Abandon all hope, ye who read this

Climate change to continue to year 3000 in best case scenarios

New paper in Nature Geoscience examines inertia of carbon dioxide emissions

New research indicates the impact of rising CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause unstoppable effects to the climate for at least the next 1000 years, causing researchers to estimate a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet by the year 3000, and an eventual rise in the global sea level of at least four metres.

The study, to be published in the Jan. 9 Advanced Online Publication of the journal Nature Geoscience, is the first full climate model simulation to make predictions out to 1000 years from now. It is based on best-case, ‘zero-emissions’ scenarios constructed by a team of researchers from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (an Environment Canada research lab at the University of Victoria) and the University of Calgary.

“We created ‘what if’ scenarios,” says Dr. Shawn Marshall, Canada Research Chair in Climate Change and University of Calgary geography professor. “What if we completely stopped using fossil fuels and put no more CO2 in the atmosphere? How long would it then take to reverse current climate change trends and will things first become worse?” The research team explored zero-emissions scenarios beginning in 2010 and in 2100.

The Northern Hemisphere fares better than the south in the computer simulations, with patterns of climate change reversing within the 1000-year timeframe in places like Canada. At the same time parts of North Africa experience desertification as land dries out by up to 30 percent, and ocean warming of up to 5°C off of Antarctica is likely to trigger widespread collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, a region the size of the Canadian prairies.

Researchers hypothesize that one reason for the variability between the North and South is the slow movement of ocean water from the North Atlantic into the South Atlantic. “The global ocean and parts of the Southern Hemisphere have much more inertia, such that change occurs more slowly,” says Marshall. “The inertia in intermediate and deep ocean currents driving into the Southern Atlantic means those oceans are only now beginning to warm as a result of CO2 emissions from the last century. The simulation showed that warming will continue rather than stop or reverse on the 1000-year time scale.”

Wind currents in the Southern Hemisphere may also have an impact. Marshall says that winds in the global south tend to strengthen and stay strong without reversing. “This increases the mixing in the ocean, bringing more heat from the atmosphere down and warming the ocean.”

Researchers will next begin to investigate more deeply the impact of atmosphere temperature on ocean temperature to help determine the rate at which West Antarctica could destabilize and how long it may take to fully collapse into the water.

###

The paper “Ongoing climate change following a complete cessation of carbon dioxide emissions” by Nathan P. Gillett, Vivek K. Arora, Kirsten Zickfeld, Shawn J. Marshall and William J. Merryfield will be available online at http://www.nature.com/ngeo/index.html

============================================================

I really had to laugh at the headline provided with the press release:

Climate change to continue to year 3000 in best case scenarios

Let’s see, did the climate change at all during the last 1000 years?

It depends on who you ask.

The Hockey Team says no:

Others who are not members of the Hockey Teamsters Union of Concerned Scientists say yes:

History tells us the second graph is the more likely truth.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate_change, Disaster, Post-normal science, Satire and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

227 Responses to Abandon all hope, ye who read this

  1. Nick says:

    ok. These nutters have officially lost their marbles. C’mon, Mmaaaannn. Are you serious? Year 3000?

    They’re really just trying to justify grants for the next 1000 years.

    This is bloody funny now.

  2. Martin Brumby says:

    I welcome the publication of papers like this.

    They are destroying what few vestiges of credibility that might remain, even in the eyes of the gullible.

    Literally too daft to laugh at.

  3. Peter Dunford says:

    Hypotheses. Models. I think Canada has found an area it can reduce expenditure if it wants to.

  4. Jimbo says:

    It is based on best-case, ‘zero-emissions’ scenarios constructed by a team of researchers from…

    Fine then! Let’s put an immediate halt to anymore climate conferences, disband the IPCC and stop funding climate scientists who study Co2 warming related fields.

    I thought there wa a study recently that said if we reduced our co2 output then the polar bears stood a chance. This new study now seems to say no chance. Too many computer simulations me thinks. ;O)

  5. Jimbo says:

    Oh, I forgot. THE END IS NIGH. Ahhhhhhh! Now, where is my sandwich board?

  6. tonyb says:

    Can I ask that WUWT archive this item and ‘capture’ the article it derives from?

    If Co2 levels start dropping OR/AND temperatures also drop consistently, I have a feeling the establishment will claim it was due to their efforts and such claims as you highlight here will be conveniently forgotten in the same manner as the Met Office prediction of a warm winter.

    tonyb

  7. Patrick Davis says:

    So, climate will just suddenly stop changing in 1000 years time when climate has been changing for the last 4.5 billion years? Yeah right!

    The real problem is that there are far too many people who will fall for this drivel. Along with the media coverage in Aus of the Victorian bush fires and now flooding in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Aus. Any such events like icebound ships don’t get the slightest mention.

    Anyway, that is a classic early British sci-fi movie.

  8. Mike Haseler says:

    This is just laughable. The Met Office tried to make global temperature predictions just a mere year ahead for nine years and failed abysmally to predict the pause in temperatures and instead constantly predicted rising temperatures …

    Climatic noise is a pink noise which means it is 1/f and that the uncertainty increases with longer time scales. That means predicting one year ahead is a hell of a lot easier than predicting 10 years which is a hell of a lot easier than 100 which is a hell of a lot easier than 1000.

    Which means unless they can show they can very accurately predict the temperature changes one year in advance then they aren’t worth listening to for longer periods.

  9. Adam says:

    Well as long as we can’t reverse climate change for a thousand years we might as well stop trying, right?

  10. Mark Nutley says:

    So they can`t tell the weather tommorow yet they can tell what it`ll be like in a hundred years? I wonder whom in one hundred years will point out they were wrong :)

  11. Mike McMillan says:

    Let’s see, AD 3000, 4 meters, about 13 feet.
    I’m at 90 ft above sea level.
    Good.
    I won’t have to move.

  12. JohnH says:

    Whoever provided the grant for this should ask for their money back.

    They can get their models to say anything they want.

    On the bright side if they are right why bother if we are doomed already !!!!!

  13. Kath says:

    I just love it when scientists push their models that far into the future. There is one historical lesson in the dangers of predicting into the future. The horse manure crisis that emerged in the Victorian era.

    From http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past-the-great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894/
    “Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure. Moreover, all these horses had to be stabled, which used up ever-larger areas of increasingly valuable land. And as the number of horses grew, ever-more land had to be devoted to producing hay to feed them (rather than producing food for people), and this had to be brought into cities and distributed—by horse-drawn vehicles. It seemed that urban civilization was doomed.”

    Of course, this never happened. The invention of the automobile meant that horses were no longer required for transportation.

    Predictions and models. These need to come with very large warning labels.

  14. Haven’t they read that there is no “heat in the pipeline” from the oceans at all? Even a simple literature search is asked to much from these “researchers”.
    And with “zero emissions” we will be back to near pre-industrial CO2 levels in somewhat over 100 years, reversing any temperature/climate effect, as far as there was an effect…

  15. TokyoTom says:

    This is REALLY funny — because we all know that there is NO inertia to the climate system and that it’s physically impossible that the CO2, methane and other multi-atom radiation-absorbing gas molecules that man is releasing/accelerating release of, and the soot release and other albedo-changing activities of man, will have any physical effect whatsoever, much less one that might be felt for a millenia or so, right?

    Pielke, Sr., Christy, Michaels & Lindzen all agree that there is no greenhouse effect, that soot has no effect, and that paleorecords of other long-felt climate influences are the sheerest nonsense, right?

    Thanks so much for the fun and reassurance, Tony!

  16. Alexander K says:

    1000 years into the future? This modelled group-think projection is beyond parody. What an incredible waste of money diverted from hard-pressed taxpayers.

  17. Mark says:

    How can they do model projection for such a huge time scale. They can’t even get it right over a 10 year period. Which has also already been proved historically.

  18. Kev-in-UK says:

    Look – at the risk of being offensive to the average reader – it is quite clear that the perpetrators of such BS are simply complete, total and utter Di*kheads who need to be hounded at every opportunity!
    The simulation shows…..? FFS! They couldn’t simulate their next excrement evacuation with any certainty!!
    Sorry for the rant – but it’s just too much!

  19. racookpe1978 says:

    This from a NASA (Hathaway, Dec 2006) press release predicting that Solar Cycle 24 will “peak” in 2010 with a 160 sunspot count….

    Reference: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2006/12/23/scientists-predict-large-solar-cycle-coming/

    In the plot, above, black curves are solar cycles; the amplitude is the sunspot number. Red curves are geomagnetic indices, specifically the Inter-hour Variability Index or IHV. “These indices are derived from magnetometer data recorded at two points on opposite sides of Earth: one in England and another in Australia. IHV data have been taken every day since 1868,” says Hathaway.

    Cross correlating sunspot number vs. IHV, they found that the IHV predicts the amplitude of the solar cycle 6-plus years in advance with a 94% correlation coefficient.

    “We don’t know why this works” says Hathaway. “The underlying physics is a mystery. But it does work.”

    see caption

    According to their analysis, the next Solar Maximum should peak around 2010 with a sunspot number of 160 plus or minus 25. This would make it one of the strongest solar cycles of the past fifty years—which is to say, one of the strongest in recorded history

    Left: Hathaway and Wilson’s prediction for the amplitude of Solar Cycle 24. [More]

    Astronomers have been counting sunspots since the days of Galileo, watching solar activity rise
    and fall every 11 years. Curiously, four of the five biggest cycles on record have come in the past 50 years. “Cycle 24 should fit right into that pattern,”says Hathaway.

    These results are just the latest signs pointing to a big Cycle 24. Most compelling of all, believes Hathaway, is the work of Mausumi Dikpati and colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. “They have combined observations of the sun’s ‘Great Conveyor Belt’ with a sophisticated computer
    model of the sun’s inner dynamo to produce a physics-based prediction of the next solar cycle.” In short, it’s going to be intense.

    Note that NASA has deleted the graphs and plots that the original WUWT thread used, but the original “computer modeled predictions” remain (as invalid) as they originally were (also apparently invalid).

  20. John Kehr says:

    This is really good news. If they are getting desperate enough to start trying to get people to believe that the next 1,000 years are already doomed, then they know they are losing the fight. The greater their hysteria the more people will see through the bull$hit.

    That means science is slowly winning the fight.

    John Kehr
    The Inconvenient Skeptic

  21. TimC says:

    Remind me: just how many million mistakes per second is the Met Off supercomputer capable of when running a model out to 900 years ahead?

  22. Northern Exposure says:

    Wow… these guys really don’t have anything else better to do with their time, do they ?

    I wonder if they also have time to produce a computer model for the year 3000 that will tell us which stocks to buy, where the housing boom will be happening, and who will win the world cup… I want to leave a note of advice for my great great great great great great great grandchildren.

  23. David, UK says:

    @ Martin Brumby: “They are destroying what few vestiges of credibility that might remain, even in the eyes of the gullible.”

    You know that there is no credibility in this paper. I know that. Most people who visit this blog know that. But actually, “the gullible” (I fear) do not know that. And those are the people that the world governments are playing to, by funding crap like this. I know too many people who swallow every AGW scare story whole, to think that “the gullible” won’t fall for this as well. They’ll lap it up, my friend. And one of the scary things: most Warmists that I know are actually quite intelligent! Example: My Uncle and Aunt (an oncologist and social worker, respectively – yes I know, say no more about the latter) are both outspoken Greenies who display Gore’s film and books proudly on the bookshelves, and believe that Climategate was just about a few hot-headed emails taken out of context and exploited by deniers funded by Big Oil. Similarly with a professional couple that I know, who are both signed-up members of the Green party. And when you think about it: Liberals/socialists by definition are incredibly gullible. I mean, if you’re gullible enough to be a socialist after everything history has taught us about politics, economics and human nature, then of course you’re going to be gullible enough to swallow this crap. But the hold that such self-importance and moral superiority has on a person is blindingly strong.

    THAT is what we are dealing with here, my friend.

  24. UK Sceptic says:

    Isn’t it weird the way warmists, when faced with the current reality that the planet just isn’t warming, push the future timeline of thermageddon even further into the future in a desperate attempt to peddle their lies?

  25. xyzlatin says:

    This is science fiction writing, not science.

  26. Natsman says:

    This game is becoming increasingly ( and predictively) more boring as time goes by. Why do they waste their money, and their time? And why do we waste ours reading it?

    [Power. Energy. Control of your life. Control of all people on earth. 1.3 trillion in new taxes in the US alone. Freedom of choice. The lives of billions. The deaths in utter poverty of billions more. Robt]

  27. Mike says:

    Can anybody out there explain to me how these “scientists” with all their tax funded computers cannot predict what’s going to happen 3 months ahead yet can confidently tell us what will happen 1000 years from now?

    They ought to show us their competency first….how about a competition between them all? That should expose them.

  28. Ceri Phipps says:

    Dear Canadians,

    I feel your pain at having your tax dollars so utterly wasted!

  29. Alan the Brit says:

    Can I go back to sleep now?

    BTW O/T. Did anybody pick up my post from Friday Funnies last week, about a UK ITV news item about the cold weather, broadcast on Monday night 20th December at 10:30. In it Prof Mike “yo-yo” Lockwood changing his mind yet again, & actually claiming that the Sun’s activity is rapidly declining so we should expect colder winters! Climate realists has it covered. Usual MSM technique of burying it on a cold Monday late night news item for a few seconds only.

  30. Disputin says:

    Just what is it these bozos do not understand about chaotic systems? Did Edward Lorenz live in vain?

  31. Antonia says:

    It wasn’t research; it was modeling.

  32. Patrick Davis says:

    And in the Australian MSM, we are bombarded with yet more rubbish…

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/studies-warn-of-glacier-melt-danger-20110110-19k1h.html

    I’d imagine many Europeans wouldn’t be too worried about a little melt in favour of a little warming.

  33. I wish I could get paid to lie. Then again, you have to have no principles and see truth and lie as moral equivalents in order to lie as these do.

  34. Robinson says:

    I can’t remember, but have you done the story about farming insects for protein instead of cattle?. I think it should be filed under loon.

  35. Robinson says:

    Can anybody out there explain to me how these “scientists” with all their tax funded computers cannot predict what’s going to happen 3 months ahead yet can confidently tell us what will happen 1000 years from now?

    Yes Mike, afaik, it works like this: you take your obviously incorrect model and think up 10,000 permutations with different parameters and perform a run of each one. You then take the average of the results and – hey presto – you’ve still got the wrong answer BUT, you call it an “ensemble ” and issue a press release calling for action to be taken to prevent the dire outcomes it predicts.

    Simple innit.

  36. Princess Leia says:

    The more these alarmist squeal and rant, the more rational people will disbelieve them.

  37. Lew Skannen says:

    OK. So now that we are totally and utterly doomed how about we just make the best of the situation.
    At least now there is no point getting involved in all that pointless carbon reduction nonsense.
    I mean it would have saved the planet if we had no been so arrogant and had listened to the alarmists only a few years earlier. Even up until Cancun we had a chance but we foolishly chose not to listen.
    They were right and we were wrong and now there is no hope for any of us.
    Oh well.
    Someone start up the band and we will play on bravely as the planet sinks…

  38. Patrick Davis says:

    Ah, my link is to an article about the same study. My bad…

  39. Manfred says:

    4 meters in 1000 years are just 4 mm per year, not really different from what sea levels have done over the last 100 years.

  40. HenryP says:

    My results are showing that it has not been warming during the past 37 years.
    At least not here, in Pretoria, South Africa.
    I think you might find this investigation done by myself interesting!?

    http://letterdash.com/HenryP/assessment-of-global-warming-and-global-warming-caused-by-greenhouse-forcings-in-pretoria-south-africa

    You too can do this! It is easy. Prove it for yourself that it is not warming.
    just remember the final note on the bottom.
    blessings
    Henry

  41. Brian D Finch says:

    So, in a thousand years or so the Met Iffice (sorry, Office)
    will be right and we will have a barbeque summer.
    Is this cause for concern?

  42. DEEBEE says:

    Since the job Hansen did 20 years ago was so accurate, these guys want to out-Hansen Hansen. But they have learnt well. Make the scale so large that you can never be caught like Hansen .

  43. 1DandyTroll says:

    What if all them hippie vagabonds went to Tuvalu for a thousand years? While they lament, all very heuristic like I’m sure, if the poor island would sink first under the weight of the amount of hubris minds or the incredible total amount of over weight (the latter, of course, already having displaced the locals by the first comers.)

    Mayhap the rest of the world could enjoy peace, prosperity and some much needed entertainment in the play of the hippie vagabonds involuntary recreation of the Lord of the flies (or in this case also known as The sinking island’s last lament of happy thanksgiving 3000.)

  44. Perry says:

    Anthony,

    I congratulate you on the accuracy of the headline, “Abandon all hope, ye who read this”, as people frequently misquote the original phrase mounted over the gates of hell “lasciate ogne speranze voi qu’intrate ” as “abandon hope, all ye who enter here”.

    Isn’t the ‘net useful?

    Regards,

    Perry

  45. Robert says:

    Lets turn back the clock a thousand years, its the year in wich a bloke called Thorfinn Karlsefni is trying to colonise Vinland (New Foundland).

    And the village-idiot is predecting that in a thousand years time, world-warming caused by his decendants is going to cause worldwide disasters and that it would at least take another 3000 years from that point before things are normal again.

    300 years later the world starts to cool.

  46. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    This is how my path to climate skepticism started. During online confrontations with rabid hysterical “OMG We’re all going to die if we don’t cut emissions NOW!” types, I researched global warming and what the IPCC reports said (thanks Wikipedia).

    I realized there was so much unavoidable warming already in the pipeline, launching immediate efforts to stop it was fruitless. That National Geographic “documentary” Six Degrees Could Change the World that was getting people all worked up? There would be centuries of warming coming, we’d end up getting those degrees and more. Shut down civilization and all emissions right now, and it still might take a millennium until the warming slows down to a halt.

    Thus there is no rush to “fix” global warming, as it’ll happen for many generations regardless. We can wait until continuing economic forces and technological advances bring us the desired lower-emission civilization. And adaptation is required, it’s unavoidable. Thus it’s better to retain and grow our wealth to afford successful adaptation, rather than throw it away on the proposed “quick fix” “better than nothing” schemes that wouldn’t have a noticeable effect for centuries to come, except for severely crippling society and destroying our way of life.

    After that revelation, going the rest of the way to full-blown skepticism was easy. I started wondering about why these people and these groups were going against their own science and insisting we had to make all these changes now

    Added thought: As said, there’ll be several centuries of adaptation, many generations after us will adapt to and grow used to the warming. When the warming finally does stop, to those future humans the warmer world will be normal, they’ll be adapted to it. Would they even want to return the planet to the colder state experienced by their long-forgotten ancient ancestors?

  47. Peter Miller says:

    This is probably no more than the reaction of the University of Calgary’s geography department to proposed budget cuts.

    Taking a leaf out of the time proven strategy of loony religious cults and the professional purveyors of bad science like Greenpeace, they have produced an unfounded scare story designed to inspire the faithful and have them open up their pockets.

    Anyhow, this is all about computer simulations, so this is simply no more than GIGO.

  48. David L says:

    Nostradamus has got nothing on these guy! Such accuracy extrapolating 30 years of data out to 1000 years! Really unbelievable. Imagine if the government bought them a bigger computer! They might have the same accuracy out to 2000 or even 5000 years.

    Only one word comes to mind: BOGUS!

  49. Kate says:

    THE DESPERATE EMPLOY THE IGNORANT FAMOUS TO BRAINWASH THE PUBLIC

    This is from today’s Guardian –

    “Al Gore, Gary Neville or Cheryl Cole: who would you trust on climate change?”
    A survey commissioned by Climate Week suggests celebrities can help to communicate climate change
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jan/10/climate-change-celebrity-power-survey

    “Climate Week asked Millward Brown, a brand research consultancy, to utilise its “Cebra” (celebrity-brand) index. Twenty celebrities were chosen to represent a spread of people who were either a “well-known activist”, “environmentally inclined but not an activist”, or “not known for activism”. A “nationally representative sample of 500 adults aged 16-65″ was then asked how much influence each celebrity had on environmental issues. [Strangely, they never asked me] They were also asked to allocate a score to each celebrity using the measures of “familiarity”, “affinity”, “media attention”, “role model” and “talent”.”

    The top 20 influence-peddlers are listed in the Guardian as:

    1) Al Gore
    2) Bill Gates
    3) Arnold Schwarzenegger
    4) Boris Johnson
    5) David Beckham
    6) Ken Livingstone
    7) Chris Martin
    8) Cheryl Cole
    9) Gwyneth Paltrow
    10) Duncan Bannatyne
    11) Phil Schofield
    12) Robbie Williams
    13) Fearne Cotton
    14) Leonardo DiCaprio
    15) Holly Willoughby
    16) Colin Firth
    17) Graham Norton
    18) Sienna Miller
    19) Paloma Faith
    20) Gary Neville

    Notice that there is not a single scientist, let alone a climate scientist on that list. Also, I can’t find this survey anywhere on the Climate Week website http://www.climateweek.com/

    In their desperation to get the AGW train wreck back on track, are the Global Warming liars actually making this stuff up? Or are they just thrashing around trying to get the brainless famous to associate themselves with the dying Global Warming religion? After the complete and total failure of the Guardian’s “10/10″ campaign, I expect so-called “Climate Week” (due in March) is just the same old “Global Warming” lying propaganda wrapped up in a new package.

  50. Asim says:

    Hopefully another scientist who will write a similar paper with their own model can call it “The day the Earth stopped spinning”.

    It will be interesting to see how the AGW activists review this paper, I think it could be hailed as prophetic work by them, good on em in advancing the civilisation of mankind by playing with their models for 1000 years and not actually being of any use now.(!)

  51. David L says:

    HenryP says:
    January 10, 2011 at 2:47 am
    My results are showing that it has not been warming during the past 37 years.
    At least not here, in Pretoria, South Africa.
    I think you might find this investigation done by myself interesting!?”

    I used Philadelphia PA data and got a definite cooling trend over the past 60 years. Using this trend, and minutes of hand calculator computing power (as well as some pen and paper figuring) I calculate the local temperature will be absolute zero in 1000 years. (the simulation actually predicts temperatures below absolute zero, but we all know that isn’t possible so I rounded up to zero)

  52. vukcevic says:

    There is strong (currently negative) correlation between the Arctic magnetic field and temperatures.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LL.htm
    Geomagnetic field in the Siberian side of the Arctic is rising, while Canadian side at the same time has weaken. If the Arctic overall is gaining (as appear to be the case in the last 10 years) that could be an indication of further reduction in the NH’s average temperatures.

  53. HenryP says:

    Henry@DavidL

    Well, to prove a trend of cooling or warming you have to look at mean, maxima and minima
    like I did
    You must also look at comparable days as far as clouds are concerned
    (easier to choose days without clouds)
    See final note on the bottom

    http://letterdash.com/HenryP/assessment-of-global-warming-and-global-warming-caused-by-greenhouse-forcings-in-pretoria-south-africa

    You too can do this! It is easy. Prove it for yourself that it is not warming.

  54. Dave (UK) says:

    Kate says:
    January 10, 2011 at 3:14 am

    “4) Boris Johnson”

    It’s shocking that someone as intelligent as Boris Johnson should be in that list. What is he thinking of! He’s sussed the EU, so why is he taking so long to see through AGW?!

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100068044/you-saw-through-the-eu-boris-when-are-you-going-to-see-through-agw/

  55. RoHa says:

    And it’s still raining in Queensland.

  56. TerrySkinner says:

    This report is being referenced on other discussion forums. This is a post from one such:

    by Leonidas » Jan 10, 2011 11:23 am

    Macdoc wrote:
    “Kiss the world we know goodbye…it will take a while, but it’s gone. Nothing short of removal of carbon will change that reality and maybe not even that in the millenial term.”

    Reply: You do know that the bodies of every living thing and everything they eat has to contain carbon don’t you? No carbon = no carbon based life-forms = no life on Earth.

    “Climate change to continue to year 3000 in best case scenarios: research January 9, 2011″

    Reply: Climate Change has been going on for billions of years. Of course it will continue up to year 3000 and beyond. Why would it not?

    “New research indicates the impact of rising CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause unstoppable effects to the climate for at least the next 1000 years, causing researchers to estimate a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet by the year 3000, and an eventual rise in the global sea level of at least four metres.”

    Reply: Any advance on four metres? Who will give me five? Yes, I have five who will give me six? Sixty six? Thank you Mr Gore. Any advance…

    Hum 4 metres in 1,000 years = 40cms per century = 0.4cms per year. How can we possibly deal with that?

    “The study, to be published in the Jan. 9 Advanced Online Publication of the journal Nature Geoscience, is the first full climate model simulation to make predictions out to 1000 years from now.”

    Reply: Oh, it’s a simulation. I thought you were being serious.

    “It is based on best-case, ‘zero-emissions’ scenarios constructed by a team of researchers from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (an Environment Canada research lab at the University of Victoria) and the University of Calgary.”

    Reply: Climate models eh? They always work so well. And ‘zero-emissions’ as well. So we are doomed if we don’t emit any more carbon at all. Does that include stopping breathing? Personally I emit CO2 every day and intend doing so for a long time yet.

    ” “We created ‘what if’ scenarios,” says Dr. Shawn Marshall, Canada Research Chair in Climate Change and University of Calgary geography professor.”

    Reply: What if the weather gets colder and colder and we have lots more cold winters? What if we get hit by a massive meteor? What if little green men…

    ” “What if we completely stopped using fossil fuels and put no more CO2 in the atmosphere? How long would it then take to reverse current climate change trends and will things first become worse?” The research team explored zero-emissions scenarios beginning in 2010 and in 2100.”

    Reply: How long would it take until we all starved and froze to death?

    “The Northern Hemisphere fares better than the south in the computer simulations, with patterns of climate change reversing within the 1000-year timeframe in places like Canada.”

    Reply: Canadian team discover Canada will do better than elsewhere. But will they still be able to play ice-hockey? If not I predict a revolution.

    “At the same time parts of North Africa experience desertification as land dries out by up to 30 percent, and ocean warming of up to 5°C off of Antarctica is likely to trigger widespread collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, a region the size of the Canadian prairies.”

    Reply: Desertification in North Africa? Good lord, that will make everything look, well exactly the same as it is now. Has anybody told them there is already a whopping great desert in North Africa?. However climate change might change all that and that of course would be bad, like all change is bad of course. We must protect our lifeless deserts.

    “and how many hundreds of millions live near the coasts?”

    Reply: If we stop emitting CO2 then very soon none at all.

    “It turns out that two-thirds of world’s largest cities — cities with more than five million people — are at least partially in these low areas. That’s important, because people are increasingly moving to cities.”

    Reply: So on a best case scenario we are doomed, doomed because of course with only a thousand years to respond to all this there is nothing we can do. I wonder why Al Gore bought that seafront property? He should know that his distant descendants might have to move up the road.

    “That is NOT a long time span……the oldest building in Venice was built in 639 – 1300 plus years ago. The next thousand will see it meters underwater as a diving site…..Along with most of Manhattan, London et al”

    Reply: Have you seen pictures of bombed out cities in WWII? Within a generation they had been rebuilt. That is with 20th century knowledge. We can deal with rising sea-levels if they ever actually rise beyond the miniscule, hardly noticeable level applicable at the moment.

  57. Joe Lalonde says:

    Anthony,

    I wish these clowns would do some actual science beside suppositions to a peer review system of morons.
    If we had the science of 10000 years would be fine, but only using the last 150 years to the exclusion of all others is gross incompetance.

    We just happen to be the unfortunate smucks who do not have a clue that an Ice Age just ended and a new one is beginning.
    The 10000 year cycle is just how long the ice recceds from the initial massive precipitation buildup and for growth to follow this recession of ice.

  58. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From vukcevic on January 10, 2011 at 3:31 am:

    Geomagnetic field in the Siberian side of the Arctic is rising, while Canadian side at the same time has weaken.

    And would that be due to the magnetic North pole moving towards Russia at nearly 40 miles per year? (Where I saw that mentioned: Shift of Earth’s magnetic north pole affects Tampa airport)

  59. tarpon says:

    of course this means the next ice age has to wait on human-kind.

    But the clock won’t stop it’s mischievous ways.

  60. Mack says:

    There’s a simple scientific formula applicable to these nutters.
    Degree of credibility is inversely proportional to intensity/duration of b/s.

  61. JP says:

    MMMmmmm…. and this is what billions in both public and private funding has given us? I could have said the same thing and saved the taxpayers beaucoup bucks.

  62. JP says:

    BTW, over the week-end, the folks in South Bend Indiana had 36 inches of Climate Change. I’m just waiting for the Alarmists to predict that there will be more lake effect events as “climate change” continues unabated.

  63. dwright says:

    Perry says:…..
    I wasn’t sure anybody had read Dante’s Inferno
    Nice one Mr Watts

  64. Joe Lalonde says:

    2000 years ago, England was still under a sheet of ice and Egypt was green due to the receeding ice sheets.
    Top soil depths give a good approximation of the generations of plant growth.

  65. Jacob Neilson says:

    A much overlooked English prog/pop band of the 1970s, City Boy, released an excellent album in 1979 called “The Day the Earth Caught Fire”. Check it out. In light of the present articles, I shall re-read the lyric sheet from my original vinyl version tonight.

  66. Marcus Kesseler says:

    Hi,

    I think these guys are being rather shy.

    Why stop after 900 years, when you’re just beginning to have fun? They’re debasing their own supercomputer to a mere spreadsheet status. Why not go the whole hog and aim for a headline like:

    Scientist find that due to the late 20th century CO2 emissions the next 1.000.000 years will be at least 5.4324 degrees warmer than the 1970-2000 average!

    Yes! That would be a headline worthy of a GCM run on a proper supercomputer. And the MSM would go completely bananas!

    That reminds me of a little computer modelling I did some decades ago. My first salary as a student was quite small but grew exponentially for some time thereafter. I put that data into a sophisticated computer model (using Lotus 123, a now extinct early evolutionary precursor to EXCEL), and lo and behold, the model predicted that by the year 2000 I would earning over 5 million a month! Wow! And it was coming out of a computer. So it had to be true.

    Alas, my first name is neither Bill nor Larry. So, in later years my salary (measured by using numbers on my bank statements as proxies) started to diverge from the model! It’s a travesty, but I still can’t account for the missing cash. And unlike others I was unable to hide the decline…

    Best regards,

    Marcus

  67. Mack says:

    Hell it’s a good job these people are right about AGW, Imagine what the temps would be like without it.

  68. Smokey says:

    TerrySkinner,

    That’s a fine reply to this nonsense.

    But there are more truly sinister reasons behind the endless promotion of this Big Lie about natural climate variability.

    This article explains it very well.

  69. Kevin says:

    I thought the world was going to be over in 100 years.

  70. Brad says:

    It is kinda like this video, which at first seems very scary, and then intelligent people realize this is a joke:

    http://tinyurl.com/69kceh

    Truly scary part? A true right winger on Twitter sent me this and is changing his life based on an Onion spoof, which can be confirmed with a little research as this rep does not exist. Funny and scary, same time.

  71. Bill Illis says:

    This study is a continuation of the latest push by climate science, that the southern ocean around Antarctica is where the missing energy is, where the missing temperature rise is.

    If one believes that, it is rather straightforward to keep increasing it for a thousand years even if CO2 emissions stop [and if one assumes the CO2 concentration will stay high for a thousand years despite articles posted at WUWT in just the last few days showing the turnover rate of CO2 in the atmosphere is just 4 years so should fall back to 280 ppm within a hundred years or so].

    Of course, noone including the Argo floats can double-check the numbers produced by climate scientists for southern ocean around Antarctica. Expect more studies about warming Antarctic waters to come out because of this.

  72. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    So… we are told that “… new research indicates the impact of rising CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause unstoppable effects to the climate for at least the next 1000 years, causing researchers to estimate a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet by the year 3000, and an eventual rise in the global sea level of at least four metres”.

    Now why should anyone believe such nonsense? You know what… when ‘scientists’ start predicting the future, as in this case, then you know its time to ignore them.

    CO2 levels in the atmosphere have, at times, been significantly higher (going back in time) than they have been in recent times. Why shouldn’t CO2 levels be expected to increase yet again, naturally?

    I think scientists should just stick to their science and leave the ‘art’ of prediction to clairvoyants before they lose what little credibility they may have left!

  73. JTinTokyo says:

    I can’t wait to find out if they are right!

  74. jrwakefield says:

    The more people turn off because the planet isn’t performing according to their script, the more outlandish their claims will become. There is no doubt now, AGW is a true religion and scientific journals the new bible.

  75. Midwest Mark says:

    Who’s worried about the climate a thousand years in the future? The human race will be extinct by then anyway. Remember this article from June 2010 (“Scientists predict human extinction in 100 years”)?:

    http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1881226/scientist_predicts_human_extinction_in_100_years/

    But I’m an eternal optimist. If the human race somehow manages to survive, my decendants will own some fabulous beachfront property in Ohio!

  76. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    There has been a mistake here . . . this is a story from the Faculty of Arts, Creative Writing Department.

    Just another attempt at Hairy Scary We Are All Gonna Die “science”.

    Wonder if it id time for Grant Applications to be decided?

  77. P Wilson says:

    Kate says:
    January 10, 2011 at 3:14 am

    Just imagine by way of analogy the question of international politics and the delicate diplomacy required with, and between some nations. Instead of the experts, historians and analysts, lets ask the Chuckle Brothers.

  78. P Wilson says:

    We can create anything we like from what if scenarios. There is no end to the nonsense that is possible from what if.

    If my cat barked and was canine, it would have been a dog. Both have four legs, so in my “what if” simulations I can easily manipulate a few computer keys to transform my cat into an imaginary dog.

    And that will be the truth, thrown from above, of an impending future prediction.

    This is what the public will be told. (It is always impending)

    Reality is that my cat will always be a cat.

  79. Alberta Slim says:

    I am ashamed of being an Albertan when I read this nonsense.
    I agree with this:

    David, UK says:
    January 10, 2011 at 1:37 am :
    “You know that there is no credibility in this paper. I know that. Most people who visit this blog know that. But actually, “the gullible” (I fear) do not know that. …….. . ”

    @ Princess Leia says:
    January 10, 2011 at 2:28 am
    “The more these alarmist squeal and rant, the more rational people will disbelieve them.”
    Right you are, but there are not enough rational people to outvote the warmist sheeple.
    Great comments by the rest of you.
    Here is Shawn Marshall’s e-mail as posted at Univ of Calg. if you want to comment to him.
    shawn.marshall@ucalgary.ca

  80. Brian Johnson uk says:

    Little did I know that The Day The Earth Caught Fire [along with AGW, an utterly stupid concept of a nuclear explosion altering the Earth's orbit/climate!] poster would be used in WUWT.
    The reason I post is because that movie was my first job as a Special Effects Assistant and it was responsible in me becoming a skeptic regarding any hysterical forecast of Mankind’s ability to engineer planetary changes.

  81. latitude says:

    The inertia in intermediate and deep ocean currents driving into the Southern Atlantic means those oceans are only now beginning to warm as a result of CO2 emissions from the last century.
    =======================================================
    Hasn’t the southern ocean been warming up first, and cooling down first?
    We have heard about the warm water around Antarctica for years now.

    Anywho, glad this is over. There’s not one thing we can do about CO2 levels.

  82. Rob Crawford says:

    Brad, you’ll need to be a little more specific than “a right-winger on Twitter”. As it is, you’re projecting a serious urban-legend vibe.

  83. rbateman says:

    “Researchers will next begin to investigate more deeply the impact of atmosphere temperature on ocean temperature to help determine the rate at which West Antarctica could destabilize and how long it may take to fully collapse into the water.”

    Why wait 1,000 years to find out they are wrong, when they haven’t gotten it right yet?
    I’d hate to have to pay thier heating bill, what with the front door and windows left open during a blizzard.

  84. Doug in Seattle says:

    Just when you think the warmists have jumped the shark, they come up with an even more ridiculous scare story.

    Even politicians can see through this one – right?

  85. Dave Springer says:

    I’m at a loss for words.

  86. Pamela Gray says:

    These nutty scientists are beginning to sound like pigs squealing at the county fair.

    Are they trolling for movie rights? In my opinion, “Them” had a much better scary scenario plot and spawned many more sequels. Which of course it had too, because of the last words in the last scene spoken by the scientist regarding the true and present danger of nuclear testing.

    Mark my words, one of these idiots will revise the move “The Day After Tomorrow” by saying they predicted it. “Cold” equals warming and is the shivering lull before the fire and brimstone.

    My ancestors came up with a saying about folks like these: snake oil salesmen. It is on us to be labeled stupid if we fall for this.

  87. rukidding says:

    The models didn’t happen to contain the specifications for the warp drive engines on the starship Enterprise did they.That could be real helpful.:-)

  88. Olaf Koenders, Wizard of Oz? says:

    I’VE DONE IT!!

    I found a way to reduce my power bill and CATASTROPHIC carbon footprint by some 30% without:

    1. Resorting to draconian measures such as installing expensive, poisonous and safely unrecyclable compact flouros
    2. Switching those stupid lights off when not needed
    3. Kowtowing to ridiculously expensive solar panels that will have their feed-in tariffs cut back soon
    4. Buying into expensive, ineffective and heavily subsidised wind power and;
    5. Mindless stupidity such as endorsing Brumby’s idiotic plan to cut 1/4 of Hazelwood’s DANGEROUS coal power output (without a plan to cover the lost megawatts effectively sans blackouts)..

    It’s just so simple. I drilled an invisible 1mm hole in my meter and jammed a wire against the disc to stop it turning on the weekends. Now, on the bill, it also calculates my CATASTROPHIC carbon footprint as greatly reduced.

    Now to get hold of my electrician mate and find a way of getting round those new “smart meters” that are being rolled out and we’re ALREADY paying for even before they’re installed – and see if I can drop my CATASTROPHIC carbon footprint further.

    See? I’m doing my bit and I’m sure we can all do the same to SAVE THE PLANET. Being green and energy conscious makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.. ;)

  89. Dan says:

    As I am sitting here in Atlanta with 6 inches of snow outside … yes, I know it was caused by global warming … but I was just wondering … I guess engaging in a what if scenario … what if we are entering a new ice age. How much devastation would that cause? I don’t know if the seas would rise and I assume it would be good for polar bears, but wouldn’t it be really really bad for humans. Therefore because it could be potentially much worse for humans that warming, shouldn’t we be spending ridiculous amounts of money preventing a new ice age? Just asking.

  90. Magnus says:

    PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE!!! Not so harsh!!! Let’s just wait and see if they are correct.

  91. Jeff says:

    Oh, oh, they’re beginning to wise up. For many of you, remember the ice age almost at our back door in the 70’s from too much pollution; within twenty years, according to that guy from “Cheers,” the oceans would be dead; there would be no more adirondack forest due to acid rain; everyone in Argentina was going to get skin cancer from the ozone hole sitting overhead. Now they have, through endless studies of course, come to the conclusion that humans live awhile longer than your average lemming, and we have seen the drama come and go-better play it real safe and go out a 1000 years (that Methuselah, he’s dead… right?)

  92. HenryP says:

    Henry@Smokey
    What do think of this investigation result:
    no global warming in South Africa during the past 37 years…
    http://letterdash.com/HenryP/assessment-of-global-warming-and-global-warming-caused-by-greenhouse-forcings-in-pretoria-south-africa
    Would be honoured to hear your opinion about it…?

  93. Pamela Gray says:

    Trivial Pursuit:

    Do you happen to know just how much closer the Earth has to get to the Sun to feel any significant affect in terms of rising temperature due to closer proximity to solar irradiance? Since we now know the math, how far off was the movie?

  94. Husq says:

    “Jacob Neilson says:
    January 10, 2011 at 4:50 am

    A much overlooked English prog/pop band of the 1970s, City Boy, released an excellent album in 1979 called “The Day the Earth Caught Fire”. Check it out. In light of the present articles, I shall re-read the lyric sheet from my original vinyl version tonight.”

    Don’t worry, Leo Hickman of the Guardian is on the case:

    Al Gore, Gary Neville or Cheryl Cole: who would you trust on climate change?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jan/10/climate-change-celebrity-power-survey?showallcomments=true#comment-fold

  95. David L. says:

    Marcus Kesseler says:
    January 10, 2011 at 4:54 am

    “… the model predicted that by the year 2000 I would earning over 5 million a month! Wow! And it was coming out of a computer. So it had to be true.

    Alas, my first name is neither Bill nor Larry. So, in later years my salary (measured by using numbers on my bank statements as proxies) started to diverge from the model! It’s a travesty, but I still can’t account for the missing cash. And unlike others I was unable to hide the decline…
    Best regards,
    Marcus”

    Marcus, excellent analogy. But don’t despair, you were right all along! Didn’t you know that increasing salary actually causes less salary? Like global warming causes cooling.

  96. Kate says:

    Dave (UK) says: It’s shocking that someone as intelligent as Boris Johnson should be in that list. What is he thinking of! He’s sussed the EU, so why is he taking so long to see through AGW?!

    …Boris is listed as being influential to those polled. I don’t think he has backed AGW in the past, and it’s doubtful that someone so politically astute would be taken in by it now.

  97. Ken Harvey says:

    Even the inestimable Piers Corbyn would find it difficult to find a ready money buyer for a 1000 year hence weather forecast.

  98. Good News indeed.
    Now we need no longer worry about any new “Ice Age” or glaciation returning anytime soon.
    My children, our grandchildren and many generations of all sorts of children need not worry about starvation due to crop failures or simply freezing to death as the Earth gets progressively colder, because thanks to an increase of an atmospheric trace gas which we have elected to name as a “Greenhouse gas” the solar system has broken out of a 2.5 million year old cooler than average cycle.

    I take this opportunity to thank you all for your contributions of atmospheric CO2 however small it may have been.

  99. H.R. says:

    Kevin says:
    January 10, 2011 at 5:01 am
    “I thought the world was going to be over in 100 years.”

    Nahhhh… according to some interpretations of the Mayan calendar, it’s all gonna’ blow in 2012, so relax. No need to worry about the year 2100 or 3000 for that matter.

  100. ilaçlama says:

    What if we completely stopped using fossil fuels and put no more CO2 in the atmosphere? How long would it then take to reverse current climate change trends and will things first become worse?

  101. Ric Werme says:

    Oh heck, and I was so hoping that climate would keep changing until the Sun turns into a red giant in a few billion years.

    They said “at least the next 1000 years” so I think there’s still hope for us.

  102. Alchemy says:

    Ready my flying car. I need to travel to the atomically powered cloud city to ponder these prognostications with the Council of Deep Thought Havers.

  103. Hoser says:

    Well, according to the model, there is climate inertia for 1000 years. That means the inertia of the MWP should be just about over. So, we should be due for 500-700 years of cold, cold-d-d-der, bloody c-c-c-colddd w-weather. And if CO2 emissions stop that, whoopie!

  104. Hal says:

    Last week I was hoping for medical a break-through that would give me a chance of lasting 260 years, to see if those other climate jokesters would be vindicated in their prediction about measuring CO2 impact.

    I just don’t see a life span of 1000 years as being medically possible. Sigh.

  105. Mike Jowsey says:

    @TerrySkinner : thanks for a good laugh!

  106. Mark Bowlin says:

    So….not much point in carbon rationing is there?

  107. Tony says:

    You know, I am getting so tired of this “We have to do something NOW!” crap. I’m beginning to wish that some group of politicians would actually do what the alarmists are calling for, and ban ALL fossil fuels and other warming materials & activities, effective IMMEDIATELY. Let the masses live with what the alarmists are calling for.

    I don’t think it would take very long to get people to start ignoring them.

  108. John Eggert says:

    To All:

    Regarding predictions, such as this one, I think Dr. Pielke Jr. gives us something to consider. Specifically, what definition of “climate change” are they using. For those who don’t know that there are two definitions, the book “The Climate Fix” is excellent reading. A lot of ‘non’sense makes sense in light of this confusion. Using one definition of climate change, people like the UVic crowd can blithely say there was no climate change until 200 years ago. And, according to their definition they are correct. They are using the definition that “climate change” only involves change to the climate directly attributable to human activity. In this light, the hockey sticks are actually “correct”<<NOTE THE BLOODY QUOTES!!. They filter out natural variation, so things like the LIA and MWP don't cloud the data. As such, they (the team), can say, with a straight face, there has been no climate change (caused by humans is not said, but it is understood) in the last 1,000 years, until humans started changing the climate.

    In logic, I believe this is called a tautology.

    Cheers

    JE

  109. izen says:

    Okay, so the ‘projections’ out to a 1000 years are not very credible. About the only thing we CAN be sure of is that the climate wont be anything like the present.

    @-Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    “…And with “zero emissions” we will be back to near pre-industrial CO2 levels in somewhat over 100 years, reversing any temperature/climate effect, as far as there was an effect…”

    I wonder where you get the idea that the increased CO2 will return to pre-industrial levels in ‘a little over 100 years’ ?
    Previous large increases in CO2 such as the PETM event took several THOUSAND years for CO2 levels to return to pre-event levels. The timescale of geological sequestration out of the active biological cycle is measured in millenia not centuries.

  110. MattN says:

    I have a name for “science” similar to this. I sometimes accidentally step in it when I’m at the farm….

  111. Nick Bentley says:

    While I agree that this paper is too speculative, do you ever worry that there’s cherry picking in regards to the research criticized here? It’s difficult to avoid these days, on both sides of this issue, not in the least because there’s an overwhelming amount of information and our attention is naturally drawn to what we already suspect is true. I wish I could gather people from each side and have each person present the research that they think argues most strongly *against” their own point of view. I wonder if that wouldn’t lead to more deeply considered thinking.

    (full disclosure: I believe climate change is a big problem, so I feel odd posting here, but I’m interesting in better understanding those who disagree. If you reply, go easy!)

  112. TomRude says:

    Shawn Marshall is some big wig in Canada’s climate change gravy train. This model based stuff is truly useless but it makes good headlines and keep the gravy coming…

  113. George Lawson says:

    Surely they are taking the mickey out of their sponsors.
    A very good sci fi script. I can’t wait to see the film

  114. Mac says:

    This paper inadvertently makes the case for doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about mitgation.

    1000 years is plenty time for humans to ADAPT to climate change – in what ever form it comes in.

    The arguement is indeed over

  115. ShrNfr says:

    Hip hip gore-rays. A new novel type of radiation similar to the z rays announced at the turn of the 1900s. Unfortunately, these are real and render the person to whom they are exposed mindless and babbling.

  116. Herbie Vandersmeldt says:

    I think maybe I should make a spreasheet that predicts earth’s climate 1 million years out. As long as I show that today’s anthropogenic CO2 causes a devastating rise in temperatures, it ought to be published somewhere. Hello cream job!

  117. RobW says:

    A glimmer of hope today. A story ran in our local paper about the massive flooding in Auz. No where were the words AGW or climate change. imagine that!

  118. vukcevic says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    January 10, 2011 at 3:58 am
    …………….
    Movement of the pole is only apparent. There are two centres of the high intensity; one in the Hudson Bay are the other in the central Siberia. It is balance of these two that determines average value and position of the ‘magnetic pole’.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC21.htm
    Note magnetic scale is reversed to show the temperature trend, since there is negative correlation between two.

  119. DJ Meredith says:

    The Van Allen belt will catch fire, and then, and then…..

    Only the submarine Seaview can save us!!!

    Only after Al Gore meets with Admiral Nelson in Cancun…..

  120. OzWizard says:

    JP, @ January 10, 2011 at 4:22 am, says: “… South Bend Indiana had 36 inches of Climate Change. … more lake effect events”

    I see!! So my part of Queensland is really just suffering from “cloud-collapse events” – causing “multiple river-expansion events” – due to unusual depths of “liquified Climate Change”. I think I’m starting to get the hang of this thing now.

  121. HaroldW says:

    Gotta love the tag lines in that movie poster:
    The INCREDIBLE becomes Real!
    The IMPOSSIBLE becomes Fact!
    The UNBELIEVABLE becomes True!

    Is it any different if a screenwriter writes it, or a model extrapolates it?

  122. polistra says:

    The Carbon Cultists can’t even get their apocalyptic cult procedures right. You’re supposed to predict the end approximately two years from now, not a thousand years from now. “THE END IS NEAR!”, not “THE END IS FAR!”

  123. AllenC says:

    Does this mean we will experience a 1,000 years of data adjustments so that the climate behaves like the model tells it to?

  124. bobbyj0708 says:

    “A man’s got to know his limitations” – Clint Eastwood

  125. Olen says:

    It pays to exaggerate in advertisement. Test equipment used to have attenuators marked way into noise where no signal could be detected, auto speedometers showing above 100 MPH when the car would max out at 80 or 85, breakfast serial to make you feel like an athlete and so on. These were harmless claims that only concerned those willing to pay their own money for the product.

    Global warming claims are advertisements that are not harmless. Their claims are intended for legislation, taxes, restrictions on choice of purchase and dictatorial regulations that give the consumer no choice of how to spend their money. Why are they advertisements, because they are presented as truth while the claims are not proven and the data and procedures are not reviewed and shown.

    A scientific what if exercise is fine but not on the legislative floor.

  126. Stephen Wilde says:

    “The inertia in intermediate and deep ocean currents driving into the Southern Atlantic means those oceans are only now beginning to warm as a result of CO2 emissions from the last century. The simulation showed that warming will continue rather than stop or reverse on the 1000-year time scale.”

    That appears to support my earlier proposals that the rate of energy entering the oceans takes about 1000 years to transit the full length of the thermohaline circulation.
    Save that I assert that solely or overwhelmingly natural changes are the cause.

  127. Oh you really should’ve had a title like:

    “In the year 2525….”

    (youtube took down the best video of this song)

  128. hunter says:

    How do they deal with the reality that the Earth has had fluctuations in CO2 in the past that did not trigger runaway anything and did not wreak havoc?
    Why are junk studies like this getting published if the peer review process is still functional?

  129. amicus curiae says:

    someone give em a shovel and point them at the warming…
    ludicrous.

  130. Juraj V. says:

    North Africa was savanna, nor desert, when it was warmer last time. But hey, they got a model.

  131. steveta_uk says:

    Olaf Koenders, some years ago I was decorating a living room which contained an electric power meter mounted on a board against the wall. I detached the board from the wall and tilted it forwards to decorate the wall.

    Imagine my surprise when I discovered the meter didn’t work when tilted forwards!

    It took AGES to decorate that room.

  132. ge0050 says:

    “an eventual rise in the global sea level of at least four metres”

    That is a rise of about 16 inches per century, about the worst case IPCC Scenario. It is also the about the height of waves you get from about 7 mph winds, as predicted by the Beaufort Scale.

  133. Tony says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    Mark my words, one of these idiots will revise the move “The Day After Tomorrow” by saying they predicted it. “Cold” equals warming and is the shivering lull before the fire and brimstone.

    You know, for some reason, I never quite made this obvious connection:

    The warmists are predicting fire and brimstone for humanity if we don’t change our ways and stop sinning against the earth. Yet another similarity with traditional religion.

  134. Robinson says:

    The timescale of geological sequestration out of the active biological cycle is measured in millenia not centuries.

    I very much doubt that.

  135. Vorlath says:

    Brilliant post! I’ve been saying this since Climategate that it’s the skeptics that have been leading the charge proclaiming that climate **changes**. The alarmists were saying “no, it has remained static for the past 1000 years (or more)” and that the recent “surge” in temperature is exceptional and must be due to human activity.

  136. R. de Haan says:

    This kind of long term predictions is part of their strategy to move the “problem” outside the scope of our mortal populations but keep the “problem” alive.

    The odds they will be able to motivate the masses to accept harsh measures and regulations to prevent a possible disaster in the year 3000 is ZERO.

    But watch out. It makes the odds for “The Great Transformation” (the abolishment of democracy = totalitarian rule) much higher.

    http://www.greattransformation.eu/index.php/about-the-conference

    On the other hand, the growing gap between the climate change science and the real world and politicians and the real world, I really wonder how long the public is going to take it.

  137. danj says:

    “Science” of this nature based on convoluted computer models reminds me of the roulette system one of my friends said was “fool proof.” He was heading to the casino floor to execute a strategy of betting on red and tripling the bet everytime he lost. After about 20 minutes, he reappeared looking flummoxed. I asked him how the new “system” worked. He said he had to suspend the experiment because he ran out of money, then added: “I am sure it is a sound formula, but you have to have a lot of money and courage to stick with it.” He should have been one of the “scientists” who published this article. You get all the money you need for free and you don’t need any courage because your peers who judge your work won’t ridcule you.

  138. HankHenry says:

    I wonder if it’s known whether there is a different averaged surface temperature for the Northern versus Southern Hemisphere as things stand right now.

  139. higley7 says:

    “Let’s see, AD 3000, 4 meters, about 13 feet.”

    That’s about 4 mm/yr. The oceans had better start hustling as the rate has been slackin’ recently and has an average of 1.8 mm/yr for the past century.

  140. Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta says:

    E-mail to myers@ucalgary.ca:

    “Praise Jebus that we closed hospital beds so that we could continue funding your important work studying the bloody obvious. We’re all waiting with baited-breath for your next treatise: The sun is projected to continue rising in the east and setting in the west until year 2075 at least”.

  141. Rick K says:

    1,000 years from now?

    BAH! All the cool kids want to know the temps 10,000 years from now!

  142. Dave F says:

    Please ask these gentlemen to flush their credibility down someone else’s drain. It clogs up the toilet.

  143. Kevin G says:

    It’s time to draft some legislation based on simulations of climate in the year 3000!

  144. Enneagram says:

    Each day facts are superseding fantasy, colder reality replacing the hottest dreams.

  145. Richard Day says:

    This is the state of higher education in my home country.

    Are taxpayers really getting ANY value for their money?

  146. latitude says:

    Nick Bentley says:
    January 10, 2011 at 7:34 am
    (full disclosure: I believe climate change is a big problem, so I feel odd posting here, but I’m interesting in better understanding those who disagree. If you reply, go easy!)
    =======================================================
    Nick, don’t worry, it’s only a computer monitor…..

    I don’t really believe either side of the science. The side that says we’re all going to die, and the science that says we’re not.

    I don’t think either side knows enough to claim science shows anything.

    If anything is happening at all, it’s happening so slowly that no one can even really measure it. Everything is within the margin or error. So there’s nothing to worry about.

  147. Schrodinger's Cat says:

    It is staggering that scientists, universities and journals should put their names to such rediculous and obvious garbage. Do these people not have any sense of shame or embarrassment?

    Almost every aspect of so-called climate science is in genuine dispute and modelling based on biased assumptions and very few facts has lost all credibility.

  148. RockyRoad says:

    Kinda reminds me of the guy who jumped off the cliff–nothing to do but wait for the splat at the bottom!

    Oh wait… The guy was just dreaming! The only splat was his wife dumping a vase of cold water on his face for coming in so late the night before (and it doesn’t take 1,000 years for this to happen).

  149. Steve Oregon says:

    This is an urgent matter?
    Investment in science must be increased? Funding for all aspects of climate research, monitoring and all associated fields should have a top priority?
    Our very survival depends upon the consensus making Team?

    On another note:
    What is the theory behind the near vertical warming of 1700-1750?
    And why doesn’t the hockey stick show it?

  150. Ferdinand says:

    No sane person would ever attempt to predict anything that far ahead save that all those on the planet today and in the next 850 years will be dead by then. It sounds very like a desperate attempt to keep the fires stoked so that extra government funds can pour into the coffers of the AGW fanatics. As my Latin master at school said. “You must realise that less than 1% of the population are intelligent and less than 1% of those use their intelligence.”

  151. melinspain says:

    “Then History came to prove them right, because this is in the very nature of History: to give right to those who do not.” B.P.Galdós

  152. G. Karst says:

    I would have been greatly impressed had the Canadians ran the simulations backwards and successfully reproduced the last 1000 to 3000 years of climate. When do we get to hear about validation runs?? When is the climate research community going to get serious about the science??? GK

  153. Laurence M. Sheehan says:

    Canada Research Chair in Climate Change and University of Calgary geography professor.

    geography professor . . . what a bad joke. A high school physics teacher with knowledge of chemistry would be a far better choice.

  154. Enneagram says:

    Richard Day says:
    January 10, 2011 at 9:04 am

    This is the state of higher education in my home country.
    So it is true that: “Being trained it is absolutely different than Being”
    All breakthroughs in science and everything else have been done by Beings. A perfectly trained thing it is a perfectly working and repetitive machine.

  155. Jimash says:

    “The top 20 influence-peddlers are listed in the Guardian as:

    1) Al Gore
    2) Bill Gates
    3) Arnold Schwarzenegger
    4) Boris Johnson
    5) David Beckham
    6) Ken Livingstone
    7) Chris Martin
    8) Cheryl Cole
    9) Gwyneth Paltrow
    10) Duncan Bannatyne
    11) Phil Schofield
    12) Robbie Williams
    13) Fearne Cotton
    14) Leonardo DiCaprio
    15) Holly Willoughby
    16) Colin Firth
    17) Graham Norton
    18) Sienna Miller
    19) Paloma Faith
    20) Gary Neville”

    I am pretty sure that is the same list of who not to buy a used Jaguar from.

  156. scan says:

    Does ”we” know why there have been 4 major geological times of glaciations of different lengths the last billion years? And 60% of the time there was no glaciations. Where there no Milankovitch cycles during this time? Is it even possible to predict how long the present one will last?

    http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/451/fourglaciations.gif
    image: http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/when_ice_ages.html

    Can it be that we are very lucky and this one will be an exceptional short one? How could we know?

    Ice ages don’t look like fun times:
    http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8166/lastglamod.gif

    I guessed we would be better of handling the problem of warmer and rising sea than an ice age. But that was before I learned that politicians in cooperation with climate scientists could fine tune the average global temperature down to a precission of tenths of a degree by controlling CO2 emissions with taxes.

  157. Jim Clarke says:

    Computers crunch numbers based on the specific instructions of the software. Computers don’t ‘know’ more than the people who write the software. If the software writers assume the Earth’s atmosphere is filled with positive feedbacks and tipping points, the computers will dutifully crunch those equations and spit out 1,000 years of warming! The general answer is predetermined by the assumptions in the software!

    Thus, expensive models are akin to the elaborate hand waving of magicians! They are diversions, designed to distract people from the truth.

    (Of course, if the initial assumptions were correct, the Earth would have fried a long time ago!)

  158. JP says:

    Like the tropical mid-tropespheric hotspot, Alarmists will spend years (and plenty of public dollars) in search of the missing deep ocean heat. In the meantime, they will churn out copious studies which make the assumption that such large amounts of heat energy exist deep below the ocean surfaces (ie what if there was 5 x 10^95 Joules of heat stored in our oceans?)

  159. JPeden says:

    Forget their sci-fi projections about “climate”, the Horror Show quality Reality manifested by these “peer reviewed” Climate Scientists amongst us is already about as bad as it can get…..I hope.

  160. Enginear says:

    Did anyone notice the line where constant strong winds in the southern Atlantic ocean will warm the water by transporting from up in the atmosphere down to the water? All this time I thought wind was the key driver to evaporation which has to cool the body of liquid that is being affected. Now I know better because this is Peer reviewed? Wonder how far up the heat comes from?

    Cheers,
    Barry Strayer

  161. Coach Springer says:

    Worth bookmarking as prime example of the worth of Phds and scientific studies sans any actual science.

  162. Enginear says:

    Oops, Forgot to put the word “heat” after transporting above.

    Sorry,
    Barry Strayer

  163. Of course the CBC loudly repeated this baseless speculation passing it off as news or worse, as research. Defending the theft of my taxes seems to be part of the CBC mandate.

    What do you do when you’ve had enough?!

  164. Perry says:

    In 1956, Issac Asimov addressed the vexatious issue of computer modelling.

    “Multivac fell dead and silent. The slow flashing of lights ceased, the distant sounds of clicking relays ended.

    Then, just as the frightened technicians felt they could hold their breath no longer, there was a sudden springing to life of the teletype attached to that portion of Multivac. Five words were printed: INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER.

    “No bet,” whispered Lupov. They left hurriedly.

    Read the whole story in just a few very rewarding minutes. There’s nowt new under the sun.

    http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

  165. Jean Parisot says:

    I like this 1000 year study, we could finance all kinds of silly renewable energy programs if we could get the greenies to buy bonds that matured in 3010.

  166. Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta says:

    If computer simulations can be credibly called “research” then my Xbox 360 is obviously illustrating that I missed the opportunity to be one of Canada’s greatest hockey players.

  167. stumpy says:

    In the model test runs they continually warm without changing co2, you could run them for 10,000 yearas and the would still predict rising temps even if co2 stopped rising tommorow – thats the issue of trusting these black boxes that fail all testing.

  168. ge0050 says:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044770.shtml

    “We estimate that the total ice and water mass loss from the continents is causing global mean sea-level to rise by 1.0 ± 0.4 mm/yr.”

    About 4 inches per century, but this is not news worthy so it won’t get reported.

  169. ge0050 says:

    “Ice ages don’t look like fun times:”
    http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8166/lastglamod.gif

    Damn. Doesn’t look good for Canada. The whole country will end up one big hockey rink if we don’t convert the tar sands into CO2 in time.

  170. Gary Pearse says:

    So it is still only 1.3feet/century. At 400 mm/century it is 4mm/yr (currently 3mm/yr). We should be able to falsify this study in about 10 years or earlier – it looks like sea level could be levelling off (polynomial fit of NSIDC data).

  171. TonyK says:

    Run for the hills! Oh no, wait, walk VERY slowly to the hills!

  172. George E. Smith says:

    “”””” Wind currents in the Southern Hemisphere may also have an impact. Marshall says that winds in the global south tend to strengthen and stay strong without reversing. “This increases the mixing in the ocean, bringing more heat from the atmosphere down and warming the ocean.” “””””

    Well who’d a thunk it ? ! Next time I need to warm my tootsies, with a hot water bottle, I will simply inflate the bottle with hot air instead, since it is far more capable of warming, than water seems to be.

    So the heat comes down from the air to warm the oceans; I would never have guessesd that obvious result. I will take note that it takes 3,000 years to happen though.

  173. George E. Smith says:

    “”””” Jimash says:
    January 10, 2011 at 9:30 am
    “The top 20 influence-peddlers are listed in the Guardian as:

    1) Al Gore
    2) Bill Gates
    3) Arnold Schwarzenegger “””””

    So I know who these three genii are; but who the hell are those other 17 people on the list ?

  174. Bruce Cobb says:

    Their fantasy models, which are based on the CAGW myth are themselves based on a fantasy, that of ‘zero-emissions’ scenarios. So, we have a fantasy based on a myth based on another fantasy. And they get paid for this?

  175. old44 says:

    NEW SCIENTIST
    Antarctic ice sheet is an ‘awakened giant’
    13:38 02 February 2005 by Jenny Hogan, Exeter

    The massive west Antarctic ice sheet, previously assumed to be stable, is starting to collapse, scientists warned on Tuesday.

    Collapse started on 02 Feb 2005, finishes 995 years later, sometime around 3000. Is this the slowest collapse in history, do I contact the Guiness Book of Records?

  176. George E. Smith says:

    Well I still think that Al Gore’s invention of screen doors for Nuclear Submarines, was man’s finest creative hour !

  177. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Kath says:
    @1:09
    “Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure. Moreover…&c &c. urban civilization was doomed.”

    Ha ha, that is a very nice bit of research on past failed models! But in defense of this good science writer for the Times in 1894, I noticed it is piled rather high in London, and urban civilization is under serious threat. He simply got the source wrong. It was not the horse.

    (Sorry if this is a repeat, I’ll go read the rest of the posts now.)

  178. Crispin in Toronto says:

    TokyoTom says:

    This is REALLY funny — because we all know that there is NO inertia to the climate system and that it’s physically impossible that the CO2, methane and other multi-atom radiation-absorbing gas molecules that man is releasing/accelerating release of, and the soot release and other albedo-changing activities of man, will have any physical effect whatsoever, much less one that might be felt for a millenia or so, right?

    +++++++++++

    I take it Tony that you are not from around here. This is the land of real science, not wish-it-and-it-will-be. Get a grip on relative size and you will be able to participate.

    +++++++++++
    TokyoTom says:

    Pielke, Sr., Christy, Michaels & Lindzen all agree that there is no greenhouse effect, that soot has no effect, and that paleorecords of other long-felt climate influences are the sheerest nonsense, right?

    ++++++++++

    I think you must have been reading RC or something. Beware what some say about others – see for yourself, not through the eyes of others. Yes it is work but that is how the house was built.

  179. DonS says:

    Oh, hell yes! Can’t hind cast five minutes or forecast 5 years because everyone knows the models are crap, so we go for the really really big prognosis. Outrageous. Climate change is causing insanity among its scholars.

  180. RockyRoad says:

    stumpy says:
    January 10, 2011 at 10:40 am

    In the model test runs they continually warm without changing co2, you could run them for 10,000 yearas and the would still predict rising temps even if co2 stopped rising tommorow – thats the issue of trusting these black boxes that fail all testing.

    I’m betting they could set the CO2 levels to zero and the models would STILL get the same results. Show’s just how intent they are on accusing CO2 of every climate woe imaginable.

  181. Jim G says:

    Does this mean I will finally be able to grow tomatoes here in Wyoming?

  182. Steven Mosher says:

    Mark says:
    January 10, 2011 at 1:21 am (Edit)
    How can they do model projection for such a huge time scale. They can’t even get it right over a 10 year period. Which has also already been proved historically.

    #######
    “weather” is an initial values problem. “climate” long term statistics about the weather is a boundary value problem. by changing the forcing you change the long term statistics of the weather ( the “climate”), you shift the structure of the data.
    So, for example, you might shift a mean jan temp from 1C to 1.5C, or you might change the number of extreme events. Weather still happens, its still hard to predict, but the idea is that by changing the forcing you change the long term ( say 30 year averages) weather statistics. This “thing”, long terms averages, really doesn’t exist as a thing. its more a description of the statistics.

    Here: rather simple:

    http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1083628?format=flv&quality=high&fetch_type=stream

    here is a nice little simulation showing you the idea. starting at minute 8, your concern is addressed with a nice demonstration of changing the forcing in a chaotic model

    http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/1085005?format=flv&quality=high&fetch_type=stream

  183. Scarface says:

    Well, the US has destroyed a previous attempt to establish a 1000 years empire.

    The similarity of this eco-fascists attempt with that one is rather scary.
    The 10:10 insight they gave, shows how far these people are willing to go to enforce behaviour as required according to their unholy doctrine.
    Now we know that they want to subdue us to a 1000 years of sacrifice.

    My hope is on the US to destroy this empire too.

  184. Zeke the Sneak says:

    Clearly, one could make the case for the need for legal protection for otherwise decent, hard-working supercomputers from all of this abuse and neglect and abandonment. At least we can be sure the warantees will be forfeited.

    Now let’s get some real service from this otherwise fine, powerful computer and put the CO2 setting for post-industrial earth, in the roaring era when Bill-It’s-the-economy-stupid-Clinton was re-elected. Then we also perform a hindcast for the last 3,000 years, as one poster already suggested.

    Now when are these academics on lunch break? I am sure these decent computers would have some very interesting readings.

  185. Al Gored says:

    Crispin in Toronto says:
    January 10, 2011 at 11:47 am

    Crispin, that is an unusual name you have. Any you are from Toronto.

    Do you know who Sir Crispin Tickell is? Sometimes called the ‘Godfather of Global Warming’? Here’s more on him:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100069775/the-man-who-invented-global-warming/

    Ever wonder why the (Toronto) Globe and Mail newspaper is relentlessly promoting the AGW line, and printing every inane article pumping that while never printing anything to the contrary?

    Well, Tickell is on board of the Thomson-Reuters Trust (and Thomson owns that paper):

    http://www.trust.org/learn-more-about-us/trustees/

    This also says something about Reuters, of course. And judging from what AP produces, they probably have similar behind-the-curtains factors.

  186. izen says:

    Robinson says:
    January 10, 2011 at 8:27 am

    The timescale of geological sequestration out of the active biological cycle is measured in millenia not centuries.

    I very much doubt that.
    ————

    Nothing wrong with doubt.
    Do you have a reason for it ?

  187. JPeden says:

    John Eggert says:
    January 10, 2011 at 7:29 am

    To All:

    Regarding predictions, such as this one, I think Dr. Pielke Jr. gives us something to consider. Specifically, what definition of “climate change” are they using.

    [At the risk of me sounding as looney as Climate Science is]

    Yes, right on! As you’ve indicated via a telling example, ipcc Climate Science is a Propaganda Op. which uses “word games” such as changing the definitions of its terms without notice or explanation in order to manipulate people, while never being pinned down itself; so that, roughly, a “CAGW climate” became a more innocently sounding “climate change” when it needed to, so we sceptics supposedly couldn’t deny it without sounding completely nuts – but still with a background “CAGW climate”- instead of regular old “climate”, which we used to accept as already including change as normal and wouldn’t “deny”, except as newly defined by the Climate Science Propaganda Op trap.

    [As others have also noted, at this point Climate Science then becomes the "denier" of regular old climate +/- change, because it now says essentially - by definition masquerading as fact - that only humans can cause its and our current "climate change"! But CS doesn't care that it is now the "denier" because it has already achieved its propagandistic effect, and most people don't know that the definition of "climate" is only what has changed or that people calling themselves "scientists" would really do that.]

    Then “climate change” became [anthropogenic] “climate disruption”, implying to me that “extreme” weather events were either caused by “anthropogenic climate disruption”, or that ACD even had the power to change the existing climate, which would then make its occurrence – as also conveniently defined or dictated by Climate Science – actually evidence of a new climate system at the same time, via more propagandistic circular reasoning.

    Therefore, by this time “weather” and “climate” have no meaning at all within Climate Science because they can’t be distinguished from each other.

    Likewise, “Climate Science” has also changed the definition of “science”, the meaning of “peer review”, “hypothesis”, “experiment”, “fact” and “proof”, etc..

    But the bottom line is that if the practice of “science” and, indeed, all words themselves have no definite meaning according to “Climate Science”, then “Climate Science” itself has no usually understandable meaning, and therefore it has to be understood according to what it does, which is very consistently to not do real, scientific method, science but instead to exclusively try to manipulate the rest of us so that “Climate Science”, enc., can loot and control the world as much as possible until we stop it. That’s the actual game.

  188. Joyfire says:

    Is it true that CO2 is naturally produced in the atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays and nitrogen atoms? I believe the process is called nuclear electron capture. I am a long time lurker on this website and I have only recently come across these claims. Since it is a fact that cosmic rays are increasing to levels that NASA believes we have not seen in hundreds of years, the production of carbon and many other different elements that are formed naturally in the sky in very small amounts should also increase . I am not a chemist and I wonder if anyone would have a definitive answer and some references. I would imagine others would be interested in the answer too.

    Thanks

  189. izen says:

    @-G. Karst says:
    “I would have been greatly impressed had the Canadians ran the simulations backwards and successfully reproduced the last 1000 to 3000 years of climate. When do we get to hear about validation runs?? When is the climate research community going to get serious about the science??? GK”

    Some models are run to hindcast for >1000 yrs BPE as validation.
    Some researchers go MUCH further….
    How about a model of the Earth climate that hindcasts the last 500,000 years to validate its projections for the next 100 thousand years? –

    J.C. Hargreaves Æ J.D. Annan
    Assimilation of paleo-data in a simple Earth system model
    “We have used cross-validation
    to show that the model forecast for the next 50–100 ka is
    of similar accuracy to the hindcast over the last 500 ka.
    The model forecasts an immediate cooling of the Earth,
    with the next glacial maximum in around 60 ka. An
    anthropogenic pulse of CO2 has a short-term effect but
    does not influence the model prediction beyond 30 ka.”

    http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d3/jules/paleo_assim.pdf

  190. Dave Andrews says:

    It’s been said by many but I need my 2p worth. Forecasts 1000 years ahead – b%$**^cks!

  191. PhilJourdan says:

    1000 years? Woohoo! That means we will abide Catastrophic Global Climate Change! And we will live to see another millenium!

    I wonder what life will be like then. How many will remain on earth and how many will live on other planets by then.

  192. Dave Andrews says:

    Steven Mosher, Jan 10 12.18pm,

    Are you sure you’re not being drawn into the paradigm of believing the models because you’re so involved in analysing them? I believe there was some research a few years back that found, in effect, that modellers began to believe their models were the reality rather than the real world situation.

  193. Colin in Mission BC says:

    As a Canadian, please accept my sincerest apologies for this drivel spewing forth from my countrymen.

  194. JohnWho says:

    I’m confused –

    are they saying that in the year 3000

    the climate will stop changing?

  195. 1DandyTroll says:

    “What if” the hippies were put back to the stoney cave age.

    Don’t get too close! Don’t ye get to close huddling together.

    I’m freezing. I hear Albert froze to death last night.

    Alberta too.

    Oi! Arm’s length, arm’s length god damn’t! You’ll never know what’ll happen otherwise.

    C’mon, I’m freezing, lets huddle together?

    Are you completely bonkers? If we sit too close the climate elders say we’ll heat this cave up like a light house on fire, and that’ll attract them god damn whitey tidy bears who’ll gobble us, unwashed animal loving tree hugging cretins, up, fur and all in one fell swoop. Is that what you want? What about the kiiids!

  196. DEL says:

    David,UK actually hit it on the nail head noting that the targets of this fictitious propaganda are gullible liberal socialists and the massive sheep population (more voters than us). It is really a near impossible argument to try to present reality to them. They think all things are the responsibility of government to control / fix. I know this, my wife happens to be a very Socialist Social Worker….Don’t ask. I have completely given up any further attempts to help her see reason regarding socialism. I just don’t go there; much better sex. We are expecting -11 F here in Colorado tonight after a high of +10 F daytime (historical average high and low here are +43 and +15 F); last winter came early and ran late; i am just letting her live it out.

    As far as the next 1,000 years; it is funny, everything I have seen points to us plummeting way beyond little ice age levels into the abyss of the next cycle of glacial advance sometime between now and then. I think we (our decedents) will be frantically looking for ways to heat things up. And since CO2 levels will plummet to dangerously low levels, they will probably pump all that sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere, thinking it will make a difference (while praising their forethought), rather than use it in greenhouses for food while they ride out 80-90K years of ice.
    How many miles high and dry inland will all the vital shipping ports be? And, of course, many of those undersea oil wells will be high and dry; that’s a good thing.

    And well, when that cycle ends comes the real flooding and the warmers will be back at it.

  197. mojo says:

    What if… we stopped giving Dr. Shawn Marshall money?

  198. stevenmosher says:

    Dave Andrews says:
    January 10, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Steven Mosher, Jan 10 12.18pm,

    Are you sure you’re not being drawn into the paradigm of believing the models because you’re so involved in analysing them? I believe there was some research a few years back that found, in effect, that modellers began to believe their models were the reality rather than the real world situation.

    ###########
    No. in my world there isnt such a thing as “belief” in models. A model is a tool for understanding, explaining and predicting. It’s got a measure of skill or usefulness that is never perfect. All physical laws are “models.” The very isolated point I was trying to make was this. Weather is an initial value problem. “climate” long term averages is a boundary condition problem. There are plenty of problems with climate models, but the observation about getting the weather wrong misses the point. there are BETTER criticisms. If you watch Palmer you will see. The strongest arguments against the models come from WITHIN. Mistaking initial value problems for boundary value problems is a mistake. I’m suggesting people look at the real issues.

  199. Engchamp says:

    This is an emotive subject.
    My response to various replies is as follows.
    John Kehr – it does appear to be more of a religion.
    David UK- yes – big problem, no-one eems to understand the basics of science any more – eg, carbon cycle.
    Robinson – something similar comes to mind with the Met…
    Henry P – I have an inkling that we are in for a bit of cooling.
    KDK – no rush -let’s all get a tan then think about it.
    Peter M… got it! Nutshell job!
    I’m afraid that this is as far as I have got.
    Not so good, but you get my drift.

  200. Z says:

    Joyfire says:
    January 10, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    Is it true that CO2 is naturally produced in the atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays and nitrogen atoms? I believe the process is called nuclear electron capture.

    Yes it is, though be aware that the process produces the isotope carbon-14 rather than the more common carbon-12. This phenomenon is what is used to provide “radio-carbon dating”.

    Googling around the technical aspects of carbon-dating should provide you with more answers than I can.

    I am a long time lurker on this website and I have only recently come across these claims. Since it is a fact that cosmic rays are increasing to levels that NASA believes we have not seen in hundreds of years, the production of carbon and many other different elements that are formed naturally in the sky in very small amounts should also increase . I am not a chemist and I wonder if anyone would have a definitive answer and some references. I would imagine others would be interested in the answer too.

    Thanks

    Estimates of the amount of natural carbon 14 used to be made as it helped improve the accuracy of carbon dating. However since the atmospheric nuclear tests of the 50’s (which produced a lot of “unnatural” carbon-14) basically stopped carbon dating from being useful for anything newer than the 50s, I don’t know if these estimates are still made.

  201. Tim Clark says:

    hmm. One generation is about 20 yrs. So now I have to make sure that my
    (48 X) great grandchildren don’t live near the coast. Scares the poop out of me.
    /sarc off.

  202. Check out the GISP2 ice core temperatures for the last 10,500 years. Temperatures today are about 0.4C higher than 100 to 300 years ago. During the Medieval Warming Period temps peaked ~1.2C higher than today. During the Roman Warming Period ~2000 ybp temps peaked ~2.2C higher. During the Minoan Warming Period ~3300 ybp temps peaked ~ 3.0C higher. (R. B. Alley, Journal of Quaternary Science Reviews, Vol.19:213-226).

    To look at the temperature today and claim it is totally due to man is a joke!

  203. David A. Evans says:

    Tony says:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/abandon-all-hope-ye-who-read-this/#comment-570520

    Exactly the reason I say we should let the buggers close a power station or two.

    The green idiots thought they would shut Ratcliffe on Soar for 3 days. They know so little they didn’t realise that after the shutdown it would take several days to a week to get it back to capacity.

    Let the public get at them afterwards!

    DaveE.

  204. Gary Hladik says:

    Hah! A thousand years is nothing! I know a “scientist” who predicted the shape of things to come 800,000 years from now. His name was H G Wells.

    Not sure which projection I find more credible…

  205. Sirius says:

    That is crystal clear not science at all. It is porno climatology. Give me money…

  206. vigilantfish says:

    Dave Andrews says:
    January 10, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    Steven Mosher, Jan 10 12.18pm,

    Are you sure you’re not being drawn into the paradigm of believing the models because you’re so involved in analysing them? I believe there was some research a few years back that found, in effect, that modellers began to believe their models were the reality rather than the real world situation.

    ———–

    Since I am interested in this question from a fisheries perspective I would love to know what that study was. Dave, any chance you could narrow down the reference? Thanks! (Even if you can’t!)

  207. SteveSadlov says:

    Here’s a what if. What if … the general configuration of the continents coupled with the general nature of the current climate system, puts an end to the 10K year sweet spot we’ve been in, during which everything we call “Civilization” has occurred. In fact, this is not a what if, it is a when.

    We are at the end of an interglacial within a multimillion year ice age.

  208. Bill Illis says:

    izen says:
    January 10, 2011 at 7:29 am
    “Previous large increases in CO2 such as the PETM event took several THOUSAND years for CO2 levels to return to pre-event levels. The timescale of geological sequestration out of the active biological cycle is measured in millenia not centuries.”

    ————–

    So let’s say Oceans and Plants are pulling about 4 billion tons of Carbon out of the atmosphere each year (the actual number).

    How long does it take to get back to 280 ppm if emissions stopped tomorrow? Warning, heavy math required for a pro-AGW supporter.

    Second question, how much Carbon was added to the atmosphere during the PETM? Warning, someone had to be there measuring the quantity released each year over the 5,000 years in question. Hint, where did it come from. How many years did those massive north Atlantic volcano / mantle plumes last? Was that more or less than humans are adding each year right now?

    Questions instead of answers because I encourage everyone to try the math for themselves so that they do not continue parroting the latest global warming myths.

  209. Gary Mount says:

    Luboš Motl of “the reference frame” has a nice write up about this political advocacy dressed up as research.

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/weather-in-year-3000-once-again.html

  210. Patrick Davis says:

    “George E. Smith says:

    So I know who these three genii are; but who the hell are those other 17 people on the list ?”

    4) Boris Johnson. Mayor of London.
    5) David Beckham. Soccer player.
    6) Ken Livingstone. Former GLC leader of London, nicknamed “Red Ken”.
    9) Gwyneth Paltrow. Actress.
    12) Robbie Williams. Entertainer.
    14) Leonardo DiCaprio. Actor.
    17) Graham Norton. TV entertainer/comedian.

    Those that I recognise…

  211. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Laurence M. Sheehan said on January 10, 2011 at 9:18 am

    “Canada Research Chair in Climate Change and University of Calgary geography professor.”

    geography professor . . . what a bad joke. A high school physics teacher with knowledge of chemistry would be a far better choice.

    Unfortunately Greg Craven is currently too busy as the AGU (Anti-society Geopolitical Union) spokescreature. (References: one, two)

    Well, he teaches those subjects, I can’t confirm that he knows them. However, “Canada Research Chair in Climate Change” sounds pretty light in the scientific knowledge requirements, shouldn’t be a problem if he becomes available.

  212. Robert Wykoff says:

    Got a hacker to get me the computer code…

    Const ScarySoundingAnomoly = 0.0049977363 ‘degrees per year

    Function EarthTemperatureAnomoly(theYear as Long) as Long

    ‘Proprietary Calculation for future temperature anomolies
    ‘In case of FOI Request, delete immediately

    EarthTemperatureAnomoly = (theYear – Year(Now)) * ScarySoundingAnomoly

    End Function

    Private Sub Command1_Click

    On Error BlameBush

    msgbox “Temperature Anomoly in the Year ” & Text1.Text & “is ” & _
    vba.format$(EarthTemperatureAnomoly(Text1.Text), “0.000000000000”)

    End_Sub

  213. Jon Shively says:

    How can a reputable journal publish this as science? Predicting something is going to happen 1000 years from now is easy. No one will be around to remember if you were wrong. If you are right no one will remember that you were correct either. I cannot think of one man made prediction made a 1000 years ago that has come true today. If one had a set of equations that describe some phenomena as a function of time such as motion of a comet around the sun, generally one could get a result for a thousand years. In this case the motion of the comet and the planets and the sun are well understood and previous predictions have come true. Are the phenomena of climate change understood well enough to make a prediction for the next decade let alone a century? This is not science, it is hoopla!

  214. Mark T says:

    Good to see you haven’t comploded from all the noise in klimate science, SteveSadlov. Indeed, I’m one of the fortunates that prefers cold weather and, as a skier, I can dress for it, too. :)
    Mark

  215. David Ball says:

    Anthony has featured another of the birds that flock together (wish they would flock off), on this thread; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/07/geoengineering-global-scale-nano-nuttiness/ . The Uni of Calgary has GOT to shake some of the nut-jobs out their tree.

  216. newtlove says:

    Perhaps this parody is nearer the truth?
    A team of researchers from the Canadian Centre for Climate Hoaxing and the University of Caligula has published a study alleging that the earth will heat up every year for the next thousand years, culminating with a complete burn-off of earth’s atmosphere, like has never been seen before. By 2250, snow will be non-existent, and despite the death of all human life in 2275, man-made CO2 will continue to increase due to the oil and coal powered robots that will continue to crank out products that robot trucks deliver to robot stocked WalMart stores. Even without humans, the earth will continue to heat for another 750 years until lead and aluminum (aluminium for you UK folks) will flow molten on the ground.

    “We created several ‘what if’ scenarios,” says Dr. Shawn O’Thedead, Chair of the Climate Change subcommittee and Associate Professor of Abnormal Psychology. “This forecast was made possible by the copious amounts of medical marijuana and munchies that we procured as “office supplies” using our National Science Foundation grant monies. We asked ourselves, what if we completely stopped using fossil fuels but the man-made robots continued to burn fuel and dump more CO2 in the atmosphere? How long would it then take at current UEA CRU modeled climate change trends for things to become worse?”

    At first, the team’s answers weren’t scary enough, so they consumed more marijuana and munchies before trying again. The team’s next exploration produced a real corker of a forecast, that showed that, even if the sun were to shut-down completely, CO2 forcing would create a GHG heating sufficient to incinerate all plant and animal life, and leave most metals in a liquid state on the arid land and in the empty oceans. These scenarios beginning in 2010 and in 2100 prove without a doubt that all water vapor will boil off the planet, leaving only CO2 to blanket the destroyed earth.

    To not be too gloomy, the research team did show that if 85% of the industrialized nations’ wealth were turned over to the IPCC, WWF, GreenPeace, Michael Mann, Phil Jones and the UEA CRU, then the climate models predict BBQ summers of warm and mild weather followed by cheerful and cool winters, with a rosy forecast lasting until 3585. Dr Teriffa, Associate Professor of Jungian Threeringology, assured the huddled masses of neo-journalists that this massive transfer of wealth will save the planet, even if mankind does not stop and actually increases the amount of anthropogenic CO2 production.

    Is my sarcasm flag flying high enough to be seen from the next century?

  217. Mike in Canmore says:

    I am seriously ashamed that Canadians and Calgarians have joined ‘the team’. They are obviously looking for more handouts to finesse their results for years and years. Everyone is looking for their own niche to abuse.

  218. Alex says:

    So in year 3000 earth is destroyed by a meteorite? explodes?

  219. Joyfire says:

    Z says:
    January 10, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    Joyfire says:
    January 10, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    Is it true that CO2 is naturally produced in the atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays and nitrogen atoms? I believe the process is called nuclear electron capture.

    Yes it is, though be aware that the process produces the isotope carbon-14 rather than the more common carbon-12. This phenomenon is what is used to provide “radio-carbon dating”.

    Googling around the technical aspects of carbon-dating should provide you with more answers than I can.

    Thanks for the reply. I did not think of the problem of nuclear bomb testing and the production of more carbon 14, but that is also of some interest. At the moment, with all the interest in CO2, I would have thought there would be more focus on the science that provides the details of the rate of natural production versus the rate of manmade production. Well, I am sure there must be somebody somewhere that has looked into this more carefully, but there is little or no publicity because the answer might be an inconvenient truth…

  220. MeWhoElse says:

    Surely this is a comedy sketch from Coco… “In the year three thousand…. in the year three thousand…”

  221. Dacron Mather says:

    Poor Dante- what’s an honest Ghibelline doing in a place like this ?

    The scientific climate of WUWT might be less infernal if the late would materialize and command Tony to abandon all hype before he enters here .

    Though TV weatherman scarcely count as climatologists, they are still God’s creatures, and it is sad to see one caught in a circle of prevarication so vicious that he is tempted to render Hell as cold as possible by discounting earthly warming.

  222. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From Dacron Mather on January 11, 2011 at 9:16 pm:

    Though TV weatherman scarcely count as climatologists, they are still God’s creatures, and it is sad to see one caught in a circle of prevarication so vicious that he is tempted to render Hell as cold as possible by discounting earthly warming.

    And it’s infinitely sadder to see a troll using a fake name (Cotton Mather’s synthetic great-great-great-grandson?) waiting until an article has been deserted before daring to rear its head and “boldly” make its snarky snide comments to an empty room.

    Good thing I gave these comments one last look before finally closing this browser tab. It’s rare to see such displays of Proud Brash Decisiveness these days. ☺

Comments are closed.