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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
![earthfire[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/earthfire1.jpg?resize=300%2C229&quality=83)
![wahl-ammann-reproduce-the-hockey-stick[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/wahl-ammann-reproduce-the-hockey-stick1.jpg?resize=497%2C337&quality=83)
![2000-years-of-global-temperatures[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/2000-years-of-global-temperatures1.jpg?resize=540%2C309&quality=83)
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
OT: a fascinating study on the power of Green propaganda:
Police are facing calls for an inquiry after an undercover officer they used to to infiltrate climate change campaign groups for up to 10 years turned against them.
@TerrySkinner : thanks for a good laugh!
So….not much point in carbon rationing is there?
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.
What if? GIGO!
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
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.
I have a name for “science” similar to this. I sometimes accidentally step in it when I’m at the farm….
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!)
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…
Surely they are taking the mickey out of their sponsors.
A very good sci fi script. I can’t wait to see the film
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
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.
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!
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!
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.
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…..
JP, @ur momisugly 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.
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?