5 doublings of temperature suggests about 6C of warming, with negative feedbacks moderating that somewhat.
This is about 3 doublings more than the IPCC RCP 8.5 scenario.
If you are talking Global Warming and climate then here is what is known.
The first 20 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for approximately 1.54 degrees C in GHG effect.
Pre-industrial CO2 concentration has been accepted as being 280 ppm.
At 280 ppm CO2 is responsible for almost 2.6 degrees C in GHG effect.
At up to 1,000 ppm CO2 would be responsible for a total GHG impact of approximately 3.3 degrees C.
@ 10,000 ppm. Run-away global warming? The alogrythmic curve for CO2's known ability to act as a GHG suggests NO.
Note: CO2 concentrations under 180 ppm means all life dependant on photo-synthesis shuts down and dies.
150 Million years ago CO2 concentrations were believed to be around 2,000 ppm
400 Million years ago CO2 concentrations were believed to be around 4,000 ppm
Would there be runaway globaal warming @ 1,000 ppm? History suggegsts a big NO.
FYI saying a set amount of warming per double assumes a linear relationship. There is NO linear relationship, it is Alogrythimic following a degrading curve. i.e low concentrations have a very HIGH relative impact. Higher concentrations have a lower relative impact. Stated in other terms. The first 10 ppm are more meaningful than the 2nd 10 ppm. The thrid 10 ppm interval has less impact than the second and so on.
That's about 5 doublings. The best estimate is a climate sensitivity of around 2.5C - 3C per doubling, so you are looking at a global temp increase of about 20F or more. Even half of that would be devastating to the Earth's current ecosystems. That would melt all the ice, increasing the amount of energy kept in the climate system rather than being reflected back into space by the ice. That would also push the water cycle to a faster speed. It would acidify the oceans, killing off most life currently there unless it happened over enough thousands of years that most life could move or adapt. The desert areas in the Americas and other areas would likely grow noticeably larger, and forest fires would be the norm until everything that could burn had burned. The tropics would become uninhabitable. The oceans would possibly be choked with melting icebergs. You'd probably see significant amounts of methane being released to atmosphere from natural sources. We probably would not see a runaway greenhouse effect, but what does happen would be more than bad enough, if it was a continuation of our rate of increase in greenhouse emissions now.
You would not get a runaway greenhouse effect because of the diminishing effect of CO2 as it increases.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
Plants would be healthier and more productive.
CO2 definitely does not control the temperature. During the last decade, the earth has cooled while the CO2 level has increased. So that runaway greenhouse effect is just a scare tactic.
I think 10.000 ppm would be pretty uncomfortable and we would have problems breathing.
Yes the Earth would be warmer, but not by a lot, as the warming effect of CO2 logarithmically diminishes with concentration, and it is already saturated.
warmer. look at Venus. There is no saturation or dimming effect.
Earth's climate is not likely to be runaway- it has not happened in the past with high CO2, we're different than Venus
More plants would grow to consume the extra CO2 atmospheric input.
Lets say the CO2 content in the atmosphere was 10,000 ppm or 1% atmospheric concentration. Would Earth be warmer or even enter a runaway greenhouse effect?
Plants would be healthier and more productive.
CO2 definitely does not control the temperature. During the last decade, the earth has cooled while the CO2 level has increased. So that runaway greenhouse effect is just a scare tactic.
I think 10.000 ppm would be pretty uncomfortable and we would have problems breathing.
Yes the Earth would be warmer, but not by a lot, as the warming effect of CO2 logarithmically diminishes with concentration, and it is already saturated.
warmer. look at Venus. There is no saturation or dimming effect.
Earth's climate is not likely to be runaway- it has not happened in the past with high CO2, we're different than Venus
More plants would grow to consume the extra CO2 atmospheric input.
Lets say the CO2 content in the atmosphere was 10,000 ppm or 1% atmospheric concentration. Would Earth be warmer or even enter a runaway greenhouse effect?
