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).
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:
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
“catastrophic impact of another three centuries of carbon pollution will persist millennia after the carbon dioxide releases cease”
we know that for sure although we can’t detect the effect of even three decades of carbon “pollution”
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725743
Wow! So Antarctica will mostly melt which means the temperature will have to rise more than 25C in the interior. CO2 is amazing!
Well if all the ice melted then the altitude at the S Pole would be ~3000m lower which would account for ~20ºC.
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?
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.
Someone should remind these guys of “average” residence time for a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere.
But is it possible that there are no intelligent answers with factual scientific data to confirm or refute the search?
I apologize for my English.
The results are simply the combinations of the participating authors viewpoints.
Ben Santer, Susan Soloman etc.