Hi, I think that "runaway climate change" or "runaway global warming" are in such good use that trying to do them away probably hurts more than benefits, sometimes the public embrace things like words and concepts, as "global warming" and "climate change" embrases everyone, the legitimate stakeholders are just about everybody, if so, what moral we do have or need to try to change some gobble-dobble-doo people have come up with to best describe. In normal way a runaway train car is something that loses its breaks and slides backwards or forwards uncontrollably without human intervention, often with disastrous outcome or at least with dangerous possibility before its stops. Runaway global warming is so too, it can run uncontrollably with its course, it poses danger and damage to all of us when it occurs and can end in absolute disaster producing casualties and make some, or all life, exist no more in worst case, in which I would call it "the end of the world" like people have 'prophesised' over the upteen millennia of their excesses as observed by various religion and folklore. I think that is what people think of meaning of runaway. Of course, we could try to sanitise it to techical term such as "anthropogenically-induced uncontrolled climatic trend" to describe the potential and possible pandemonium in a more complex and less likely liked semantics. So, I am fan of the term as things are.. Kind regards, Albert
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 18:04:39 +0530Subject: [geo] Re: runaway climate changeFrom: bala....@gmail.comto: andrew.lock...@gmail.comcc: dwschn...@gmail.com; euggor...@comcast.net; j...@cloudworld.co.uk; wig...@ucar.edu; geoengineer...@googlegroups.compage # 71 of the book "Global warming: Understanding the forecast" by David Archer has a nice description on runaway feedback.BTW, I guess there is no such thing as runaway climate change....B On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: I have been unable to find any citations in 'hard' climate scienceliterature. Is the term therefore ONLY a pop-science concept?If anyone has any such citations, please can they send them to me?A2009/2/2 David Schnare <dwschn...@gmail.com>: > The concept, as applied to climate change, was introduced to discuss loss of> > ice shelves, an "irreversible" event over the short run, and one with large> > consequences. Then, the concept was expanded to the speed of the event,> > also as applied to the ice shelves. Then it was expanded to the "fat tail"> > possibility of very high temperatures.>> In each case, the presumption > (presumption, not reality mind you) was that> the event was unstoppable once > started, much like an explosion. The> inability to "quench" an event should > not be confused with the ability to> restore (more or less) the initial > conditions, or otherwise reach a (new or> modified) equilibrium.>> "Runaway" > is a loaded term. We've had a dust up over use of such terms in> the recent > past. As far as I can tell, at this point, environmental> activists are > allowed to use them, government employees are not, scientists> should not, > and wiki authors - god knows!>> Cheers,> d.>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:33 AM, > Eugene I. Gordon <euggor...@comcast.net>> 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: > geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> [mailto:geoengineer...@googlegroups.com] 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" > <wig...@ucar.edu>>> To: "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>> Cc: > <j...@cloudworld.co.uk>; "geoengineering">> > <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; "Prof John Shepherd">> > <j...@noc.soton.ac.uk>; "Tim Lenton" <t.len...@uea.ac.uk>; "David Lawrence">> > <dlaw...@ucar.edu>>> 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 > <wig...@ucar.edu>:>> >>> 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" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>> >>>> To: "geoengineering" > <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>> >>>> 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]>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> --> David W. > Schnare> Center for Environmental Stewardship >-- Best >wishes,-------------------------------------------------------------------Dr. >G. BalaAssociate ProfessorCenter for Atmospheric and Oceanic SciencesIndian >Institute of ScienceBangalore - 560 012IndiaTel: +91 80 2293 2698 +91 80 >2293 2505 x206 +91 9741991621 (cell)Fax: +91 80 2360 0865Email: >gb...@caos.iisc.ernet.in >bala....@gmail.comweb:http://caos.iisc.ernet.in/faculty/gbala/gbala.html-------------------------------------------------------------------_________________________________________________________________ Love Hotmail? Check out the new services from Windows Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/132630768/direct/01/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
