Tuesday, 5 July 2016

Runaway global warming


See website HERE
Though not being communicated, the alarming data above for 5 April 2016, looks like the state of the climate is set up for feedback runaway global climate.

​​Runaway climate change is not a scientific recognized term, but it is by far the greatest danger of global warming. A runaway state is the result of greater climate change (locked in)
commitment, plus many amplifying feedbacks that are caused (triggered) by global warming.

If planetary feedback emissions are increasing to the extent of driving the increasing atmospheric GHG levels faster, because of added locked in commitment, for policy making we should consider that a state of committed climate change runaway exists (or at least an extreme zero tolerance risk exists). A sudden jump or accelerating global temperature increase at the same time makes the situation more definite. We are in that state in 2016.​​

The situation in which 'runaway' generally used in the science is the 
runaway greenhouse effect which results in a dead planet and applies to Venus.  The situation of 'runaway' climate change in the science is ​'runaway carbon dynamics' and this is only ​to be found in the IPCC 2001 3rd assessment under 'large scale singularities' (above). It is not included in the 2014 IPCC 5th assessment. Runaway carbon dynamics means amplifying carbon feedbacks of CO2 and methane from the heated up planet, or weakening of the land or ocean carbon sinks. However feedback emissions of nitrous oxide are also caused by global warming, so the more complete term would be runaway GHG dynamics.

An Oct 2005 presentation (at Yale) by the IPCC Chair R Pachauri included 'runaway​ carbon dynamics' in a list of singular events.

'​​Instances of possible singular events
• Breakdown of the thermohaline circulation
• Disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet
• Shift in mean climate towards an El Nino like state
Runaway carbon dynamics - reduced sink capacity, release of methane from             hydrates, carbon from permafrost
• Rearrangement of biome distribution
​Such events can overwhelm our response strategies'

From the very start the big concern about global warming has been the   possibility of a 'runaway' global warming and climate change. 

'Runaway' (self accelerating) global heating and climate change is the planetary tipping point of many tipping points combined and in the case of the many Arctic amplification tipping points are self and inter reinforcing​​. Ultimate vicious cycles. 

This is the greatest single danger from global warming to the survival of humanity and also the survival of potentially almost all life on the planet. With all climate and ocean indicators accelerating (2016) humanity and life are in extreme peril  from runaway.

​​​​A global heating feedback event wiping almost most life we know is possible- because it happened 250 million years ago in the
 End Permian extinction event and 55 million years ago with the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM). Current research confirms both of these extinction events were driven by very large emissions of carbon to the atmosphere.

The PETM is the closest distant past analog to our GHG emissions global warming situation today. Research published October 2013 by Morgan Schaller and James Wright leads to their definite finding that following a doubling in carbon dioxide levels, the surface of the ocean turned acidic over a period of weeks or months and global temperatures rose by 5 degrees centigrade – all in the space of about 13 years. Scientists had previously thought this process happened over 10,000 years.

These mass extinction events involve the emission of an enormous emission of carbon as CO2 and methane. In the Arctic several times atmospheric methane is stored frozen in permafrost and subsea floor frozen solid methane gas hydrate.  The permafrost is thawing as the Arctic temperature rapidly increases (Arctic amplification). Arctic methane hydrate is destabilizing in at least three locations, mainly a process that has been going on for a long time, but that ocean warming will make worse.  
It is or should be treated as a zero tolerance risk applied to the very long time frame into the future.​​

Right now we are in a very high risk of committed runaway situation, meaning we are committing ourselves and all life to a rapid accelerating global heating that we could not possibly change. James Hansen has been warming about this for many years.

Runaway results from the combination of multiple triggered amplifying large 
feedbacks andclimate change commitment. ​​

Runaway includes methane feedback emissions- especially the enormous stores of Arctic carbon as methane emitters. Carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide feedback GHG sources are also huge. In runaway all three would be self reinforcing and accelerating.

Methane has a global warming effect of 86X CO2 for 20 years after emissions. ​​​​

Methane having increased two and a half times since industrialization stalled in 200 but since 2006 it has been on a renewed sustained increase- and the scientists this increase is due to planetary methane feedback emissions. The methane they think is coming from warming tropical and subartic wetland peat. ​​

It seems most of the methane is being emitted from warming tropical wetland but the largest increase is from Far North wetland peat. ​​

The highest atmospheric methane on then planet is recorded at Lac La Biche Alberta right on the southern edge of Canada's vast wetlands.​​

This use of the world runaway is not a scientific term but the basis in science is definite.

​​This 'runaway' means the situation caused by positive (bad)  feedbacks in which global warming accelerates the rate of global warming totally beyond any capacity of human control.

​​When describing this situation the scientists may use the terms of 
rapid global warming and abrupt global climate change.

​​Tipping points, irreversible impacts,
 and singularities are also scientific terms that apply​​.

James Hansen says 
Runaway greenhouse effect" has several meanings ranging from, at the low end, global warming sufficient to induce out-of-control amplifying feedbacks such as ice sheet disintegration and melting of methane hydrates, to, at the high end, a Venus-like hothouse with crustal carbon baked into the atmosphere and surface temperature of several hundred degrees. Between these extremes is the "moist greenhouse", which occurs if the climate forcing is large enough to make H2O a major atmospheric constituent (Kasting, 1988). In principle, an extreme moist greenhouse might cause an instability with water vapor preventing radiation to space of all absorbed solar energy, resulting in very high surface temperature and evaporation of the ocean (Ingersoll, 1969). Our simulations indicate that no plausible human-made greenhouse gas forcing can cause an instability and runaway greenhouse effect as defined by Ingersoll (1969), Sept 2001​​ Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level, and Atmospheric CO2.

​​The runaway climate change that we're talking about result from multiple Arctic positive feedbacks. We are talking about methane which is 72 times more powerful as a global warming greenhouse gas than CO2 over a 20 period. In the case a large sustained methane emission from the Arctic the methane has 100 times the effect of CO2 over a 10 year time frame.

The runaway Arctic +ve feedbacks​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
  • Loss of Arctic snow and summer sea ice cooling albedo
  • Methane emissions from warming sub Arctic peat rich wetlands 
  • Methane and carbon dioxide emissions and from thawing permafrost 
  • Nitrous oxide emissions from thawing permafrost 
  • Methane emissions from sub sea floor frozen solid methane gas hydrate


  1. Many of the resources you quote as being credible, have been found, over and over again, to have been lying, tweaking the data, (IPCC, Pachauri, James Hansen, for starters).....so the article simply has no credibility....Do you think that the worldwide near-daily massive spraying of our skies could have anything to do with "climate change"??? (in combination, perhaps, with HAARP, GWEN, and NEXTRAD???)

  2. No,I do not.If you care not to believe what scientists are telling you you can easily go elsewhere. In fact I invite you to do so.