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.
“”””” 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.
“”””” 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 ?
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?
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?
Well I still think that Al Gore’s invention of screen doors for Nuclear Submarines, was man’s finest creative hour !
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.)
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.
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.
stumpy says:
January 10, 2011 at 10:40 am
Does this mean I will finally be able to grow tomatoes here in Wyoming?
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
Meanwhile at the ranch…
http://www.vancouversun.com/Drivers+trapped+cars+hours+storm+batters+Calgary+area/4083297/story.html
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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
@-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
It’s been said by many but I need my 2p worth. Forecasts 1000 years ahead – b%$**^cks!
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.
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.
As a Canadian, please accept my sincerest apologies for this drivel spewing forth from my countrymen.
I’m confused –
are they saying that in the year 3000
the climate will stop changing?
“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!