Subscription Center
Three feedback loops are amplifying how rapidly the planet is heating up
December 9, 2012 | 65
Small lakes (green dots) form around Liverpool Bay in Canada east of Alaska as permafrost melts and releases carbon dioxide. As a lake grows, its relatively warm water melts even more permafrost....[More]
Landlocked glaciers such as Perito Moreno in Argentina and oceanside glaciers in the Arctic and Antarctic are retreating or breaking apart, and therefore reflect less sunlight back to space, which allows air to warm and degrade glaciers further....[More]
As ice melts in polar regions, such as this spot in the Arctic Ocean, and runs into the sea it can warm the seawater, leading to more melting.
[Link to this slide]
Warmer temperatures in the western U.S. and Canada have helped the mountain pine beetle thrive, killing hundreds of thousands of hectares of trees, such as these (brown) on Mount Fraser in British Columbia, Canada....[More]
Warmer temperatures or less snow can lead to large, dry areas of forests, extending the region and number of months during which wildfires can rage, such as the High Park Fire that burned just west of Fort Collins, Colo., in June 2012....[More]
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
Hurricane Sandy Spins Up Climate Discussion
Is the U.S. Government Underestimating the Cost of Climate Change?
"Bulge" in Atmospheric Pressure Responsible for Cold Winter Amid Global Warming
Want to Learn More about Climate Change?
Is There a Strong Link between Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change?
The Physical Science behind Climate Change
Global Warming and the Science of Extreme Weather
Climate Forecasting: A Break in the Clouds
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
65 Comments
Add CommentGlobal Warming:Faster Than Expected is highly speculative, using the word “may” eight times and “could” four times, and throwing in “which is likely”, and “potential for faster feedbacks” for good measure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet we are admonished that “the uncertainties do not justify inaction”, and told that, “The rate of change this century will be such that we can’t wait for the science”.
We are also treated to such deductive thinking as “this forcing must have been amplified by feedbacks”.
Perhaps SciAm might keep to demonstrated fact. Perhaps it's not as attention getting, but it might be more informative.
Since about 50% of the human population lives in the coastal zones of the world, it seems that the socio-economic impact of any of the scenarios of depicted in this article will be devastating. Has anyone attempted to model this impact?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhenever you read someone asking for "proof", or in this case, "demonstrated fact", beware. This is someone spouting denier nonsense. Science does not deal in proof, but in probability. There is no proof in science, only probability. So we must use the preponderance of the evidence to decide what to do in the face of inevitable and unavoidable uncertainty. There will never be "demonstrated fact", and someone can always come up with a new twist on a situation and say "we don't know exactly how this works." Not knowing exactly how something works is no excuse not to do something about it if the weight of the evidence is clear. In the case of climate change, the weight of the evidence has been clear for some time now. The preponderance of scientists working in the field agree on what is happening, why, and even on how we can fix it. Do they have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, no, and they never will. Is that an excuse to ignore the preponderance of the evidence, no. But it's an effective tactic, proven first by the tobacco industry, now taken to new heights by the fossil fuel industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe rate of decay is based on water content. That is why fats can be stored at room temperature. If these defrosted tufts of muskeg where left high and dry to desiccate in the wind, their emission of methane and CO2 would be reduced. Now they are soaking in a bath of warm water and bacteria. I "speculate" that that will accelerate greenhouse gas emissions. I guess that means to deniers, nothing to see here. Once again, we see the denier shills sowing the seeds of fear, uncertainty and doubt while offering nothing constructive to this discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat are you talking about kirk? Forcing everyone to move will drive the economy. Think of all the jobs created to build the new cities and infrastructure. Think of all the people who will have to start their lives all over again, being new furniture, vehicles, having more children to replace the ones killed in the flood... You chicken littles are always seeing the bad side of things. AGW is an undiscovered country of opportunity and adventure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYa that was sarcasm.
Just a question ! Can we use methane gas in our auto. if it's that much coming out of the ocean why not find a way to use it ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGotta trap the mothafucka first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProphesy predicts a 700 % spike
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar spike ,I should say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe funny thing about this AGW/Climate Change stuff is there's absolutely nothing we can do to stop, slow or reverse it, short of mass de-industrialization and/or suicide. So all of you are wasting your breath.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdapt already and stop your whining.
Hee har.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cause of solar system warming has not been proven.Nibiru is the best theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually not true. There is clearly way more than enough available energy from solar and wind and tidal to completely replace oil, coal, and natural gas. Add nuclear to the mix as a transition energy source, and you have everything you need. Yeah, it will cost something to get there, and there are plenty of obstacles to surmount, but none would be as difficult as adapting will be if we give up on trying to limit emissions. And once the CO2 is out of the bag, you talking decades to centuries or longer before things get back to "normal." Normal being climates which Homo sapiens evolved in over the past couple million years. And it's easy for you (assuming you live in the USA) to say "adapt," when it is the many of the poorest around the world who will have the most difficult time adapting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is no proof in science". Nonsense. Airplanes fly, electricity powers lights, cell phones transmit signals around the globe, car tires function in -20 and up to 120 degrees F without flying apart, vaccines work, generators work. This is not an accident or random event -- it's proof that the science is right. Though deeper knowledge may better explain why these inventions work (quantum theories, for example) and why the original theories were demonstrable proof.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome knowledge is not subject to controlled experiment, like climate change, or astrophysics, predictions can be inferred and confirmed (or not). Those are not merely probability statements.
Drink the purple Kool-ade or die. The end is nigh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeat the drum louder.
"... Perhaps SciAm might keep to demonstrated fact. Perhaps it's not as attention getting, but it might be more informative."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would also be better Science.
You missed the point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo "put out to pasture" all science that has uncertainty remaining would leave us all vulnerable to toxins and other nasty stuff. Proof beyond doubt is not something you want to wait for before deciding to protect human health or essential ecosystem functions. If you wait for that kind of "proof," people will die and ecosystems will collapse first. We don't need to and we don't want to wait for bodies in the morgue or extinct species and ecosystem functions to take action on health and environmental problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... If you wait for that kind of "proof," people will die and ecosystems will collapse first ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs that bald, unsubstantiated, alamist Faith Claim consistent with what you consider "Good Science"?
It's actually a description of good risk management practice. You don't wait for bodies to show up in the morgue before you take action to prevent exposure to potential toxins. When you suggest that until the science is "proven" no action should be taken, you're suggesting that we should wait until bodies show up in the morgue. You may refer to that as alarmist, just as the tobacco companies claimed there was no proof that smoking caused cancer or lung disease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, I'm right on point. Tone down, and eliminate your hyperbole in an attempt to support reasonable arguments for the sciences that are involved with scientific arguments in favor of increasing global warming, man's complicity and its consequences. Your uninformed interpretations of the philosophy of science and how science is in fact practiced are as ignorant as new earth creationists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you can't read the technical journals involved, at least avail yourself of Michael Mann's Hockey Stick book, which gives a scientist's view of supporting data in lay terms.
Will the lemmings of this world ever wake up to the fact that "Global Warming" is a hoax which has turned into a greed driven, giant conspiracy? Our planet is returning to its natural temperatures at the same rate that it has since the great ice age. Use your charcoal grill, drive your DeSoto Fireflite, enjoy a warming fire in your fireplace, burn coal for electricity - none of that will make the slightest difference. Our planet has been warming and will continue to warm until it reaches its natural temperatures. Granted, this may end up an inhospitable home, particularly for those living closest to the equator. However, a costly Henny Penny reaction today will not change the climate on this planet and, ultimately, the only survivors will be cockroaches.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith only 100 recorded years as a base to make a decision on 4 billion years of weather is asinine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou stand a better chance of saying that at the rate of stupidity in humans is growing we will be unable to make conscious educated decisions in the future.
You are a goober if you think that the weight of the evidence is clear using only the last 100 years as evidence. Less than 1 million years ago the coastline of Alabama was near Montgomery and not Mobile.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour grant money's must be running out, in 1972 scientist said we would not be able to walk outside without wearing a spacesuit in 1982 because the Ozone layer would be completely GONE. It's still there.
"... When you suggest that until the science is "proven" no action should be taken, you're suggesting that we should wait until bodies show up in the morgue ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid I suggest that? Did I suggest that no action should be taken? If you read what I posted, you'll see that I posted that the Science would be better if the alarmist foolishness was excluded. It is because the subject is important that extremism should be avoided.
dubay.denis,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"When you suggest that until the science is "proven" no action should be taken"
Chryses didn't, so why do you say that he did?
Let the Science stand on its own without the lurid props of alarmist hyperbole. The purpose of Science is to describe, persuade and explain. It is unsuited for the role you in the Terror Story which you've cast it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is only as good a description of good risk management practice as the risks, effective remediation, and costs have been quantified. As the error bars remain large on the first two terms of what you blithely imply is an unambiguous equation, the result can have such a wide range of values as to render the exercise worthless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther, as China and India, the 1 and soon-to-be 2 GHG emitters are excluded, all the noisy rhetoric on the part of the EU (where CO2 emissions have gone up due to their policies) and the US (where CO2 emissions are declining due to the transition from coal to fracted natural gas) what is the point of these alarmist pieces?
One of the tricks of the debating game is to put your opponent on the defensive by taking as given that (s)he asserted something that, while false, is disadvantageous to her. This appears to be what dubay.denis tried to do with the false implications that Chryses’ position was “no action should be taken" until the science is "proven".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt backfires when the opponent points it out, as in this case, thus discrediting the accuser.
Nothing will ever be proven here. This is not a simple 1+1=2 mathematical "fact" as if facts exist anyhow other than it appears to be warmer this year, last year, year before etc. The real question is does it hurt you to turn off a light every now and then? Do our offices need to be as bright as daylight even though most reading we do nowadays is via computer monitor? Do I need to be able to walk around the house in shorts during the winter? There is no action we can do to stop this for us, only make the future less miserable. Maybe waste a little less.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExaggerated and unsubstantiated statements are hurting the reputation of climatology and damaging environmentalism. Too much crying wolf.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChryses:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Did I suggest that? Did I suggest that no action should be taken? If you read what I posted, you'll see that I posted that the Science would be better if the alarmist foolishness was excluded. It is because the subject is important that extremism should be avoided."
Bingo.
dubay.denis- If humans were suddenly removed from the planet, how long would it take for atmospheric CO2 levels to drop? Answer, at a minimum several decades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven that humans are not going to be instantly removed from the planet, and that humans are not going to stop emitting CO2 for decades, than adaptation IS a response that IS essential.
Can you please try to actually learn a bit of science before commenting?
Science is a liberal conspiracy to brain wash children into becoming environmentalist and evolution believing atheist. Also, math is a liberal conspiracy too :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo are facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Exaggerated and unsubstantiated statements are hurting the reputation of climatology and damaging environmentalism. Too much crying wolf."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly, all too true.
@Sisko, do you have any science to back that up or are we supposed to take the word of an established liar?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... "Global Warming" is a hoax ..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust as the Science does not support some extreme alarmist claims, so too it does not support that position. Global Warming over the last 200 years is sufficiently well documented that the majority, in fact a very large majority agree that it is occurring.
http://tinyurl.com/y67qrl
Further most of those climatologists believe that a significant portion of the recorded Global Warming is caused by humans (AGW).
http://tinyurl.com/44tzrrh
Before anyone gets upset by my referencing a consensus, I am not presenting it as proof of either, but for who still insist that AGW, or worse yet GW is not occurring, I remind you that the people who are familiar with this subject think both are true. The only real debate is about the fraction of GW attributable to AGW.
Why would snowmakers keep lakes frozen?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Surface temperatures are rising slower than GCMs predicted –
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/trends-relative-to-models/
2. Sea level is rising slower than the models forecasted. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
3. Asian glaciers are melting slower than was forecasted. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-12-03/india/35569707_1_bara-shigri-glaciers-snowfall
So here are links to actual data showing that warming is NOT happening faster than expected. The GCMs over predicted the rate of warming. Sea level is rising at a rate that would have to more than double to meet the ‘feared” .6 meters of seal level rise considered likely by the IPCC by 2100. Asian glaziers are not melting as fast as was feared.
No hyperbole, just an explanation of what the denier lobby likes to do, and why it's wrong. Demanding proof is just a tactic to stifle someone's assertion that the weight of the evidence points in a certain direction. In science the weight of the evidence is everything, proof is elusive, and thus asking to be shown the proof is just a good way to win the argument, and avoid looking at the weight of the evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate scientists have looked at evidence of past climates back millions of years, hardly just the past 100 years. And the ozone layer continues to suffer damage from CFCs, although an international treaty (the Montreal Protocol) cutting back on CFC production has slowed and will reverse the damage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI made no alarmist statements. I described a tactic used by the denier lobby to attack legitimate science, that's all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou created the "terror story." I was merely describing how industry has used manufactured doubt to avoid health regulations in the past. And when the denier lobby today calls for "proof" and "demonstrated fact" that sounds a lot like what the tobacco industry did when it successfully held off regulations to protect people from tobacco smoke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut there are measures that could be taken to limit CO2 increases and speed the eventual recovery of the atmosphere. It's easy for you to say "adapt", you are rich, relatively speaking at least. It won't be so easy for someone poor to adapt when that means finding a new place to live or somewhere else to grow food to eat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdubay
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe poor are harmed today because poorly managed or corrupt nations do not build the proper infrastructure to protect them from bad weather. That issue has ZERO to do with potential climate change. There is no reason the people in the US should be forced to pay higher taxes to support building infrastructure in other nations.
@sicko, "That issue has ZERO to do with potential climate change. There is no reason the people in the US should be forced to pay higher taxes to support building infrastructure in other nations." how would this issue play out in an American courtroom? The US is the largest contributor of greenhouse gases to date. Therefore the majority of climate change related challenges to the third are as a direct result of American pollution. If I were to make changes on my property that forced you to make changes to your property the court would take no time to decide to award you damages. Of course you will just continue to lie and claim there is no such thing as AGW, that humans are incapable of changing their environment, that releasing millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 can not possibly have an effect on the planet, but these articles are not meant for idiots like you. They are meant for people with some level of scientific literacy, that don't use their political ideology to determine what is true or false, and who are not psychopaths looking to make a buck off of someone else's misfortunes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike it or not, the US and the rest of the industrialized world brought on AGW. And we continue to do it because there is supposedly no other economically viable solution. The problem is, if we were to consider the degree to which we subsidize fossil fuels and include the costs associated with the use of fossil fuels then plenty of other options will start to look much better. That is why low-lifes such as sicko deny climate change and any responsibility for it, because if they don't, they know they are looking at the end on the gravy-train.
If the climate did not change, the poor would not be in jeopardy. Historically the US and the EU have produced the vast majority of GHGs, so we do bear some responsibility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if specie suicide is painless. I kind of think probably not. Oh well we did it and before we let XNA loose this may be a better way for us to go out, with a fizz.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdubay dennis wrote- "If the climate did not change, the poor would not be in jeopardy"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy response-- LOL, you are and you know you are WRONG! Poor people are hurt by bad weather today. The issue in play is the potential differences in the frequency and severity of storms but NOT that there will be wonderful weather if only we didn't emit CO2. If a country does not build proper infrastructure today let's say 1000 die in a severe storm. If conditions did worsen due to climate change may 1100 people are killed. If the country built proper infrastructure the number might change to 10 people killed pre-climate change and 11 killed post climate change. The issue to prevent harm is building the proper infrastructure.
To R Schmidt-- you are a bit of a joke and a fool if you believe that the emission of CO2 by the US has led to "net harms" for the poor of the world. If the US had not emitted CO2 the poor would have been dead since they would have starved to death. Schmidt, try to actually learn some facts and stop looking at the world as you think it should be and look at it as it really exists.
Obviously my statement implied the poor would be in increased jeopardy with climate change, that is, after all, what we are talking about. Nothing I said implied otherwise. Of course you can argue the relative degree of increased jeopardy, and I clearly don't have my finger on a bunch of evidence to refute your assertions. And of course better infrastructure would mean less risk, it would also mean they were not poor! And sure, you can blame their governments, and blame them for allowing terrible leaders to rule them, but does that mean they do not deserve our help? I suppose it depends on how much control they had over the process of choosing their leader.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDubayDennis
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou asked if the fact that they have bad governments which have left their citizens at risk of harm means that we (the USA) should not help them.
In my opinion individual Americans can send should provide assistance as they feel appropriate, but it is not the responsability of the US government or the duty of US citizens to provide that help. The US sticks its nose into the business of INDEPENDENT nations farr too much already. The citizens of these independent countries have the responsibility to overthrow their governments if they are performing that badly
"I made no alarmist statements."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet us see if you are telling the truth. Consider, if you will, post #19, in which we may find the following: "If you wait for that kind of "proof," people will die and ecosystems will collapse first." Perhaps you do not consider prediction of the death of people and ecosystems as alarmist, but most people do.
You then continue, "We don't need to and we don't want to wait for bodies in the morgue or extinct species and ecosystem functions to take action on health and environmental problems." Do you honestly think that "bodies in the morgue", or "extinct species and ecosystem functions" is NOT alarmist?
You have indeed, posted alarmist statements.
"I described a tactic used by the denier lobby to attack legitimate science, that's all."
As demonstrated above, whether or not you did or did not describe such a tactic, that is very much NOT all that you did.
"You created the "terror story." .."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNope. The terror story was created by dubay.denis with his images of dead people and destroyed ecosystems. His lurid imagery was neither necessary nor appropriate.
LOL! You beat me to it! The only thing you left for me to do is to point out that dubay.denis also ascribed to me a statement I did not make and a position that I did not take.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was pointing out that if one were to demand "proof" before ever taking action to protect human or ecosystem health from threats from pollution (not just climate change), then yes, indeed, people would die and ecosystems would collapse. People have died because industries averted regulations that would have prevented exposure to such things as asbestos and tobacco smoke and vioxx and benzene. I was not suggesting that people were about to die due to climate change, though at some future point a look back at increasing storms might lead someone to draw that conclusion. But that's not what I was suggesting. I was making a point about distorting science by demanding "proof" before taking preventative actions. That is a distortion of science and the scientific method.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I was not suggesting that people were about to die due to climate change"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis thread is a commentary on "Earth May Be Warming Even Faster Than Expected", so the contest with which your comments were made is explicitly about climate change. I refer you to your comments at #19 such as ,"... people will die and ecosystems will collapse first ...", and "... We don't need to and we don't want to wait for bodies in the morgue or extinct species and ecosystem functions to take action on health and environmental problems ..." are all about your alarmist projections of the result of climate change. What is GW/AGW if not and environmental problem?
Yeah, you were suggesting EXACTLY that.
And then, to top it off, you accuse me at post #21 of stating something I didn't, "When you suggest that until the science is "proven" no action should be taken, you're suggesting that we should wait until bodies show up in the morgue." Where did I suggest that no action should be taken? Can you identify that post as I have identified yours?
Thought not.
Take it easy, Chryses. dubay.denis is busted. Everyone can read what he posted, and what you did.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI stand by my explanation in #61, and if that's not good enough for you, sorry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs your post at #61 doesn't even come close to a reasonable explanation of your false accusations and misrepresentations, I accept your apology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI try to, but it irks me that extremist rhetoric found on this and other GW threads like that of dubay.denis makes it sooooooooooo much more difficult to present a believable narrative in support of AGW to those who, like littleredtop, still don't get it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this48. RSchmidt
01:42 PM 12/11/12 writes...(among other things)
...The US is the largest contributor of greenhouse gases to date. ....
That simply is not true if looked at in a meaningful way. Saying that the U.S. releases more of anything than say Canada is irrelevant since America has ten times the population.
When comparing the individual American's contribution to greenhouse gases then you have to look at what his efforts produce. American energy use is by far the most efficient in the world and is getting more so every year.
Every proposal so far advanced purporting to take funds from advanced economies to less advanced societies to _improve_ them all insist on the recipient using less efficient social, political, business and technology models. Proponents justify this by claiming a moral high ground which exempts their models from analysis.
You know... we owe it to them...they deserve it...It's our fault...etc. Thus the urge to adopt practices that lower our standard of living as well as theirs all the while actually _increasing_ the amount of green house gases released.
I pretty much agree with you. The real solution is
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto control or decrease our population. Even if we can
drastically reduce our per capita carbon footprint, a
major population increase and undustrialization of third
world countries will eventually leave us drowning in
our own waste.
Melt water warms ocean water, meaning it's warmer???
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut another factor I haven't seen mentioned is that as oceans increase in volume, they spread over land area and absorb more light than land area, thus adding to heat.
So we should adapt by mining more carbon? The proper ways to adapt will mean, yes, some de-industrialization, probably some suicide, not to mention murder, but mostly common sense for a change. Ever-growing population is the main problem. The "murder" should start with eggs and sperm, fetuses when necessary, adults who still act like ignorant children, and on up the line as needed. We can't always invent our way out of problems. Now we've created a big one which will only get bigger for quite a while, and could mean at least a temporary reversal of civilization, humanity or all life on earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOxygen is a poisonous waste to all plants. Animals' needs for plants suggests it's a potential poison to all life. As we heat the planet, more water vapor gets higher in the atmosphere. UV light from the sun breaks it down into its elements and some of the light Hydrogen gets blown away into space by the solar wind, leaving ever-increasing Oxygen, to burn more carbon to heat the earth even more. So we really need to do what we can to keep the heat down.