Remember me
▼ Content

The 100 Year Weather Forecast

The 100 Year Weather Forecast29-09-2015 13:08
KeiranKProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
Not predicting 100 years of weather, but predicting the weather in 100 years time.

Researchers have gathered data from the years dating 1980 to 1999. They have then used this information to simulate weather patterns for 2080 to 2099.

With the rise in greenhouse gases, I really dread to think.

You can read more here -
30-09-2015 00:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
KeiranK wrote: Not predicting 100 years of weather, but predicting the weather in 100 years time.

Researchers have gathered data from the years dating 1980 to 1999. They have then used this information to simulate weather patterns for 2080 to 2099.

I don't need any data. In that time frame I predict:

1) rain
2) low humidity
3) sunshine
4) heavy clouds
5) light winds
6) unusually cold temperatures
7) light clouds
8) heavy winds
9) heat waves
10) fog
11) occasional hurricanes
12) high humidity
13) occasional flooded areas
14) some natural disasters
15) gentle breezes
15) normal temperatures

KeiranK wrote: With the rise in greenhouse gases, I really dread to think.

With the rise in "greenhouse gases" (whatever that means) I'm sure it can only make my predictions above more certain.

I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-09-2015 13:28
KeiranKProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
I wonder - will winters be cold with debilitating snow, and freezing temperatures ....

Will summers experience soaring temperatures ??
RE: no atmosphere - no weather30-09-2015 22:42
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
I seriously doubt there will be any weather on this planet in 100 years, as there will likely no longer be any atmosphere.
Attached file:
01-10-2015 00:06
climate scientist
Hi trafn

I do not think that climate change is going to cause the end of the world, or the end of the atmosphere, and certainly not in 100 years time.

People are correct when they say that Earth has been several degrees warmer in the past than it is today. This is completely true, and the Earth survived just fine. The thing is that humans were not around back then. And depending how far back you go, Earth was a very different place, e.g. completely different continents, completely different ocean circulation.

Climate change today is going to have lots of future impacts on humans, as well as many animal and plant species, because it is happening so fast, and we will probably struggle to adapt in time. It is the speed of climate change happening today that makes it unprecedented in Earth's history, not the actual temperature of the planet. Of course there will be some species that benefit from a warmer climate, and possibly also some countries will come out as 'winners', such as Russia, for example.
01-10-2015 01:00
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
Hi Climate Scientist,

My best guesstimate is we are in the late part of the early stages of an exponential process in which we'll see a rapid rate of increase in green house gases trapping solar energy during the next two to three decades which will lead to the following:

1. Melting of all planetary solid water (ice) to liquid, followed by...

2. Evaporation of all planetary surface waters (oceans, etc.), followed by...

3. Expansion of the atmosphere due to the increased atmospheric water vapor from stage 2, followed by...

4. Atmospheric water vapor reaching altitudes where solar winds can sweep water molecules in mass into outer space, followed by...

5. The evaporation of all water from the planet, ending in...

6. Earth being dry as Venus and Mars (and lifeless).

On the not-so-bright side, no one will be around to witness much past stage 3 as the expansion of the atmosphere will cause the concentration of atmospheric oxygen to drop below levels that will sustain aerobic life. Anaerobics will last longer (through the evaporative stage - #5), but after that, only intermediary life-forms will be left (inert viruses, spores, etc.).
Edited on 01-10-2015 01:06
01-10-2015 11:14
climate scientist
Hi trafn

You might find this article interesting:

It does not appear to be peer reviewed, so I would read it with caution, but the authors are all reputable within the climate science community. It paints a rather bleak picture actually, one that I think is rather extreme at the moment, and does not reflect the current views of the scientific community (I think we are all still quite optimistic that we will be able to reduce emissions somehow).

I agree that your 1st point is quite likely, however, I do not think it will get hot enough for your second point to ever be realised. Most climate projections that I have seen show that even if we burn all the fossil fuel on the planet, the temperature increase will be on the order of about 20 degrees, which is still a long way from causing all the oceans to evaporate. In fact, the planet has seen such temperatures in the past, and there were still oceans in existence back then.

The Hansen et al article seems to think that a 20 degree temp increase would be too much for humans to cope with. I'm not an expert on human physiology, so I have no idea if what they are saying is reasonable or not. I suspect that we will never actually burn all the fossil fuel, as things will get to a point where it is not economically viable to do so, but I'm not an economist, so I could be wrong about this.
01-10-2015 17:59
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
Hi Climate Scientist,

Dr. Hansen's work is generally at the cutting edge and ahead of it's time compared to most in the climate change science community. However, even he does not yet seem to appreciate the exponential effect we are starting and how it will dramatically accelerate climate change in the decades to come. Today, most projections from within the scientific community are done on an "if things progress at their current rate" basis (linear acceleration) but, again, I believe we're in an exponentially accelerating process.

I have begun writing the second edition of a book I wrote last year titled "Bursting the Atmosphere: what happens when rain falls up" which I summarized in my prior post to you. I also attached a free PDF copy of it a few posts up in this thread. In the second addition, I plan on explaining how today's climate change process (as compared to previous historical ones) will involve three successive yet overlapping greenhouse gas "bubbles":

1. The CO2 bubble, mostly from man's consumption of petrochemicals.
2. The Methane-Nitrous bubble, mostly from petrochemicals, livestock and permafrost.
3. The H2O bubble, mostly from evaporative process which will begin in mass after the majority of land ice/snow has melted.

We are currently well into the CO2 bubble which is the main driving force for climate change right now, and it places us at the low end (predominantly horizontal plot) of this exponential process. Simultaneously, we're now also at the beginning of the Methane-Nitrous bubble which will overtake CO2 as the main driving force once the permafrost has released most of it's methane, advancing us to the apex of this exponential process. When the H2O bubble finally kicks in (pending for now), it will become the main driving force, pushing us into the highly accelerated end (vertical plot) of climate change.

Four things distinguish the above sequence from other historical climate changes:

1. TIME-FRAME: Prior major climate changes which caused significant alteration to the biosphere were driven by naturally occurring planetary processes of their time periods and occurred over thousands, or even millions of years. Today's episode began in the mid 1800's with the beginning of the industrial revolution and, if I'm correct, could end all life on this planet before the end of this century (an approximate 150 year time frame).

2. CAUSE: Unlike the past, today's climate change episode is predominantly driven by man-made factors (i.e. - petrochemical use, livestock production, etc.).

3. WATER CYCLE: Historically, prior climate change processes were cyclical (hot to cold to hot to cold, etc.) so that they allowed for a continuum of the water cycle on Earth. Today's process is linear and will not only destroy the planet's water cycle, it will also eject most if not all of Earth's water into outer space.

4. LIFE: Previous climate change events were buffered to the point that they allowed for a continuum of life on this planet. Though today's episode was the result of (i.e. - started by) our behavior, it not only became irreversible in 1901*, at some point - likely when the Methane-Nitrous bubble kicks in - it will become self-perpetuating and out of our control/influence entirely.

Please share your thoughts/impressions/ideas.

* - for a discussion of the 1901 tipping point, see my post at:
14-06-2018 13:03
Anyway, It's a serious matter over the climate change.
16-04-2019 15:02
KeiranK wrote:
Not predicting 100 years of weather, but predicting the weather in 100 years time.

Researchers have gathered data from the years dating 1980 to 1999. They have then used this information to simulate weather patterns for 2080 to 2099.

With the rise in greenhouse gases, I really dread to think.

You can read more here -

Hang on a bit, KK... So researchers have gathered data from 1980 to 1999 (wow that's a whole 19 years - blimey) and have simulated weather patterns for 2080 to 2099... oh, and with the rise of greenhouse gases also?!?
And you are happy with this, are you? So you are organising your life and way of thinking around this are you?
19 years of data (well let's for arguments sake these 'researchers' know what data is and how to correlate it) compared to 4.6 billion years of data... and you would be happy to go along with this prediction? Do these 'data researchers' have a donations button on their website/s?!?
OK, so I dropped out of the last six months of my science degree (molecular biology and bio chemistry) I will agree, but this looks comical to me, given the weeny amount of time used to take these... measurements data?!? No-one can tell us what the weather is going to be like tomorrow - or even this afternoon, correctly, and will admit so. So how can this 'scientific' and 'researched' work be credible?!? Was it meant as an April Fools trick?
There's no global warming fears - just global weather - honestly.
Just mind that 6-mile wide asteroid or comet don't strike before Armageddon!

Join the debate The 100 Year Weather Forecast:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
weather4715-01-2022 07:24
Example of Florida weather723-12-2021 22:55
A year later1608-03-2021 04:04
weather2417-02-2021 16:44
I Totally Missed This - Time Person of the Year625-12-2020 06:10
Appendix B - Calculating The Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?








Don't know

Thanks for supporting
Copyright © 2009-2020 | About | Contact