OK, let's say man caused Global Warming. What kind of timeline are we looking at?

Question

What I mean is this:

Global Warming is caused by the Sun, combined with excess greenhouse gasses. The gasses are being produced by man, but the gasses are also removed by plants. So in order to have "EXCESS" greenhouse gas, you need to produce more gas than is taken away. This means that you not only need to produce alot of greenhouse gasses, you need to also eliminate plants that clean the air. It could take a very long time to build up this excess greenhouse gas to the point where the greenhouse affect raises the global temperature to an undesirable level.

So here is my question: How long does it take to go from a state of normal greenhouse gas level and moderate temperature to a state of increased greenhouse gasses, with no noticable affect yet, to a state of increased greenhouse gasses WITH a noticable temperature increase?

This is an important question because couldn't the increase in temperature today be the result of Steam Engines and the clearing of entire forrests??

Isn't it possible that the current and future energy usage, coupled with the replanting of forrests is actually REDUCING greenhouse gasses as we sit here in a world where the temperature is currently rising?

Answer 1

I appreciate what seems to be an honest question about global climate change. Let me deal with what I see as your central question, which is, "How long does it take to go from a state of normal greenhouse gas level and moderate temperature to a state of increased greenhouse gasses, with no noticable effect"?

We have already gone beyond that state. The reason scientists subscribe to the idea of the greenhouse effect is precisely because they have collected volumes of evidence suggesting that the changes have already begun to take place. Sea level has already begun to rise, weather patterns are already becoming more unpredictable and unusual, average global temperature has already started to rise... As for how long before we see the dramatic effects that are being predicted, the answer, I'm afraid, is not very long. Last week's IPCC report said that within this century, average global temperature will most likely rise by 3-7 degrees Celsius. (They actually gave the overall possible range as 2-11 C, but they believe that 3-7 C is the most likely scenario).

Answer 2

Actually, several things appear to be happening: We are indeed destroying forests at record speed..... slash and burn methods are very much in use in Brazil,Borneo Central and South America and it is being done at record rates. From everything that I have read --- and let's face it, we only know what we read, the critical amount of greenhouse gasses, which include not only carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels, but of methane, produced by cattle, (and the planet is filled with cattle!!!!!!), and the manure that they produce. Probably the best book written on the subject is "An Inconvenient Truth by Gore Vidal.... I'd recommend that you have a look... The time line----------,Again from what I have read, that severe weather patterns will be in place by 2100, only 90 years away. The charts that I have seen with average temperatures plotted, the amount of melting of the caps, and the degree of warmth so far in the last 20 years, is used as projections into the future..... I'm sure you can google some of that stuff and see it.... Consult Discover Magazine, Scientific American and Nature Magazines for articles on specific areas...... in a word, all of it "scary" --- but then I won't be here in 2100.....

Answer 3

Sixty thousand years, according to most models.

The problem here is the carbon cycle: the climate is kept stable by trillions of tiny marine organisms that lock carbon in their shells-- not by plants, as popular belief would suggest. It's a delicate cycle, and these organisms can only absorb so much carbon. Since 1850, we have put a hundred billion tons of extra carbon into the air-- something that the delicate carbon cycle could not support. Nature itself produces 200 billion tons a year, but that extra 100 billion makes a remarkably large difference. By the end of the century, the atmosphere will be 560 parts per billion carbon dioxide (if we keep up at the current rate); the natural level is 280 parts per billion.

Eventually, nature restores everything back into harmony-- such global warming cycles have happened naturally in the timeframe of earth's history-- but the return trip to stability is predicted to take 60, 000 + years.

Answer 4

There are numerous undiscovered sources of energy.
There are numerous potential science students who would like to work on uncovering these.
The current average educational level is FAR below what it ought to be.
We are FAR behind other planets which have been going for a similar span of history, i.e. of the dominant species.
There is tremendous commercial support for sports, entertainment and other activities having very limited returns in comparison to training scientists and engineers.
There are not enough R&D projects involving energy.

As for your timeline, the IPCC has just come out with a report. Try googling IPCC Report on Climate Change.

The most significant developments from the UNFINISHED IPCC Report will be coming out in November of this year.

The timeframe you are asking about ??? For other planets???
For similar planets???

So many differences. So many variables.

Are you asking about Earth?

Probably best to look at the graph for the ppm of CO2.

In Nunitak's Weather Blog you will find an article that says Weather and Energy Resources for Savvy People
(something like that)

There is a url there for pulling up a graph of CO2 over the years, probably also in the IPCC Report.

It's population and industry dependent as well as on all other natural sources. Even cattle produce methane, about 23 times better than CO2 for greenhouse effect some say.

Although I am very interested in science I use an additional technique in which I have great confidence but which you would highly doubt if I mentioned it -- primarily because you would not know or trust me. At least not like you would if you worked on this for 15--20 years, or at least 3--5.

In my estimation, also like IPCC, the TROUBLE is ALREADY HERE. We can brook no delaying in handling the problem.

In fact, ALL problems should be handled while they are small. However, especially in America the politicians will do nothing until the problem is so big that people are jumping up and down.

This means ALL problems will INCREASE and CONCATENATE, and that RAPIDLY over the next few years.

They like to THROW MONEY at the problems, but organize it so most of the money is going to people who are not involved in the solution at alll.

Now, if you doubt this -- watch what happens over the next twenty years.

We are entering an era of continuous change for 1000 years.

ONLY an adaptable and quickly responsive, flexible and EFFICIENT system can handle that.

Professionals need to be IN CHARGE of many offices currently headed by constantly changing politicians who are actually managing areas in which they have DISMALLY little expertise.

We can learn from other nations which may be doing better in some areas and vice versa.

But if your question implicit is "Are we soon to reach some CRITICAL POINT with regard to the climate effects, etc?

I would have to say YES. It is already starting (the last 13 years or so, more impressive and increasing as time rolls on).

Some places are in greater danger than others (see my blog), but there have been unusual climatological effects and nasty weather in places unexpected, ones that I have not mentioned.

Since climate and weather affect food production, there is good cause for STOCKING UP on a national and personal basis.

But most of all, we need to GET ON with solving problems and spend less time arguing, procrastinating and politicking on reluctance to change the status quo.

200,000 years from now the only diesel engines will be in museums, most likely. Things are not perfect yet, nor is the status quo intended to last a 1000 years, let alone forever.

Answer 5

All I know is that the ice caps were predicted to melt between 1,000 to 5,000 years ago just a few years ago. Now they are saying that with global warming, the ice of greenland and the north and south poles will have melted completely within the next 100 years, AT MOST. this much ice will cause the sea level to rise forty feet, completely destroying some countries. i still do not understand how some people can deny this. oh, this is also the reason why cold places are getting hot, and hot places are getting cold. for crying out loud!!!! it is sopposed to be full of snow in siberia and it is hot WITH NO SNOW!!!! and it freaken SNOWED in some parts of california!

Answer 6

David Suzuki (The Nature of Things, BBC Canada) said that even if we stop production and pollution of all greenhouse gases right now, we will still see the effects of global warming for at least another 500 years.


...Co2 levels are the highest now in 20 million years, they are rising and rising at an increasing rate...

Answer 7

If you accept the idea that global warming is caused by human activity then you must also accept the idea that we humans can control the global mean temperature. Which means all we need to do is to determine where we want to set the thermostat.

Right now the temperature is somewhere between a one mile layer of ice on top of Chicago and Vikings farming in Greenland. If we let it get warmer we could farm in Greenland. If we let it get colder we could ice skate a mile over Chicago. If you accept humans can cause global warming the only real question is what temperature do we want it to be.

Answer 8

Fifty years. We have fifty years untill the climate changes enough to rise the sea level 20 feet among other bad things. Watch the movie "an inconvientent truth" for the whole picture.