increase in the El Niño Southern Oscillation (approx 100 years, large uncertainty). The variability of this ocean-atmosphere mode is controlled by the layering of water of different temperatures in the Pacific Ocean and the temperature gradient across the equator. During the globally three degrees Celsius warmer early Pliocene ENSO may have been suppressed in favor of persistent El Niño or La Niña conditions. In response to a warmer stabilized climate, the most realistic models simulate increased El Niño amplitude with no clear change in frequency.
- Collapse of the Indian summer monsoon (approx 1+ year, large uncertainty). The monsoon circulation is driven by a land-to-ocean pressure gradient. Greenhouse warming tends to strengthen the monsoon since warmer air can carry more water. Air pollution and land-use that increases the reflection of sunlight tend to weaken it. The Indian summer monsoon could become erratic and in the worst case start to chaotically change between an active and a weak phase within a few years.
- Greening of the Sahara/Sahel and disruption of the West African monsoon (approx 10 years, large uncertainty). The amount of rainfall is closely related to vegetation climate feedback and sea surface temperatures of the Atlantic Ocean. Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to increase Sahel rainfall. But a global mean warming of three to five degrees Celsius could cause a collapse of the West African monsoon. This could lead either to drying of the Sahel or to wetting due to increased inflow from the West. A third scenario shows a possible doubling of anomalously dry years by the end of the century.
- Dieback of the Amazon rainforest (approx 50 years, large uncertainty). Global warming and deforestation will probably reduce rainfall in the region by up to 30 percent. Lengthening of the dry season, and increases in summer temperatures would make it difficult for the forest to re-establish. Models project dieback of the Amazon rainforest to occur under three to four degrees Celsius global warming within fifty years. Even land-use change alone could potentially bring forest cover to a critical threshold.
- Dieback of the Boreal Forest (approx 50 years, large uncertainty). The northern forests exhibit a complex interplay between tree physiology, permafrost and fire. A global mean warming of three to five degrees Celsius could lead to large-scale dieback of the boreal forests within 50 years. Under climate change the trees would be exposed to increasing water stress and peak summer heat and would be more vulnerable to diseases. Temperate tree species will remain excluded due to frost damage in still very cold winters.
The paper also demonstrates how, in principle, early warning systems could be established using real-time monitoring and modeling to detect the proximity of certain tipping points. It also points out that global warming doesn’t necessarily have to be a slow process.
“Society must not be lulled into a false sense of security by smooth projections of global change,†said Prof Lenton.
“Our findings suggest that a variety of tipping elements could reach their critical point within this century under human-induced climate change. The greatest threats are tipping of the Arctic sea-ice and the Greenland ice sheet, and at least five other elements could surprise us by exhibiting a nearby tipping point.â€
Meaning, that one year everything seems mostly normal, and next year everything is crazy horrible bad. These tipping points could rapidly and negatively affect the climate in as little as 5 to 10 years. There are historic data records to suggest that this sort of rapid climate change has happened in the past.
This list isn’t even complete, they leave out the methane/permafrost feedback loop, and don’t really take into account the kind of crazy wars that these sort of rapid climate change events would cause. Imagine if China and Russia got in a spat over fresh water supplies (both have nukes), or India and Pakistan over farm land, or even different states in the west. Throw in millions of climate refuges looking for a new home and you have a recipe for the end of human civilization as we know it.
For 22 years, from 1976 to 1998, carbon dioxide level and average earth temperature both increased. This resulted in a scary Hollywood movie and world-wide global warming hysteria. Group-think developed in the climate science community where peer-review bias led to de facto censorship and a paucity of published studies that objectively investigate the extent to which human-produced carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. It has been over nine years now and atmospheric carbon dioxide level has continued to increase but temperature has gone down. Apparently no one did any real research before or they would have discovered that 440 mya the planet plunged into the Andean-Saharan ice age when atmospheric carbon dioxide was over ten times the present level (http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml ). With a little further real research they would have discovered that, in the current ice age, temperature trends have changed direction at many different temperature levels. This could not occur if there was significant positive feedback. They might have also noticed that carbon dioxide level change lagged temperature change by hundreds of years. The forced conclusion from all this is that non-condensing greenhouse gas, and therefore human activity, has no significant influence on global temperature.
Ah, runaway Global Warming the ultimate alarmist fantasy. I guess they got to go all out now that the World is getting cooler and the solar minimum hit before they were able to create a One World Socialist State and kill off 80% of all humanity. Shucks, the gig is up.
For god’s sake Johnny and Dan, how much more bloody evidence do you need before you turn your obvious fear into some useful action?
I’m bored with refuting AGW sceptics so won’t even bother. Find me one peer-reviewed paper that puts serious doubt on AGW then I will take your views seriously.
K
BTW, Dan, I think you’ll find it’s more like 99% of humanity will be wiped out by runaway climate change.
Well Keith, how about the fact that according to GISS global Temperatures have fallen 0.75 degrees since last January? What about the fact that there is absolutely no evidence to support the zany claims of one world government zealots in the UN and their lap dog the IPCC.
How long are the results going to have to not match the looney predicitions of doom by the IPCC, for you to accept that they are full of crap. This solar cycle is late, which means that the world is going to get cool. The last solar cycles were early, which kept the Earth warm.
There have been peer reviewed papers out of China and Russia that claim that we are going into as period of Global Cooling. So there. You’ve been duped!
Want more evidence? How about the fact that none of the Global Warming lunatics are doing anything to reduce their own CO2 emissions? Only thing that can stop increasing CO2 emissions is to greatly reduce the human population, and I have not seen any of the advocates volunteer. Maybe if David Suzuki and Algore lead a mass suicide, I might be convinced that they actually believe their own bullshit, but the truth is, that this whole thing is a conjob and the new face of Nazism.
Now if you can find me a peer reviewed paper that proves that it is not a new manifestation of Nazism then I might revise my current position, but it damn sure looks like an excuse to kill a whole bunch of people to me.
I never believe what people are saying when they are panicking.
Hello H.
So if someone was on a sinking ship and they desperately wanted you to get into the life boat, you wouldn’t listen to them because they were panicking?
Besides most of these people are not panicking, they are very very concerned. You should be smart enough to know the difference
Trouble is Naib, Warmists are not making a very strong case, and what is worse they are making a case for Global Warming while the Earth is actually cooling. That and they are a dismal lot, who honestly believe that this Global Warming thing is the MOST important issue currently facing humanity, and insist that we give up our freedom and our national prosperiety for something that most of us do not care about or do not think is even happening.
You Warmists like to pretend like it is a case closed deal, but anyone who really looks into the issue for themselves can tell that the case for AGW is exceedingly weak and grossly overstated. I feel as though I am being pressured to buy something that I do not want and do not believe that I need. What’s worse many of the “solutions” that are being proposed will lead to real environmental problems, such as bio-fuel and wind power. Even nuclear power is not something that should be rushed into, although if AGW turns out to be real then we should start building nuclear plants.
If the Global Warmists slow down and stop the hysterics, then it might be possible to create a reasonable solution which will improve out lives and our livelihoods rather than be a destructive force to our personal wellbeing.
Understand that everyone wants to live in an age of abundance. No one wants to go without or see anyone else go without. I want everyone to be well feed, free and wealthy enough to do what they want in life. I want this for everyone, not just me. Energy is key to maintaining an abundance for everyone, so when someone starts talking about getting by with less, I turn them off because they are not proposing a solution but rather they are merely making trouble for us common folk.
So assume that we really do need to reduce our carbon emissions, what could we do to accomplish this goal without sacrificing our freedom, prosperiety or comfort, but instead increasing all of these things? Why don’t the Global Warming people propose doing something like creating a high speed train network here in America like they have in Europe? That would reduce the need to use cars and Jets airplanes right? It would enhance our freedom and might even lower our travel expenses, while lowering our CO2 output.
Why not propose rebuilding our cities to support denser population densities, while making them beautiful. This could be done writing a building code through something like HUD which could provide interest free loans to building projects which not only enhance our energy efficiency but also our culture. Provide they exclude corporate builders, they could be made interest free so we all become a wealthier more cultured civilization.
I see the global warming as people who are really not interested in building anything that will improve our lives or our culture, but rather as promoters of policies that will destroy culture by promoting corporate builders or destroying wealth by promoting foolishness like running a country on wind and solar, while ignoring the fact that the price of gasoline is the big issue now, and unless something is done about it, it will only increase the cost of taking steps that will be needed to build a better world to a standard that everyone can agree on.
Alarmism is bad politics and bad form. If Global Warming is real it is not something that is going to go away and it is not something that we need to make heroic efforts to solve tomarrow. Right now that facts on the ground appear that Global Warming peaked and now the Earth is entering a cooling period, so the whole thing might have been a false alarm, and for what? To make us all feel less secure and guilty about living our lives? I honestly resent the tone of the Global Warming people, and think that the whole thing is a hoax which is the reason for the alarmism. They need people to act quick so a few rich people like T. Boone can get rich before the weather changes. Sorry, but I am not buying until there is stronger evidence for the case of Global Warming.
Although, fast trains, nuclear power and geothermal likely would not be bad deals, Global Warming or not. To avoid skeptics like me, it would behoove your cause to champion policies that would be good whether there is Global Warming or not. You might get a lot more traction that way, FYI.
Warming or cooling, it will happen without interference of man. The point is that on the warming site a lot of fanatics (Greenpeace, WNF, socialists etc.etc) are meeting each other to prepare a new, ecological society under UN control. Freedom will certainly disappear because they will organize the world’s energy need on a “natural” way which means there will be a continuous shortage of it and therefore people will became POOR.Look at the energy price and food price increase of the last 1 1/2 year. This is a classical example of – To be or not to be – Freedom is endangered.