A new GRL paper by Matthews and Caldeira suggests that, in order to stabilise the computer modelled future climate, CO2 emissions need to be reduced to near-zero.
The abstract of the paper is below:
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L04705, doi:10.1029/2007GL032388, 2008
Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions
H. Damon Matthews
Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Ken Caldeira
Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, California, USA
Abstract
Current international climate mitigation efforts aim to stabilize levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, human-induced climate warming will continue for many centuries, even after atmospheric CO2 levels are stabilized. In this paper, we assess the CO2 emissions requirements for global temperature stabilization within the next several centuries, using an Earth system model of intermediate complexity. We show first that a single pulse of carbon released into the atmosphere increases globally averaged surface temperature by an amount that remains approximately constant for several centuries, even in the absence of additional emissions. We then show that to hold climate constant at a given global temperature requires near-zero future carbon emissions. Our results suggest that future anthropogenic emissions would need to be eliminated in order to stabilize global-mean temperatures. As a consequence, any future anthropogenic emissions will commit the climate system to warming that is essentially irreversible on centennial timescales.
So, ’emission impossible’ becomes even more difficult. The only way to achieve near-zero emissions is via air capture of CO2.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I find the abstract unbelievable.
The temperature of the planet has never been stable – in fact for the last million years, it has been glacial for most of the time.
For what it is worth, during the Ordovician Glaciation, the concentration of CO2 is estimated to have been at least ten times the present. If you believe the abstract, this is impossible.
In fact the next ice age is overdue – the real problem is how the human will survive this.
These guys seem to think that if you put any CO2 in the atmosphere it will stay there forever. Even looking at the seasonal swings in the Mauna Loa would tell you that is not true. The only thing that you can say about their model is – garbage in garbage out.
So why don’t they make co2 blankets if it’s such a great insulator?
What drivel
– nope we’re not overdue for an ice change. Science basis for saying we are due for an ice age is ?
The seasonal swings (very small compared to the decadal growth) are the boreal biosphere doing its annual cycle. Wiggles on the line. We know the isotopic fingerprint of what’s in the atmosphere. It’s mainly fossil fuel CO2. And the sinking of those emissions into the ocean have also been measured.
As for James – well if you like really big blankets in full sunlight. (argh!).
“The seasonal swings (very small compared to the decadal growth)”
Not the point. The point is that the slope of CO2 change actually goes up and down depending on the season. This means that part of the year the level of CO2 is droping even though we continue to add man made CO2. And this means that the earth’s own mechanism for removing CO2 remains very strong. So when these guys talk about CO2 levels remaining high for a couple hundred years even if we stopped contributing any CO2, I know that they have their heads up their back side.
The love affair over unverified climate models continues.
Climate is NEVER stable.It is either going up or going down in temperature.
Meanwhile the strong cooling trend continues.A direct contradiction to the CO2 hypothesis.
Well gee Tilo – you’re obviously an intellectual giant. Of course you get some effects from biospheric influences from regions which may or may not be in drought, El Nino, La Nina – what would you expect. Patterns of sinking CO2 into the ocean are fairly well understood. I’m sure you’re up with the literature on that too.
And hey Sunset – you have a regression with a “strongly” negative “trend” over a reasonable time period do you? Let’s see it. Don’t be shy.
“Of course you get some effects from biospheric influences from regions which may or may not be in drought, ”
Again you miss the point. You seem to be very good at that. Mauna Loa shows a seasonal cycle every year where for at least a portion of the year the CO2 level is dropping. Here, take a look at the CO2 line on this chart.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
This should indicate to any fool that the ability of the earth to absorb CO2 is very strong. In other words, the rise that we see depends on constant input of more CO2. If we got to near zero emmissions, as per the header article, the CO2 level would drop rapidly, and it wouldn’t take a couple of centuries. It’s simply another case of a garbage model producing garbage results based upon garbage assumptions.
What drivel – very strong! – an annual wiggle compared to a clear upward trend. ROTFL.
You’ve done the usual obscurantist job on fluxes versus external input
Most of the land plants are in the northern hemisphere (since most of the land is in the northern hemisphere), and during summer they remove CO2 from the air as they grow, during winter they decay and return it to the air.
Think – boreal biosphere – breath in – breath out !
You haven’t found Jack’s beanstalk and again are not even on the page. zzzzzzzzzzzz
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/latest-trends-in-co2/
Luke, Ender, et al….Why does it mean so much to you? Why do you keep blathering away? And what lazy trolls Jennifer has. “Give me info on that! Get me peer reviewed drecchhh about this! Do this! Find that! And WE reccommend RealClimate, The Open Mind(Hah!) and desmogblog for your edification. Oh, and BTW, don’t post your opinions on Jennifers blog unless you get them peer reviewed first! You see…WE have such, very high standards.”
Yeah, we’re all really impressed, Your Omniscience!
And why do you bother posting bits of ad hom drivel Willy ?
zzzzzzzzzz
Strike three – you’re out. Again you miss the point. Look at that annual variation of 6 parts per million. Look at how fast that absorption rate is in the summer. Without the addition of large quantities of man made CO2, that absorption rate would take over and reduce total CO2 in the atmosphere very quickly – not over 200 years. The breath in, breath out analogy is not quite accurate. Plant decay does not return everything into the atmosphere in winter. Much of the CO2 is absorbed into the oceans. And much of it goes into building the structure of trees, shrubs and bushes. It is only the large dosage of human CO2 that keeps it going up – in fact, that keeps it from dropping very quickly.
Hansen’s mutt also misinterprets the increase in the seasonal amplitude. The amplitude is increased because there is more man made CO2 to push it up in the winter, but there is also an increase in the biomass of the earth – caused partly by CO2 fertilization, that pulls it down in the summer.
Unfortunately, Hansen’s mutt hasn’t helped you at all. The seasonal variation that he also shows should tell you that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is far from static, and that it wouldn’t remain statically in place if CO2 emissions by mankind were cut. Get you head out of the long term upward trend; that is irrelevant to this discussion. The issue is about the ability of the oceans and the biosystem to absorb CO2. It is huge, and therefore the Matthews paper is wrong.
“And why do you bother posting bits of ad hom drivel Willy ?”
Why do you post almost nothing but ad hom drivel, Luke?
Well the answer to that is that anyone with a non de plume like yours probably enjoys it.
But back on CO2 – I reckon you’re onto something. Obviously nobody has thought about any of this before so keep going mate. So yes all that CO2 put up since the industrial revolution has already been absorbed by the land and oceans. Thanks for pointing that out. It’s certainly affected my perspective.
Tilo Warning there are a number of “Internet Trolls” on this blog. They seek only to disrupt you will not be able to discuss anything with them. You must believe the gospel according to Luke no other opinion is allowed. Do not feed Trolls they are ugly. Are you saying that CO2 decreases rapidly because there is an oscillation? I thought it was something to do with a flow from SH to NH and vice versa. Everything I have read says it stays up there for a long time. My bet is humans will generate more CO2 so that it will continue to rise. Currently 0.06% concentration of the air seems achievable by 2050.
Of course it hadn’t actually occurred to DHMO that you can’t actually discuss anything with Tilo who has discovered the truth. And I assume you find calling someone another’s “mutt” is good form. No bias there. Typical standards.
“Are you saying that CO2 decreases rapidly because there is an oscillation?”
No, of course not. The up cycle of the oscillation adds more than the down cycle takes away. The end result is increasing CO2. The important thing to note, however, is how strong the downcycle is in the summer. It is able to overcome the continued injection of CO2 by mankind and actually reduce the overall amount of CO2 in the atmosphere – even if only for a short time. What I’m trying to point out is the flexibility of the CO2 level in the atmosphere. That down period each year indicates the ability of the planets biosphere, in conjunction with the oceans, to suck up a tremendous amout of CO2. That is why I cannot believe the paper when it claims that it takes several centuries to clear out the excess CO2.
And this is the part of the Abstract that I consider to be totally ignorant. Where do they come up with such garbage.
“We show first that a single pulse of carbon released into the atmosphere increases globally averaged surface temperature by an amount that remains approximately constant for several centuries, even in the absence of additional emissions.”
This would seem to indicate that the earth has virtually no absorption capability at all. Idiotic!
“Well the answer to that is that anyone with a non de plume like yours probably enjoys it.”
I have to admit Luke, when it comes to making moronic assumptions per unit time, you are the undisputed champion. It is my real name.
“And I assume you find calling someone another’s “mutt” is good form.”
It’s a title that Tamino has proudly bestowed upon himself.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/hansens-bulldog/
Had me in stitches!
“Currently 0.06% concentration of the air seems achievable by 2050.”
Possibly. But there are some differences of opinion.
http://www.john-daly.com/ahlbeck/ahlbeck.htm
Oh I’m sorry Tilo – I just thought you were some nutcase with a crazy non de plume. I apologise.
And I have to say you’re really good. Daly is a devastating source.
So each year then the biosphere and oceans absorb all vast amounts of CO2 and presumably then they’ve been doing that for decades, if not centuries. So all the CO2 that’s up there must have come from the last few years. Couldn’t possibly have accumulated. So you’d think someone would have done a mass balance but obviously from Reber 2008 it’s evident that nobody has. This is outrageous. Hot dickety dog – Now where’s that duelling banjo tape.
Thanks Tilo for the reference to the Daly site there is a lot to absorb there. Unfortunately I can not do that in a few micro seconds like some that are too useless to be fed. This Tamino guy says he is a bulldog that is sharpening his claws. That’s not a dog it sounds more like a pussy to me.
“Daly is a devastating source.”
For the caliber of your arguments, a five year old would be a devestating source.
“So all the CO2 that’s up there must have come from the last few years. ”
You don’t need a lot of residual. Each year the amount that get’s put in exceeds the amount that is taken out and that difference is increasing each year. If by last few years you mean last 30 or so years, then yes. Last several centuries – no.
“This Tamino guy says he is a bulldog that is sharpening his claws.”
I read the thread. All of the chest beating reminds me of people whistling past the grave yard. I was actually feeling sorry for that group by the time I was done with it.
Tamino is not a dumb guy. Unfortunately he uses everything he knows in a goal oriented fashion. And of course that goal is the validation of AGW. It’s not science. And then the Hansen groupie thing is just pitiful.
Enough of the shilly-shallying, let’s cut to the chase.
50% of Australia’s CO2 emissions is caused by fossil fueled power generation and presumably this is also the case in comparable countries (to the extent nuclear is not used).
This is clearly an emergency (there is an overwhelming consensus) requiring governments to act and act now.
Governments worldwide (by decree and under UN supervision) must immediately cut fossil fueled power generation, not by 60%, not by 90%, but totally, entirely, without exception.
The rest (transport, industry etc.) will, as a result, follow.
There may be some temporary unpleasantness, but my guess is that this will settle the vexatious and distracting issue relatively quickly.
“50% of Australia’s CO2 emissions is caused by fossil fueled power generation ”
That’s nice. Why should we care?
Chrisgo I am surprised at your comments you appear to have lost your mind. Go to your power box and switch of the power, severe any connection with the power grid. Stop using any form of transport and do not buy food of any description grow your own. Fertilizer is forbidden also. We will not hear from you again. How about a few nukes it would be more humane?
The usual disingenuous and dickheaded level of the debate. Make a polarised extreme comment as if this is just announced government policy. As if this is being proposed tomorrow.
Dudes nothing is happening.
Tilo you have got one thing right – Tamino isn’t a dumb guy, but alas you are. Looking forward to your own blog of matched intellectual excellence.