Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lawrence Livermore Projects 14.5F Temperature Rise, 1,400+ CO2 Levels

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 05:53 PM
Original message
Lawrence Livermore Projects 14.5F Temperature Rise, 1,400+ CO2 Levels
Edited on Thu Nov-03-05 06:11 PM by hatrack
ON EDIT: Headline changed, 2nd article appended.

Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory predicted a significant increase in average air temperature over the long term - iceless polar regions, 40 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, and a 20-foot rise in ocean sea levels by the year 2300. A new study uses a series of interlinked computer models, including a LLNL model that connects carbon input with climate, an ocean-atmosphere model from National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the Parallel Ocean Program (POP) from Los Alamos National Laboratory that simulates ocean circulation.

"The study will at least shift the focus of debate away from the question whether climate change will happen or not," said lead author Govindasamy Bala of the LLNL Energy and Environment Directorate. "We may still be OK by 2050, let's say, but in the long term, if we keep on with business as usual, the consequences will be very severe." Recent studies have concentrated on a modest warming trend over the next century, but the new projection looks beyond the horizon at the 22nd and 23rd centuries when warming impacts have built up a head of steam, nearly quadrupling the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 380 parts per billion to 1,423 ppb in 300 years.

With visions of pine trees invading the melted ice caps from the subarctic areas of the Russian tundra and the Canadian north, the researchers call their conclusions "alarming." The ability of land and ocean eco-systems to absorb excess carbon will progressively fail, so that the greater the carbon burden, the worse its warming affects will be, according to the research.

The model assumes the consumption of all currently known fossil fuels - conventional coal, oil and natural gas - beyond previous models that imagined doubled or quadrupled carbon emissions.

EDIT

http://www.lamonitor.com/articles/2005/11/02/headline_news/news01.txt

Have a nice day!!

ON EDIT: Please note some skepticism on my part regarding this story's opening paragraph - I've heard 14, and now 40, which as Phantom Power points out may be a editorial screwup rather than a model result. This article also discusses CO2 in terms of parts per billion, which is incorrect.

2nd Article:

If humanity taps all known oil, gas and coal reserves for energy, plants and oceans will have trouble absorbing the growing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and temperatures will soar beyond current projections, virtually eliminating tundra, sea ice and cold climate forests, according to a study by Lawrence Livermore Lab researchers.
Scientists there asked supercomputers to simulate the complete burnout of all fossil fuels and the resulting changes in climate through 2300, two centuries longer than almost any other climate study.

What they found was a dramatically changed world, with temperatures rising an average of 14.5 degrees worldwide and 68 degrees or more in polar regions. Bala Govindasamy, a Livermore atmospheric scientist and lead author of the study, said the simulation is highly conservative: It probably overestimates the ability of plants to absorb carbon dioxide and so underestimates the climate change. "So the reality may be worse," he said.

The greatest warming occurs in the next century, beyond the time frame for most climate projections, when carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere reach 1,000 parts per million, or nearly four times pre-industrial concentrations, in about 2140, then peak in 2300 at
1,438 parts per million.

Scientists are uncertain how well societies can adapt to a doubling or tripling of carbon dioxide, but there is growing consensus that a quadrupling would pose major challenges.

EDIT

http://www.insidebayarea.com/localnews/ci_3177788


My apologies for any confusion and hyperbole!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. Recommended. Get this out, everywhere.
Thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. If we're still "OK" by 2050, I'll eat my hat.
And, by the way... Forty fucking degrees????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tatertop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. I will be amazed if we are still OK by 2050
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. recomended!
Please read this! This is important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lilymidnite Donating Member (330 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. Buh bye humans
Welcome to the blasted landscape of Mars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. Is this possibly a reporter mishearing "14 degrees", from that other rpt?
Edited on Thu Nov-03-05 06:00 PM by phantom power
I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around 40F. And that other story was quoting 14F

And by the way, 14F is a catastrophe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I wondered about that
I'm kind of wondering about that myself, since I remember seeing news stories about Lawrence Livermore and 14F - which, as you note, is catastrophic in and of itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
existentialist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. my read
I read 14.7 average world wide with 40 in the arctic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is very bad, but...
if we do actually have 295 years to deal with this, it's not the potential changes in those years, but what we'll be doing in the meantime.

Technology marches on, and if the next 300 years is anything like the last 300, 40 degreees won't mean a thing to us, if indeed we haven't figured out a way to stop the warming.

It might, however, mean a lot to hummingbirds and polar bears, but if we care at all about them we'll have figured out a way to save them.

Having said that, of course, I don't for a minute mean that we shouldn't change our Earth-shattering ways. Technology might be good for many of us, but not all of us, and very likely won't be all that good for the planet. It hasn't often been in the past.

I'm not sure I would like to live in an artificial environment without clear skies, sunsets, fall leaves, and songbirds.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
9. geez! talk about things getting even uglier!
Edited on Thu Nov-03-05 06:31 PM by Lisa
Because there appears to be a consensus that a warming by more than 3 deg C (5-6 F) would cause a lot of ecosystem damage (and have even worse implications for food production).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4234467.stm
http://www.stabilisation2005.com/outcomes.html

I'm glad someone's looking at the long-term modelling ... but it's kind of a bummer.

p.s. I really hope that this is a case of NASA-type problems with metric conversions, or something -- FORTY deg F works out to more than 20 deg C, and as things are now, the entire atmosphere is only boosting the earth's surface temp by about 35 deg C.


p.p.s. Okay, I've seen the edit. 14 deg F still isn't very pretty! More than 7.5 C, which we definitely haven't experienced during the Holocene (even the Hypsithermal, the warm period right after the ice age, was probably less than 3 deg C warmer than now). And the fact it would be worse in the polar regions -- we could pretty much kiss polar and boreal ecosystems goodbye even at 5 deg C. Did I mention that most of my country (Canada) is polar/boreal?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
longship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
10. 40F would likely mean the end of life.
Would that put the temp above the tipping point? Forty sounds much too high. Other sources on this study are reporting Fourteen degrees F which is damned high.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. 40F seems like "runaway greenhouse" territory to me. Venus time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
11. Marking this for late night reading
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
motocicleta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
12. 40? 14? 200?
Edited on Thu Nov-03-05 07:25 PM by motocicleta
Who gives a rats' ass? If we get over 4 degrees higher than right now, the shit done hit the fan. As our Canadian friend points out, it hasn't been much over 3 degrees C hotter since human life really got going. If we don't pull our collective heads out right now, life on this planet is done for, and soon.
On edit:
Ok, maybe not that bad, but I am concerned that we're seeing posts where people are kinda wiping their brows and saying, "Whew! Good to know it won't be 40 degrees warmer!" It seems like a lot of the public doesn't understand what a few degrees means. My understanding is that with our biosphere pushed to the limit with the enormous amount of people we've got right now, a few degrees changes every ecosystem, from wiping out the polar regions to making food production models in temperate regions completely change. I don't see how we can absorb those kind of fluctuations, when they are combined with an already stressed system, and with the proliferation of weapons we've managed to propagate. For things not to get a lot more Hobbesian for our progeny, we must make massive changes quickly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
13. I guess the only hope is "Nuclear Winter".
If we can glaciate 90% of the planet, maybe the reflectivity will be high enough to keep it cold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Packing peanuts. Many, many packing peanuts.
They're white. They don't melt! They float! They get everywhere anyway. Why fight it?

I will be happy to settle for a hundred million dollars, for solving the greenhouse warming problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. Yeah, yeah, giant reflective mirrors.
That cool the planet and generate power and beam it down as microwaves. Magnetic field generators that force 10% of solar wind to go around us. I'm sure we will come up with something.

The one good thing about the end of the oil age is that we wont have all this plastic crap littered all over the place, back to waxed paper and minimal packaging (apropos the plastic peanuts). Plastic is a curse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
15. Look. Let's not get excited. You have to think of this in percentages.
Calm down.

If you use the Fahrenheit scale you'll only get upset. 14/70 = 20%.

Try using the Kelvin scale, 14/293 = less than 5%.

On the surface of the sun - and let's face it, that's where all this heat comes from so that's gotta count for something - 14 degrees is like zero percent almost.

It's all how you look at it.

With an approach like this, I can be science advisor in the Bush administration. I am a fashion god. And I only shop at Nordstrom's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-03-05 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. You mixed F with C. You really COULD be a Bush science advisor.
Or design Mars probes for NASA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. So, how many cubits long will YOUR Ark be?
And how many mile passum will it be capable of sailing? :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-04-05 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. I am going to measure my arc in micrometers.
This way I can discuss how many billions and billions my ark is. Everyone will be very impressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC