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.
I am amazed that nobody has yet commented on the implications of anthropogenic carbon emissions being “stopped”.
Once we and our animals are all gone, who but Mother Gaia would care?
I wonder how long a period of Darwinian evolution would be required for politicians and political “scientists” to evolve again. Regardless, I would be beyond caring by that time.
So… the climate changes that clearly are not happening are irreversible. Wow isn’t that a horrible prospect!
Two comments on the discussion. My current heating bill says this year we averaged 11 degrees colder than last. Last year was the coldest in 3 decades. This global warming is sure scarry.
Second, leave Mensa out of this, the ability to do well on a test has little to do with anything. (Though it sure made getting high scores in the humanities requirements mighty easy)
This sure as **** isn’t science!
My first reaction was that this must be a promo for one of those crummy made for SciFi channel disaster flicks.
Then I realized, it’s old fashioned, garden variety Millenarianism. (See wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism)
Look at this: http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=1041. Only recession will save the planet from AGW´rs?
Joe (21:45:14) :
I don’t see much here to refute the claims in Solomon’s paper, especially given that the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is hundreds or thousands of years. What’s your counter argument? And, please, some facts instead of vague conspiracy theories.
Well, Joe, you are probably just a one-hit AGW troll, as most are, but in case not, try The Lynching of Carbon Dioxide –
The Innocent Source of Life
You AGWers never seem to tire of the “conspiracy theories” straw man, do you, even though all it does is make you sound retarded.
Fortunately, in the long run, real science has been made always by intelligent individuals like you, not by any government institution. Real progress is made by individuals not by herds of well fed employees.
John Philip (05:15:46) : “As I said the idea of a ‘CO2 lifetime’ is ill-defined and largely irrelevant to the problem. There is in fact a wealth of experimental data to support the models used. For example, the first paper’s projection is based on an analytical approach using the the carbon cycle model presented by Joos et al in this paper.”
The “CO2 lifetime” is irrelevant (and must I remind you, UNDEFINED, contrary to the scientific notion of half life time) but it has not prevented “consensus” scientist to largely misuse it to make wide media headlines.
And again, your claim that “there is a wealth of experimental data to support CO2 models” is unsustanciated. The Joos et al paper you showed said precisely that ! And what Joos has done is to trade others’ speculations and unvalidated models for HIS speculations and unvalidated model.
Take a very simple example : can you show me where are the data to determine the oceanic/terrestrial CO2 fluxes fractions ? No you can’t.
Scientist still don’t know the whereabouts of 40% of human emissions after decades of research, what is pudically called the “missing sink” in IPCC parlance (google or search for it in the IPCC’s AR4 WG1 report). So how can you hint that CO2 cycle models are “supported” ? It’s unsupported !
I love nature’s irony. From Drudge…
GORE HEARING ON WARMING MAY BE PUT ON ICE
Mon Jan 26 2009 17:59:26 ET
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashghi.htm
Talk about, uncertainty piled on top of uncertainty.
“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”
Shouldn’t that just be …….. at least 1.3 feet?
Putting this information in more relevant terms that’s 1/2 to 1 meter in 33 generations. 33 generations should be plenty of time to adapt. This study is good news.
OT but a more likely glimpse of the future.
http://www.wnem.com/news/18566890/detail.html
Of the $850 billion Stimulus, only $80 billion is actually going to things that could “stimulate” the economy. Of the $80 billion slated for roads, bridges, underpasses, etc… less than 3% will be spent in fiscal year 2009. So much for the “$350 billion in shovel ready” projects. BTW, the states have yet to go through the $250 billion 2006 Transportation Bill money. Of the remaining $82 billion in stimulus, only 19% will be slated for expendture in FY 2010.
So, where is the remainder of the $850 billion going? Hard to tell, as not even the House Committe Chairmen are given headsup. Most of the details are in House Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid’s offices. Occaisonally details do come out ($140 million for Climate Modelers, $750 million for birth control).
I would like to know how Pelosi’s office came up with the $140 million number? Why not go for broke and ask for $1 billion? Anthony, have you petioned your Congressman (or woman) for some of the stimulus? Your work is important, and it does benefit the work on “Climate Change”. How about asking for $5 million to cover the costs of a full audit. You can hire an assistant from that amount and point that this money would go towards positive job creation.
Solomn’s paper is just another example of “thought experiments” and modeling substituting for science. When is the bulk of the scientific community going to catch on that the climate models are the hypothesis and are worthless unless validated by real world data. Harold, I’ve found that most climatologists are quietly examining packrat middens, lake varves, ocean sediments and ice cores as well as looking at a multitude of historical records. It is only a small, and very vocal, group of climate modelers who call themselves climatologists that are coming up with the scenario of climate catastrophe with their models. Every time I read a paper by people like Solomn, Mann or Hanson, I am struck by their complete ignorance of the basic biology and chemistry behind climate proxies. The modelers work usually ignores the real record of the past and what meterologists have learned about how climate works through over a hundred years of careful observation. It is amazing to me how a blind activist like Michael Mann can tweak his computers and get more attention than the entire body of work of the “Father of Modern Climatology”-Reid Bryson.
‘I guess if it’s irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it,” she says. “Because committing to something that you can’t back out of seems to me like a step that you’d want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse.’”
Whaaaa? POP! Excuse me, that was my head imploding.
If that is the kind of common sense that makes it’s way through our universities to achieve advanced degrees, then I’m glad I didn’t finish the sheepskin and went and “did” instead of talking in circles with other idiots.
John Philip- you say “And the models concerned have been extensively backtested against 150 years of CO2 concentration observations, to name just one output.”
The only CO2 concentration observations I am aware of that covers a 150 year time-frame are the peer-reviewed publications summarized in Ernst Beck’s recent paper. As we all know, the ice core CO2 measurements are woefully inadequate to provide useful CO2 measurements before 1957 or so, when systematic CO2 measurements began to be taken.
As far as the atmospheric lifetime of CO2, the half-life or 1/e life has been measured at 5-7 years back in the 1950’s thru 1970’s. Beyond that, the *lifetime* definition for CO2 has been altered to include cycling through the biosphere. However, this definition should also be applied to other atmospheric gases. For example, the 1/e lifetime of water vapor is reported to be a few days. But, when including biosphere cycling, the *lifetime* of water vapor is almost infinite, thanks to our immense liquid oceans.
“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”
wait, we had a dust bowl before CO2 peaked at 450-600 PPM????
“The ocean is their last stab at countering the current cooling. Where did all the heating go after 2000? Into the ocean of course, or thats what the models say.”
Except that the argo deep sea probes are showing a definite cooling of the oceans…Hmmm I guess that means the heat is going into the atmosphere? No? Oh well, perhaps Hansen’s team can “influence the nature of the measurements” or Mann can “devise a new statistical technique that uses data from Argo to make a new estimate of temperature trends”
Then AGW will be back on track and large IPCC supported grant money will be flowing again.
Oh and what about the poor emperor penguins? Apparently global warming means that lack of sea ice is threatening them, but I would claim the opposite. The current record ice extents mean that females will have even further to walk in the winter to get to the sea to bulk up on food for their young. Too much ice will wipe them out.
There is a typo in the URL add one more W so it starts as www. instead of ww.
http://ww.uigi.com/air.html —> http://www.uigi.com/air.html.
Larry
Let’s take NOAA News at face value: If CO2 and heat transfer keep temps constant(?) for m yrs, then how can you forecast future expansion of ocean waters by warming? Surprisingly, the est. rise of sea level in this report is but half the current trend. No mention was made of “global warming”, only the (implied direct) action of CO2. I sense a “new spin”, since “warming” is fast losing its appeal or validity. CO2 is about the only climate indicator expanding. All the rest appear to be in a negative mode at the present. Oh yes, I forgot that Antarctica has warmed to negative 50 deg.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
BOE estimate
Mauna Loa data suggests that at 390 ppm, CO2 concentration falls about 5 ppm during the each annual cycle (i.e. 1/2 year) This suggests it woulds fall by half in about 40 years, & I think thats a maximum. This is much closer to Dyson 12 yrs than the IPCC’s thousands of years.
There could be a benefit to the recession. In the EU, ‘carbon credit’ prices have dropped from 30 euros per ton to 10, causing many carbon reduction projects to be delayed or cancelled.
And algore could go broke. (wishful thinking…)
Slightly off topic: Anyone interested in starting a line of “Global Warming” winter wear with 5% of all proceeds going to AGW research aka WUWT? (think Columbia or REI) 😉
I’d love to buy a jacket or two
JimB
Thanks for your informative and enlightening comments re seeohtwo.
Taken on board.
Rhys
Bruce Cobb (06:42:35)
I’ve looked at the Hertzberg document you’ve linked to above, viz. http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf.
It contains a graph headed “Accepted early global temperature reconstruction” which it attributes to the IPCC 1990.
This graph is reminiscent of Figure 7c from IPCC 1990, however: i) the y-axis has been reworked, so that Hertzberg’s graph suggest a variation of c.1.6C from MWP to LIA, whereas the IPCC 7c suggests c. 0.7C. Hertberg has rescaled the graph to more than double the original’s range; ii) 7C ends at 1950, with the final 50 year period being entirely different; iii) 7C ‘s y axis is labeled ‘temperature change’, not ‘temperature deviation from average’; iv) 7C is described as a schematic diagram, not a global temperature reconstruction.
Hertzberg labels his graph: “Source: IPCC 1990. Since adjusted.” It appears to have been adjusted by him!
The genesis of the IPCC’s 7c graph is not made clear in the FAR, however Steve McIntyre attributes it to Lamb’s 1965 graphing of the Central England Temperature record (the IPCC figure 7c can be seen from this link too):
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3072
Rather obviously, the record of temperature in Central England is a limited proxy for global temperature.
Hertzberg might be excused for being unaware of the source of figure 7c, though he shows some chutzpah in describing it as an “accepted early global temperature reconstruction” if he is actually ignorant of how it was derived. I am not, however, inclined to find his fabrication of the graph which he attributes to the IPCC as being excusable, especially in that part of his document where he is discussing his accusation of “egregious fabrication” on the part of others.
John McDonald,
I’d like to order a 2XL in “Ice Blue”. Would they be Gore-tex?