Oops - NCAR - World Heading For 1,000 PPM CO2 By 2100 AD - Up To 29F Higher Temperatures

[hatrack]

Carbon dioxide emissions appear headed towards levels that spawned 29-degree increases over today's global temperatures more than 30 million years ago, reports a new analysis. In the current Science, Jeffrey Kiehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., reports on results from ocean core and other measures of past ancient temperatures. Current atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide stand at 390 part-per-million, a number that burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels, looks set to raise to 1,000 ppm by the end of the century.

"When was the last time the atmosphere contained ~1000 ppmv of CO2? Recent reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 concentrations through history indicate that it has been ~30 to 100 million years since this concentration existed in the atmosphere (the range in time is due to uncertainty in proxy values of CO2). The data also reveal that the reduction of CO2 from this high level to the lower levels of the recent past took tens of millions of years. Through the burning of fossil fuels, the atmosphere will return to this concentration in a matter of a century. Thus, the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is unprecedented in Earth's history."

So, we are piling carbon dioxide into the air far more rapidly than natural processes did in bygone epochs. What was the effect of the more gently added greenhouse gases in those times? Kiehl says, "the global annual mean temperature at this time can be estimated to be ~31°C (87.8 F), versus 15°C (57 F) during pre-industrial times (around 1750). Thus, Earth was ~16°C (28.8 F) warmer at 30 to 40 (million years ago)."

As well, the past temperatures indicate the atmosphere may be twice as sensitive over time to increases in carbon dioxide than current climate models, which don't add in long-term effects of continental ice cover changes and growing seasons shifts in the carbon dioxide, suggest:

"Recent modeling studies on the lifetime of atmospheric CO2 indicate that if the CO2 concentration reaches ~1000 ppmv, then the time for natural processes to return it to around 300 ppmv is many tens of thousands of years. Thus, if atmospheric CO2 reaches 1000 ppmv, then human civilization will face another world, one that the human species has never experienced in its history (~2 million years). Also, given this long lifetime for elevated CO2, slower feedback processes will have time to enter into Earth's future climate change. This magnitude and rate of climate change will be even more challenging for the biosphere to adapt to, including the human species."

EDIT

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/01/ancient-climate-hints-at-hotter-times-ahead/1?csp=34

[kestrel91316]

1. Game, set, match. Don't buy a big bag of people food. We are soon to be toast, IOW.

[TheMadMonk]

2. Highly doubtful. Life in general IS extremely resilient. We have ingenuity as well.

Life as we know it. Cities, supermarkets, internet porn. All that we can potentially lose. But our existence as a viable species is fairly well assured.

[joshcryer]

6. Yes, we'll survive as a species, but it's going to suck a bit.

Thankfully I live in a first world country with a massive imperialist military.

[kestrel91316]

8. The world of the future is going to very quickly turn into a place where

no one alive today would want to live, or know how to.

[wtmusic]

13. Those hundreds of millions of pesky brown people who live in low-lying

areas, or are dependent on a hand-to-mouth agrarian subsistence, might starve (come to think of it, they already are). But *our* existence as a viable supermarket species is fairly well-assured. :thumbsup:

[TheMadMonk]

3. Question: just how hard do we have to work to achieve 1000 ppm?

At first blush it seems that we would have to operate entirely "business as usual" to get there that quickly.

However, that said, it matters not at all what the rate of increase is, what matters now is that there is a rate of increase at all.

Stabilisation has to be our first priority.

[hatrack]

4. Well, we'll go over 390 next month, and will likely break 400 this year . . .

Given methane and carbon reserves frozen (for now) into the Arctic land and seafloors, I wouldn't be surprised if we hit it.

On edit - 400 as a single-month point event, not an annual average. That'll take at least a few years yet.

[joshcryer]

5. Not very hard at all, we're between A1B and A1F1 IPCC AR4 emission scenarios already.

It's likely that we won't have another serious climate conference until around 2020 (assuming we can really extrapolate between Kyoto Protocol to COP15, etc, I know that's a stretch). The more coal that gets built out the less likely countries are going to tear those coal plants down at enormous expenses.

[watrwefitinfor]

7. kicking

[guardian]

9. Time to stoke the flames of fear

Polls show fewer and fewer people are buying into AGW. So of course it is time to try to frighten people into funding more research grants.

The 'prediction' of ~1000 ppmv is nothing new. IPCC4 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/pdf/spm.pdf predicted CO2 in the year 2100 "from 540 to 970 ppm" and "Further uncertainties...cause a variation of about −10 to +30% in the year 2100 concentration...Therefore, the total range is 490 to 1,250 ppm..."

But IPCC4 only predicted warming increases in the range of "1.4 to 5.8°C". That's not enough for the doomers or to prime the grant money pump. So this guy sits down and watches another episode of "Earth without People" and picks a number from his butt...strike that...develops a computer model...yeah yeah that's the ticket...to show DOOM DOOM DOOM! Now he'll be able to afford the 10 person hot tub for his redwood deck and run it at 107F all day long.

Of course I guess this guy could be saying the work in IPCC4 is so bogus, and so wrong, and so unreliable, and was developed without sound science, and that his numbers are the 'right' numbers.

These guys can't predict the temperature next Tuesday, much less in the year 2100. The only warming I see is when I kick up the thermostat in the house.

[Odin2005]

10. equating weather and climate FAIL.

[wtmusic]

14. Polls show more and more people are buying into fossil-fuel propaganda

Are you one?

The research grants for AGW research are a miniscule drop in the bucket compared to what the fossil-fuel industry stands to lose from CO2 cap-and-trade or fee-and-dividend.

You can either select the farfetched reason for a phenomenon, or the one which is obvious. I'll choose the latter.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tinrobot]

16. Actually, they can predict the temperature next Tuesday...

But that's weather. We're talking about climate.

That's not enough for the doomers or to prime the grant money pump.

I hope you realize that grant money is chicken feed compared to the trillions made by oil companies and others with a vested interest in denying climate change. Heck, those vested interests have private jets and more than enough extra money to pay people to troll boards like this with bogus information.

[guardian]

22. So how do I sign up?

>>>Heck, those vested interests have private jets and more than enough extra money to pay people to troll boards like this with bogus information.

Where do you go to sign up for pay to "troll boards like this with bogus information"? Silly me. I've been doing it for free and all I have to do is sign up with some vested interest. Which one pays the most?

[joshcryer]

17. Um, he did not say that we'd have +15C in 90 years.

Reading comprehension fail once again by you. IPCC predicts out to 2100 and sometimes 2300 for longer projections, but generally doesn't cover what this guy is saying.

He's pointing out that CO2 doesn't quickly get absorbed from the atmosphere and that prolonged exposure to high ppms of CO2 is very well correlated to very high temperatures planetary-wide.

IPCC highest emission scenario in fact does not show the CO2 emissions petering off for millennia, as per your own link.

[txlibdem]

18. Thanks Josh, that's what I thought as well

Caveat: I have to admit that I don't keep current on the projections of the various organizations who track Global Climate Change-related temperature change. But I only remember hearing a figure closer to 6 degrees of increase by 2100.

Now, that being said, 6 degrees would still be too much change for our current ways to continue. Crops that now grow in Kansas would need to be grown in Wisconsin or even South Dakota.

Personally, I don't need to hear a doomsday scenario to know we have to make drastic changes, and I mean *now* not 20 years from now.

[guardian]

23. "But I only remember hearing a figure closer to 6 degrees"

ummmm maybe your remember 'hearing' it in my post #9 when I posted "But IPCC4 only predicted warming increases in the range of '1.4 to 5.8°C'" Though, I see you latched onto the upper limit. Of course, no self-respecting doomer would "remember hearing" the lower limit number of 1.4 degrees.

[txlibdem]

24. I'm a doomer now? Huh?

If I was to ask you to quit smoking now so you don't get cancer in 30 years, would you call me a name then too?

[NickB79]

28. 1.4-5.8C of warming predicted by 2100, with temperatures rising from then on for centuries to come

Once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, it will retain heat in the atmosphere until it is ultimately re-sequestered over millenia, if not longer. The IPCC estimates are not the final global temperatures; they are only the temps predicted to the end of this century. By 2200 or 2300, the temperatures would be even higher as CO2 forcing and positive feedback loops keep kicking in.

[joshcryer]

30. 6 degrees is a rather popular book and it just rounds up on IPCC projections.

Makes for easy reading, 1 degree, 2 degree, etc.

[guardian]

31. Then why not round

1.4°C to 1 degree and use that for a talking point instead of the high end of the projection?

My point is that most AGW proponents intentionally focus on the worst case projections rather than the median. I assert they do it to intentionally overstate the case and try to bully/frighten people. Then you have the the doomers that wish for the destruction of humankind and exaggerate well beyond even the upper limits of climate study results.

[joshcryer]

32. I was just explaining where the 6 degree number comes from, it's a book.

[joshcryer]

33. Each chapter covers a degree and the environmental effects a degree has:

http://www.amazon.com/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/142620213X

It's not terribly controversial. The book makes no claims that the planet is heading in that direction and no one who is credible claims 5.8 degrees is a certainty.

It's within the margin of error but by no means what's going to happen.

Likewise 1.4 degrees is by no means what's going to happen. It's also within the margin of error.

The likely outcome is something in the middle if on the high end of the middle since the feedbacks are clearly larger than expected.

I'd say 3.5 degrees, maybe 4 if we get significant clathrate feedbacks.

This is *not* exaggerating the numbers, though, AR4 is outdated, and I'm still chosing the middle of the projections.

[guardian]

34. I agree that

discussing 3.5 to 4 degrees is not exaggerating numbers (at least when referencing AR4 or apparently this book). Though throwing around numbers of 29F like in the OP subject title is about an order of magnitude over the over the 3.5 degrees you discuss. It is this sort of ubiquitous exaggeration and fear mongering against which I rail.

This gross exaggeration is often compounded by a tendency of many to cite every natural event, no matter how undistinguished, as 'proof' of AGW.

[joshcryer]

42. Neither the OP or the IPCC or anyone says 29F in 90 years. That's your misreading stuff.

[guardian]

19. Stop criticizing the OP

It's rude to say that his "reading comprehension" skills are inadequate. It is also rude to point out that the OP exaggerated/mislead readers with the phrase "Up To 29F Higher Temperatures" in the OP subject line.

[joshcryer]

20. 1000ppm by 2100 AD does not equate 29F higher temperatures by 2100AD.

The OP didn't say that.

You did.

[guardian]

21. So how do YOU interpret

the OP's subject line: "Oops - NCAR - World Heading For 1,000 PPM CO2 By 2100 AD - Up To 29F Higher Temperatures" ???


>>>"The OP didn't say that"
what part of "World Heading For 1,000 PPM CO2 By 2100 AD - Up To 29F Higher Temperatures" did the OP NOT say??

[NickB79]

27. 1000 ppm by 2100 would cause an ultimate temp rise of 29F over the following centuries

There is a lag time between CO2 and temperatures. Do you expect your house to instantly heat from 60F to 80F the second you crank up the thermostat?

[joshcryer]

29. World heading for 1,000 PPM CO2 by 2100 AD. Up to 29F higher temperatures.

How else am I to read it?

[guardian]

35. You tell me

In your post #20 you said

"1000ppm by 2100 AD does not equate 29F higher temperatures by 2100AD.
The OP didn't say that.
You did."

So in post #20 you say the OP did NOT say 29F higher temperatures, in your post #29 you say the OP does say 29F higher temperatures? So which of the diametrically opposed statements do you stand behind?

A modicum of consistency would tend to bolster your arguments.

[NickB79]

36. The OP doesn't say 29F by 2100.

The OP says 1,000 ppm CO2 by 2100. There was no date given for when that would ultimately create global temperatures 29F warmer than today. The logical assumption then would be that global temperatures would continue to rise over the following centuries if no form of carbon sequestration is implemented.

[guardian]

37. Wow that must have hurt.

It is hilarious to watch the doomers contort themselves into a linguistic pretzels to deny the obvious when called on it.

[NickB79]

38. Is it hard for you to comprehend that temperatures do not rise immediately as CO2 increases?

Does your house warm instantly when you turn up the thermostat?

[guardian]

39. Is it hard for you to comprehend that

I'm commenting on what the OP said. It was the OP who implied that temperatures would be +29F by 2100.

[joshcryer]

43. It can be read that way, but the OP is just not the title of the text, it's the content...

Neither the content or the title explicitly say what you are claiming, and if anyone in their right mind read the content they would've seen that the delineation with the dash was to refer to a longer term trend.

[guardian]

44. whatever n/t

[NickB79]

45. Where does the OP state that global temperatures will rise 29F by 2100?

Provide a quote then, and good luck finding it. The OP specifically states 1000 ppm CO2 by 2100, but does not give a year that global temperatures will reach 29F.

You appear to be the only one with a problem comprehending that in this thread.

[joshcryer]

41. "by 2100AD" Can you not read?

[jpak]

25. Time to stroke teh **** of fail

:rofl:

[Gregorian]

11. Oil consumption is a thing of the past.

Considering how many barrels of oil it takes to get ten barrels of oil out of the ground, it's just not feasible any longer. And that spells disaster in itself.

It was a party. And judging from the barrage of outrageous automobiles to be released in the last 10 years, people still think the party is happening.

Our economies are completely reliant on oil. And the bottom line of that is that many of these large debts also rely upon economic growth, which is reliant upon oil. Which means debts will not be repaid.

And to think I saw a reply to a post that mentioned how the planet could sustain at least 40 billion humans. Haha.

Somewhere in these numbers is the truth. But it hardly takes a scientist to see the forest for the trees. Peak human is what it should be called.

[DCKit]

12. It's bad enough now, but imagine the scope and scale of the storms we're going to have.

This past summer a small tornado came down on my patch of corn and totaled it - just five days before it would have been ready to pick. It looked like a crop circle.

We're going to have to change the way we live.

[stuntcat]

40. part of my state will be lost :(

the Outer Banks in NC, the beach is already disappearing.

[arachadillo]

26. Climate Science and Politics

Carbon dioxide emissions appear headed towards levels that spawned 29-degree increases over today's global temperatures more than 30 million years ago, reports a new analysis. In the current Science, Jeffrey Kiehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., reports on results from ocean core and other measures of past ancient temperatures. Current atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide stand at 390 part-per-million, a number that burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels, looks set to raise to 1,000 ppm by the end of the century.

"When was the last time the atmosphere contained ~1000 ppmv of CO2? Recent reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 concentrations through history indicate that it has been ~30 to 100 million years since this concentration existed in the atmosphere (the range in time is due to uncertainty in proxy values of CO2). The data also reveal that the reduction of CO2 from this high level to the lower levels of the recent past took tens of millions of years. Through the burning of fossil fuels, the atmosphere will return to this concentration in a matter of a century. Thus, the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 is unprecedented in Earth's history."

"Given methane and carbon reserves frozen (for now) into the Arctic land and seafloors, I wouldn't be surprised if we hit it.
On edit - 400 as a single-month point event, not an annual average. That'll take at least a few years yet."

The 'prediction' of ~1000 ppmv is nothing new. IPCC4 http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/pdf/spm.pdf predicted CO2 in the year 2100 "from 540 to 970 ppm" and "Further uncertainties...cause a variation of about −10 to +30% in the year 2100 concentration...Therefore, the total range is 490 to 1,250 ppm..."

Sometimes long term range projections can be difficult to nail down.

Given the scientific fact that current models do not take into account arctic methane emissions (as has already been noted) and the political fact that China is only 1/3 developed, Russia has the ability to move from a $2T to 12T fossil fued economy, and India has only stared on its economic development path, it's difficult to come up with a workable climate stabilization policy, rather than the climate mitigation policies offered by many. see the numbers on the climate atlas
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/interactive/2008/dec/09/climatechange-carbonemissions

That does not even take into account the oil and gas industries indifference to the entire issue of either climate stabilization or climate mitigation, and their forty year efforts to discredit the science.