7 ms·

I believe this same dynamic will apply to the oceans as they warm. They're like a can of Coke. Heat it up and the carbonation goes away. It's a horrifying posit

I believe this same dynamic will apply to the oceans as they warm. They're like a can of Coke. Heat it up and the carbonation goes away. It's a horrifying positive feedback loop of global warming.

the_gastropod 7y ago
And then the whole melting of sea ice thing. Sea ice is pretty much the whitest/most reflective surface on the planet. It then melts into the darkest/most absorbent surface on the planet. Are there any stabilizing forces we know about? I only ever hear about these types of positive feedback loops, and it scares the hell out of me.
- DennisP 7y ago
  Based on geological history, the negative feedbacks seem predominant for small perturbations, but if you push things a little too hard the positive feedbacks take over. It's happened before several times; a little initial heating from orbital variations, which leads to greenhouse gas emissions, which leads to the global average temperature going up several degrees. A good explanation of the evidence for this is in James Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren. People have long thought the threshold to be around 2 degrees C, but now some are thinking it's more like 1.5. The CO2 level everybody agreed was safe was 350 ppm.
  - mlyle 7y ago
    (and then obviously negative feedback takes back over, as we don't run away to infinite or zero temperature).
    - easymodex 7y ago
      I suppose, but before that happens the environment could get very, very unpleasant for humans (and animals in general).
      - mlyle 7y ago
        Yah, the point is if we draw a set of hills with bumps and stable equilibria for a ball to roll down-- there is resistance to perturbation near an initial point, and then a sufficient "nudge" to get over a hill and roll somewhere else... but the ball always ends up in a stable region at the bottom of a hill. How different a place that new equilibrium is ... is open to debate and not really known. What climate scientists have shown is that it can be, and likely is, pretty bad.
- GoodJokes 7y ago
  This website is great at explaining tipping points and feedbacks and what we currently know: https://climatetippingpoints.info/ https://climatetippingpoints.info/
- nostrademons 7y ago
  The primary negative feedback loop is increased photosynthesis. As CO2 concentrations rise, there's more carbon in the air that can support plant life. There also tends to be both more sunlight (warmer air can support more water vapor before it precipitates into clouds) and more water (in absolute terms, from increased evaporation). Note that in the near term, the negative feedback of photosynthesis may be overwhelmed by changes in ecosystems: if the climate changes rapidly, whole forests may find themselves in a different biome, ocean circulation patterns may change, more freshwater may enter estuaries, etc. Plants evolve quickly, though, and most of their carbon sequestration is through algae and seaweed with short lifespans.
  - vonmoltke 7y ago
    Unfortunately, I think human land use is impeding that feedback mechanism, as there are large portions of land area that are not allowed to freely green up anymore.
    - jussij 7y ago
      And you can add to that list several natural forces as well. For example, the Australia tropical rain forest, which by it's definition is wet, never has to deal with fire. But this year that change as some parts of the Australian rain forest experienced bush fires. If that trend continues then those ecosystem will struggle to survive as they have not evolved to deal with fire on a regular basis.
    - BurningFrog 7y ago
      I keep hearing forests are on the rise lately, as the world urbanizes: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-are-making-the-globe-greener/article26147272/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-are-making-the-gl...
    - nostrademons 7y ago
      That'll change as human-caused global warming results in widespread crop failures and migration of people. We're at the top of the food pyramid; change an ecosystem and (most of) humanity is the first to go. It only takes about one human generation for an ecosystem to recover after humans leave: Chernobyl and the Korean DMZ are among the most pristine environments on earth now. This is probably cold comfort for the billions of people that will die.
- rgbrenner 7y ago
  Here are a few: increased temp > increased evaporation > increased cloud coverage which reflects more sunlight increased co2 > increased tree growth increased co2 > increased algae, plankton growth to absorb co2... other marine animals will also feed on these, increasing their mass, and when they die, they'll sink to the bottom, where they'll mostly remain. increased co2 > increased diffusion into seawater.. clams, oysters, etc combine this carbon with calcium to produce shells.. and when they die, they accumulate on the sea floor eventually turning into rock. Unfortunately, the fact that co2 in the atmosphere is growing indicates we're overwhelming these.. I take zero comfort in the fact that these exists.. it actually makes me nervous because once they reach their maximum, co2 will start growing even more rapidly.. and then it'll be so much worse.
  - goodname 7y ago
    increased evaporation - water vapor is a potent green house gas increased co2 > increased diffusion into seawater - isnt acidity of the ocean increasing, making it more difficult for the shelled sea life to even develop?
    - pdonis 7y ago
      > increased evaporation - water vapor is a potent green house gas But its lifetime in the atmosphere is very short; the evaporated water vapor condenses in the upper atmosphere into clouds and precipitation. What longer term numbers I have seen indicate that the average water vapor content of the atmosphere has been roughly constant during the warming of the last half century or so.
      - labster 7y ago
        More importantly there is tons and tons of water in the atmosphere, even in so-called dry places. There’s just no wiggle room in the water vapor spectral bands, optical path is pretty constant. We will probably get more water vapor in the future but most of the PWAT ends up in clouds. And that’s where the feedbacks get interesting, cloud height is very important to radiative balance and there are a couple of indirect effects to consider too.
- chimi 7y ago
  Global Dimming is caused by pollution emitted into the air. This has caused a decline in the Pan Evaporation rate. Meaning, less water is evaporating now than decades prior. My concern is, if we stop polluting the environment and the global dimming is stopped, then climate change will get much worse. Global Dimming might explain why the climate hasn't changed as much as some would expect.
hanniabu 7y ago
Yup, it's a dangerous runaway train rolling down a parabolic slop
- dev_dull 7y ago
  Yet the rich keep buying waterfront properties.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    Didn't Obama just spend 15million for an on-beach estate? (EDIT: Apparently sale is not finalized)
    - amaranth 7y ago
      It's a nice looking place and it'll be okay for the rest of his life (and probably his kids if they keep it). After that things get more worrying.
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        I wish more wealthy people would lead by example though. Like instead if Obamas bought much smaller place and made it carbon neutral. Also, I have no idea, but what is the timeline for ocean's rising to make a place like his on beach uninhabitable? I thought it was much less time, like 12 years or so, there are so many predictions out there.
        not2personal 7y ago
        >I wish more wealthy people would lead by example though. Like instead if Obamas bought much smaller place and made it carbon neutral. Al Gore's house and travel produces more carbon per day than you will produce all year. Carbon neutrality is for poor people and developing nations. Be quiet about this fact unless you want to be labeled a climate change denier.
      - baroffoos 7y ago
taneq 7y ago
At least that'll help with ocean acidification, though, right?
the6threplicant 7y ago
The opposite is happening. We're making the oceans more acidic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

I believe this same dynamic will apply to the oceans as they warm. They're like a can of Coke. Heat it up and the carbonation goes away. It's a horrifying positive feedback loop of global warming.

the_gastropod 7y ago

And then the whole melting of sea ice thing. Sea ice is pretty much the whitest/most reflective surface on the planet. It then melts into the darkest/most absorbent surface on the planet. Are there any stabilizing forces we know about? I only ever hear about these types of positive feedback loops, and it scares the hell out of me.

DennisP 7y ago
Based on geological history, the negative feedbacks seem predominant for small perturbations, but if you push things a little too hard the positive feedbacks take over. It's happened before several times; a little initial heating from orbital variations, which leads to greenhouse gas emissions, which leads to the global average temperature going up several degrees. A good explanation of the evidence for this is in James Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren. People have long thought the threshold to be around 2 degrees C, but now some are thinking it's more like 1.5. The CO2 level everybody agreed was safe was 350 ppm.
- mlyle 7y ago
  (and then obviously negative feedback takes back over, as we don't run away to infinite or zero temperature).
  - easymodex 7y ago
    I suppose, but before that happens the environment could get very, very unpleasant for humans (and animals in general).
    - mlyle 7y ago
      Yah, the point is if we draw a set of hills with bumps and stable equilibria for a ball to roll down-- there is resistance to perturbation near an initial point, and then a sufficient "nudge" to get over a hill and roll somewhere else... but the ball always ends up in a stable region at the bottom of a hill. How different a place that new equilibrium is ... is open to debate and not really known. What climate scientists have shown is that it can be, and likely is, pretty bad.
GoodJokes 7y ago
This website is great at explaining tipping points and feedbacks and what we currently know: https://climatetippingpoints.info/ https://climatetippingpoints.info/
nostrademons 7y ago
The primary negative feedback loop is increased photosynthesis. As CO2 concentrations rise, there's more carbon in the air that can support plant life. There also tends to be both more sunlight (warmer air can support more water vapor before it precipitates into clouds) and more water (in absolute terms, from increased evaporation). Note that in the near term, the negative feedback of photosynthesis may be overwhelmed by changes in ecosystems: if the climate changes rapidly, whole forests may find themselves in a different biome, ocean circulation patterns may change, more freshwater may enter estuaries, etc. Plants evolve quickly, though, and most of their carbon sequestration is through algae and seaweed with short lifespans.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  Unfortunately, I think human land use is impeding that feedback mechanism, as there are large portions of land area that are not allowed to freely green up anymore.
  - jussij 7y ago
    And you can add to that list several natural forces as well. For example, the Australia tropical rain forest, which by it's definition is wet, never has to deal with fire. But this year that change as some parts of the Australian rain forest experienced bush fires. If that trend continues then those ecosystem will struggle to survive as they have not evolved to deal with fire on a regular basis.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    I keep hearing forests are on the rise lately, as the world urbanizes: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-are-making-the-globe-greener/article26147272/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/we-are-making-the-gl...
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    That'll change as human-caused global warming results in widespread crop failures and migration of people. We're at the top of the food pyramid; change an ecosystem and (most of) humanity is the first to go. It only takes about one human generation for an ecosystem to recover after humans leave: Chernobyl and the Korean DMZ are among the most pristine environments on earth now. This is probably cold comfort for the billions of people that will die.
rgbrenner 7y ago
Here are a few: increased temp > increased evaporation > increased cloud coverage which reflects more sunlight increased co2 > increased tree growth increased co2 > increased algae, plankton growth to absorb co2... other marine animals will also feed on these, increasing their mass, and when they die, they'll sink to the bottom, where they'll mostly remain. increased co2 > increased diffusion into seawater.. clams, oysters, etc combine this carbon with calcium to produce shells.. and when they die, they accumulate on the sea floor eventually turning into rock. Unfortunately, the fact that co2 in the atmosphere is growing indicates we're overwhelming these.. I take zero comfort in the fact that these exists.. it actually makes me nervous because once they reach their maximum, co2 will start growing even more rapidly.. and then it'll be so much worse.
- goodname 7y ago
  increased evaporation - water vapor is a potent green house gas increased co2 > increased diffusion into seawater - isnt acidity of the ocean increasing, making it more difficult for the shelled sea life to even develop?
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > increased evaporation - water vapor is a potent green house gas But its lifetime in the atmosphere is very short; the evaporated water vapor condenses in the upper atmosphere into clouds and precipitation. What longer term numbers I have seen indicate that the average water vapor content of the atmosphere has been roughly constant during the warming of the last half century or so.
    - labster 7y ago
      More importantly there is tons and tons of water in the atmosphere, even in so-called dry places. There’s just no wiggle room in the water vapor spectral bands, optical path is pretty constant. We will probably get more water vapor in the future but most of the PWAT ends up in clouds. And that’s where the feedbacks get interesting, cloud height is very important to radiative balance and there are a couple of indirect effects to consider too.
chimi 7y ago
Global Dimming is caused by pollution emitted into the air. This has caused a decline in the Pan Evaporation rate. Meaning, less water is evaporating now than decades prior. My concern is, if we stop polluting the environment and the global dimming is stopped, then climate change will get much worse. Global Dimming might explain why the climate hasn't changed as much as some would expect.

hanniabu 7y ago

Yup, it's a dangerous runaway train rolling down a parabolic slop

dev_dull 7y ago
Yet the rich keep buying waterfront properties.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  Didn't Obama just spend 15million for an on-beach estate? (EDIT: Apparently sale is not finalized)
  - amaranth 7y ago
    It's a nice looking place and it'll be okay for the rest of his life (and probably his kids if they keep it). After that things get more worrying.
    - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
      I wish more wealthy people would lead by example though. Like instead if Obamas bought much smaller place and made it carbon neutral. Also, I have no idea, but what is the timeline for ocean's rising to make a place like his on beach uninhabitable? I thought it was much less time, like 12 years or so, there are so many predictions out there.
      - not2personal 7y ago
        >I wish more wealthy people would lead by example though. Like instead if Obamas bought much smaller place and made it carbon neutral. Al Gore's house and travel produces more carbon per day than you will produce all year. Carbon neutrality is for poor people and developing nations. Be quiet about this fact unless you want to be labeled a climate change denier.
    - baroffoos 7y ago

taneq 7y ago

At least that'll help with ocean acidification, though, right?

the6threplicant 7y ago

The opposite is happening. We're making the oceans more acidic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification