[dohboi]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... cientists/

What the Earth will be like in 10,000 years, according to scientists

A large group of climate scientists has made a bracing statement in the journal Nature Climate Change, arguing that we are mistaken if we think global warming is only a matter of the next 100 years or so — in fact, they say, we are locking in changes that will play out over as many as 10,000 years.

“The next few decades offer a brief window of opportunity to minimize large-scale and potentially catastrophic climate change that will extend longer than the entire history of human civilization thus far,” write the 22 climate researchers, led by Peter Clark, from Oregon State University...

“It’s a statement of worry,” said Raymond Pierrehumbert, a geoscientist at Oxford University and one of the study’s authors. “And actually, most of us who have worked both on paleoclimate and the future have been terrified by the idea of doubling or quadrupling CO2 right from the get-go.”

...In 10,000 years, if we totally let it rip, the planet could ultimately be an astonishing 7 degrees Celsius warmer on average and feature seas 52 meters (170 feet) higher than they are now. There would be almost no mountain glaciers left in temperate latitudes, Greenland would give up all of its ice and Antarctica would give up almost 45 meters worth of sea level rise.

I think this actually understates the issue quite a bit. We could well be 7 degrees (or more) warmer on average within about 100 years, according to many scientists and organizations.

[Plantagenet]

No doubt we are changing global climate for the next 10,000 years. You can debate how large that change will be, but there is no way back from the path we are on.

Once the planet gets warm enough to start releasing carbon from permafrost and other natural sinks, then runaway global warming will take over. That should happen in the next few decades.

Cheers!

[dohboi]

Nice point, P.

And here's a hint of the kinds of storms we will be seeing in the coming years and decades, much worse in the centuries and millennia beyond that (though aren't there just some physical constraints on how strong storms can get?):

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMa ... ss-our-bow

Hurricane Patricia's 215 mph Winds: A Warning Shot Across Our Bow

[ROCKMAN]

Temperatures rising 7 degrees or 37 degrees isn't going to damage the planet. Lower the temp 7 degrees or 37 degrees won't hurt it either. The earth has undergone much greater climate changes in the past and it's still here.

The effect of mankind? That's a different matter. So where will mankind be in 10,000 years? Who knows but I would think the odds are pretty good on it being extinct or close to it regardless of the climate changing. Folks can fear the damage done to a number of folks by a rise in sea level. But compare that to the 600,000 Americans killed in the Civil War or the approximate 100 million that died directly/indirectly as a result of WWII.

It isn't difficult to imagine much greater harm coming to mankind from future events not associated with sea level rise or even CC as a whole. In either case I see no achievable approach that could can change the climate or war paths we may be on.

[GHung]

In the year 9595
I'm kinda wonderin' if man is gonna be alive
He's taken everything this old earth can give
And he ain't put back nothing

Now it's been ten thousand years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what, he never knew, now man's reign is through
But through eternal night, the twinkling of starlight
So very far away, maybe it's only yesterday

https://youtu.be/yesyhQkYrQM

[Timo]

In 10,000 years, humanity will have evolved into an entirely different species.

[JV153]

Permafrost carbon

I wonder how they come up with these - a basic calculation at 50 kg a square meter of soil organic content is 500 gigatons C in 10,000,000 square kilometers. That picture shows almost all of Russia as permafrost which isn't accurate at all. There's a lot of organic carbon in peat - often it's wet and isn't much usable as a fuel unless dried - which means it needs to be dug up and dried. It certainly won't end up in the air unless it is dug up and burned.

I'm sure we'll see the 5 degree C rise on land (global is averaged over land and water and the cold Antarctic and Arctic) in 50 years. .. or maybe sooner. Most of the fossil fuels reserves will have been burned by then.

[aspera]

The Next Ten Billion Years.
by John Michael Greer

10/100/1000/10,000/100,000 ... Ten-billion years from now.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-next-ten-billion-years.html

[Cog]

10,000 years from now you doomers will still be predicting imminent doom.

[dohboi]

Thanks for the great contributions, especially GHung's musical one. Here's another to add to the heap:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W9JsskFVSo

Well it's such a strange world that I'm living in
She was my woman and she was my friend
But I was wrong again.
Such a strange changes that you put me through
But like a fool I fell in love with you
What can this poor boy do?

Roll away the stone
Don't leave me here alone
Resurrect me and protect me
Don't leave me laying here

What will they do in two thousand years?

It's such a strange time that we're passing through
I thought you'd tell me when your time was due
I guess you thought I knew
Strange way to keep avoiding me
Why did you lie how could I help but be
Oh won't you help me be?

[Timo]

10,000 years from now you doomers will still be predicting imminent doom.

Well, by that logic, we'll all still be here, and you won't. Ergo, Doomers win!!!

[dohboi]

jv, you know not of what you say. Yes, it might not all go into the atmosphere. But have you paying any attention--much of the permafrost and peat has indeed been drying up and burning, other areas are rapidly deteriorating.

And note that it says over 50 kg/m^2 . If they're using standard measurements, that just refers to the carbon content of the top 30 cm of soil: https://books.google.com/books?id=1hrGa ... er&f=false

Some of that >50kg/m^2 carbon area is about a mile deep. Again, that won't all come out at once, but once it starts to thaw, it probably won't stop till it's all gone.

I'm sure we'll see the 5 degree C rise on land (global is averaged over land and water and the cold Antarctic and Arctic) in 50 years. .. or maybe sooner

Here, I'm afraid you may be right. Even at about one degree we're seeing lots of thaw and wild fires and peat fires. There will will be a lot more of that going forward, and that will push us into feedback/vicious circles that will be self perpetuating for a long, long time. And we haven't even touched the issues of seabed permafrost and methane clathrates.

[JV153]

jv, you know not of what you say. Yes, it might not all go into the atmosphere. But have you paying any attention--much of the permafrost and peat has indeed been drying up and burning, other areas are rapidly deteriorating.

No, actually it has to be quite dry for peat to be usable as a fuel. Finland has plenty of peat reserves, but like I said, it has to be dug up and dried out to be of much use. That's why wood is (still) commonly used. The Russian fires of 2010/2012 were mainly attributed to (but certainly enhanced by the warm spell) careless open fires. Yes, I have been paying attention to this particular issue - most of the fires aren't in Russia, but somewhere else - i.e, Indonesia, Central Africa and Brazil.

http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GFMCnew ... 122_au.htm

[dohboi]

Again, jv, it sounds like you were well learned in these things once upon a time, but science and the climate are changing and marching on, leaving old certainties in the dust:

“Up until about 10 years ago, the prevailing dogma was peatlands just didn’t burn,” Merritt Turetsky, an ecologist at the University of Guelph, said.

“They were way too wet and fire played little to no role in these ecosystems.

Over time, we’ve seen that just isn’t true.”

As [global] warming dries out forests and precipitation patterns change, the water table is dropping in once swampy areas. That makes peat susceptible to burning and when it does catch fire, centuries’ worth of carbon can burn up in the span of a few hours if fires are intense enough.

Peat fires are also notoriously resilient, smoldering for days, weeks or even popping up again after a winter of smoldering beneath the surface. Turetsky said it’s akin to throwing a wet log in a fireplace and that she plans to use satellite data to see if fires that scorched the Northwest Territories last summer managed to smolder through the winter and re-emerge this summer.

This is a story about wildfires in Alaska and Canada.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/clim ... ires-19181

And of course there have been very major peat fires further south, as you say, in Indonesia: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/clim ... ires-19181

Peat soil, which characterises much of the affected areas, is highly flammable, causing localised fires to spread and making them difficult to stop.

If you're saying that it is specifically Finnish peat that could never ever possibly burn in situ, I have to confess that I am not an expert on that particular subject. Perhaps it is radically different than peat in Alaska or Canada or Indonesia or Russia or anywhere else in the world. But I kind of doubt it. Just because (perhaps) it hasn't happened much yet does not mean it never will.

[dohboi]

Aha, I see peat fires do indeed happen in Finland. All you had to do was look at your own uni-freiburg site:

http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GlobalN ... d-2-c.html

Finland

Forest Fire Situation in Finland (including peat fires)

[JV153]

In addition to careless open fires, the Russian peat fires were exacerbated by ditch drainage - so they are now filling in the ditches.

[dohboi]

Good idea!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcqjhUtbups

[ROCKMAN]

pstarr - I confess...all true. LOL. But I've also witnessed firsthand the brutality of man on man when one (or both) sides claim they are "protecting their way of life". Especially when they are sure Dog is on their side. LOL. As many might agree in the last 25 years we've seen many $trillions of the treasuries spent and many hundreds of thousands of lives lost and tens of millions suffer over conflicts centered around resources. And this is the mankind that's going to worry about some coastal residents having to relocate decades down the road???

After all we've seen in the last few decades there are still so many that can't/refuse to see the big picture. Not the first time nativity has led to a slaughter. Makes me wonder who by the end of this century might be tagged with the dubious honor of being a modern day Neville Chamberlain. The young farts here can research him and find out why many in the past blame him almost as much as Hitler for WWII.