Assuming that Global Warming is man made, are the effects cumulative?

Question

To put it another way, if we could reduce CO2 emmissions to

pre-industrial levels tomorrow, would the GW also dissapear?

Or would GW stay at todays levels for hundreds or thousands of years as a result of all the extra carbon that we have introduced to the environment?

How long would it take for the levels to fall?

Answer 1

Here are some things to think about when questioning or accepting global warming. Global warming and global cooling are misnomers because the global pattern is chaotic and varies regionally. CO2 is carbon dioxide; humans exhale CO2 while carrying out respiration. Plants carry out photosynthesis in the vascular portion, and release O2 into the atmosphere. Humans and plants have a symbiotic relationship. The faster plants disappear the slower CO2 is consumed, and the inverse is also true. There are many factors influencing climate change. Consider the dinosaur extinction. This was caused by a meteor strike that cooled the atmosphere to below inhabitable temps. A more recent climate shift that effected a population was the volcanic eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in Pompeii. This eruption caused the climate to cool (regional global cooling), and was attributed partially to the fall of the Roman empire through a decline in agriculture yields.In short climatic changes occur naturally in our environment. As far as the amount of time it would take for the ozone to repair itself, it would take about 100 yrs to return to 1985 ozone levels. It would take appoximately 100-200 yrs for the ozone to recover completely. This could possibly be because it takes a tree about 50-100yrs to become fully grown, depending on the species. CO2 emissions are our concern now but prior to this it was chlorofluorocarbons(CFC's). These compounds were considered to be responsible for ozone depletion or the hole above the artic circle. Now this hole is supposed to be closed or never existed.  Considering trees are our natural air pollution filters, and that there populations are declining, what does this shift in air pollution emphasis mean? Did we fix the CFC problem with industrial regulations, and without the  help of natural filters(since forest area is declining)? Have we found another in CO2 or are we just being dumbed down with new propaganda?

Answer 2

CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades at least, perhaps centuries. The exact timeframe is hard to quantify precisely, because the carbon cycle and its interactions in the lithosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere is quite complex.

If humans were to stop all carbon emissions tomorrow, it would stop further warming, but it would take a long time -- perhaps 100 or 200 years -- for all excess CO2 to be absorbed into the oceans and earth to cool to preindustrial levels.

Answer 3

You are assuming TWO things with your query:  Global Warming is man made AND CO2 is the the cause.

I wouldn't extrapolate THOSE results.

Answer 4

The earth is capable of solving GW given enough time, but it will get real hot. We must give it a hand by polluting less. Check out coolingEarth.org to see how to solve GW

Answer 5

If you haven't figured out that man made global warming is a hoax...Gee...I really do'nt know what I can say  to help you.

The 4 major weather centers of the world reported that the world temerature at all 4 locations dropped 1/2 a degree...So i guess we just wiped out centuries of supposed global warming problems in one year.

Also, the same people reported that the temerature has plateau'd since 1998. I've seen reports of both Ice melting and losing the polar caps while other evidence says we are gaining. So, in this world of mis-information I'd suggest everyone take a breather, sit down and ask yourself, who's running the "scare" show, what does he have to gain from it if he tells the truth or lies, and follow the money.

Al Gore has become a rich man off the backs of many of you, and who thought up carbon trading ? There use to be a time we worried about reducing actual politution levels, not trying to justify the over poluters by allowing them to by polution credits.

Meanwhile no one to date has proven that CO2 is a bad thing or that it accumulates or that its causing any harm. The common whine against that logic is "we can't afford to be wrong....WHAT IF".

ok...so lets go there... .What If. Why was it that the ozone hole was larger in 1956 before the wide use of CFC's ? This scare caused us to change products our which inevitable lead to much problems..including the spaceshuttle explosion...since we had to change the materials that the heat shields used.

Why is it that if you go back 100 years worth or media there are 2 complete cycles of warming and cooling on the planet ? Time magazine even showed Manhattan Island under a glacier. And this little mini-ice age was as recent as the 70's.

Why is it people cry about us not signing onto the Kyoto protocol when the worse polluters aren't even in the USA ? It is the 3rd world nations and underdeveloped nations that are causing the majority of the dirty polution.

So, after the fatalities, the waste of tax dollar to subsidize programs, the tactics of messing with real scientists reputations and scolarships, the lies told by gobal warming advocates because of thier political ties, the inaccuracies of the global weather models. Just how much info do we really need to proliferate a non-topic. how long will the American people get racked over the coals of BS to get our dollars, to waste our taxes and force change on our way our life when it hasn't been necessary ?

IF this were real, I'd stand aside and let the whacko's and politicians do what they thought was best, AS LONG AS I would have the right to sue everyone that had a hand in raising my taxes, increased my energy cost or medical inhaler price...with interest.........That way, I get back what they stole from me from lying.

Answer 6

It would continue for at least tens of years, maybe hundreds.  Not thousands. Plants would eventually absorb the excess CO2, but it won't be very rapid.

But CO2 levels would not increase substantially (there may be some additional increase due to secondary effects), which is the most important thing.  We can tolerate 400, maybe not 500, and certainly not 600.