You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
Only zero emissions can prevent a warmer planet
2008-03-04
Greenhouse gas emissions will have to be eliminated completely to stabilise the Earth's climate and prevent temperatures from rising. ThatÂ’s the conclusion of climatologists in the US who say they need bigger grants that our current efforts to merely stabilise emissions will not be enough.

Damon Matthews, from Concordia University in Canada, and Ken Caldeira, from the Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, USA, used a global climate model to study how greenhouse emissions would need to change in order to stabilise global temperatures over the next few hundred years. Previous studies have only looked at what happens when emissions are stabilised.

Humans have been releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in increasing quantities since the industrial revolution. But to simplify the simulation, Matthews and Caldeira injected a single pulse of carbon dioxide into a pre-industrial atmosphere.

Pulse sizes of 50, 200, 500 and 2000 billion tonnes of carbon were used. The model was set to calculate global temperatures and atmospheric and ocean carbon dioxide levels over a simulated 500 years.

At the end of that period, Matthews and Caldeira found that between 20% and 35% of the initial emission pulse remained in the atmosphere – even for the smallest emission pulse – with the remainder having been absorbed by land and ocean carbon sinks.

The lingering carbon dioxide means that global warming persisted for the entire simulation. For the four different emission scenarios, global temperatures stabilised at 0.09, 0.34, 0.88 and 3.6 ºC above pre-industrial levels respectively.

So far industrial emissions total around 450 billion tonnes. “Even if we eliminated carbon dioxide today we are still committed to a global temperature rise of around 0.8 ºC lasting at least 500 years,” says Caldeira.

One of the reasons for the persistence is the slow response of oceans. “It takes a lot of energy to heat them up and then a long time for them to cool back down,” he explains.

Roger Pielke, a climate policy expert at the University of Colorado in Boulder, agrees with the findings. “This research makes the case that simply stabilising concentrations is insufficient to stabilise temperatures. Their argument, if widely accepted, raises the bar on what it means to mitigate climate change,” he says.

Matthews and Caldeira warn that current emissions targets for 2050 are insufficient to avoid substantial future warming. Instead they believe that we need to eliminate emissions, or find a way of actively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

“It is technologically challenging, but not impossible. The biggest challenge will be to get political consensus,” says Caldeira. Potential tools to achieve zero emissions include renewable energy, electric cars and carbon capture and some countries such as Costa Rica are already aiming for zero emissions.

Dave Reay, a climate scientist at the University of Edinburgh, thinks that it is a feasible long-term aim. “If used on a large enough scale then new technologies like carbon capture could get us to zero emissions.”
Posted by:john frum

#29  If the moonbats are serious about decreasing the CO2 levels, simply quit breathing, that'll help several different ways, cutting down seriously on both the noise pollution, and raising the overall IQ several points.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2008-03-04 23:31  

#28  Oh and to the idiot above, warmer N America means INCREASED growing season you nitwit.

You'd get an extra crop of winter wheat all the way up into Canada.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-03-04 23:19  

#27  OK, so greenhouse emissions affect the SOLAR WARMING/COOLING how?

Duh.

These are not scientists, they are spreadsheet monkies.

Take that model and input the 1300's. See if you can get a Little Ice Age.

Bet it FAILS miserably in both situations.

Bad data into a bad sim = garbage output.

They first need to PROVE that human emitted greenhouse gasses are CAUSATIVE of Global Warming.

Nobody has proven that yet. Consensus means jack. Consensus was that the sun went aroudn the earth for the longest time.

Show me the numbers, the logic and the causitive links. Otherwise you are practicing voodoo.

And by the way, the number ONE warming component is... WATER VAPOR. They model for that and solar variation?
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-03-04 23:13  

#26  REDDIT SCIENCE > LIVE IT UP - WE'VE GOT TWENTY YEARS BEFORE IT HITS THE FAN [James Lovelock]; + 80% OF WORLD'S POPULATION MUST BE WIPED OUT BY 2100 [Guardian.uk].

Also on REDDIT > ENVIRONMENTAL GRAFITTI > EAT/KILL ALL WHALES TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING.
Flipper? Sea Mammals? Captain Ahab was right - support your local Japanese-Asian SUSHI + TURTLE/SHARK FIN SOUP restaurants???

IFF THE SUN + BINARY "DEATH STAR" DOESN'T KILL US, METHANE = EXPLODIN' ATMOSPHERIC GASES WILL???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-03-04 22:21  

#25  Pielke Jr specializes in environmental policy and has published on global warming.

For example,

End-of-2007 Hurricane-Global Warming Update

BTW, everyone should watch the Svensmark video I linked to above. Don't be put off by the fact the first few minutes are in Danish, the rest is in English.
Posted by: phil_b   2008-03-04 20:25  

#24  I've had correspondence with Roger Pielke.

One note for you fans of ManBearPig.

The Pielke quoted by the article is by Roger Pielke, Jr., as Wiki notes, a politial scientist at UC.

In my correspondence with Pielke, Sr., this is a common mistake.

(Ohhhhh...)
Posted by: OregonGuy   2008-03-04 19:49  

#23  I've had correspondence with Roger Pielke.

One note for you fans of ManBearPig.

The Pielke quoted by the article is by Roger Pielke, Jr., as Wiki notes, a politial scientist at UC.

In my correspondence with Pielke, Sr., this is a common mistake.

(Ohhhhh...)
Posted by: OregonGuy   2008-03-04 18:43  

#22  PLUS, 90-95% of the Earth's HUMAN POPULATION will STILL have to be eliminated, IDEALLY BY YEAR 2050 or ASAP, ala FREEREPUBLIC, REDDIT, TOPIX, LUCIANNE, etc. POSTERS.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2008-03-04 18:29  

#21   The Sun Spots have dropped to near zero.
Ruh roh. Look at the Wikipedia entry for the Maunder Minimum - there were only about 10 sunspots/year. And it was COLD!
Posted by: Rambler in California   2008-03-04 18:23  

#20  The Sun Spots have dropped to near zero. This allows more cosmic rays to bombard the Earth and provide increased Hygroscopic Nuclei for clouds to form, thus reflecting heat and causing global cooling.

Click on: Hygroscopic Nuclei

As a former Meteorologist this makes more sense than looking at pictures of a Polar Bear sitting on a Iceberg.

My favorite trick is to tell one of these Global Warming zealots that because of the polar ice melt the Polar Bears are starving because they cannot get to the Penguins. They usually shake their heads and agree how terrible that situation is for the bears.

These rubes don't even realize that Polar Bears are Arctic animals and Penguins are Antarctic. Try it it's a lot of fun even if they know the difference.

Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2008-03-04 17:56  

#19  ALL Long term computer models of climate have 100% error.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2008-03-04 17:17  

#18  68% of all bullshit comes from global warming.
Posted by: Slats Flavinter4996   2008-03-04 16:55  

#17  Over 99% of all CO2 is emitted from the oceans and inland waters. 100% of all Human-Caused-GM propaganda comes from moonbat humans.
Posted by: Spuque Black2622   2008-03-04 15:56  

#16  If people are going to the expense of modifying rooftops, then I rather see the money going to capture the energy (e.g. hot water) than reflect it back into space.
Posted by: ed   2008-03-04 15:39  

#15  Ummm, can I get the contract for the REEEAAAAAALLLLLLLLYYYYYY big corks for all the volcanoes?
Posted by: AlanC   2008-03-04 15:28  

#14  It may surprize people but the US EPA has been doing some useful research on cooling regional climates by such means as modifying rooftops and pavements to reflect heat back into space.
Posted by: mhw   2008-03-04 09:29  

#13  Any more global warming and we are going to have a reduced growing season in North America. Then watch the price of wheat go skyward. These double dipshits ought to be exported to Anartica so they don't suffer any more overheating.
Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2907   2008-03-04 09:26  

#12  Given the choice between a cold planet and a warm one, I'll take the non-frozen version, thanks. Can you say Maunder Minimum? I knew you could!
Posted by: SteveS   2008-03-04 09:05  

#11  What the hell is a Climate Policy Expert? And what kind of model are they using? What is a 'Climatologist'?

Does this mean we are going to war against the Martians - after all they must be emitting a lot of greenhouse gas as well since Mars is warming up just like earth. And then the Venusians, Mercurians, Jupitarians, Saturians, etc....
Posted by: CrazyFool   2008-03-04 08:47  

#10  We'd better get rid of the swamps, too. As I recall, there are a lot of greenhouse gasses emitted as the vegetation decays.
Posted by: trailing wife   2008-03-04 08:42  

#9  Only mass suicide can save us now.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-03-04 08:17  

#8  Greenhouse gas emissions will have to be eliminated

Get rid of everyone who emits CO2. Animals too. Only then will the planet be safe for colonization by silicon-based alien life forms.
Posted by: Glenmore   2008-03-04 08:00  

#7  Sooo... all animals should stop breathing too. After all, we are huge C02 polluters.

What a buttmunch. The sun controls it all and we are gonna get cold for a while. Buy stock in energy, heating and cold weather clothing companies.
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-03-04 07:37  

#6  I remember two things from a Scientice American article 5 or 10 yers ago:

1. Global warming started 8,000 years ago, when humans started farming and cows started - well, you know.

2. Looking at the cycle of recent (geologically speaking) ice ages, without that additional CO2 starting 8,000 years ago, we'd be dead in the middle of an ice age.
Posted by: Bobby   2008-03-04 06:40  

#5  I'm sorry but it's rather obvious that Solar radiation is the only thing that matters.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2008-03-04 06:11  

#4  Nice spin on Pielke's comment who is a prominent climate sceptic. What he means is if CO2 is warming our climate, then partial mitigation is bollocks.

BTW, here is a link to Svensmark's The Cloud Mystery video.

I independantly arrived at the same conclusion, the Earth's climate is dominated by water phase changes. CO2 and solar radiation don't matter.
Posted by: phil_b   2008-03-04 04:23  

#3  Â“It takes a lot of energy to heat [oceans] up and then a long time for them to cool back down,” he explains.

Go directly to Oslo (first-class, of course, for a Hero like you) to receive your Nobel Prize and the thanks of a grateful planet, sir. You're a Real Man of Genius™.
Posted by: Seafarious   2008-03-04 01:35  

#2  but I find the planet too cold!
Posted by: Chuting Flang8286   2008-03-04 01:16  

#1  Only zero emissions can prevent a warmer planet

So, basically, all economic activity must stop! Better go find a good cave now, folks. The best ones are gonna go fast...
Posted by: PBMcL   2008-03-04 01:09  

00:00