Temperatures, oceans to rise even if gas levels steady, studies show

[JI7]

<The effects of global warming will be felt for several centuries even if the world's nations could somehow immediately stabilize the amount of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere, two new computer modeling studies suggest.

Were gas levels held constant, worldwide temperatures would still rise about 1 degree Fahrenheit by 2100, while sea level would rise more than 4 inches, according to one of the studies.

The research is the most detailed look yet at how the world is irrevocably committed to climate change.

"The longer you wait, the worse it gets," said lead researcher Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

"That may be kind of an obvious thing," he said, "but with each passing day and week and year, the more greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere commits us to even more climate change in the future.">

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/11218765.htm

[Eloriel]

1. The earth will survive; her star inhabitants may not

or at least not all of them.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. Are you suggesting that humans are her star inhabitants?

Brown pelicans have been around, unchanged, for 20 million years.

Some shark species have been around for a hundred million (it is thought - hard to tell when only teeth survive in the fossil record).

And horseshoe crabs are real stars -- something like 300 million years. Almost back to the time of the trilobites.

The human race is the proverbial candle in the wind -- modern humans go back no further than 160,000 years, and the Homo branch goes back maybe 6.5 million. If we disappear, no great loss.

[dbt]

2. This could be Disinformation.

This study's purpose could be to create the "Why bother" effect: things are hopeless anyhow, we might as well buy that SUV.

Not that DisInfo is the case here; that possibility must always be considered under bu$hler.

[JI7]

3. i actually thought of that when i saw the headline

but of course reading it shows how important it is to do something as soon as we can and the longer we put it off the longer it will take to improve things and the worse the damage might be.

i can see how that might lead to a "why bother" effect. people want things to be quick and simple.

[HereSince1628]

5. But can atmospheric gas levels stay steady if ocean temp rises?

Are the ratios of gases dissolved in the ocean in the same proportion as they occur in the atmosphere?

Gas solubility in water is influenced by temperature.

[Lisa]

6. so it's not too late to cut back emissions ...

I've seen a number of reports that suggest keeping the warming to 2 deg C or less would limit the damage to many ecosystems and farming areas (current projections say it would go to more than 3 deg C by the early 22nd century if we don't do anything). And if stabilizing emissions at around 2000 levels (Kyoto's aiming for just under 1990 levels) would lead to a half-deg C temp increase ... that's actually within the range of warming experienced during the Post-Glacial Optimum.

So things would still be dicey (we weren't dependent on agriculture during the PGO so it's uncertain how even a "small" change like that would affect our ability to feed ourselves). But given how bad it could get otherwise -- yeah, I would take this scenario over the alternative! Saying "we might as well not do anything at all", as the White House would probably trumpet this (even assuming they a) read the report, and b) accept it), is a cop-out.