Let’s say that, somehow or another, all man-made greenhouse emissions stop on a dime tomorrow.
What happens then? Are we collectively too far gone w/r/t climate change to make a difference? How long would it take for the effects of climate change to be reversed? A generation? A century?
If we stopped tomorrow it would make a huge difference. We are not too far gone. But remember all of this is a small change over a yearly basis and only really noticeable when looked at over decades.
The scientist can track the changes year to year but we observe only the larger changes which are gradual.
It would be many decades before the temperature lowered but it would probably stop the rise within a 2-4 decades. (I am really out of my depth on this estimate as obviously we can’t stop all greenhouse gases on a dime).
The most basic way to actually lower the CO2 amounts would be to have more trees and plants then we have currently.
If we could stop it today, the oceans will still catch up to the rise in atmospheric temperatures and the ice caps will melt more and coastal flooding will increase, but I don’t believe it will be catastrophic. If we don’t stop climate change then in 80 years most of our coastal cities will be flooding, spending huge amounts to protect themselves or at least extremely vulnerable to coastal storms.
CO2 lasts something like 200 years in the atmosphere. So we’d have to invest scrubbers if we wanted to bring levels down.
No idea what the long term climate implications would be. I think temps would still go up, but only by a couple degrees.
What What Exit? said and:
About 500 years as a minimum.
Of course, that can be shortened by new technology or moves that increase the sequestration of CO2. Of course, a lot of that will be possible by consulting the scientists and modelers that investigate the problem, but it is hard to do nowadays when one takes into account that those very climate scientists that will help humanity to guide it towards proper Geo-engineering solutions are being falsely accused of fraud by the deniers right now.
There is also the issue that since some powerful governments think that there is no problem that then one wonders who and how we will pay for those solutions.
Forgot the link of the quote in the last post:
I think that’s optimistic … the carbon dioxide released from burning fossil fuels is in the atmosphere for good … carbon that hasn’t seen the light of day for 300 million years … if we stop today the damage is still done, best we could hope for is to mitigate the damage …
What are the possible benefits of increased levels of carbon in the atmosphere? If things actually did grow faster possibly we could start using more alcohol based fuels which would work out to be carbon neutral.
Well … it will be warmer, something folks in the eastern USA might appreciate right now …
Eventually, sure, but there’s no sense to it while we’re burning coal for the electricity … plus engines designed to burn gasoline don’t burn alcohol very well … I think we’ve started down the path of just using the electricity directly … both options require a “carbon-free” electric source …
It was warmer during the Jurassic and Cretaceous than it is now.
This does not, unfortunately, mean that global warming will bring back the dinosaurs.
Opening up of the Arctic for further energy exploration, which melts more ice, which allows for further energy exploration, which increases profits.
Bigger and more powerful storms and losing the coastal cities and towns will be hard to counter and will lead to far more misplaced people which will lead to atrocities and war.
OK, the worst is listed above, now the brighter side.
Some plants are already benefiting from the increased CO2 levels. Corn is one of the plants that will grow better as CO2 levels increase, though sadly Poison Ivy is another. Many other grains also benefit. So increased food production is a real benefit that could occur assuming we avoid the wars I mentioned above. Countering this is along with terrible storms, we should also expect more severe long term droughts scattered about devastating to some smaller poorer countries if they are struck .
Bene: As coastal lands are only a very small portion of agriculture, the loss of these lands will be more than countered by longer growing seasons in places like Canada and Russia.
The crops we do get from Florida are greatly endangered as Florida is probably the most vulnerable state in the US to rising sea levels. The bulk of the state is barely above sea-level.
Farmers will need to switch to the crops that benefit from the increased CO2 and the UN will need to be stronger to provide famine relief in a very organized fashion.
Of course, farming needs to be done smarter anyway. Increased drip and specific irrigation to conserve water & nitrogen.
Some more good news, early models predict tree growth will be encouraged by the higher CO2 levels.If allowed it will help arrest the CO2 levels.
There is a lot of information out there on this positive effect of higher CO2, here is one link to a NASA article on part of it. Though it covers only a small portion of a very complicated system.
Again, this benefit will not out-weigh the problems that anthropomorphic climate change is causing.
A bunch of new acreage will become suitable for agriculture … Siberia, Canadian Arctic, Central Australia …
It is too late to prevent climate change from doing major damage. In fact, a lot of damage has already been dealt. It is not, however, too late to make a difference. The quicker we act, the less severe the future damage will be.
It’s currently warmer on Antarctica than it is for most of the midwest. Many of those dopers out East are actually enjoying above zero temperatures right now.
And whenever the weather gets like this and people grumble about global warming bs, it’s a nice time to be able to say 'yeah, but it’s pushing a hundred in Australia (or South Africa or Brazil etc)"
If we could slow our CO2 increase rate and bring it down to no increase in 20-25 years and plant enough forests we could still keep the sea level rise fairly small. Unchecked we should expect a rise by 2100 of 2’-5’. This will have devastating effects. A few models show scenarios that are in the 8’ to 10’ range. I doubt we will will arrest the increase of greenhouse gases though, though hopefully we’ll slow it at least. So expect a 1-3’ rise by 2100 and of course if nothing is done, it will continue to slowly rise over the next 2 centuries.
Having 80 years to protect against a 1’ rise is not so bad, having 80 years to protect against 5’ rise is not really feasible.
From “Just 22% of new seawalls are finished in areas hit by 2011 tsunami” – The Japan Times – March 11th, 2017:
It’s feasible for Japan to build 50’ seawalls … and have finished 50 miles of wall since 2011 … add in 50 years technological improvements and building these 5’ seawalls is going to be cheap …
The most important thing to recognize, is that large complex systems such as our planet, actually do NOT “heal themselves.” Unlike a DNA controlled complex system, planets are not “trying to be” anything in particular. They just ARE.
Which is a bit of luck for us, because if Earth were “trying to be” what it started out as, life would probably never have begun. If it were “trying” to be the home for giant dinosaurs that it once was, then after the asteroid hit, it would have reverted to the way it was before, and the dino’s would be on their way back.
Rivers that humans polluted to death, and then stopped adding nasty muck to, never returned to the way they were before we came. They evolved into something else.
A cemetery.
Seems that growth does not speed up all that much with more CO2. What would make a difference would be to genetically tweak trees to grow as fast as grass. The downside: if you thinking mowing the lawn is bad, try keeping a jungle in check. A better choice might be to speed up the growth of plants that can be used as biomass to produce biofuels using current technology, with procedures that are not too energy intensive.
Australia? It’s too dry.
The problem with the Arctic is that we will have a massive release of methane from the peat bogs as the permafrost thaw, and that will accelerate global warming because methane is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2. It is relatively easy to take CO2 out of the atmosphere, harder to get it out of the oceans, and damn near impossible to catch methane once it is in the atmosphere.
