Well if 'runaway climate change' is to be the 'standard' term, then why isn't it used in journals? This may seem like a minor squabble, but if scientists are talking a different language to the public, how can these vital concepts be communicated?
Remember all the nonsense about 'black holes' which were supposed to be called 'gravitationally completely collapsed bodies'. No-one calls them that anymore, I don't think. Someone needs to sort out all this nomenclature. We can't as yet even conclusively state whether geoeng is a branch of adaptation/mitigation or whether it's a separate discipline. If RACC is non-standard, then what is the 'standard' term? Doubtless there are a dozen other incidences where no-one knows what anyone's actually talking about. This argument goes far further than wiki, as I hope I've made plain - it's fundamental to how we communicate our message. A 2009/2/3 David Schnare <[email protected]>: > Andrew > > No one cares what the wiki people like. > > David Schnare > Center for Environmental Stewardship > > On Feb 2, 2009, at 6:50 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I have an alternative theory as to why we don't see too many instances >> of runaway climate change from the 'clathrate gun' effect, or from >> permafrost. >> >> Methane has a very short life in the atmosphere, but is a potent >> greenhouse gas. If the rate of warming is low, a little methane is >> released, which quickly degrades to CO2 which has little short term >> effect and can then disappear into sinks. As warming continues, more >> methane is released, but never fast enough to make a significant >> difference to the climate before it degrades again to CO2. >> >> HOWEVER: >> >> In AGW, the temperature is rising very fast. This has the potential >> to make methane belch out from soils and seas very quickly. This >> speed is of the essence, as large quantities of methane will be enough >> to influence future methane release to create a runaway event. >> >> The process is like pull starting a chainsaw. A little tug gets you >> the odd cough. Tug hard, the the chainsaw motor gets started and runs >> on its own. >> >> Now, pretty please with sugar on top, can someone tell me what the >> proper, scientific, not-to-be-argued with name for that process is? >> The people on wikipedia really don't like 'runaway climate change' - >> as apparently 'proper' climate scientists don't use that term. >> Citations much appreciated, thankyou!! >> >> A >> >> 2009/2/2 Alvia Gaskill <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Not enough CO2 in the atmosphere. >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Andrew Revkin >>> To: [email protected] ; [email protected] >>> Cc: [email protected] ; Tom Wigley ; Andrew Lockley ; geoengineering ; >>> Prof John Shepherd ; Tim Lenton ; David Lawrence >>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 3:29 PM >>> Subject: [geo] runaway climate change >>> Who on this list knows why the Arctic warming ~ 8,000 years ago (quite >>> protracted and significantly warmer than today) did not lead to "runaway" >>> warming? >>> Presumably something kicked in the other direction? >>> I'm pursuing a clearer picture of lessons from the Holocene and the >>> Eemian >>> (the previous interglacial) related to feedbacks and whether there are, >>> or >>> are not, one-way doors in the climate system. Leads eagerly pursued. .. >>> Andy >>> At 5:29 PM +0530 2/2/09, Govindasamy bala wrote: >>> >>> Runaway feedback means running its course completely. It is feedback >>> specific. >>> >>> A good example is the presumed water vapor feedback on Venus. >>> Apparently, earth and venus started with similar amount of h2o. >>> Because Venus started with much higher surface temperature, the evolution >>> of >>> temperature and water vapor never intercepted the phase line of vapor and >>> liquid. The climate warmed until all the water got evaporated. Basically, >>> there was no sink for vapor which precipitation. On earth, this is not >>> going >>> to happen because we got the precipitation sink on earth...how lucky we >>> are. >>> >>> But I guess we do have runaway ice-albedo feedback on earth. we could get >>> ice-free planet or snowball earth........ >>> >>> Cheers. >>> Bala >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:03 PM, Eugene I. Gordon <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I guess it is not going to end. >>> >>> A runaway train meets only #2 and even that has to be qualified because >>> the >>> train eventually runs out of (fossil?) fuel or track. Certainly climate >>> has >>> run away a half dozen times in 540 million years but always hits a limit >>> which seems to be 24C except when an asteroid hits. It eventually turns >>> around after remaining at the limit temperature for many millions of >>> years. >>> We have been in a runaway mode for the last 18,000 years but with some >>> superimposed small wiggles in temperature. Without geoengineering the >>> temperature will certainly get to the 24 C limit. >>> >>> I think runaway is appropriate for the current situation even if there >>> may >>> be better suited terms. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Nissen >>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 6:08 AM >>> To: Tom Wigley; Andrew Lockley >>> Cc: geoengineering; Prof John Shepherd; Tim Lenton; David Lawrence >>> Subject: [geo] Re: runaway climate change >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Tom, >>> >>> The concept of "runaway" has certain connotations: >>> >>> 1. Significant in resultant effect >>> 2. Uncontrollable >>> 3. Exponential initial behaviour - characteristised by acceleration of >>> process 4. No obvious limit 5. Irreversible 6. Rapid. >>> >>> These can all be applied to climate change: >>> >>> 1. "Significant" could be over 5 degrees global warming, sufficient for >>> a >>> mass extinction event. Or it could be applied to several metres of sea >>> level rise. >>> 2. "Uncontrollable" could be where anthropogenic greenhouse gas >>> emissions >>> reduction would not have a significant effect on the rate of climate >>> change. >>> 3. Exponential behaviour could be caused by a "tipping" of some part of >>> the >>> climate system, such as Arctic sea ice or methane release, where there is >>> strong positive feedback. >>> 4. There would be no obvious final equilibrium temperature - mainly >>> because >>> of the difficulty of modelling positive feedback and its behaviour over >>> time. >>> 5. It would be extremely difficult or impossible to reverse processes >>> such >>> as methane release or Greenland ice sheet disintegration, although it is >>> conceivable to halt these processes or even reverse their effects >>> (presumably through geoengineering). >>> 6. "Rapid" could be anything from one season to 3000 years, on a >>> geological >>> timescale. >>> >>> Therefore I think that "runaway" captures the semantics that we require >>> for >>> >>> the climate change that would result from, for example, a massive methane >>> release, triggered by Arctic sea ice disappearance. Can you think of a >>> better word to capture the six characteristics above, especially as >>> applicable to climate change? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Tom Wigley" <[email protected]> >>> To: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> >>> Cc: <[email protected]>; "geoengineering" >>> <[email protected]>; "Prof John Shepherd" >>> <[email protected]>; "Tim Lenton" <[email protected]>; "David >>> Lawrence" >>> <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 3:43 AM >>> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: runaway climate change >>> >>> >>>> Andrew, >>>> >>>> Poor analogy. running does not equal running away. >>>> >>>> More importantly, just because a term has been misused in the >>>> past does not mean we should perpetuate its misuse (or use). >>>> If the word is to be used at all (and, as a practicing scientist, >>>> I never have or will), one should start off by saying that the >>>> word runaway is open to misinterpretation, that it does not >>>> mean running off to infinity, and that it's real meaning is ... >>>> etc. etc. Then talk about irreversible changes (with the caveat >>>> that even these are probably not irreversible), positive >>>> feedbacks (which also have limits), etc. >>>> >>>> Tom. >>>> >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++==== >>>> >>>> Andrew Lockley wrote: >>>>> >>>>> For better or worse, the term is now in general use in scientific, >>>>> industrial, environmental and general media. (See >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change for refs.) >>>>> >>>>> I don't agree with Tom about 'to infinity and beyond'. I run as a >>>>> hobby, and I've never run to infinity (or beyond). I think most >>>>> people realise that runaway doesn't mean run-for-ever. >>>>> >>>>> However, a general definition would be very useful. >>>>> >>>>> A >>>>> >>>>> 2009/2/2 <[email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> I've said this before, but here goes again. >>>>>> >>>>>> If one sticks to dictionary definitions of words (which I >>>>>> think is wise) then there is no such thing as "runaway" >>>>>> climate change. Strictly, using the words of Buzz Lightyear, >>>>>> "runaway" must mean "to infinity and beyond". >>>>>> >>>>>> Further, the word "runaway" is loaded and should be eschewed >>>>>> in the climate context. >>>>>> >>>>>> The confusion here is that what some people are calling >>>>>> "runaway" climate change is really better referred to as >>>>>> "irreversible" climate change. For instance, the sudden release >>>>>> of a large amount of CH4 would possibly cause large warming >>>>>> that would put the globe in a new state that was much warmer >>>>>> than present. But the climate (or global-mean temperature) would >>>>>> *not* runaway -- it would eventually stabilize. Even this change >>>>>> would not strictly be irreversible, as the excess CH4 would >>>>>> slowly be oxidized (more slowly than today because of the well >>>>>> known positive feedback of CH4 on its own lifetime due to OH loss), >>>>>> but a lot of the excess CH4 would slowly disappear and be replaced >>>>>> by CO2 that has less forcing. This CO2 would, of course, stay >>>>>> around for a long time. >>>>>> >>>>>> If anyone is interested, this case can easily be run with MAGICC, >>>>>> but some minor tweaks are needed to get the CH4 to CO2 flux right. >>>>>> Conceptually trivial. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, please, please try not to cry wolf with these loaded and sadly >>>>>> oft-misused words. >>>>>> >>>>>> Tom. >>>>>> >>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andrew, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. I think the concept of runaway climate change is kosher. See >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> quote >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> http://www.meridian.org.uk/_PDFs/FeedbackDynamics.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The possibility of a tipping point in the earth system as a whole >>>>>>> which >>>>>>> prevents the recovery of stable equilibrium and leads to a process of >>>>>>> runaway climate change, is now the critical research agenday, >>>>>>> requiring >>> >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> concerntration of global resources in a "Manhattan Project" style >>>>>>> engagement. All other work on impact assessment, mitigation and >>>>>>> adaptration >>>>>>> depends on the outcome of thie overarching issue" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would prefer to have "runaway global warming", because that's what >>>>>>> we >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> really talking about, but "climate change" is almost interchangeable >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> "global warming" these days. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. The domino effect is mentioned here: >>>>>>> http://researchpages.net/ESMG/people/tim-lenton/tipping-points/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The release of methane is likely to be triggered by the loss of >>>>>>> Arctic >>>>>>> sea >>>>>>> ice, according to David Lawrence: >>>>>>> http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/permafrost.jsp >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. I believe it is generally accepted that the Arctic sea ice albedo >>>>>>> effect >>>>>>> contributes to the accelerated warming trend in the Arctic region. >>>>>>> It >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> also accepted that this effect presents a strong positive feedback on >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> local warming, but currently presents only a weak positive feedback >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> global warming. Thus if the local warming can be halted, and methane >>>>>>> release domino effect thereby avoided, then we can avoid passing a >>>>>>> point >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> no return, or going "over the waterfall" as you put it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd be interested to know if Prof John Shepherd agrees with this >>>>>>> assessment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 4. Additional point - only albedo (shortwave radiation) >>>>>>> geoengineering >>>>>>> has >>>>>>> any chance to halt the local warming in the Arctic. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again I'd be interested to know whether Prof Shepherd agrees with >>>>>>> this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>> From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> >>>>>>> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 12:33 PM >>>>>>> Subject: [geo] runaway climate change >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm working on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_climate_change >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and there are a few crucial questions I could do with help on: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) Is the term 'Runaway climate change' seen as kosher, or is it >>>>>>> purely a pop-science concept? >>>>>>> 2) How widespread is support for the idea of an ice-albedo followed >>>>>>> by >>>>>>> a clathrate/permafrost domino effect? Is it speculative or accepted? >>>>>>> 3) Is there consensus on 2) above as regards timing? All the sound >>>>>>> evidence I've read says we've already fallen over the waterfall. Do >>>>>>> others agree? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you have any general thoughts on the matter, or notable people and >>>>>>> sources you'd care to inform me of, then please email back >>>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Dr. G. Bala >>> Associate Professor >>> Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences >>> Indian Institute of Science >>> Bangalore - 560 012 >>> India >>> >>> Tel: +91 80 2293 2698 >>> +91 80 2293 2505 x206 >>> +91 9741991621 (cell) >>> Fax: +91 80 2360 0865 >>> Email: [email protected] >>> [email protected] >>> Web:http://caos.iisc.ernet.in/faculty/gbala/gbala.html >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Andrew C. Revkin >>> The New York Times / Environment >>> 620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018 >>> Tel: 212-556-7326 Mob: 914-441-5556 >>> Fax: 509-357-0965 >>> http://www.nytimes.com/revkin >>>> >>> >> >> >> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
