‘Climate Change’ Could Last 10,000 Years Or Something

The latest dire prognostication from the Cult of Climastrology

Climate change likely to extend for next 10,000 years

The damaging climate consequences of carbon emissions will grow and persist for millennia without a dramatic new global energy strategy, a new study has warned.

Rising global temperatures, ice field and glacial melting and rising sea levels are among the climatic changes that could ultimately lead to the submergence of coastal areas that are home to 1.3 billion people today, researchers said.

“What our analysis shows is that this era of global warming will be as big as the end of the Ice Age. And what we are seeing is a massive departure from the environmental stability civilisation has enjoyed during the last 10,000 years of its development,” said Jeremy Shakun from Boston College in US.

Of course, in reality, the last 10k years have seen a back and forth between warm and cool periods. Say, what caused the end of the last glacial age? Oh, right, Warmists say that was natural last time, but the current warm period must be mostly/solely mankind’s fault. Yet, the disciples of Al Gore refuse to act like it’s a crisis in their own lives.

The study claims it will cause 25 meters of sea rise. That’s 82 feet. Which is also quite less than occurred as the last ice age ended. Naturally. Doesn’t quite give a time frame. And tiny if you look at a 10k time frame.

Anyhow, you’re probably thinking “is this based on models?”

For the study, an international team of researchers generated new scenarios for temperature rise, glacial melting, sea-level rise and coastal flooding based on state-of-the-art climate and ice sheet models.

Of course it is. Funny how all their models predict doom based on what they input, eh? But, yeah, they’re predicting that this warm period will last 10,000 years.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “‘Climate Change’ Could Last 10,000 Years Or Something”

  1. Jeffery says:

    William: But we are not in an ice age right now; we are in the warmest warm period of the Holocene and still warming rapidly. That’s why all the ice will eventually melt raising the sea level. Of course they will have many centuries to adjust, so party on!

    We are making decisions today that will impact the Earth for thousands of years! Sucks to be the humans WE leave this Earth to, doesn’t it?

    Is this based on models? Of course. How else do you imagine you estimate the impact of converting all the fossil fuels to carbon dioxide, estimating how much is absorbed by the Earth and oceans, the impact on heat retention, add in the known solar cycles, and add in the predicted cyclic behavior of the Earth’s orbit. Even if you did that with a pencil and Big Chief tablet it would still be one of your hated “models”.

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Pure conjecture again, little guy, with no direct scientific proof…

  3. Jeffery says:


    Is that what you consider discussing science, LOL?

    Last chance little feller, and your big brother, the lying guttercleaner, can’t bail you out.

    What “direct scientific proof” would you find convincing (and don’t just repost the vapid van Biezen quote you pinched). He didn’t explain either.

    You don’t need a lot of detail, just in general would be good enough. How about an iPhone video of a single infrared ray leaving the Earth and being absorbed by a single CO2 molecule? That would be so cool. So direct. What if you had an iPhone video of 10 CO2 molecules absorbing 10 rays and all the other rays going out to space? And then add 4 more CO2 molecules (~ 40% increase) and show them blocking 4 more rays from going into space. Would that be persuasive? Or do you have something else in mind?

    Oh, never mind, you’re not capable of understanding anyway.

    Just in case, here are 4 statements of fact that we should all be able to agree on:

    CO2 absorbs infrared radiation (heat). Agreed?

    CO2 has increased some 40% in the past century. Agreed?

    The CO2 increase is from burning fossil fuels. Agreed?

    The mean global surface temperature has increased about 1C in the past century. Agreed?

  4. Jeffery says:


    What’s your direct scientific proof that the Earth is more than 6000 years old?

  5. Dana says:

    That’s the great thing about making a forecast for 10,000 years; if you’re wrong, you’ll never know it!

    So far, the National Weather Service has gotten the forecast for today wrong. We were supposed to get an inch of snow, then it was revised to one to two inches of global warming snow, but all we’ve actually gotten are flurries. But we are supposed to have confidence in what the scientists project will happen in 100 years, and now 10,000 years.

  6. drowningpuppies says:

    Once again the little guy thinks his provocative histrionics will lead to some civil discussion.

    Sorry, little guy, but you’re insistent alarmist talking points are not based in fact but warmist conjecture.

    There is no direct scientific proof or data that links mankind to current observations.

    CO2 has not been proven to be a driver of climate warming. The proof is not there.

    If one has to adjust historic temperature data over and over again (NOAA has done it over 50 times since 2008) to match a theory, then the theory is shit and those who still promote it are frauds.

  7. John says:

    Well what caused the end of that ice age? The article in Scientific American says it was the increase in CO2
    When that increased from 180 to 260 ppm the temps, naturally, went up
    What do you Teach think caused the end of the ice age?
    Drowning puppies
    Science constantly tweaks data if you are unaware of that you must have been in the boy’s room smoking a doobie when that was covered in middle school

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    You got it backwards, retard.
    CO2 followed the rise in temps.
    You can look it up.

    BTW, how’re things at the nervous hospital?
    Are they treating you well?

  9. Jeffery says:

    So no, the sad little puppysucker does not know what he’s demanding, but he wants to keep arguing because he’s lonely.

    And now another moving of the goalposts!

    If one has to adjust historic temperature data over and over again (NOAA has done it over 50 times since 2008) to match a theory, then the theory is shit and those who still promote it are frauds.

    You are wrong, of course. Tell us more about what you know about temperature adjustments?

    If you want to examine a graph showing the NOAA adjustments compared to raw data over the past 135 years look at this figure:


    The most significant adjustments were to make the past WARMER!! Since WWII data adjustments have been minimal.

    No need to respond, I can do it for you. NOAA is lying! Skeptical Science is lying! Hausfather is lying! Berkeley Earth is lying!

    You’re a science Denier with nothing to add.

  10. Jeffery says:


    So yes, TV weathergirls like Toni Watts often miss their forecasts.

    Yet, Jim Hansen predicted the mean global surface temperature would be higher this decade than in 1981 and he was spot on!

    How is that possible? Because they are two completely different processes!

  11. drowningpuppies says:

    Lots of ‘scientific proof’ over there at SkS.

    Thanks for proving my point, little guy, you never disappoint.

  12. Jeffery says:

    You’re a science Denier with nothing to add…

  13. jl says:

    J- “Hansen predicted the mean global surface temperature would be higher this decade than in 1981 and he was spot on!” Wow- doesn’t take much to impress J, as it would either be higher, lower, or the same. How in the world did he do it, J? He also said part of NYC would be under water by now, and he was spot…Off! “Climate change could last 10,000 years!” Actually, it’ll last till the earth is here no more. What fools. “Rising global temperatures….”could” ultimately lead to submerged coastal areas..” So in other words, it could, or..it could not. How very scientific. Again, what fools.

  14. Jeffery says:

    He also said part of NYC would be under water by now, and he was spot…Off!

    Your statement is blatantly false as was pointed out the other day.

    That’s a diagnostic trait of religious ideologues.

  15. Jl says:

    “Your statement was false…” In 1988 Hansen told Washington Post journalist Bob Reiss that “the Westside Highway in Manhatten would be under water in 20-30 years (2008-2018).” He also said that “signs in NY restaurants would say water by request only.” Salon.com/2001/10/23/weather. In 2006 the idiot also predicted that sea level by the end of the century would be 75 feet higher, which was nearly 50 times higher than the IPCC’s highest forecast. That’s the diagnostic trait of an imbecile.

Pirate's Cove