Forecast for 3000

[salbers]

Here is an article summarizing a recent study about the long term expectations of the climate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20110113/sc_livescience/globalwarmingdirepredictionfortheyear3000

This is similar to another study by an NCAR researcher recently coming out in "Science". I'll post that in a bit.

The main point is that changes starting now will have a long life to them.

[BethesdaWX]

[rygar]

Whether this forecast verifies or not, and i am not speaking to the validity of it whatsoever - just predicting dire consequences for year 3000 critically hurts the pro-AGW camp so much more than any scientific evidence that shows little human effect on warming. Think about that!

If the pro-AGW'ers would take 2 years off from making claims, they would be so much better off. It's falling on deaf ears at this point.

And this goes for you too Steve - 90% of the board that reads the climate sub-forum let out a collective groan at your thread title. Said another way, nothing you say or post is going to change people's minds. The more you post future climate predictions, the less credibility you personally have in th eyes of many.

Personally - a) this is the case fore me, I know it is my own shortcoming, c) it's how I feel nonetheless.

[salbers]

Yes, the 3000 title is catchy and provocative and glad and hear your reaction - let's hear a loud groan from those who are unable to appreciate the significance of what I'm pointing out. Maybe this title will help people to read this thread and think a little bit - if they dare to. The point is that excess CO2 and heat remain in the oceans for 1000 or more years, so there is the effect that what is going on this century that can continue until the year 3000 - get it? I can cite more papers if you like, including from the National Academy of Sciences (hardly a sensationalistic bunch). NCAR is also supporting this with a recent paper in Science.

This is only a "prediction" if we fail to rein in CO2 emissions or if there's suddenly a lot of volcanoes or something blocking out the sun (or some type of geo-engineering).

Let's let the other 90% of the forum folks you mention come into this thread and present their research. By the way I'm not a PRO anything - just a realist and a thinker trying to consider the evidence and to raise the intelligence level of the discussion if you need to invoke a label. Anyway - those are my feelings / shortcomings. I am capable of pointing out exaggerations when they do occur in discussions (in either direction).

[Analog96]

Yes, the 3000 title is catchy and provocative and glad and hear your reaction - let's hear a loud groan from those who are unable to appreciate the significance of what I'm pointing out. Maybe this title will help people to read this thread and think a little bit - if they dare to. The point is that excess CO2 and heat remain in the oceans for 1000 or more years, so there is the effect that what is going on this century that can continue until the year 3000 - get it? I can cite more papers if you like, including from the National Academy of Sciences (hardly a sensationalistic bunch). NCAR is also supporting this with a recent paper in Science.

And I'm sure many others can cite other papers completely refuting this too.

[salbers]

Hey if you're the Analog Kid, then maybe I'm a Digital Man

I'll start with this Solomon et. al. paper on the topic. Please cite one that refutes this. I've been waiting for more than a year over on Eastern Wx for someone to do this.

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

[Analog96]

Hey if you're the Analog Kid, then maybe I'm a Digital Man

I'll start with this Solomon et. al. paper on the topic. Please cite one that refutes this. I've been waiting for more than a year over on Eastern Wx for someone to do this.

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

So let me ask you this:

Do you think that this computer model that was designed to predict Earth's temperature in 3000 is any better than the CFS?

[salbers]

No computer is needed, just a little bit of brain matter. It's easy to understand the reasoning behind the modeling. CO2 forms an equilibrium between the oceans and air. And the oceans have a mixing time of 1000 years or so. Once CO2 gets into the ocean/atmosphere system it stays there at an equilibrium on the millenial time scale. It actually takes many thousands of years to eventually remove all the CO2, via geological sequestration.

Heat also stays in the oceans on a millenial time scale based on this rate of mixing.

We obviously aren't talking about predicting exact short-wave weather systems like the GFS.

[Analog96]

No computer is needed, just a little bit of brain matter. It's easy to understand the reasoning behind the modeling. CO2 forms an equilibrium between the oceans and air. And the oceans have a mixing time of 1000 years or so. Once CO2 gets into the ocean/atmosphere system it stays there at an equilibrium on the millenial time scale. It actually takes many thousands of years to eventually remove all the CO2, via geological sequestration.

Heat also stays in the oceans on a millenial time scale based on this rate of mixing.

We obviously aren't talking about predicting exact short-wave weather systems like the GFS.

So you really believe this doom and gloom crap, don't you?

[salbers]

I'm not really in believing anything unless it's supported by a rational argument that outweighs the contrary evidence. I'd instead like to hear a rational argument that points in another direction. Let's try keep this forum at a high level of information by presenting some reasoning or evidence. It seems there's some type of instinctual aversion to thinking about something that can extend beyond one's lifetime?

Perhaps we should be alarmed about any blindness to rational discussion - not referring to you two of course

[Analog96]

I'm not really believing anything for the sake of believing. I'd instead like to hear a rational argument that points in another direction. Let's try keep this forum at a high level of information by presenting some reasoning or evidence. It seems there's some type of instinctual aversion to thinking about something that can extend beyond one's lifetime?

No, all I'm saying is what happens if we see the cycle start cooling soon? The long range mets whom I speak with seem to think that the solar and ENSO cycles are the main reason we've warmed, and they see a reversal in the next 20-50 years.

[salbers]

There could be a temporary PDO related reversal like what we saw in the 1960s. However the long term effects are there. CO2 is still rising in the atmosphere and the oceans (making them acidic by the way). The cooling cycle in the atmosphere probably means the ocean is actually warming more at depth. So PDOs and the like are really doing nothing to throw my "3000 forecast" off in error. Do you realize the significance of geological sequestering being slow and the only way (besides biological land sequestration) to remove CO2 from the oceans and atmosphere?

This radiative forcing remains in the positive (and growing with emissions) direction despite what the other cycles do. The other cycles will largely average out in the long run while the CO2 signal remains.

[BethesdaWX]

There could be a temporary PDO related reversal like what we saw in the 1960s. However the long term effects are there. CO2 is still rising in the atmosphere and the oceans (making them acidic by the way). The cooling cycle in the atmosphere probably means the ocean is actually warming more at depth. So PDOs and the like are really doing nothing to throw my "3000 forecast" off in error. Do you realize the significance of geological sequestering being slow and the only way (besides biological land sequestration) to remove CO2 from the oceans and atmosphere?

This radiative forcing remains in the positive (and growing with emissions) direction despite what the other cycles do. The other cycles will largely average out in the long run while the CO2 signal remains.

Or the Multi Century Solar as well, lets not forget what that did in the MWP & RWP...... Glaciers were 1/2 the size of todays, more methane release from the permafrost, and life flourished.

[salbers]

Remember the figure I showed that had methane flat most of the past millenium?

Where's the evidence of glaciers being half the size in the MWP? Was this a global phenomenon?

The present (and future) levels of CO2 I think will exceed anything that solar changes have done in the past millenium. And the main point of this thread is the longevity of CO2 in the oceans and atmosphere. This is why we should be careful what we put into motion - since it will be hard to reverse.

[BethesdaWX]

Remember the figure I showed that had methane flat most of the past millenium?

Where's the evidence of glaciers being half the size in the MWP? Was this a global phenomenon?

The present (and future) levels of CO2 I think will exceed anything that solar changes have done in the past millenium. And the main point of this thread is the longevity of CO2 in the oceans and atmosphere. This is why we should be careful what we put into motion - since it will be hard to reverse.

There you go again. Rad the links I posted. You know we're finding Viking Cemetaries & Tree material under todays melting glaciers? Glaciers that have been retreating since the LIA.

The West Antarctic ice sheet was also hit during both the MWP & RWP (again, I posted links on this). Global Treelines were Higher than Today, Armies crossed the alps no problem during the RWP, while vinyards were grown in Scandi.

"Greenland"......

[salbers]

Can you tell me the post #'s again with your links? Sorry, I lost track.

I've seen evidence the MWP was a regional warming phenomenon in Europe more than having a global influence.

If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was hit during the MWP we would have seen sea level rises then. The oceans would also have expanded themselves due to the heat if this was as significant as you suggest. Unfortunately the evidence in the sea level record isn't supporting these assertions.

Even if we assume the MWP is the same scale as today, it isn't the same as what we'll be seeing in the year 2100, or 3000 based on the trends of CO2 emissions, and ocean lags. Remember the premise of this thread.

[WeatherRusty]

No, all I'm saying is what happens if we see the cycle start cooling soon? The long range mets whom I speak with seem to think that the solar and ENSO cycles are the main reason we've warmed, and they see a reversal in the next 20-50 years.

That's because they disregard the one factor that physicists and climatologists identify as the lead forcing of long term climate change. Energy is being accumulated within the climate system as a consequence of a strengthening greenhouse effect. Nature (The Second Law of Thermodynamics) demands that the average global temperature rise until this accumulating energy radiates to space the equal of the energy being absorbed. Details spread throughout this forum!

[BethesdaWX]

Can you tell me the post #'s again with your links? Sorry, I lost track.

I've seen evidence the MWP was a regional warming phenomenon in Europe more than having a global influence.

If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet was hit during the MWP we would have seen sea level rises then. The oceans would also have expanded themselves due to the heat if this was as significant as you suggest. Unfortunately the evidence in the sea level record isn't supporting these assertions.

Even if we assume the MWP is the same scale as today, it isn't the same as what we'll be seeing in the year 2100, or 3000 based on the trends of CO2 emissions, and ocean lags. Remember the premise of this thread.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/mwpantarctica.php

http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/mwparctic.php

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N37/C3.php

[tacoman25]

That's because they disregard the one factor that physicists and climatologists identify as the lead forcing of long term climate change. Energy is being accumulated within the climate system as a consequence of a strengthening greenhouse effect. Nature (The Second Law of Thermodynamics) demands that the average global temperature rise until this accumulating energy radiates to space the equal of the energy being absorbed. Details spread throughout this forum!

I think the biggest assumption out there seems to be that increasing energy in the system automatically means an equivalent temperature increase at the surface. However, the climate system is so complex with all sorts of negative/positive forcings that I think the confidence in such an assumption should be very low.

[aslkahuna]

Pro AGWers will LOVE today's editorial in the Opinion Section of the Philippine Inquirer site at http://www.inq7.net

Steve

[salbers]

I think the biggest assumption out there seems to be that increasing energy in the system automatically means an equivalent temperature increase at the surface. However, the climate system is so complex with all sorts of negative/positive forcings that I think the confidence in such an assumption should be very low.

I would place pretty high confidence in the long term average response to radiative forcing since Earth's present (actually preindustrial) temperatures are nicely explained by the natural greenhouse effect produced by the natural GHGs.

[WeatherRusty]

I think the biggest assumption out there seems to be that increasing energy in the system automatically means an equivalent temperature increase at the surface. However, the climate system is so complex with all sorts of negative/positive forcings that I think the confidence in such an assumption should be very low.

It is not an assumption and it is not a maybe. There are only two forcings. Only two. Incident solar radiation and energy received at the surface from the atmosphere. The Earth's surface receives significant energy from nowhere else.

It shocks me that people are not familiar with the implications given by the laws of thermodynamics.

[tacoman25]

It is not an assumption and it is not a maybe. There are only two forcings. Only two. Incident solar radiation and energy received at the surface from the atmosphere. The Earth's surface receives significant energy from nowhere else.

It shocks me that people are not familiar with the implications given by the laws of thermodynamics.

I meant feedbacks, not forcings.

And I'm not arguing the physical forcing. I'm presenting the thought that perhaps the temperature response at the earth's surface may not match exactly. Looking back at earth's history, there is certainly evidence that temperature fluctuations have not followed CO2 exactly (or other forciings).

[salbers]

This seems properly accounted for in the error bars on the CO2 sensitivity (e.g. 1.5 to 4.5 C with a peak of 3C).

[tacoman25]

This seems properly accounted for in the error bars on the CO2 sensitivity (e.g. 1.5 to 4.5 C with a peak of 3C).

Right. The very fact that there is such a wide range implies a level of certainty much less exact than those like Rusty would have us believe. Climate sensitivity is not determined merely by repeating the laws of thermodynamics.

[salbers]

There is some uncertainty but we could look at a Gaussian distribution and say there's a 70% chance the response is within a fraction of a degree of 3C. This level of uncertainty doesn't really do much to allay my concern about the longevity of the changes.

Rusty's look at thermodynamics reminds us of the basic drivers. If there are some feedbacks and short-term redistributions of heat that makes things more interesting but doesn't really allay the concern I would have. The basic radiative driver is there and physically solid. The only wild card I see there is any aerosol or cloud changes that I don't see as being that major.

To some extent the amount of feedback is a function of the time scale we are considering. For example the ice sheets melting gives us an albedo feedback and we don't know exactly how long it will take for large portions of Greenland to melt. Whether it's 100 years or 1000 years it's still a big deal, even if it makes the sensitivity numbers look a bit more uncertain. Similarly we don't know exactly how fast methane will be released. This adds to the uncertainty when we're looking at CO2 sensitivity or temperature forecast over a specific time frame.

[WeatherRusty]

Right. The very fact that there is such a wide range implies a level of certainty much less exact than those like Rusty would have us believe. Climate sensitivity is not determined merely by repeating the laws of thermodynamics.

You were over at eastern, right? If anyone kept pushing the uncertainty given by the Charney sensitivity (2C-4.5C) it was me. Some people around here have tired of my continual posting of 3.7W/m^2 and 2C-4.5C and that I no longer have to mention those numbers because they get it. It is apparent to me however that some don't "get it".

The Charney sensitivity, or equilibrium temperature response to a forcing equal to 3.7W/m^2 as measured from the tropopause, is 2C-4.5C. That range of uncertainty is derived from studies of paleoclimate and computer modeling. There is some probability that sensitivity lies outside that range. The CO2 forcing alone before feedbacks gives ~1.2C at the Planck response 0.3C/W (no computer modeling involved).

The forcing given by a doubling of CO2 (3.7W) happens to be very strong relative to any conceivable solar forcing. The Sun would have to put out an additional 22W to equal the forcing given by a doubling of CO2 because of the day/night cycle and the geometry of a sphere.

[A-L-E-X]

I would like to know why there would be a need to put out a forecast for the year 3000. Even the most pessimistic of people are about 99% certain that we'll have global climate engineering far before then (if our species is still around lol.) Secondly, our supply of fossil fuel will run out before then (hopefully!) We should be on fusion or maybe higher end technology (particle collider assisted perhaps-- antimatter?) much before then.

[skierinvermont]

And I'm sure many others can cite other papers completely refuting this too.

No, they can't. There aren't any peer-reviewed papers that dispute the longevity of AGW because it is basic physics. The CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a very long time and the CO2 causes an energy imbalance that can only be re-balanced by a surface temperature rise.

So let me ask you this:

Do you think that this computer model that was designed to predict Earth's temperature in 3000 is any better than the CFS?

Yes, and as others said it doesn't even require a computer model. Predicting the earths average surface temperature is completely different than predicting seasonal regional temperatures. This is a common misunderstanding.

Satellites tell us that the earth is absorbing more energy than it is releasing. They tell us that this imbalance is growing due to a decline in radiation being emitted by the earth specifically at those wavelengths which are absorbed by the CO2 molecule. This is irrefutable empirical evidence that CO2 is causing a long term and increasing net energy imbalance on our planet. Thus far this imbalance is up to .8W/m2, which is an incredible rate of energy intake. By the laws of thermodynamics the earth will try to rebalance this imbalance via an increase in surface temperature. The increased surface temperature will emit more energy and try and reduce the energy imbalance (except for the fact that CO2 is still rising rapidly).

So you really believe this doom and gloom crap, don't you?

It's not a question of believing. It's a question of what the evidence shows.

[skierinvermont]

I would like to know why there would be a need to put out a forecast for the year 3000. Even the most pessimistic of people are about 99% certain that we'll have global climate engineering far before then (if our species is still around lol.) Secondly, our supply of fossil fuel will run out before then (hopefully!) We should be on fusion or maybe higher end technology (particle collider assisted perhaps-- antimatter?) much before then.

The point is that even if we do run out of fossil fuels or voluntarily switch to other fuel sources before then, it won't matter. The CO2 that will be released this century (baring a breakthrough international climate treaty) will not only cause warming this century, but will lead to further warming for an extended period even after emissions cease. Then it will take many centuries for CO2 and global temperature to slowly fall. It could take even longer.

Even if we do have climate engineering, climate engineering is still far from perfect. Doing things like dumping iron in the oceans to cause algal blooms has its own effects as well. Perhaps we will invent better ways, but most likely whatever we do will disrupt the climate and earth's ecosystems in some way. A study like this points to the imperativeness of inventing the best climate engineering technology as soon as possible, or else preparing for 5-10+ meters of sea level rise over the next several centuries.

Finally, science should be conducted simply for the sake of expanding knowledge.