Global Warming leads to more Global Warming?

Question

I was reading about some of the effects of global warming the other day, and thought about all the carbon dioxide that is dissolved in the oceans....etc...

Surely if the temperature of earths surface increases, it will decrease solubility of gases in water and more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere, which in turn, would cause even more temperature increase....etc

If this would actually happen (not entirely sure if my logic is correct!) Why havent i ever read about it?

Could someone who knows more about this subject than me tell me whether this would actually happen too please =)

Thanks for your time!

Answer 1

Yes, this is the Global Warming Alarmist (GWA) explanation for the sceptics’ question: Why does CO2 *follow* temperature in the historic climate record.

Their theory goes something like this…

“Something” causes the temperature to rise.

This rise in temperature causes CO2 levels to rise.

Once CO2 levels start rising it causes more, catastrophic, global warming.

Conclusion: CO2 causes catastrophic global warming.

Of course, the big problem with this theory, and something that the GWA websites don’t deal with (because they can’t), is the fact that when the “something” decides it’s time for temperatures to start falling again, temperatures drop, while CO2 continues to rise for a further 800+ years.

Clearly, this “something” has a much stronger effect on the climate than CO2 does, to the extent that CO2 becomes irrelevant.

Bob, above, shows an amazingly flawed logic when he says…

“By the way, it's funny that skeptics point out that, in previous natural warmings, CO2 lagged temperature by some hundreds of years. That's actually proof that the present warming is not natural. CO2 is going up simultaneously with temperature this time, because CO2 is causing the warming, not the sun.”

So, just because CO2 and temperatures are rising at the same time, this proves that the former is causing the latter, does it? It couldn’t just be coincidental, could it? Of course it could. And this is demonstrated by the fact that temperatures actually fell from the 1940s to the 1970s at a time when man-made CO2 was rising much faster than ever before.

The second reason for the “Global Warming leads to more Global Warming” idea is that this allows the GWAs to predict catastrophic, “runaway” global warming, in an attempt to scare everybody into jumping on their bandwagon. The truth is that global warming is unlikely to cause us very many problems, despite what the GWAs tell us about sea level rise, hurricane activity, mass extinctions, etc, etc.

Take sea level rise. In the 20th century sea levels rose by a fairly constant 1.7mm per year. In An Inconvenient Truth (which Bob has claimed several times recently “got the basic science right”), Al Gore predicted rises of 20m by 2100. So that’s over 100 times faster than last century – 170mm *per year*. Plainly this is rubbish.

As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.

Answer 2

So, you really want to know? Well, I'll tell you what will REALLY happen. Th melting of the ice caps will cause cold water to enter the oceanic flow. The oceanic flow is a cycle where warm water from the tropics travels up to the northern parts of the oceans. It cools, falls below the warm water that is coming in (heat rises, cold falls), and goes back to the tropics. If cold water from the ice caps gets into the ocean, the average temperature of the ocean will fall. Rain is, on average, about 5 to 10 degrees warmer than the oceans, depending on the latitude of the rain compared to the latitude of the ocean. If the ocean gets colder, the rain gets colder. Since most of the water on the planet is in the oceans, most of the rain is from the oceans. (Yes, its true. The reason it's not salty is that salt can not evaporate.) If the rain gets colder, that means that hail, snow and sleet would reach more southern latitudes than it is now. Because of that, we would have a global cooling effect that would plunge us into another ice age. That is how the first iceage began. The comet that killed the dinosaures caused this trend to occure. There was another small ice age durring the rennaisance. Note the Irish potatoe famin. The same process occured again at that time. Don't go out and buy the latest beach fasions for the high temperatures. Go get a jacket instead.

Answer 3

What you're referring to is something called the Positive Feedback Cycle (or PF Loop, PF Effect) - a kind of catch 22 situation where one thing leads to another.

There's more to it than just the oceans and each component of the carbon cycle (biomass, soil, atmosphere etc) is included as too are the other greenhouse gases.

To give an example. Large parts of Siberia are covered by permafrost - a permanently frozen layer overlying non frozen soil. Much of the soil is peat and through the process of methanogenesis (biomethanation) substantial quantities of methane gas are produced, this is trapped below the frozen layer.

In the last 5 years one million square kiolmetres of permafrost have frozen and in doing so the trapped methane is released.

Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (it has a 100 year GWP of 23, meaning that after 100 years it's contribution to global warming is 23 times that of CO2). All this methane that is being released contributes further to global warming which in turn exacerbates the melting of the permafrost resulting on more methane being released; and so it goes on ad infinitum.

It doesn't matter which comes first whether it's warming or increased greenhouse gas concentrations, one will lead to the other.

Of course, in the past it's been rising temperatures occasioned by natural cycles that have caused an increase in GHG concentrations but in the last 200 years or so human activities have interfered with the normal process through the emission of very substantial quantities of GHG's.

It's actually much more complicated than the way I've explained it but a detailed answer taking all factors into consideration would be enough to fill a small booklet.

Post another question or e-mail me if you'd like further info.

Answer 4

"This is a far more difficult question than it appears at first glance. The solubility of CO2 in water depends upon several factors:
1. The pressure of CO2 in equilibrium with the solution. Solubility increases with increasing pressure.
2. The temperature. Solubility decreases with increasing
temperature.
3. The pH. The solubility of CO2 increases with increasing pH.
4. The presence of other substances. The solubility tends to decrease with concentration of "inert" ionic solutes like sodium chloride, but may increase or decrease with increasing concentration of organic compounds, depending upon the compound. You can find out "pieces" of the answer if you do a web search, but I do not know of a single reference that tabulates all the variables in one place. In general sodium and potassium carbonate or hydrogen carbonate salts will be more soluble than gaseous CO2 alone."

Now, as it gets warmer the oceans can hold less CO2. The amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is already approaching its maximum. This means that, in the past, a lot of the excess CO2 has been absorbed by the oceans. This natural buffer is on its way to "disappear". This will make the additional CO2 released to have a much more direct impact.
As for nr. 3: the PH decreases with additional CO2 in sea water so this will also lead to decreased solubility of CO2.

Answer 5

Yes, it will happen.

The question is how fast and how much. The data is not good enough to say.

Which is why, if we do nothing to reduce it, global warming could take as long as 30 years to hit really hard, or as little as ten.

It's covered in a number of scientific documents. The IPCC report mentions it, points out that the data does not permit quantitative analysis, and so these "positive feedbacks" are not included. It's one more reason why the IPCC analysis is actually very conservative.

There are "negative feedbacks" possible too, such as increased warmth causing more clouds which block the sun. But most scientists think the positive feedbacks are far more important. (and clouds can also hold heat in, it's very complicated)

Eventually solar cycles will bring a halt to this. But that's many thousands of years off.

By the way, it's funny that skeptics point out that, in previous natural warmings, CO2 lagged temperature by some hundreds of years. That's actually proof that the present warming is not natural. CO2 is going up simultaneously with temperature this time, because CO2 is causing the warming, not the sun.

It's also proof that the swindle movie is really bad science.

"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html

Answer 6

Actually a British environmental activist by the name of George Monbiot has been saying it for years; to paraphrase: "There is a point after which the Earth will become a net producer of CO2 rather than a net consumer due to increased temperature in the bioshpere. At that time there is an 80% chance Global Warming will become irreversable."

What you are saying is not really news. Good point though, more people need to recognise the urgency of addressing Global Warming.

Answer 7

Yes, there are many feedbacks like this. CO2 solubility in the ocean is a big one, as is water vapor in the atmosphere. The hotter the Earth gets, the more water vapor (another greenhouse gas) the atmosphere can hold. I recall reading something about methane trapped in the Tundra until it warms sufficiently, too. There are other feedbacks, but those are the ones I'm familiar with.

Answer 8

for my section, it is going to take place returned. The earth will bypass via it quite is organic routeens with the intention to maintain itself working, purely like us people do. as an occasion, as quickly as we get an infection improve interior us, we get the flu...it is not terrific, yet on the comparable time, it quite is purely the bodies way of eliminating an infection so it could function returned as quickly because it quite is unquestionably. With the earth, there are an incredible sort of pollution floating around in this air, that are lots of motives why worldwide Warming is happening. it is going to warmth up, with the intention to soften the ice from the Arctic and the Antarctic, to calm down the air and gradually initiate freezing over. which will help to purify the air. as quickly because it quite is finished freezing, it is going to start to soften returned. Leaving the air, and the land sparkling, and in a position to start it quite is cycle yet returned. each thing has a organic routeen, and so does the planet.

Answer 9

In reality, assuming humans were the cause, if we shut down everything, lived like cavemen, the effect it would have would be so small as to be in the margin of error. This is one reason why those proposing cuts in our standard of living should be ignored until they offer something reasonable. There are feedback mechanisms, some act as buffers and others act to increase the heating. If you look at the history of the earth's climate for the last million years there were several warm and cool periods. Obviously, there comes a point, probably due to the earths orbit around the sun, where the primary mechanisms result in a cooling. There was a book by Strieber, I think, who predicted that the methane hydrate deposits on the bottom of the ocean would act with a similar feedback mechanism. I think there is very little to suggest it is anything more than creative alarmism as is the case with much of global warming.

Answer 10

One of the things I've read was that as the oceans warm, cirrus cloud formation increases over them. These clouds act to cool the Earth, not warm it as the lower cumulus clouds do. This results in a sort of safety that buffers the warming trend. It's also something that the computers happen to have a lot of difficulty modeling, and something that the GW worshippers tend to leave out of the conversations.