Global Warming Irreversible For Thousands Of Years

January 26, 2009

new scientific study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reaches a powerful conclusion about the climate change caused by future increases of carbon dioxide: to a large extent, there’s no going back.

The pioneering study, led by NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon, shows how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped. The findings appear during the week of January 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Our study convinced us that current choices regarding carbon dioxide emissions will have legacies that will irreversibly change the planet,” said Solomon, who is based at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratoryin Boulder, Colo.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Global Warming Irreversible For Thousands Of Years

  1. tarpon says:

    And then the ice comes …

    So now we can stop the ice ages with some gas?

  2. Mike Davis says:

    Why do they insist on making promises they know they can not keep.
    Promising us a warmer world with more living spac and higher biological activity when it is obvious that we are returning to a maximum Glaciation with a slow cooling.
    When I saw the name Susan Solomon, The Queen of fabrication, I understood! This is the person that has been given credit with creating the Ozone Hole where no hole exists! There is a major difference between lower concentration and hole which would result with no Ozone remaining in the area.

  3. Lance says:

    Wahoo! Now we can do nothing, since we’re all doomed!

  4. MikeTheDenier says:

    Stockholm is forecast to experience its coldest seasonal temperatures for over 100 years this week as winter weather takes hold of the country, according to the Swedish Meteorological Institute (SMHI).

  5. TimC says:

    Just another set of 1ky model runs. Haven’t they worked out yet that errors compound, the longer the run?

  6. peterhodges says:

    someone show them one of the ice core records, where temps and co2 fall off dramatically from a peak.

    hopefully that’s not where we are now.

    but i do like to ski.

  7. Espen says:

    I could need some of that warming right now, thanks, we’re experiencing extreme january weather on the last day of autumn. But stopping the next ice age sounds even better!

    • Mike Davis says:

      I still go by Calendar seasons which would put the start of winter at the Winter Solstice at 23:48 UTC / GMT December 21 this year. Meteorologists and climatologists have to have their own definitions of reality.
      There are web sites claiming Winter began as early as the middle of October this year in some regions and one month early in others. But Calendar winter starts at the Winter Solstice.

      • Espen says:

        A winter that starts at Winter Solstice doesn’t make sense in Norway – even southern parts have normal temperatures that dip below zero in mid-November. Winter from October 15th to April 15th would be a good definition 🙂

      • Mike Davis says:

        In normal countries we experience seasons that are 3 months each! 😉

  8. Michael D Smith says:

    For a moment I thought this was something new…

    Nope. “In his belly, you will find a new definition of pain and suffering as you are slowly digested over a thousand years” Return of the Jedi, 1983.

  9. Alcheson says:

    Uh gee… guess Susan forgot that the warmists were already claiming we slowed the warming rate due to aerosol use according to their models. SOOoo…. should be easy to reverse the “irreversible” heating by increasing aerosol use. Really makes no diff thou, AGW doesnt exist to any signifcant extent based on analysis of real world data.

  10. Lazarus says:

    Guys, (science deniers), this was published by the National Academy of Sciences. I notice that not one dismissive comment has actually stated any significant problem with the research or it’s methodology.

    The paper is open access for all to read;

    Criticising alarmists, which I agree with, is one thing but to dismiss sound research because it doesn’t fit your belief system is another.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s