Introduction: Forecast for Earth if we continue as global warming skeptics propose

In this series, we explore exactly what we can expect just 40 years from now in terms of weather, climate, and related effects on our lives. We assume that we ignore the warnings from experts and simply continue "business as usual"-- as the climate skeptics propose. As discussed below, we can't depend on the rosy predictions of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).* So, we work the forecast out ourselves, in a straightforward manner.

The results are the Forecast for Earth in 2050:

The carbon dioxide level in our atmosphere will be twice the pre-industrial level.

The global temperature will be as high as three degrees Centigrade (5 degrees F) warmer than its baseline level last century.

The rapid rise in temperature will cause instabilities in the world's weather system which result in increases of extreme weather of all kinds -- record storms, rains, snows, droughts and flooding.

Agriculture around the world will suffer. Limited resources and starving populations will lead to increases in conflicts and wars.

There will be about a meter rise in sea level.

The one meter rise, combined with extreme storm surges, will cause massive damage to coastal areas around the world.

The temperature rise will bring the Earth close to several major "tipping points" -- where a rise in global temperature is amplified by a major transition.

The first tipping point transition, already starting, involves melting of the Arctic permafrost --causing the potent greenhouse gas methane to be released in massive quantities.

These results are summarized in our Final Forecast for our Earth in 2050.

Why did we have to work the forecast out ourselves? Because the IPCC is not telling us the whole truth.
At a recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (San Diego, 2010), several prominent scientists complained about serious problems in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The problem with IPCC global warming forecasts, they said, is that politicians in most home countries are conservative and are putting pressure on their members.

Worse, organizations and individuals covertly supported by special interests have been attacking everything that any legitimate scientist says, viciously and persistently, blasting them with outright lies and deliberate misrepresentations.**

In defense, the IPCC published reports have been prepared very cautiously, understating what scientists really believe to be the facts. The situation is actually worse than their reports would have us believe.

How can we find out what the truth really is? Well, we can just take the observed numbers, numbers that are well-established. Then we can make simple, straightforward extrapolations of the trends observed up to now, assuming only that things go on as they have been going.

We do exactly what the climate change skeptics want us to do, assume that everyone continues "business as usual." Then, we see what conditions will be like at mid-century -- using existing numbers and straight extrapolation.

Next post: The carbon dioxide level doubles by 2050.

DETAILS
* Since this was written, Professor Charles Green at Cornell (with other authors) published a peer-reviewed paper that concludes that the IPCC in its 2007 report "underestimates the potential dangerous effects that man-made climate change will have on society;" as reported in Science Daily March 23, 2010. (Italics added.)

** Did you know that some of these front organizations openly offer to pay $10,000 to any scientist who comes aboard their little boat, and lies and distorts facts so that people become "skeptical" of the truth? Well, they do. They'll even publish your paranoid lying little book for you. All you have to do is cross over to the dark side and join the tobacco, coal and oil industry-paid "scientists." It is awfully tempting. To us at least.

The map at top right shows the average temperature increases over the last decade relative to 1951-1980 local means. The map is from NASA. Details were reported in a Science Daily article Jan. 22, 2010.

COMMENTS made by readers, and replies from this site, follow directly after the main text of each post, in order of date posted. If you wish to contribute a comment, click on the comment link at the very bottom of the most appropriate page.

Please, if you want to convince others of your point of view, give whatever background you can for what you say. If you think the Earth is warmer because the sun's output has increased lately, please let us know where you read or heard this idea, and any evidence that was given for it. I myself have no idea at all where people are getting some of the ideas stated, and I would really love to find out more about the ideas and what their sources are.

COMMENTS

March 14, 2010. Anonymous said...
Nonsense..IPCC actually has been proven to overstate just about everything.

March 21, 2010. David Mills replied...
My sources were climate scientists attending the AAAS meeting in San Diego this year. What were yours? The newspapers, perhaps?

Any report collecting and condensing data from many sources is going to be trying to balance all of the inputs, and whatever they say someone will think that they have overstated, someone else will think they understated. The problem with the IPCC reports in particular is that the skeptics (and those in the pay of the special interests) are pouring over them, trying to find every small exaggeration or mistake. When they find a mistake that overstates, they announce it loudly.

When they find something that understates, they say nothing. I mean, who would care about that? Do you ever imagine a skeptic calling into a newspaper with the news that the IPCC has underestimated the amount of global warming somewhere? And the newspaper printing it on the front page?

So, all you ever hear about are the exaggerations or overstatements. To find the real story you have to talk with the scientists who are responsible for the input to the reports, to see what they think of the final reports when they come out of committee. And they think the committees are biasing their reports conservatively to avoid controversy. (Not that this works, obviously.)

Added later: Also see the recent peer-reviewed paper by Prof. Green, et al., referenced in Details above. We'll bet it wasn't carried on the front page of your newspaper, or maybe even anywhere in your newspaper.