Marcott discovers that “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future” while saying “it’s worse than we thought”

The title quote is from the late, great, Yogi Berra, with my sincerest apologies.

From the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON and the “doom is the only outcome” department comes this “stunning” paper that you can’t read yet. (well, you can now).

stunning

Long-term picture offers little solace on climate change

MADISON, Wis. — Climate change projections that look ahead one or two centuries show a rapid rise in temperature and sea level, but say little about the longer picture. Today (Feb. 8, 2016), a study published in Nature Climate Change looks at the next 10,000 years, and finds that the catastrophic impact of another three centuries of carbon pollution will persist millennia after the carbon dioxide releases cease.

The picture is disturbing, says co-author Shaun Marcott, an assistant professor of geoscience at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with a nearly inevitable elevation of sea level for thousands of years into the future.

Most climate projections now end at 2300 at the latest, “because that’s the time period most people are interested in,” says Marcott, a expert in glaciers and ancient climate. “Our idea was that this did not encapsulate the entire effect of adding one to five trillion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere over the next three centuries. Whereas most studies look to the last 150 years of instrumental data and compare it to projections for the next few centuries, we looked back 20,000 years using recently collected carbon dioxide, global temperature and sea level data spanning the last ice age. Then we compared past data to modeling results that extend 10,000 years into the future.”

Climate — the interplay among land, ocean and atmosphere — has a long memory, Marcott says. “I think most people would tell you that temperature and sea level will spike as we continue burning fossil fuels, but once we stop burning, they will go back down. In fact, it will take many thousands of years for the excess carbon dioxide to completely leave the atmosphere and be stored in the ocean, and the effect on temperature and sea level will last equally long.”

The study looked at the impact of four possible levels of carbon pollution that would start in 2000 and end in 2300. The complex modeling effort was organized by Michael Eby of the University of Victoria and Simon Fraser University.

“Carbon is going up, and even if we stop what we are doing in the relatively near future, the system will continue to respond because it hasn’t reached an equilibrium,” Marcott explains. “If you boil water and turn off the burner, the water will stay warm because heat remains in it.”

A similar but indescribably more complex and momentous phenomenon happens in the climate system.

New data on the relationship among carbon dioxide, sea level and temperature over the last 20,000 years was the basis for looking forward 10,000 years. “Now that we know how these factors changed from the ice age to today,” Marcott says, “we thought, if we really want to put the future in perspective, we can’t look out just 300 years. That does not make sense as a unit of geological time.”

Current releases of the carbon contained in carbon dioxide total about 10 billion tons per year. The number is growing 2.5 percent annually, more than twice as fast as in the 1990s.

People have already put about 580 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The researchers looked at the effect of releasing another 1,280 to 5,120 billion tons between 2000 and 2300. “In our model, the carbon dioxide input ended in 300 years, but the impact persisted for 10,000 years,” Marcott says.

By 2300, the carbon dioxide level had soared from almost 400 parts per million to as much as 2,000 parts per million. The most extreme temperature rise — about 7 degrees Celsius by the year 2300 or so — would taper off only slightly, to about 6 degrees Celsius, after 10,000 years.

Perhaps the most ominous finding concerns “commitment,” Marcott says. “Most people probably expect that temperature and carbon dioxide will rise together and then temperature will come down when the carbon dioxide input is shut off, but carbon dioxide has such a long life in the atmosphere that the effects really depend on how much you put in. We are already committed to substantial rises in temperature. The only question is how much more is in the pipe.”

The warming ocean and atmosphere that are already melting glaciers and ice sheets produce a catastrophic rise in the ocean. “Sea level will go up due to melting, and because warming expands the ocean. We have to decide in the next 100 years whether we want to commit ourselves and our descendants to these larger and more sustained changes,” Marcott says.

First author Peter Clark and co-authors calculated that ocean encroachment from just the lowest level of total carbon pollution would affect land that in 2010 housed 19 percent of the planet’s population. However, due to climate’s momentum, that effect will be stretched out over thousands of years.

“This is a stunning paper,” says Jack Williams, a professor of geography and expert on past climates at UW-Madison. “At one level, it just reinforces a point that we already knew: that the effects of climate change and sea level rise are irreversible and going to be with us for thousands of years,” says Williams, who did not work on the study. “But this paper shows just how devastating sea level rise will be, once we look out beyond 2100 A.D.”

The melting in Greenland and Antarctica from the highest level of carbon pollution “translates into a sea level rise of 80 to 170 feet,” Williams says. “That’s enough to drown nearly all of Florida and most of the Eastern Seaboard.”

For simplicity, the study omitted discussing other major drivers and effects of climate change, including ocean acidification, other greenhouse gases, and mechanisms that cause warming to accelerate further.

“It’s worrisome, for sure,” says Marcott. “I don’t see any good thing in this, but my hope is that you could show these graphs to anyone and they could see exactly what is going on.”

Marcott says a recent slogan of climate campaigners, “Keep it in the ground,” is apt. “In the ideal situation, that is what would happen, but I can’t say if it is economically or politically viable.”

“The paper emphasizes that we need to move to net-zero or net-negative carbon emissions and have only a few more decades to do so,” says Williams. “But the real punch in the gut is the modeled sea level rise and its implications.” ###

###

From the PR:

“This is a stunning paper,” says Jack Williams, a professor of geography and expert on past climates at UW-Madison.

Gosh. Really? It’s so “stunning” they don’t bother to give the title of the paper in the press release, nor do they link to it or give a DOI. It’s like they’d just prefer journalists to take the press release at it’s word without reading the paper. I’m sure some will, because you know, deadlines and all that, and digging up the paper might be work. So, I tried at Nature Climate Change, and it seems the paper doesn’t exist online yet as of this writing Monday 10AM PST. I searched for “Marcott” and browsed the current edition with no luck. If somebody can find it, please leave a link.

So it looks like “science by press release” again, where you can’t actually look at the science.

(UPDATE: About 45 minutes after I first looked for it, WUWT reader Frank found it online. It may have been a sync problem between PR and the journal.

Link: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html )

Another telling omission is the link they gave in the PR to photos. From the PR there was this quote:

“It’s worrisome, for sure,” says Marcott. “I don’t see any good thing in this, but my hope is that you could show these graphs to anyone and they could see exactly what is going on.”

They give this link to supporting imagery in the PR, and I was expecting to find those graphs…sadly no, it’s just a collection of Greenpeace style collateral images that say nothing about science at all:

marcott-2016-collateral-images

And in the captions document, there is this:

REFINERY Chrisangel Nieto, age 3, rode his tricycle in front of the Valero refinery in Houston. This refinery processes almost 7 million tons of carbon per year, most of which will end up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.
Credit: Earthjustice

A staged photo with a little kid riding in front of a refinery? Where they can’t even say “petroleum” but instead incorrectly, carbon,  From “Earth Justice”, in a press release about a scientific paper? Oh, please.

 

This looks far more like tabloid climatology than it does science. It will be interesting to watch which reporters regurgitate this one, and which one of the typical suspects comes to the defense of this”scientific paper” posed as activist fodder.

UPDATE 2: Now that the paper is online, here is the title and abstract:

Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change

Abstract:

Most of the policy debate surrounding the actions needed to mitigate and adapt to anthropogenic climate change has been framed by observations of the past 150 years as well as climate and sea-level projections for the twenty-first century. The focus on this 250-year window, however, obscures some of the most profound problems associated with climate change. Here, we argue that the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, a period during which the overwhelming majority of human-caused carbon emissions are likely to occur, need to be placed into a long-term context that includes the past 20 millennia, when the last Ice Age ended and human civilization developed, and the next ten millennia, over which time the projected impacts of anthropogenic climate change will grow and persist. This long-term perspective illustrates that policy decisions made in the next few years to decades will have profound impacts on global climate, ecosystems and human societies — not just for this century, but for the next ten millennia and beyond.

And here are those figures from their model.

marcott-fig1

marcott-fig2

228 thoughts on “Marcott discovers that “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future” while saying “it’s worse than we thought”

  1. “The paper emphasizes that we need to move to net-zero or net-negative carbon emissions and have only a few more decades to do so,” says Williams.

    Given the irresponsible US foreign policy we could expect nuclear war soon that should help alleviate their worse climate fears. /sarc

    • “have only a few more decades to do so”

      Phew. Since we have reset the clock continually with the various “only X days” to save the planet, this is encouraging.

  2. Wasn’t it just a week or so , that the PIK in Potsdam Germany told us, that the next Ice Age has gone for the next 100000 years? So Mr. Marcott is a little late with his prediction.

    • a study published in Nature Climate Change looks at the next 10,000 years, and finds …

      Baloney, 10ka?! We have every chance of being into the next glaciation by then and anyone who thinks CO2 will change that is a fool.

      We have 40-50 years of measurements where CO2 is reckoned to have a significant effect and these idiots think that they ignore all natural variability as being net zero “internal oscillations” and extrapolate 50 year of poor quality data 10,000 years into the future.

      No scientist would even think of doing that.

      This is not just alarmist or activist, this is criminally irresponsible stupidity

      • HEY ! I know, if we exaggerate more and more every year, sooner or later everyone will start to believe us, right ?

        That’s the way science works …. isn’t it ?

      • You are missing the really detrimental outcome from all of this. Soon these morons and their lot will be bagging groceries and flipping hamburgers, the quality of both services will suffer greatly.

      • “You are missing the really detrimental outcome from all of this. Soon these morons and their lot will be bagging groceries and flipping hamburgers…”

        Thank you RW, for pointing out the silver lining, the light at the end of the tunnel, the inevitable and richly deserved comeuppance, which is awaiting these alarmist nitwits and nincompoops.
        As they are now proving almost daily, their day of reckoning can not possibly come too soon.

      • It is a nice thought and I wish. However the guys responsible for this mess are earning plenty and the ringleaders are all approaching the ends of their careers. They will shortly be joining the ranks of the rich and retired. If it falls apart after that then they are not going to care.

      • “A similar but indescribably more complex and momentous phenomenon happens in the climate system.” This must be a contender for the most alarmist quote of the month!

      • The previous 2 miliion years have seen CO2 go up and down from 280 to 180 and back several times. Somewhere around the 200 level it is thought all life on Earth would cease as the plants would not have enough food to survive. As Im sure almost everyone known CO2 is a critical resource for plants and plants use CO2 not only to grow and survive themselves but of course that their surival is critical for almost all other life on the planet since they produce the O2 we breathe and the food we or one of our food chain creatures eats.

        My point is that the variation has been small and in a very prescribed range during the ice ages that caused massive changes on earth. According to the CO2 CAGW theory a CO2 level of 400 let alone 800 or 1000 is INCREDIBLY HIGH. We should get MASSIVE temperature change from this. The entire world went up or down 8 degrees C on the small movement of 100ppm CO2 according to the theory so us adding 200ppm or 300ppm or more should essentially cause 16C or some incredible consequences. No wonder they are freaking out. The last time CO2 was at 400ppm the ocean levels were 6 meters or 20 feet higher. If we go to 1000ppm we could hit 60 feet higher according to the theory. I understand why they freak out. If the theory was correct we should be seeing some big stuff.

        The problem is that nothing like that has been happening. In fact all this massive incredible increase in CO2 we’ve already experienced and is in the atmosphere today as we speak is supposed to be causing massive spikes in temperature. Instead for 20 years now they’ve been hunting to find any effect at all! They’ve had to play with data, adjust adjust adjust. You’d think that something this massive this huge, the equivalent of an entire ice age worth of CO2 variation would see change that wouldn’t need careful careful mining of data to adjust and find the signal!!!

        They said co2 effects should be dominating natural variation because in fact according to the theory a movement of this much CO2 as I said EQUAL to an entire ice age movement should be enormous and dominate any other signal or climate thing. A simple effect like PDO/AMO ENSO should be buried in the response to CO2. This is the biggest evidence that something is wrong.

        If you see what I mean the fact is they think the amount of CO2 weve already poured in is incredibly large so the impact should be huge but it isn’t. This is the biggest evidence the theory has huge hole in it. They have grossly overestimated the impact of CO2. I believe the reason is that when they look to the ice ages in the past they have nothing else but to blame it all on CO2. This means that CO2 isn’t the major factor causing temperature variations in the ice ages (which some of us intuitively knew) which means that CO2 isn’t greatly amplified as they thought which also seemed improbable for a number of reasons.

        I believe we are finally understanding the reason. I believe it is very likely this was discovered in 3 papers that came out recently that document much larger number of underwater fissures in the seabeds. These fissures open and close depending on the stress put on the earth by forces such as the movement of glaciers or milankovic forces or even tidal forces. As the earths movement is perturbed slightly by what seem small effects it means the entire earth changes shape by some small but significant amount resulting in tremendous forces on the crust, changes in the movement possibly of the plates of the earths crust and movement of molten crust. You can read more on my blog at wordpress.com/logiclogiclogic

      • A solution in search of a problem is not a good investment. How I look forward to Trump taking office and axing funding for climate science. And giving Holdren and Gina McCarthy the boot along with a bunch of other rotten meat.

    • Here is the problem, science attempts to understand how things work. Einstein did not invent relativity, he discovered how it it works and truly was able to model it. Most importantly he proved his understanding was correct.

      The numskulls that wrote this paper show little understanding of how CO2 or sea levels have worked for the past 20,000 years and worse have little desire to understand never mind prove their understanding.They make a wild assed assertion for the next 20,000 years, make a model based on the assertion, and then say done! Print it!

    • Thanks for the link, frankclimate. That’s quite a list of researchers…a who’s-who of researchers who are happy to waste taxpayer dollars on nonsensical computer model studies.

      What’s even more incredible is that someone approved the funding for this trash.

      • Bob…I was just skimming through responses and I thought you said “Frankenclimate” (rather than frankclimate) I actually now plan to add that word to my lexicon.

        Frankenclimate-a monsterous “future climate” sewn together by proponents of CAGW theory using parts from old, diseased models, dead hypothesis, and dismembered scientific fields. When the public’s fear of it wanes, they are once again “shocked” by news media and other high voltage groups determined to keep the monster “ALIVE…it’s ALIVE”.

      • OH MY! Yes Chuck L! Please Josh…PLEASE please pretty please with global warming on top, will you draw a cartoon of them all trying to get out of, or into, the “Skeptical Science/RealClimate Klown Kar”?????

      • A list of pretty well known names … many of whom are also known for their alarmist positions. After browsing the names, there is no need to read the paper because you know what is going to be in there:

        ”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
        Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin

        h/t to Alan MacRae, February 7, 2016

      • That was the first thing I noticed Bob.

        They must have gone out for drinks and talked about “How bad can it get”. If you picked up a round you got credit as a co-author.

    • “Does anyone think we will still be on Earth in 10,000 years?”
      I am about 99.99999% sure that the earth will still be here, and people will still inhabit the planet in 10,000 years.
      The question is, in what state of being?
      At the rate we are dismantling our economic and industrial infrastructure, building bird choppers, and destroying the credibility of the scientists and the scientific process, there exist some grave concerns regarding what other creatures will remain and whether or not those future denizens will be living in caves and scratching about for nuts and berries, or coexisting with a full compliment of flora and fauna in a state of technological and ecological bliss.

    • It is essentially certain that humans will be here in 10,000 years. Humans are arguably THE most adaptive species, out of the 10 million currently on the planet. Even now, there are human cultures that range all the way from untouched aboriginal forest dwellers whose behaviors have not changed materially for 40,000 years, all the way to various 1st world cultures that are capable of going to the moon.

      Having said that, I am not particularly optimistic about contemporary 1st world culture. Teddy Roosevelt had this to say about the Boers in 1908: “”The Boers fulfilled the three prime requisites for any race: they worked hard, they could fight hard at need, and they had plenty of children. These are the three essential qualities in any and every nation: they are by no means all-sufficient in themselves, and there is need that many others should be added to them: but the lack of any one of them is fatal, and cannot be made good by the presence of any other set of attributes.”

      How many of Roosevelt’s “three prime requisites” are present in today’s 1st world cultures? In the case of Europe, I would say 0 out of 3. America is only marginally better. All THREE are essential and the Darwinian logic will not be denied. Not a good omen for modern secular liberalism.

  3. No respectable science to be seen but at this point it isn’t even propaganda, it’s tabloid journalism.

    In that regard maybe the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON could provide important stunning evidence of aliens living among us and the werewolf boy who has been living in the woods.

  4. When I was younger,science fiction was well written and a honourable occupation of private industry.
    When did these 4th grade hacks, take over?
    Is there zero mission control in the bureaus of incompetence?
    Even the most useless desk warming position has a “job description”, how does producing press releases this inane, fit into the claimed duties of the University Professionals.
    Though what their profession is currently eludes me.
    In the interests of polite discourse, of course.
    Strikes me the man is a piker, if one wants climate change,just look far enough ahead in time.
    To when our variable star flames out or goes nova.
    Now that will be real “Climate Change”.

    • One who committed academic misconduct in his Science hockey stick paper based on his thesis. Essay A High Stick Foul provides the irrefutable evidence, simply by comparing the two. Worse, that evidence was submitted to Science then chief editor Marsha McNutt, who acknowledged receipt then did nothing.

  5. What a steaming pile of merde-ling. This is as if Faraday, having discovered electrical generation 200 years ago, was trying to ‘model’ (guess) what society would be like 200 years later – long before he ever found a use for the electricity he had discovered. There is just know way – because there were too many unknowns. Marcott is a euphemism for arrogance.

  6. It appears we won’t realize the climate Armageddon by the end of the 21st century. No problem we just move the goal post a couple more centuries. 5 – 10 – 20 year predictions totally failed and the MSM isn’t taking them to task for it. Are there ANY valid AGW predictions that have come to pass? ANY?

    • Hey, if it’s true, think of the fishing! What about the surfing? The sailing? Cruise ships – less chance of running aground. Why don’t people look on the sunny side of things?

      • I know right? Can you imagine the Sahara sands being lapped by ocean tides? My crap that would be GLORIOUS!!! People could explore skyscrapers with diving gear! And all those butt ugly windfarms and solar arrays would be gone. I like how you think Trebla!

    • Yeah, they have come to pass. In the first IPCC assessment in 1992 they predicted that the global mean temperature would rise by .3 degrees celsius per decade. The global mean temperature in 2015 was .78 degrees celsius higher than in 1992 which means that they predicted warming of .3 degrees per decade and the actual warming has been .33 degrees per decade. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.txt)

      They also predicted that rising temperatures would cause the Arctic sea ice to shrink. In 1992, the average arctic sea ice extent for March was 15.5 million square kms. In 2015, it was 14.4 million sq kms. (https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives/image_select.html)

      So two of the most important predictions actually are pretty right on, correct?

      • Koop in VA:

        You ask

        So two of the most important predictions actually are pretty right on, correct?

        So what? Among all the waffle something was likely to be not entirely wrong.

        But their basic prediction was plain wrong.

        The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

        It says there

        The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.

        In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.

        This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now past the half-way mark of the second of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.

        So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 4 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.

        Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).

        This disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the anthropogenic (i.e. man made) global warming (AGW) hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.

        Richard

      • Richard, I’m responding to my own post since I can’t reply to yours.

        I’m not exactly clear on the point you are arguing. You seem to be saying that the climate scientists predicted a .2 degree C warming per decade for the first two decades of this century. From 2000 to 2015 the global mean temperature increased by .43 degrees C (see first link in my original post). That would match up nearly perfectly with their predictions, albeit there was more warming done, more quickly than they predicted.

      • Koop in VA

        Actually, the first IPCC report came out in 1990. The 1992 report was just a supplement to it.

        I wonder why you didn’t actually QUOTE that report? Instead you just made claims about what it predicted and linked to one NASA data set that comes from only meteorological stations and nothing else.

        In that first IPCC report they stated-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report

        “Based on current models, we predict: under [BAU] increase of global mean temperature during the [21st] century of about 0.3 C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 C per decade); this is greater than that seen over the past 10,000 years; under other … scenarios which assume progressively increasing levels of controls, rates of increase in global mean temperature of about 0.2 C [to] about 0.1 C per decade.”

        Now, according to this link-

        The temperatures today are roughly 0.3 C higher than they were in 1992. Which means you’re looking at an average of 0.12C per decade.

        AND according to the quote I posted from that first IPCC report, that’s LOWER than the low end of their uncertainty range ain’t it? IPCC prediction fail.

        As for Arctic sea ice shrinkage….did you know that Arctic sea ice shrinks (and grows) every single year? It would be hard NOT to predict that Arctic sea ice would shrink! So, I’m going to let you bring us a quote from the IPCC predicting what would happen to Arctic Sea Ice post 1992. Ok?

        But lets toss this one in here too- From the same wiki link to the FIRST IPCC report in 1990-bold mine:
        “Our judgement is that: global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6 oC over the last 100 years…; The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability; alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming. The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect is not likely for a decade or more.”

      • Oh!?
        Neither of your claims is anywhere near correct.

        “0.3°C per decade?”

        Since 1992? Why not since 1750 or 1880 or even 1930?
        0.3°C works out to be 3.0°C per century. Don’t you think it is odd that none of the longer time frames show such warming?
        Not to forget that 3°C per century was the lowest estimate in 1992; when ‘they’ insisted that 4°-6°C per century was the “at least” portion of the ‘predictions’.
        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/clip_image044_thumb.png?w=533&h=282

        Plus, 1992 to 2015 0.3°C increase only works if you accept the heavily maladjusted land temperature data.
        1992 is Mt. Pinatubo impacted year, let’s use 1990!
        January 1990 to January 1995 – around 0.14°C increase.
        January 1995 to January 2005 – around 0.2°C increase
        January 2005 to January 2015 – around 0.025°C increase
        January 2015 to December 2015 – approximately 0.25°C increase.

        Notice anything peculiar? Like the El Nino spike in temperatures?
        Notice other peculiarities? All of those alleged increases are neither consistent warming nor are they larger than the error bars.

        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/clip_image002_thumb1.jpg?w=601&h=269

        “…rising temperatures would cause the Arctic sea ice to shrink…”

        Interesting way to twist words. ‘They’, predicted the Arctic ice would vanish, not just shrink.
        Please note; Arctic sea ice has turned a corner in what looks to be normal natural processes. Since 2007 Arctic sea ice is holding it’s own and is beginning to increase.

    • markl
      February 8, 2016 at 11:00 am

      “It appears we won’t realize the climate Armageddon by the end of the 21st century. No problem we just move the goal post a couple more centuries. 5 – 10 – 20 year predictions totally failed and the MSM isn’t taking them to task for it.

      -Are there ANY valid AGW predictions that have come to pass? ANY-?”
      ——————————————————————————————-

      I think there at least is one “prediction” that have not come to pass yet actually, but it may and could be just around the corner…
      I think I have seen it and you may find it among the ‘climate-gate” emails of these AGW “priests”

      it is in the lines of some thing like:
      “…..if we found so wrong in this one (so quickly and so fast) we will be “lynched”…….they (the people) will “lynch us””

      And that will make them be quite correct with the famous or the infamous “Is worst that we thought” :)

      No wonder why so many idiotic and “science-delusional” studies filling the ” pipe line” these days.
      A pure expression of the outmost desperation.
      They do not know where to tie their “donkeys” anymore.
      So many many “donkeys” to tie and so very very few “posts” left……….the immediate desperate solution……. try to “ship” as many “donkeys” as possible and as far as possible in the future….!

      cheers

      • Whiten, Aphan, Koop, and any others who might be interested:

        The point I and others make repeatedly is that none of the scary, alarming predictions the alarmists made have ever come true. Not a single one, from vanishing polar ice, to Manhattan, Florida and Tuvalu being submerged, to the decimation of polar bears, to accelerating sea level rise, etc.

        Their frightening predictions are intended and designed to alarm the public, because without that alarm their funding would be cut. And without the “carbon” scare, there wouldn’t be thousands of ridiculous bird-chopping windmills sucking up vast subsidies as they destroy pristine landscapes.

        Steven Schneider stated that that baselessly scaring the public was A-OK. Schneider gave them explicit permission to lie outright, if it promoted their eco-cause. The name for that dishonesty is ‘Noble Cause Corruption’. It is just as unethical to lie for a ‘good’ cause as for any other. They are still liars.

        If scientists like Mann, Jones, Briffa, Trenberth, Marcott, and some others like them had been honest, they would not have received nearly the level of funding they now have. But they would have kept their integrity — and they would have maintained the status of scientists, as a special, elevated career in the public’s mind. That perception is now almost gone.

        A relatively few climate scientists, knowing the IPCC wanted data to predict the climate, thought to themselves:

        Knowing the IPCC’s agenda, do I:

        1) Tell them, it’s too chaotic to predict? Or…

        2) Sell my soul?

        Too many chose #2.

        And now we must endure the science-challenged lemmings who made their ignorant, data-lite decisions early on; deciding that man-made global warming is gonna get us all, and the science is settled.

        But the evidence is lacking. In fact, there is zero credible evidence for dangerous AGW.

        That doesn’t stop the clique of those ignorant and uneducated followers, who have no idea what skepticism means, and who never heard or Langmuir, or Popper, or Feynman, or how the Scientific Method is supposed to operate. They’ve decided, and that’s enough for them. The science is settled. Michael Mann said so. And they see their pathetic egos as being on the line; they cannot bear the thought of admitting that the hated skeptics were right all along. They don’t understand that to skeptics, that doesn’t matter. It’s the knowledge that’s important, not egos.

        Do the majority of honest scientists now see what a few corrupt scientists have done, by selling out to Mammon? They’ve tarnished all the rest.

        Now it’s time for that honest majority to clean house, by publicly stating that the CO2=cAGW scare is just a hoax on the taxpaying public. Will they do the right thing? Because it’s past time.

      • I’m aware db, I’m just trying to get Koop to realize he’s not even representing the IPCC accurately. Probably gets his information from an AGW site that doesn’t use actual links or try to prove anything.

  7. It’s not just Marcott. There’s a whole bunch of them. I left this in the Tips & Notes a few minutes ago. Copy and paste to here.
    ——————————————
    Oh no!
    Models say we running out of time to stop CO2 emissions, which will cause sea level rise for the next couple of centuries.
    Looks like the authors are publishing their own versions of the same paper.

    Sea-level rise ‘could last twice as long as human history’ (CO2 emissions)
    Research warns of the long timescale of climate change impacts unless urgent action is taken to cut emissions drastically
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/08/sea-level-rise-could-last-twice-as-long-as-human-history

    Scientists say window to reduce CO2 emissions is small (Stocker, sea levels, models)
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-02/osu-ssw020416.php

    Long-term picture offers little solace on climate change (Marcott, sea levels, models)
    Climate change projections that look ahead one or two centuries show a rapid rise in temperature and sea level, but say little about the longer picture.
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-02/uow-lpo020516.php

    A long, hot view: Climate change likely to extend across next 10,000 years (Shakun, sea levels, models)
    New long-term scenarios lend new urgency to fast-tracking carbon curbs
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-02/bc-alh020816.php

    Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change
    (By Marcott, Shakun, Solomon, Stocker, Weaver)
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2923.html

    • “Sea-level rise ‘could last twice as long as human history'”

      What an incredibly twisted way of saying something; and that “could” in there makes a mockery of whatever point they were trying to make.

  8. Having now read the abstract,I am appalled.
    First the “Planet is doomed, please purchase our “proof” here”.
    And then by the author list.
    What did Willis suggest, the quality of a paper could be seen as the inverse of the number of authors?

    And what a bunch of failed prognosticators of doom.
    The press release was more informative than their abstract, nice to see Weaver is working hard for his constituents, grabbing with both hands I presume.
    The presumption of millennial effects from CO2 are fascinating, how stupid are these professional parasites?
    By the logic of their abstract;
    Our current climatic conditions are the result of conditions that occurred 10,000 years ago.

  9. Maybe some one should send this idiot a few books on Earth’s history..about 4.6 billion years worth !! What a moron !

  10. Let me see. . . if the model really produces the results it thus far has not, dreadful things will happen. They sould seem to have the minor little problem of proving AGW first, then deducing the consequences.

  11. And here was me thinking this charlatan would be too ashamed to show his face in the scientific literature again after his last fiasco.

    At least we know nothing should be trusted this time.

  12. I propose a fleet of airborne water vapor collectors to vacuum clouds out of the sky, that way CO2’s extra bit of warmth can’t increase water vapor to make things even warmer. That’s still the theory about how CO2 is supposed to cause positive-feedback/runaway warmth, right?

    I’m thinking automated blimps with giant bell-shaped vacuum nozzles attached, patrolling the skies day and night. Where do I apply for a grant?

  13. How are we going to keep putting carbon into the air over the next 250+ years if we’re going to run out of everything this century?

      • Dont confuse a Saudi led temporary price war with the basics of geophysic (stuff like sorce rock TOC, viscosity, reservoir porosity and permeability), consequences for extraction rates, and TRR (technically recoverable reserves at any cost/price) when it comes to oil production peaks. The TRR for Bakken shale oil is 1.5% of OIP. It is 65% for Ghawar with secondary waterflood; Ghawars water cut is now 55% and it will be effectively exhausted mid 2030s. Russia’s biggest field Samotlar is now 85% watercut..

      • And do not assume we humans will be able to afford the price of the extracted products…. As we almost proved in 2008. We humans will run-out of affordable oil, natural gas, and coal LONG before we run out of total producible oil, natural gas, and coal.

      • TCE, correct. The economic disruption and hardship is the issue as supply shortages boost prices. It never was about running out. The leading edge is oil, which globally is 75% transportation fuels including ag, mining, forestry…
        The only bright spot is the possibility that the Siluria Technologies catalysts live up to their pilot line potential. Then natural gas has an energy efficient, much lower cost pathway than F-T (Shell Pearl project in Qatar, $185/bbl except at zero value stranded gas proces) to liquid fuels. And shale gas, FF will likely last the longest in an economic way. Big deposits in China and Australia as well as the US. Presently about 15% recovery factor, unlike shale oil at 1.5%. And more shale gas than shale oil deposits, inherent in the catagenesis oil window.

      • I hate to find myself disagreeing with you Dr. Istvan, but I remain optimistic of the prospects for oil production to continue far into the future.
        I think the huge quantity of oil found and subsequently capped off at the Macondo prospect hints at reserves of deep offshore oil that may be enormous. And some offshore oil fields seem to be refilling as fast as they are being produced.
        Add to that the recharge of capped off wells as oil refills the formations that supplied us with oil decades ago.
        I am no petroleum geologist, and could be mistaken, but my impression is that the geological conditions that allow for economic recovery are the places where oil accumulates, and do not represent the totality of the oil which percolated up to fill these reservoirs. Some wells capped off decades ago can now be reopened and production resumed.
        And even after so-called tertiary recovery is concluded, almost half of the original oil in place remains in the formations, no? Future advances may allow far more recovery than is now believed possible.
        We have been warned of a twenty year remaining supply for about a hundred and thirty years now I think.

        Hope springs eternal, and so might oil, although in the case of oil, eternity may be a somewhat shorter period of time.

        Just my optimistic outlook…I expect that more informed folks may have a different view.

      • Menicholas
        February 8, 2016 at 4:05 pm
        Hope springs eternal, and so might oil, although in the case of oil, eternity may be a somewhat shorter period of time.

        Just my optimistic outlook…I expect that more informed folks may have a different view.
        ———————————————————————————————
        Please Meni, don’t be so optimistic.
        We the humans are “flying” through space on the top of this beautiful “rock” called Earth.
        And as you may very well know, in our past, when we were even fewer in numbers than today, we managed to run out of stone………:))
        Our optimism at that time did not help with that “dreadful” run-out. :)

        cheers

    • Don’t believe we’ll run out. This misspeak originated from the industry itself and now furnishes cover for the climateers and UN who’re working like busy little beavers on the Next Great World Socialist/Communist Utopia. Oil, coal, natural gas are cheap, plentiful, job-rich industries that provide fuel for more than 85% of the world’s energy and transportation platforms; which the wind/solar scam can’t touch economically. Peak oil was a boogeymen used to jack-up pump prices. A sales technique.Think the real alternate energies (like Tesla/hydrogen) are locked up–or patented up (like the steam car at the dawn of the combustion engine era). There are other things in the pipeline, plus storage batteries, etc., but the potential financial losses/labor/societal switch-over/upheavals from oil-based fuels are what keep the boys behind the curtain staring at the ceiling at nights.

      Down really deep, the Russians have found oil, but it wasn’t “fossil” oil. Called an A-biotic oil. Say it’s made from earth’s pressures, heat, etc. (Generalizing here. Not an expert). Technical papers have been written. When British Petroleum’s Deepwater Horizon well blew in the Gulf of Mexico, it had well-head pressures unlike any the industry had encountered. The Russians, who had the most deep-well experience, offered their expertise. The wonks declined and the Russians parting comments were: “Well, you have to be careful when you drill that deep.” Or words to that effect.

      The good news about the BP’s Macando blowout? Mermaids are real. The bad news is they’re now extinct. However, Gulf fishermen no longer need cooking oil to fry their catch. They just clean their catches, toss ’em in the pan, fry ’em up. “Fossil oil” covering shorelines and ocean floors, commercially ineffective bird blenders/Roman candles and solar panels that, if you covered earth with them, couldn’t provide energy for humanity–they all have their bo-bo’s.

      So the question begs: Why then are the Wizards of Oz tearing down the cheapest form of energy platforms known? Could they have already divvied up the (an) alternate energy form(s) in the vault? Like they did the “fossils”?

      • Did not see this when I wrote my comment just above, but it would seem I am not the only one who saw that undersea oil explosion at Macondo, that never did show a hint of diminishing at the time it was capped off, and took note.
        And there are vast areas that have never been explored due to offshore and onshore restrictions.
        All of the increases in US production that we have witnessed in recent years have taken place on private lands. What awaits when the vast amounts of publicly owned lands are explored and produced?

  14. You would think that nearly 3 years after his vindication of the ‘Stick’, Marcott would have a rank higher than Assistant Professor.

  15. “Most climate projections now end at 2300 at the latest, “because that’s the time period most people are interested in”

    I think most people are interested in the next 4-6 years and could care less about after they are dead. But you cannot get any grant money with that stance. Then there is Apophis in 2036 when humans could be gone forever.(yeah! say the greenies as they finally get their wish).

    • As I mentioned in another thread about “policy makers”, i.e., politicians: the only time period they are interested in is the election cycle, and they start running for re-election on election night.

  16. FTA: “I don’t see any good thing in this, but my hope is that you could show these graphs to anyone and they could see exactly what is going on.”

    Yes, I see exactly what is going on. Widescreen.

    • I can see what’s going on: a model with no knowledge of how Earth’s climate works has produced a ridiculous graph. Here’s another graph. You could show this graph to anyone and they could see exactly what is going on:

      • Mike Jonas,

        Here’s another graph. You could show this graph to anyone and they could see exactly what is going on:

        No, not really. This graph on the other hand …

        … contains information which actually provides something in the way of an explanation. I’d say anyone could look at it and see exactly what’s going on, but prior experience suggests otherwise.

      • Well, for once I agree with Gates. And this seems to coroborrate Milankovitch:

        And this chart shows how fortunate we’ve been.

        The planet has been more than 10ºC warmer in the geologic past, with no “runaway global warming”:

        How anyone can look at the truly benign global temperatures over the past ≈150 years and come away with the idea that climate doom is right around the corner is beyond me. They’re the same folks who claim that the climate is infested with positive feedback loops. But they can never show us one that survives even the mildest scrutiny.

      • Don’t be silly dbstealey! It’s not just “right around the corner” anymore….it’s 10,000 years from now! (these people are marketing geniuses I tell you! lol)

        “Carbon is going up, and even if we stop what we are doing in the relatively near future, the system will continue to respond because it hasn’t reached an equilibrium,” Marcott explains. “If you boil water and turn off the burner, the water will stay warm because heat remains in it.”

        ROFL!!!! My lord, how does this man have a job? Even his analogies are idiotic! If you boil water, and turn off the burner, what can any grade school aged science student tell you IMMEDIATELY begins to happen? COOLING. The water WILL NOT STAY WARM because the heat source has been removed and the “heat in the water” begins to immediately dissipate until it reaches equilibrium with the surrounding environment.

        Imagine turning off the Earth’s heat source Marcott? (Which is the SUN in case no one ever told you that) How long do you think it would take the Earth to FREEZE over? Or do you actually think that the CO2 in the AIR would help the Earth “stay warm because heat remains in it”?

        I’m going to print this one out and keep it forever and note it as “the pinnacle of CAGW scientific research”, and pass it on to my grandchildren and ask them to pass it on to their grandchildren…..lolololololol

      • My heart is warmed when I see five realists for every hand-wringer.
        I just hope my now warmed heart can sustain the rest of me in the frosty conditions to come.
        Thanks Bartemis, Mike, Rud, DB and Aphan.
        ‘Nuff said.

      • Brandon Gates says, “No, not really. This graph on the other hand …
        ————————————————————————————————-
        What is your criticism? Do you understand the difference between what has been going on, and why it is going on, between observation and hypothesis? (It is fine to add in the why, but unnecessary to be presented as a contradiction)

      • David A,

        What is your criticism?

        Looking at temperature change over time says nothing about why it changed, only that it has changed.

        Do you understand the difference between what has been going on, and why it is going on, between observation and hypothesis?

        I think arguments predicting another glaciation within the next 25,000 years are untenable if Milankovitch theory is reasonably correct, as his theory predicts that mean summertime daily insolation at 65 N latitude has all but bottomed out for now and will begin a gradual rise over that interval starting sometime in the next few hundred years. The next opportunity for a “major” glaciation is about 150 kyrs from now according to same.

        (It is fine to add in the why, but unnecessary to be presented as a contradiction)

        ???

  17. “This refinery processes almost 7 million tons of carbon per year”
    Shocking!!
    But it gets worse! How about all those so-called greenies, planting forests of carbon. Running farms that grow carbon.
    Exhaling tons of toxic CO2 gasses!
    We must ban all carbon!!!

  18. The boy Marcott has a simple problem: He has sold his soul to a discipline [I use the term loosely] that really works by studying processes that work on timescales of hundreds, thousand, millions, billions of years.

    But he wants fame today.

    That’s a problem for most people who want to ‘save the planet’. They want to save it immediately.

  19. This is a not so stunning paper when readers recall Solomon’s paper in PNAS in 2008-

    http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full

    Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions

    excerpt-

    “…up to peak concentrations of 450, 550, 650, 750, 850, or 1,200 ppmv;… This is not intended to be a realistic scenario but rather to represent a test case whose purpose is to probe physical climate system changes.”

    Oh, ok. But the current paper assumes- “By 2300, the carbon dioxide level had soared from almost 400 parts per million to as much as 2,000 parts per million.”

    So, this paper is in need of the caveat that “this is not intended to be a realistic scenario.”

    • 2,000 parts per million…

      And pray tell us where this CO2 is going to come from? Have they bothered to ‘estimate’ what Pluto of Coal will be towed here to provide it?

      Or will we be digging up limestone to burn using nuclear power or giant solar cookers? Our main carbon resources are gone to the depths millions of years ago. We had better get nuclear power generation under control before too long because there are several billion people on this planet who have no intention to live like troglodytes.

    • Solomon and Weaver probably get along quite well. Andrew Weaver is an alumnus of the University of New South Wales and is currently sitting in the British Columbia Legislature as a member of (and leader of) the Green Party in BC.

      Most of these folks have lots of credibility amongst their “peers”. This paper is written for an audience of true believers. Lots of “awards” in this crowd so they are clever, just not in my wheelhouse.

  20. I wonder just how much arable, inhabitable land will be created when the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have disappeared? Without a doubt we’ll loose some of their costal areas to the rising seas but on the whole there must be a substantial net gain. And this new land will be more or less pristine. The perfect place for the resettlement of climate refugees. And just think all the mountains will be getting shorter with the compensation that altitude sickness will decrease. Will this push the upper limit of earth’s atmosphere higher thus giving us a few more feet of atmosphere in which to burn up incoming bits of space junk and meteors? That could be important – something thought to be a meteor fell out of the sky and killed a guy in India today. Would a few more nanoseconds of transit rendered it harmless? I say when the climate hands you lemons make lemonade especially when there’ll be lemon trees growing on the shore of Hudson Bay. Speaking of Hudson Bay It might expand to take in part of the Great Lakes thus creating new seaports in the upper mid west. Doom and gloom? Nay! Nay! Oh brave new world that hath such vistas in it!

    • …I’m thinking permanent, year round skiing in Greenland, with sea-level resorts at the ‘new’ coasts….

      Or, not. It’s -47 C in southern Greenland, today, and even colder in central Antarctica. 10 degrees C is not going to melt that anytime soon.

    • I think we have ample evidence that the Greenland ice sheet is bounded by mountains and will not be easily returned to the sea.
      And I have seen not a speck of evidence or explanation as to how a few degrees temperature rise will melt an Antarctic ice sheet that is mostly many tens of degrees Celsius below zero even in midsummer, and only ever gets above freezing for fleeting moments and only at the very periphery.

      The demise of the ice sheets has been much exaggerated. Just ask the Eemian.

    • A lot of those old Minoan and Roman ports might actually be on the water again. Too bad we didn’t learn from the past.

  21. “A similar but indescribably more complex and momentous phenomenon happens in the climate system.”

    If it is indescribably more complex, then why should anyone believe the predictions in this paper?

  22. Well clearly they want to invent a bigger scenario of doom because we’re not frightened enough by the one they already wave around. We are not herding the way sheeple should. They don’t have control over us yet, not the way they would like. We’re not panicking. Worse, we’re doing our own thinking, our own research, and soon we’re not going to play nice at all.

    • Thank you for the clarification.
      The doom story is not working, so now they hope to pick our pockets as we roll around helpless with laughter.
      Yup the play nice bit is rapidly becoming”not an option” in my playbook.
      People this mendacious or irresponsible need to face consequences.

  23. “This long-term perspective illustrates that policy decisions made in the next few years to decades will have profound impacts on global climate, ecosystems and human societies — not just for this century, but for the next ten millennia and beyond.”

    My gawd! What’s that smell????

  24. Then we compared past data to modeling results that extend 10,000 years into the future.

    “They” could not see 40 years into the future in 1894. What has changed?
    “In 1894, the Times of London estimated that by 1950 every street in the city would be buried nine feet deep in horse manure. One New York prognosticator of the 1890s concluded that by 1930 the horse droppings would rise to Manhattan’s third-story windows. “No Fracking Consensus”

  25. Stunningly bad paper.
    Paywalled, but SI is not. Two GCMs set to ECS 3.5 ( high by 2X compared to observational energy budget studies e.g. Lewis and Curry 2014). Four level of emissions by 2300 expressed as PgC, from 1280 to 5160. For reference from AR5 SPM fig 5a and B, RCP8.5 to 2100 would produce about 950ppm from about 1800 PgC at AR5 carbon sink rates. I just checked. So this paper assumes up to 2850 ppm by 2300. . So the high end amounts to running RCP8.5 to 2300. Impossible–there isn’t that much fossil fuel extractable, even for RCP8.5 to 2100. Critiqued elsewhere.
    This absurdity of course produces temps over 7C higher (direct from SI). These last for 10000 years because there is no ongoing carbon sinking in their analysis, either biological or via henry’s law. Which of course melts Greenland and Antarctica enough to raise sealevels 50+ meters (direct from SI). Even the ‘low’ 1280PgC produces 20meter SLR.
    Alice in Wonderland stuff from the Mad Hatter’s tea party.

    • Ristvan,

      I agree. I don’t have access to the paper here, but it sounds daft.

      First, RCP8.5 assumes a substantial slowing of tech development. This assumes a halt, unlike anything seen for 300 years. That is quite mad, as a new industrial revolution appears to be starting.

      Second, as you note, Earth has nowhere like the recoverable carbon reserves to burn to meet their assumptions.

      Perhaps these problems are addressed in the paper. Otherwise I cannot imagine how this got thru peer-review. Or even thru pal-review.

    • Ristvan

      Your brief analysis is better than the paper. It’s as if they were not familiar with the extant literature. How did it pass peer review?

      • I suspect that the purported peer review process these guys subject each other too is nothing but a fancy word for a cursory spell check.

      • I will bet dollars to donuts that Obama quotes this paper before he leaves office.
        Wait, he also said that his election was when to 2mm per year SL rise would begin to slow down. Nope, I am certain he will quote it anyway, contradictions never made a politician hesitate.

  26. Stunning? More like, cunning.
    Another cunning publicity stunt.
    Cunning stunts, such as this, never fail to grab everyone’s attention.

  27. Looking at the cast list for this swansong I instantly thought of this;

    “Extendedly to the west, there were 1,500 British Foot Guards under Maitland lying down to protect themselves from the French artillery. As two battalions of Chasseurs approached, the second spike of the Imperial Guard’s attack, Maitland’s guards emerge and overwhelmed them with point-blank volleys. The Chasseurs organized to answer the fire, but began to tremble. A bayonet charge by the Foot Guards then destroyed them. The third spike was a fresh Chasseur battalion, now came up in support. The British guardsmen left with these Chasseurs in search, but the latter were arrested as the 52nd Light Infantry controlled in line on their border and poured an overwhelming fire into them and then rushed. Under this assault they too broke.

    The last of the Guard retreated headlong. A wave of panic passed through the French lines as the astounding news spread: “La Garde recule. Sauve qui peut!” which means “The Guard refuges. Save yourself if you can!”. Wellington now stood up in Copenhagen’s commotions, and waved his hat in the air to signal a general progress. His army rushed forward from the lines and threw themselves upon the retreating French army.”

    or , as this is an American site, this;

    http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/gettysburg/gettysburg-history-articles/picketts-charge.html

    Surely this is the last, desperate, attempt at resuscitation of a dead parrot. The climate catastrophe is postponed 200 years. Well my first reference is 200 years past – did any then conceive of the world as it is now?
    Projections for 10,000 years! Nostradamus eat my shorts!
    They know it is over and are about to run for the hills. This is the last hurrah.

  28. This entire narrative depends on estimating a temperature response to an increase in the CO2 concentration. If they go back 20,000 years (which I think is a good idea) then it is reasonable to estimate the sensitivity to CO2 over the same period. As we all know, there is a poor correlation between temperature change and CO2. There is a really lousy correlation between sea level and CO2.

    That Florida should disappear under water ten thousand years from now can hardly be a surprise. I fully expect it if the holocene is not terminated by a plunge into a new ice age.

    We have nothing in our experience or measurements or proxies that suggests Greenland will not melt completely and have a temperate climate, as most of it has had many times before.

    There is nothing in the available data or proxies that suggests such a small change in CO2 will produce 6 or 7 degrees of warming of the entire globe. Our best hope will be that in a warmer world the Saharan and Gobi rains will be reestablished opening many millions of hectares of farmland to go back into production.

  29. Yes, but think of the childrens’, childrens’, childrens’, childrens’, childrens’, childrens’, childrens’, …………….ad infinitum.

  30. “I don’t see any good thing in this”

    I do. It means I’m going to live past 2300 so I can give a ****.

  31. “If you boil water and turn off the burner, the water will stay warm because heat remains in it.”
    ““This is a stunning paper,” says Jack Williams, a professor of geography and expert on past climates at UW-Madison.”

    Yes, it is. Stunningly idiotic.

    • If you boil water and turn off the burner, the water will stay warm because heat remains in it.

      A Nobel Prize to the man who just redefined the laws of thermodynamics.

      • Mjw February 8, 2016 at 12:37 pm
        “If you boil water and turn off the burner, the water will stay warm because heat remains in it.”

        Next put the tea bag in it. :-)

        michael

      • I just cannot stop laughing! Every damn time I go in my kitchen from now on, I’ll burst into fits of hysterical giggling! I mean….think of the horror…..if everyone in the United States boils water at the exact same time, even if we turn off all those burners…that water “will stay warm because heat remains in it”…indefinitely, forever…until the entire rest of the planet reaches equilibrium with our boiled water!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        How does a man who says things like that…out loud….find people to co-author papers with in the first place?

        I’m going to drop this little piece of excrement in Mark Steyn’s tip box and see what delicious confection he creates with it…

      • “For goodness sake, Aphan, stop boiling that kettle, we’re all going to die! /sarc.”

        No. If I ever meet one of these morons, I want the water hot when I shove his head in it…..:)
        Scout Motto-Be Prepared…or something like that…yeah…yeah

  32. “A similar but indescribably more complex and momentous phenomenon happens in the climate system.”

    If you can’t describe it does that mean you can’t program it in a model?

  33. In the middle ages, it was calculated using maths, logic and the available information at the time, that the earth was 6000 years old!!

  34. “At one level, it just reinforces a point that we already knew: that the effects of climate change and sea level rise are irreversible and going to be with us for thousands of years,” says Williams.

    So, this means that the pause is here to stay?

  35. Co-author Shaun Marcott, an assistant professor of geoscience at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    Assistant professor? Someone not deemed worthy of being hired as a full professor predicts the Holocene period will never end while at the same time dismissing the 600 to 800 year time gap between rising temperatures and CO2 levels.

    • Come on, no one under 50 gets to be full professor! (only exaggerating a little bit). The tenure and promotion process means that at a minimum it takes 10 years to get to Professor, less if the committee takes into account previous teaching and research time at another institution, but as it is the highest rank of academic, they tend to be very circumspect in handing those ranks out. Some people retire after teaching for 40 years as Associate Professor. Exceptions are for someone who can bring in big bucks in research grants as money talks in academia as elsewhere.

    • Mjw February 8, 2016 at 12:29 pm
      Co-author Shaun Marcott, an assistant professor of geoscience at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

      Assistant professor? Someone not deemed worthy of being hired as a full professor

      No it means he hasn’t been there long enough to be considered for tenure. Not sure why that’s relevant since he’s only one among ~20 authors and isn’t the corresponding author (who’s a full professor at Oregon).


  36. When you look at the way we have been heading for the past five million years or so, a bit of warmth might be appreciated in the next ten thousand years, particularly considering that space is at about -270C and there is an awful lot of it out there.

  37. What are the errors bars he puts on extrapolating 10,000 years based on 50 years of data. That’s “unprecedented”.

  38. Is this the beginng of the end of the AGW crowd, all watermelons cracking, spewing out red slime in all directions? This must be the second numscullery report in a few days now.

    Leaning back, bringing out the popcorn, watching.

  39. I guess the “Peak Oil” theory has been officially abandoned by the environmentalists since we’ll be burning it for the next 300 years or so…

  40. having stacked up one failed prognostication after another one would think the CAGW community would abandon the prediction business but as long as their is a community of faith based believers a vacuum is created that must, as nature abhors them, be filled by false prophets.

    • Their predictions are in reality prophesies of a distant future that cannot be proved or disproved.

  41. This year – with the end of the El Nino, the downward slope of the 60year AMO and reducing sunspots, we are more than likely going to see global cooling.

    And there is another prediction that has very good odds – the idiot climate academics who keep telling us that global warming is inevitable will be trawling about in the garbage to find another set of “pause” like excuses.

    • No they won’t; they’ll be busy adjusting GISTEMP and HADCRUT 5, 6 and 7* to look like moonshots, all the while telling the sheeple that it’s hotter than ever before.

      * a new series is always produced when some serious ‘adjustment’ is necessary

  42. “my hope is that you could show these graphs to anyone and they could see exactly what is going on”

    Yes. Four legs good, two legs bad. Extreme, catastrophic, irreversible, devastating.

  43. ” says Marcott, a expert in glaciers and ancient climate”

    Ummmmm…an expert in BS and robbing the gravy train maybe. My friends 4 year old could write a better paper without the stink of these so called “scientists” !!!

  44. ““It’s worrisome, for sure,” says Marcott. “I don’t see any good thing in this”

    One assumes he was looking at the paper when he said that. !!

  45. Thanks, Anthony.
    “a nearly inevitable elevation of sea level for thousands of years into the future.”?
    When the Earth is the coldest it has been since the Holocene Warm Period 6,000 years ago?
    No way this looks possible to me.

  46. I just don’t understand all these ‘Climate Models’
    Do they use Weejee Boards,Tarot Cards, Astrology,Roulette Wheels, or a secret combination of the lot?

    • D. I. It is a combination of digital entrails, inspiration and vain imaginings.

      Astrology, in particular, recognises that things happen in cycles, something ‘tipping points’ cannot endure. Tarot cards don’t have big enough numbers. Roulette wheels also move in cycles and have a small choice of numbers, though they can, with difficulty, be fixed like a model. Results can be alarming but limited. Definitely not global. Ouija Boards fall into the ‘inspiration and vain imaginings’ category.

      So you are 25% ±75% right. Good enough for government work.

  47. Let’s see, in the next 10,000 years the probabilities are pretty certain that the following

    2 asteroids strikes > 400M diameter
    10 VEI-7 volcanic eruptions (super collossal)
    1 Worldwide thermonuclear war
    + whatever Armageddon you favor

    Its like the scene from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid “the fall will probably kill you”

  48. “…a study published in Nature Climate Change looks at the next 10,000 years, and FINDS that the catastrophic impact of another three centuries of carbon pollution WILL persist millennia after the carbon dioxide releases cease.”

    Once again, scientifically speaking, predictions are not “findings,” and preditions are not certainties. This is not science. Anyone who claims it is, is a fool.

    • Two labs

      They filled the box and closed it. Then opened the box and exclaimed, ‘Oooh what have we here?’

      Did you see that ECS number??

  49. Shaun Marcott’s work already got one embarrassing and very public, scientific beat down with Marcott et al, 2013. Any publicity beats no publicity, is that it- Wisconsin grads?

    • He got his job on “Marcott 2013”. The paper is still the paper to quote by anyone that writes anything on Paleoclimate or that knows anything about Paleoclimate.

      And it’s “scientific beat down” was actually not scientific; it was on the internet penned by morons.

      • traffy,

        Anyone who does a chart like this…

        …is a lying propagandist.

        That chart is made for only one reason: to try and alarm the public. It has no other purpose, and it has no connection with the real world.

  50. ” Marcott explains. “If you boil water and turn off the burner, the water will stay warm because heat remains in it.””

    Doh!

    Is this the time to point out to Marcott that once you turn off the burner, the water will begin to cool?

    • Bluto: “Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?”

      Boone: “Germans?”

      Otter: “Forget it. He’s on a roll.”

  51. They are going tot these temps to get a nudge on (no Gavin, that’s not an instruction)

    USCRN and full UAH are now in.

    Of the various USA data sets, All now show an essentially zero anomaly for January.

    • Sorry for my typing. rewriting first line.

      If they are going to [get] these massive predicted temps, they need to get a nudge on (no Gavin, that’s not an instruction)

      Note, all trends since 2005 are essentially ZERO.

  52. Just another one of those “if we put CO2 in the atmosphere, it will stay there for thousands of years” scare-story.

    Sorry that is just not factually correct and these scientists know fully well what they are saying is incorrect. Some might call that being deliberately dishonest.

    Half of what we have emitted so far has been taken back out of the atmosphere is just a short few decades.

    If we stop emitting some day, it will only take about 150 years for the vast majority of that CO2 to get sequestered back into the ocean, ocean sediments, soils and plants.

    It came from the Earth, in essence, and it will go right back in within 150 years or so.

    The article notes that last year, humans emitted about 10 billion tons of Carbon. Well, oceans plants and soils absorbed more than 5 billion tons of that right back into its sinks.

    • “Some might call that being deliberately dishonest.”
      Some might call it things that would get them banned for violating this site’s profanity guidelines.

    • The issue is one cannot get published in “Nature” talking about the Carbon Cycle without understanding that there are sources and sinks in the Carbon Cycle.

      They WILL know these numbers.

      The fact that they just completely ignored that and then play up the 10,000 years angle is deliberate and willful lack of honesty.

      We should be able to call IT what it is.

  53. Well, I’m just a layman in the field of “Climate Change”, but it seems to me that if “The Climate” ever stops changing, THEN we have something to worry about.

  54. I for one am horrified by the uncertainty in not knowing man’s impact on the planet 10,000 years from now.
    It’s vital that we expend the resources necessary to have our top people look into what may he ahead in the distant future.
    Only when we have additional research assessments and forecasts will we know how to behave as we move forward.
    Suppose we learn from our experts that we’ll all be dead within 10,000 years?
    Wouldn’t it behoove us to rid the planet of several billion people in order to postpone our demise?
    Of course I’d like to be a decider on who has to go.

  55. “For simplicity, the study omitted discussing other major drivers and effects of climate change, including ocean acidification, other greenhouse gases, and mechanisms that cause warming to accelerate further.” For simplicity they also left out any mechanisms that might mitigate the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, like the next ice age.

  56. Wow, think of the ore deposits that may be discovered when two giant chunks of land are removed of their ice. Oh to be an exploration geologist then! What a crock; the people of Wisconsin actually pay for this crap.

  57. “At one level, it just reinforces a point that we already knew: that the effects of climate change and sea level rise are irreversible and going to be with us for thousands of years,” says Williams…“

    Wow, I’m ashamed to have been [earned] a BS in geography. What was supposed to have been an integrative discipline (that I loved), has become a worthless propaganda arm of the alarmist cult.

    Hey, Dr. Williams, too bad there isn’t any way to rid the atmosphere of that awful CO2, you know, like massive amounts of organisms that will use it for food or anything.

    [The mods doubt you were actually a BS in geography, but wanted to map out your background more clearly. .mod]

    • mods: BS, Florida State University, 1992 – Geography;

      Admittedly, I’ve had too much to drink tonight, but I have the diploma, for whatever it’s worth. If you want to know where Ouagadougou is, I can tell you. If you’d care to discuss the various soils groups of the US Great Plains, I can join in. If you want to know about the ethnic / religious mix of Southeast Asia, I can contribute.

      If not, fine, there are other places to go.

    • Further: I worked for a short time as a cartographer, back when cloropleth maps weren’t done by digitization, but by photographic processes. If you wanted to show an area as a high crime zone or a high income zone, you had to specify it by manually lightening or darkening it against a photographic backdrop. You’d cut out different levels of filters to use against photo backdrops of geographic areas, and you’d get your map, as a photo. Today, Google makes this look insane.

  58. There’s a fine list of rentseekers,to be sure. My question is, do they play dungeons and dragons as a group, while tossing about ideas for the next paper, or are mushrooms the standard fare?

  59. A statement in the ‘study’ says that if you turn off the heat, the water is hot…as if it doesn’t immediately begin cooling down! Water doesn’t get hotter when the heat is removed.

    The problem here is very serious: we are nearing the typical end of any interglacial of the last million years in particular when no interglacial lasted much longer than the present one. Pretending we need not worry about this while no one knows for certain WHY we have repeated Ice Ages is frightful.

    That is, if the scientists understand that the sun is doing all this, we are at the mercy of a sun that isn’t in a steady state for the last 2 million years. This information frightens many people at the top so they have decreed that the sun isn’t the author of our ice ages. Anything else can be touted as the cause but not the sun. It is verboten.

    This makes us totally helpless unless the release of CO2 can put off this probable inevitable event.

  60. Can you imagine Marcott in the senate debating with Aristotle or Plato, or any number of ancient philosophers. He’d bring the house down with laughter.

  61. If this intrepid band of catastrophist adventurers (Marcott, Shakun, Santer, Solomon and other usual suspects) are daringly probing the past and future, maybe they should try their models on the end-Ordovician glaciation which occurred with atmospheric CO2 at 16x the present level? Or the earlier (7-800 mya) Cryogenian with CO2 levels an order of magnitude higher again?

    And no, it was not the dim sun, since the world then was not continually glaciated – for most of the time it was warmer than today.

  62. In 10,000 years time there will be well established deep glaciation. There will be no Madison. There will be no Wisconsin. They will call it (since at least sarcasm will still be alive and well) the “Marcott-Shakun Glaciation”. It will actually rival the previous – also aptly named – Wisconsin Glaciation.

  63. Most climate projections now end at 2300 at the latest, “because that’s the time period most people are interested in”

    Why is it everyone, I mean everyone, thinks they’re going to live longer than me? Does that make me clinically depressed?

  64. The flood of money into climate science virtually assured that incompetents cannot be winnowed from academia. No matter how ridiculous the claims might, so long as the political message is correct, the money will flow.

    Out of Christian charity, I do not accuse the researcher of fraud, something I have never done, even in regard to You-Know-Who. Nor until now have I ever made an ad hominem attack.

    But enough is enough. This study reveals a profound ignorance of how Earth systems work. If it were not for climate slush funds for academics, this professor would have to look for other work.

  65. Here’s the flaw in their hypothesis…

    “New data on the relationship among carbon dioxide, sea level and temperature over the last 20,000 years was the basis for looking forward 10,000 years.”

    The assumed relationship between CO2 and temperature over the past 20,000 years is generally based on Antarctic ice cores. The CO2 resolution is severely degraded relative to the temperature resolution. This invariably leads to overestimating the climate sensitivity to CO2 and underestimating the degree to which ocean warming and cooling affect atmospheric CO2.

    • Yes, all the AGW palaeo shenanigans boil down to just that one thing: stitching together different temperature records, proxy and instrumental, with sharply differing resolution and then saying ” look – a hockey stick!”. This includes Mike’s Nature trick, Shakun, Marcott and the rest.

  66. “The picture is disturbing, says co-author Shaun Marcott, an assistant professor of geoscience at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with a nearly inevitable elevation of sea level for thousands of years into the future.”
    And to think we tax payers paid for this paper. Ten to one I bet they got a grant from the NSF through the EPA. Somebody needs to go to jail for wasting tax payer money.

  67. “This is a stunning paper,” says Jack Williams, a professor of geography and expert on past climates at UW-Madison., who did not work on the study. “But this paper shows just how devastating sea level rise will be, once we look out beyond 2100 A.D.”

    You scratch my back and I’ll scratch your back, we can be sure then that those wonderful grants will just keep falling into our lap.

  68. What’s stunning is the utter lack of comprehension of human technological evolution. The entire paper assumes that in 300 years, not one iota of technological advance will be made. We sit here with practical, proven nuclear fission technology ready to go, thorium in the wings, fusion getting hot and geez, if Rossi is right…

    By the 1890s the same pundits were complaining that by 1910 New York city would be up to the second floor in horse exhaust. They proposed taxing it, preventing people from using horses – everything except solving the root problem.

    It’s worth noting that the internal combustion engine was perfected by small inventors, not the powerful steam or electric companies and certainly not by any government. Yet, I would ague that the internal combustion engine in all its derivatives, from jets to cars, supertankers and weed eaters has been the most important physical driver of our modern civilization. You can’t take that away without a viable replacement, which of course, Luddites like Marcott have no interest in pursuing.

  69. I don’t have the math skills to work it out, but intuitively, I find it highly unlikely that all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica, once melted and spread out over the entire globe, would increase sea levels 170 feet. How deep is the ice now?

    Does anyone have a better handle on this?

  70. I am a graduate of the University of Wisconsin with degrees in geography and earth science. I live in Madison now and am amazed at the so called climate science coming out of that department, you should know that the geography department also includes the Nelson environmental institute http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/ which is a hotbed of environmental fanatics.

  71. The results are simply the combinations of the participating authors viewpoints.
    Ben Santer, Susan Soloman etc.

Comments are closed.