Ive read that our carbon emissions have basically started a cascade effect that we can’t limit now. IS this right or wrong?
In: 840
[deleted]
Even if we were able to remove CO2 from the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels, it would only slow down global warming and it wouldn’t have a immediate effect on our climate. Essentially, the earth’s climate responds in a slow and complex manner to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. It would take time to adjust to the lower CO2.
TLDR; No, it would slow down global warming and the earth’s climate would have to adjust in a complex manner
[deleted]
It would have an immediate effect. The energy remittance to space would immediately increase, though it would take some years to cool down the oceans. So a real effect might need a few years but for the climate that’s almost immediately.
It would have both immediate and long term effects. Without as much of a greenhouse effect, seasonal temperatures would likely drop worldwide on average and we would likely see an increase in PH in the ocean as excess CO2 diffuses back out of it, however the climate and environment would take longer to respond and wouldn’t necessarily just “backtrack”, it might respond in unpredictable ways.
Yes, it would have an immediate affect and long term affect. The problem, it’s that it would likely still not be enough due to other gasses that have been released that are far more potent, like methane.
The warming we’ve already had has released tons of other, more potent gasses.
Think about it like this. There’s someone in a bed with sheets and some thin blankets on it. People start adding more thin blankets to it. Occasionally someone drops a thick wool blanket. Sometimes someone puts a really thick comforter/quilt on it.
Eventually, the person complains of being too hot and asks for the light blankets to be removed. All the light blankets get removed, but the thick wool blankets, comforters, and quilts remain, so the person is still warmer than they were originally.
Define “immediate”. If you magicked it away today, would you notice tomorrow? You might notice that the air is measurably cleaner, but it won’t necessarily make the ice start growing again in the glaciers.
The problem is that due to the increasing temperatures we’ve started melting glaciers and other ice, especially in the artic and antarctic circles. Ice reflects a bunch of sunlight, while water, due to its darker color, absorbs more of it. The oceans in general have reached higher temperatures, and getting that heat out will take a long time. And this is just one of the systems that we’ve already royally fucked by letting it come this far.
But! That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try and do something. Reducing/removing greenhouse gasses is the best and safest way of trying to preserve life as we know it.
Let’s assume you did this over, say, 10 years “somehow”.
You would take CO2 out of two places: the air and the ocean. You would get immediate effevts on ocean pH, making the ocean pH rise (a good thing!) And you would get some air cooling immediately.
It would take longer for the heat to come out of the ocean.
Long term, yes.
Short term, yes.
However, we’ve already locked in 0.5°C of additional atmospheric warming into the oceans no matter what you accomplish with emission rates.
Additionally, it should be stressed that the natural climate system has already initiated several positive feedbacks (e.g. ice-albedo and aridification) that are likely to continue amplifying the warming trend no matter what the greenhouse effect is doing for the next 100 years. The “tipping point” of no return is either already past or knocking on the door.
the truth is that nobody knows what would happen. the initial conditions now are different to what they were pre-industrial. it is reasonable to assume the earth would continue on a cooler path than otherwise would be the case. the timeframe for this, and the magnitude of the effect, are anyone’s guess.
Latest Answers