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.
And just when you thought it was irreversible, it reverses.
Lol, that’s a good one!
Or The Grant Generator!
Malcolm (01:38:51) : Doesnt anyone do proper science anymore?
Not if they want to get published, or keep their grants, they don’t!
He needs to ignore Gaza. No amount of fiddling is going to change what’s going on there.
Warmists are generally big government types who do not want the fake problem they created to be solved: click
More evidence of the demise of objective scientic research and the establishment of subjective politically motivated speculative science “worshipping” at the output of the quasi-god, the computer, bringing truth to the saying: Educated beyond their intelligence.
Doesn’t anyone do proper science anymore?
That requires that one’s interest is indeed science related.
Just let them continue make this stuff up as they go along.
They will get voted off the planet along with thier 1,000 yr CO2 mummification projections leading to global barbecueing that is preceeded today by global freezing. Here, hold this paper for a 1,000 yrs while I jet off to the tropical paradise to escape the Ice Sheet. Thanks for the $140M.
3 feet of sea level rise over 1000 years. oh! whatever shall we do? meanwhile, it’s getting colder in Antarctica and even around the Arctic too. I hear snow is expected in DC where Mssr. Climate Change himself, Al Gore, is to be speaking before Congress.
We’re never gonna get transparent aluminum are we?
Read the fine print. The original report I saw did NOT say that the taxpayers were putting up $140M for the climate modelers.
The money is specifically for “climate data modeling”.
Climate modeling is old hat; so now they are going to make up the data as well.
George
I should add that the $140M is aimed at getting employment for unemployed climate modellers; as in create jobs; you know economic stimulus.
Dr Roy Spencer says he is not aware of the existence of even one climate modeler; well one with any credentials in climate modeling. But since the USA legally imports 180,000 new legal immigrants EVERY MONTH, not to mention those who come uninvited; then that means we need to find at least 180,000 new jobs every month. Why not climate modeling, since many of these new immigrnats come from countries with good computer schools.
As for Joe’s question: The very well known Mauna Loa CO2 data shows clearly that in that region, the natural processes remove 6-7 ppm of CO2 in just 4 months out of each year. The less well known pole to pole version of that NOAA data shows that at the north pole the amount removed in just four months, is 18 ppm.
Assuming an exponential decay, that initial rate indicates that the time constant for a return to 280 ppm or removal of 100 ppm would be 5 1/2 times that 4 months or 22 months, and taking five time constants to decay 99% of the way (to just 1% residual) would be 110 months or about 9 years. It would only be a bit over five years to decay 95% in three time constants.
And tell us once again how the atmosphere identifies a (typical) man made CO2 molecule, including the ones WE breathe out, from a typical one that comes from a rose bush. I believe I said a typical one; not a marked card.
George
Excuse my hiccup; that is one UNEMPLOYED climate modeler, that Spencer says doesn’t exist.
So anybody lacking a job who wants to do some climate modeling; now’s your chance.
Thank God there is CO2 in the atmosphere as there always has been. I would hate to think of the consequences if it was totally removed as the Climate Change pundits advocate. I’m thinking of mass starvation as plant life would disappear without CO2.
If it’s irreversible, why worry? Let’s party like it’s 1999!
The government is shoveling our money to the wrong people: click
If, for a moment, we assume this report to be completely factual, we are left with 2 possible courses of action ..
1) spend the wealth of nations to roll it back the tiniest fraction
2) put the proverbial gun to our collective heads and “party like is 1999.”
… any possible 3rd way is wasteful (so is the 1st)
A shell game:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Conjurer_Bosch.jpg
“Jeff Alberts (08:57:29) :
After all, he’s got Iraq, Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Gaza and Wall Street in his in-tray right now.
He needs to ignore Gaza. No amount of fiddling is going to change what’s going on there.”
I’d rather he fiddle with Gaza than C02, which isn’t going to change what’s going on there, either.
“George,
George E. Smith (09:50:56) :
Excuse my hiccup; that is one UNEMPLOYED climate modeler, that Spencer says doesn’t exist.”
No need for the correction…the statement works without it.
JimB
An interesting news item on Canada’s CBC page which describes the sad situation of a cruise ship (300 passengers) and the rescue ‘Terry Fox’ ice breaker getting stuck in an ‘unprededented’ ice pack in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Oh, for the wisdom of Solomon to explain such departures from the ‘irreversible’ CO2-induced global warming.
Sorry:
NASA/GISS…..?????…which is salary of Dr Hansen?
“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.”
I’ll do her one better. I’ll say those changes are largely irreversible for millions of years. These people are simply searching for a way to clothe any variation in the garb of AGW. How are these ridiculous statements tested? I feel it is time to completely stop emitting CO2. ……….lungs burning………….room growing dark…………
We need to see someone imitating Susan Solomon on Saturday Night Live with a molecule net trying to capture one of those millennium old CO2 molecules.
Isn’t this a case of seeing the CO2 800 year lag, upping it to 1000 years like any good government employee, and then misinterpreting it ?
Has there ever been any permanent climate change? That is, did the climate change and stay that way indefinitely?
First we’re told that CO2 drives climate change. Then when we look at the ice core data, we find that increased atmospheric CO2 lags temperature increase by hundreds of years. Then we’re told that since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it must be contributing to climate change. (Doesn’t that negate the first point? Is it causing climate change or contributing to it?) Then we ask if CO2 keeps rising, how come we still had ice ages? Why hasn’t the planet ever heated up and stay heated up? Why have we never before seen a runaway greenhouse effect?
An even better question — if the ice core data shows CO2 increases always follow warming, isn’t that most likely what we experienced last century? Natural global warming followed by natural increases of atmospheric CO2? If we use past climate as a model, won’t CO2 continue to increase for some time after global cooling kicks in?
Here is something we can all bank on. It’s going to warm up, then it’s going to cool again (this is probably already happening). Then it’s going to warm up again, followed by cooling. Repeat endlessly. CO2 has nothing to do with it.
About Dr. Solomon
2 year ago I was watching the IPCC press conference from Paris, the one in which they said that most of the global warming during last 50 years was caused by human activities as unequivocal.
I was watching from BBC’s Internet web site the whole press conference live in order to better understand their arguments.
At one time during the press conference dr Solomon lined over toward Pachauri and whisper to him if they should mention anything about the cooling of ocean water near Antarctica. He then answered her that he thinks they should not. Apparently they believed that they could not be heard over the microphones. They were wrong.
I was absolutely baffled when I heard that.
So much for scientific objectivity and openness.
Of course that is not what this is about. It is all about agenda driven subjective activism, not about science.
I saw that you are discussing the lifetime of co2 in the atmosphere.
Well, I checked the Mouna Loa CO2 graph.
Each year the seasonal variation of CO2 is about 5 ppm and the current level is about 380 ppm. If you dived 380 by 5 you get about 75. That means that the average life time for co2 in the atmosphere can not be longer than 75 years.
It can be lower if you account for absorption from the oceans and also the biosphere in the southern hemisphere.
With my approximation I think the average life time should be about 50 years for co2 in the atmosphere.