From NOAA News, Susan Solomon predicts the future with certainty. In other news, on the same day Caterpillar, Sprint, Texas Instruments, and Home Depot announce massive layoff plans to the tune of 50,000 people, unemployed climate modelers get a government bailout today courtesy of our new president to the tune of 140 million dollars. That should be just enough to pay the electric power bill for the new supercomputer I’m sure NOAA will just “have to have” now to keep up with the new toy for the Brits at Hadley. (h/t to Ed Scott for the NOAA pr)
New Study Shows Climate Change Largely Irreversible
January 26, 2009
A new scientific study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reaches a powerful conclusion about the climate change caused by future increases of carbon dioxide: to a large extent, there’s no going back.
The pioneering study, led by NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon, shows how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped. The findings appear during the week of January 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“Our study convinced us that current choices regarding carbon dioxide emissions will have legacies that will irreversibly change the planet,” said Solomon, who is based at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo.
“It has long been known that some of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years,” Solomon said. “But the new study advances the understanding of how this affects the climate system.”
The study examines the consequences of allowing CO2 to build up to several different peak levels beyond present-day concentrations of 385 parts per million and then completely halting the emissions after the peak. The authors found that the scientific evidence is strong enough to quantify some irreversible climate impacts, including rainfall changes in certain key regions, and global sea level rise.
If CO2 is allowed to peak at 450-600 parts per million, the results would include persistent decreases in dry-season rainfall that are comparable to the 1930s North American Dust Bowl in zones including southern Europe, northern Africa, southwestern North America, southern Africa and western Australia.
The study notes that decreases in rainfall that last not just for a few decades but over centuries are expected to have a range of impacts that differ by region. Such regional impacts include decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts. Dry-season wheat and maize agriculture in regions of rain-fed farming, such as Africa, would also be affected.
Climate impacts were less severe at lower peak levels. But at all levels added carbon dioxide and its climate effects linger because of the ocean.
“In the long run, both carbon dioxide loss and heat transfer depend on the same physics of deep-ocean mixing. The two work against each other to keep temperatures almost constant for more than a thousand years, and that makes carbon dioxide unique among the major climate gases,” said Solomon.
The scientists emphasize that increases in CO2 that occur in this century “lock in” sea level rise that would slowly follow in the next 1,000 years. Considering just the expansion of warming ocean waters—without melting glaciers and polar ice sheets—the authors find that the irreversible global average sea level rise by the year 3000 would be at least 1.3–3.2 feet (0.4–1.0 meter) if CO2 peaks at 600 parts per million, and double that amount if CO2 peaks at 1,000 parts per million.
“Additional contributions to sea level rise from the melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets are too uncertain to quantify in the same way,” said Solomon. “They could be even larger but we just don’t have the same level of knowledge about those terms. We presented the minimum sea level rise that we can expect from well-understood physics, and we were surprised that it was so large.”
Rising sea levels would cause “…irreversible commitments to future changes in the geography of the Earth, since many coastal and island features would ultimately become submerged,” the authors write.
Geoengineering to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was not considered in the study. “Ideas about taking the carbon dioxide away after the world puts it in have been proposed, but right now those are very speculative,” said Solomon.
The authors relied on measurements as well as many different models to support the understanding of their results. They focused on drying of particular regions and on thermal expansion of the ocean because observations suggest that humans are contributing to changes that have already been measured.
Besides Solomon, the study’s authors are Gian-Kasper Plattner and Reto Knutti of ETH Zurich, Switzerland, and Pierre Friedlingstein of Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, Gif-Sur-Yvette, France.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Man made CO2 emissions last for 1000 years in the atmosphere…………..natural emissions last for only 12 years in the atmosphere.
Changes to the climate are irreversible………………….but can be reversed within 4 years.
The Antarctic is cooling, “we knew that”…………………the Antarctic is warming, “we knew that too”.
The planet’s land surface will get drier…………………………….the planet’s atmosphere will be getting wetter.
Such contradictory statements leads to the conclusion that computing power is inversely proportional to climate modeller’s brain power.
Doesn’t anyone do proper science these days?
Is this true? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7851276.stm
Well, which is it, atmospheric CO2 retention of 5 years? 10 years? hundreds, or thousands of years, it surely cannot be a mixture it must be one or the other. I suspect it may well be on the lower side as I have seen on other sites in what appear to be logically written papers by calm authors devoid of hysteria.
In UK latest science from Auntie Beeb is that the King Penguin will be extinct by the end of the century because of, yep you guessed it, all that melting ice in Antarctica, despite the fact that sea-ice extent is at a record high. At one & the same time we’re receiving reports from same Auntie that the snowdrops are very late this year because of, wait for it, wait for it! The COLD!
Now (& I am completely neutral) why do the BBC insist on refusing to allow the broadcast of the Palastinian appeal for aid, on the grounds that it could well jeopardise the BBC’s long held journalistic tradition of neutrality & impartiality? Beats me! They gave that up on Climate Change years ago. To use the cockney rhyming slang, sound like a load of old “pony & trap”!
The key question is: how much at the millenium?
Exactly! Or, to rephrase it slightly, by how much and for how long does a given pulse of CO2 elevate atmospheric CO2 concentrations? This is a slightly different question than the average molecular residence time addressed by Dyson and by the (unreviewed and unpublished) Segalstad. Dyson’s figure was from a totally hypothetical scenario that will never happen in the real world, btw.
Part of our nominal pulse of CO2 will soon be absorbed into a carbon reservoir – however it will increase the concentration of that reservoir, changing its equilibrium exchange rate with the atmosphere and and so continuing to contribute to elevated CO2 levels even after individual original molecules have been absorbed. To determine how long until CO2 levels return to the value before the emission of the pulse you have to apply an analytical approach over this cycle (The Bern Cycle).
Doing this reveals that the level drops relatively rapidly initially, only about 33% of the CO2 increase is still present after 100 years, but the curve has a ‘long tail’, after 1000 years about 19% of the pulse is still contributing to increased concentrations.
For those who asked for references: Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. Vol 7, 2287-2312 esp Fig 9a
See also GRL and Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences (in press).
JP.
REPLY: but then there’s the logarithmic response of CO2 to longwave IR, so any effect of millennium residuals doesn’t have a linear effect, and thus isn’t very worrisome. – Anthony
So the idea here is….
Create your own model, assume it’s 100% correct, then make a statement of certainty. No debate required !
Credibility is an overrated personal trait anyway (Especially in 1000 years from now !!!).
“”It has long been known that some of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years,” Solomon said”
How can they know this? We’ve only been emitting CO2 through fossil fuel use for a couple of hundred years, so how can they know that they last for thousands of years?
It doesn’t make any sense.
And how scientific is “some”? Is that 50%, 10%, 1%? What proportion of total CO2 emissions (natural and anthropogenic) is that “some”?
I must say I find the isotope basis for the assertion that the sole reason for the increase in CO2 is ACO2 a bit problematic; this is despite Engelbeen’s always interesting expositions in support of this position; see for example;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/the-origin-of-increasing-atmospheric-co2-a-response-from-ferdinand-engelbeen/
See also Ghosh and Brand’s paper correlating the reduction in C13 with the growth of fossil fuel emissions.
Garacka above has already referred to Segalstad’s excellent counterview and also mitigating the C13 position is Behrenfeld’s paper and the work of Steve Short, an expert on cyanobacteria, both of whom theorise that large blooms of these organisms may be responsible for C13 proportionate reduction independent of fossil fuel emissions. With the C13 argument subject to debate the retention period of ACO2 becomes much more straightforward and is referable to AR4 and DOE data; FIG 7.3 of AR4 [p515] clearly shows that human emissions of CO2 are 3.67% of all emissions; the DOE information about retention and re-absorption is here;
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/057304.pdf
At Table 3 on p6 the level of reabsorption is 98.5% leaving 1.5% retained; the ACO2 % of the amont retained is 1.5/100 x 3.67 = 0.055%.
Leaving aside the complete absence of any primary proof that ACO2 is causing heating or confirmation of any AGW prediction [ie THS, stratosphere cooling etc] there is then the possibility that ACO2 is merely a miniscule part of the retained CO2.
I stick to what Engelbeen says on the subject:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
One of his remarks:
“if we should stop all CO2 emissions today, then the increase of 100 ppmv since the start of the industrial revolution would be reduced to 50 ppmv after some 40 years, further to 25 ppmv after 80 years and 12.5 ppmv after 120 years…”
I have to say I listened to your new President last week on CNN from Switzerland’s snow lands and was impressed.
Last night, however, there was a 4 minute piece at the BBC website from Mr Obama about energy independence.
Some of it was good stuff, but he was clearly not au fait or really confident on the carbon dioxide issue. You notice when the most eloquent politician in years suddenly seems like a method actor at first rehearsal……….
What it seemed to me was this:
1. Bailout of Detroit = environmentally friendly cars. Good idea.
2. New energy generation capability to reduce dependence on Middle East Oil. Definitely a reasonable option for a US President to consider.
3. Energy efficient homes. Seems good for your average Joe and Jane shivering in the winter on $15,000 a year.
There was less detail about carbon dioxide.
Overall, as a citizen of the world, I’d say he’s on the right track and hence it may be that he’s palming off the climate modellers for a while whilst he gets his Presidential ducks in a row.
After all, he’s got Iraq, Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Gaza and Wall Street in his in-tray right now.
The world’s climate won’t shift so radically in 2 years, whatever the modellers tells us, will it?
Good call Mr President………
After the Polar Bears, it’s now the Penguins!!
Yet another daily dose of nonsense from the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7851276.stm
“NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.”
If NOAA thinks they do this well, THAT is the height of arrogance!
evanjones,
Statistically (and in my experience) about half the people with PhDs are not intellectual standouts. And, to do good science, one needs objectivity and the ability to publicly admit mistakes — most of us struggle to get those two right. Thus, a PhD who’s actual performance is brilliant is “rare” (not “common” as the media leads to believe).
At the end of the day, having PhD does indicate a certain level of education and a willingness to work hard in school for extra years — good characteristics — but not proof of final ability.
All in all, I am not a bit surprised by the “bad science” from PhDs. In my experience, there is much more of that in the scientific world than “good science”.
Moreover, a PhD in a subject is not required to do “good science”. Many with expertise in other fields are equally or even more capable.
Contrary to your claims, there has been no “analytical approach”, no experimental data to give the “CO2 lifetime” in the links above.
Only calculations from model. And handwaving.
Just another reason to stimulate the economic collapse, partially brought on by modelers of another stripe. In other news, Same Old Hibernating Orb (SOHO) hangs out the “Shhh” sign yet again.
If once in the atmosphere, it takes 1000s of years to remove, then why do C02 levels rise and fall seasonally?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/06/co2-monthly-mean-at-mauna-loa-leveling-off/
Irreversible.
Doomed to no more ice ages.
We are therefore condemned to a 20+% increase in crop production, even without G.M. crops. (Genetically Modified, for us non-Europeans, not the failing auto company. E.U. has strict controls on G.M. crops, lest the golden rice escape the fields and end up in your lawn, which apartment dwelling Europeans don’t have.)
Just for the record as a skeptic again prepared to admit that La Nina does not appear to be proceeding as I ascertained previously so me wrong. Not like most warmist who do not concede. LOL
The basic engine of the predictive models are all the same – they assume a ‘gain’ factor for the carbon-water vapour equation of 300% which is unproven (Richard Lindzen’s original objection to the model). These models were then ‘validated’ by Afact they replicated the dip from 1945-1978 using assumptions about man-made aerosol pollution – since proven incorrect (a raft of papers in Science in 2005 and finally IPCC endorsement that the ‘dip’ was not man-made and original attribution to pollution was unsound – the data was biased by northern land measurements). Then the models were further ‘validated’ by replicating the build up of heat in the upper ocean – where 84% of ‘global warming’ is stored. But then in 2006-2008 several reassessments of the upper ocean heat content revised that heat store downward by 200%!
The models have yet to catch up with these revisions! They validated themselves by predicting the past – but the past was illusory and so then are the models.
Anthony- Slightly OT but thought this may be useful
I was doing some study on what makes people have expertise or be skilful within a domain of knowledge.
Came across this link at the US CIA in a monograph. Some very interesting ideas.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/analytic-culture-in-the-u-s-intelligence-community/chapter_5_methodologists.htm
Under the “Paradox of Expertise” was this quote:
“The strengths of expertise can also be weaknesses.[15] Although one would expect experts to be good forecasters, they are not particularly good at it. Researchers have been testing the ability of experts to make forecasts since the 1930s.[16] The performance of experts has been tested against Bayesian probabilities to determine if they are better at making predictions than simple statistical models. Seventy years later, after more than 200 hundred experiments in different domains, it is clear that the answer is no.[17] Supplied with an equal amount of data about a particular case, Bayesian probability data are as good as, or better than, an expert at making calls about the future. In fact, the expert does not tend to outperform the actuarial table, even if given more specific case information than is available to the statistical model.[18]”
Immediately thought of Hansen et al with the notions of “Pattern” and “Heuristic” biases within experts who are key forecasters. The inter-disciplinary fields of contributors to this blog could well be argued to give a more balanced approach to a complex inter-disciplinary field such as Climate Studies than does the views of a single “expert” from a narrow specialisation.
Worth reading the article as it implies to me that the CIA suggest that forecasting in any field of knowledge is fraught with danger when the so called experts in a narrow field of that expertise are doing the forecasting.
Obama, you’re FIRED!!!
If it could only be that easy….
I would bet Al Gore is hopping mad – He said this was going to happen in 5 years, not 1000. Damn, how “inconvenient”.
Harold Pierce Jr; that link to Universal Industrial Gases Inc doesn’t appear to be working; could you repost?
Really Anthony, the stories are coming thick and fast this week. Here’s another one:
It’s almost as if (excuse my cynicism) now the Obama administration is in the White House, a whole lot of Scientists and Institutions have started elbowing each other for room to fit their snouts into the public spending trough.
I one used “it is well known” in an undergrad paper and my prof returned marked up in red saying “How” “Prove it”… her prof must not have been as good as mine…
Chris Schoneveld wrote:
I stick to what Engelbeen says on the subject:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
One of his remarks:
“if we should stop all CO2 emissions today, then the increase of 100 ppmv since the start of the industrial revolution would be reduced to 50 ppmv after some 40 years, further to 25 ppmv after 80 years and 12.5 ppmv after 120 years…”
So…? You still haven’t established why it would be desirable to stop CO2 emissions. Higher CO2 levels haven’t been proven to cause higher temperatures; however, they have been shown to improve crop production at levels of up to 1000ppm.
If climate change is irreversible and 1000ppm is expected to raise sea levels by less than one inch per decade (to be more specific, 0.768 inch or 1.95cm), what’s the big deal?