With some hubub recently over the 350.org day (designed to highlight the opinion that we must return the Earth to a 350 parts per million atmospheric CO2 level) I thought it might be a good idea to have a look at what the reversal might gain us.
For this, I’m drawing on the excellent guest post made by Bill Illis here on 11/25/2008 titled:
Adjusting Temperatures for the ENSO and the AMO
One of the graphs (along with a model in a zip file) that Bill presented in that guest post was this graph, which I’ve annotated to show the 350 PPM desired by activists, versus the 388 PPM (MLO seasonally corrected value) where we are now:
Here is the same graph, annotated again with intersecting lines and values, and zoomed on the areas of interest.
Depending on whether you believe the models or the actual observations determines what value would be gained from a reduction to 350 PPM.
For belief in the models we’d get approximately 0.5°C drop in temperature.
For belief in the observations (RSS HadCRUT3 data) we’d get approximately 0.3°C drop in temperature.
Split the difference if you don’t like either and call it 0.4°C.
The key point here is that to get to 350PPM, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to accomplish. Alternate energy just hasn’t risen to the challenge yet, and the world populace that depends on electricity isn’t likely to tolerate shutting down their energy use to get there.
China and India have said they won’t go along with suggested reductions, and are coming up with their own ideas prior to Copenhagen. Thus is the quandary faced by 350.org supporters.
As a side note, the 350PPM target was Dr. Jim Hansen’s idea:
Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?
Since Hansen can’t even predict the effect of climate change 20 years out in his own neighborhood, one wonders why some people take the 350 PPM target suggestion seriously.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
350ppm. Sounds reasonable and modest. In fact it’s pretty extreme. Those advocating this kind of measure should be first in the queue for living without electricity or travel. Just as those who say we cannot sustain current population levels should be the first ones to lay down their lives.
They should all be made to lead by example.
The first thing is poverty. Concerning Climate no one knows. It is not established with minimum scientific certainty what some CO2 makes or not makes in atmosphere.
Excuse me please, I don’t want it to drop 0.4 degrees! It’s cold enough as it is. I’d welcome a nice couple of degree increase should that actually occur. It’s cold enough up here in Canada, who wants the cold again? Not I. Cold = Death. Warmth = Life! I vote for life!
Christopher Booker writes in the UK Sunday Telegraph about the real climate change catastrophe. He details the waste of billions of dollars and/or pounds in the futile chase to reduce UK emissions of CO2 by 80%.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastrophe.html
The political elites who would rule us in the manner following the Norman Conquest of 1066 AD, should reflect upon this Rudyard Kipling poem.
“My son,” said the Norman Baron, “I am dying, and you will be heir
To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for share
When he conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is.
But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:–
“The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow – with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, ‘This isn’t fair dealing’, my son, leave the Saxon alone.
“You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears;
But don’t try that game on the Saxon; you’ll have the whole brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the county to the poorest chained serf in the field,
They’ll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.
“But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs.
Don’t trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their wrongs.
Let them know that you know what they’re saying; let them feel that you know what to say.
Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear ’em out if it takes you all day.
They’ll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark.
It’s the sport not the rabbits they’re after (we’ve plenty of game in the park).
Don’t hang them or cut off their fingers. That’s wasteful as well as unkind,
For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best man- at-arms you can find.
“Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funerals and feasts.
Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests.
Say ‘we,’ ‘us’ and ‘ours’ when you’re talking, instead of ‘you fellows’ and ‘I.’
Don’t ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell ’em a lie!”
I have read that CO2 “absorbs to extinction” at well below the 385 ppm level. As I understand it, CO2 only captures infrared in three narrow frequency bands with wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns, and that these bands are already saturated. If true, this means that all the infrared that CO2 can capture is already being captured, and would be at 350 ppm. Thus, more or less CO2 in the atmosphere makes no difference. Will someone with more scientific knowledge than I have please confirm or correct?
Here’s some good incite as to what the Green Agenda is all about.
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
Lots more quotes like tins and other information available here.
http://green-agenda.com/
As I have pointed out before fossil fuel burning has little effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
The idea they do is fundamental to the whole AGW canon.
It is also false.
To learn how atmospheric CO2 levels are controlled by natural processes view the link below.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php
Kindest Regards
One hopeful fix seems to be in doubt:
“Our analysis, which we think is the most comprehensive to date, shows that direct and indirect land-use changes associated with an aggressive global biofuels program have the potential to release large quantities of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere,” says Melillo.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022141117.htm
Benny Peiser, in his CCNet e-letter of 19Oct09 (161/2009) included this alarmist missive from one Andrew Glikson of the Australian National University:
He goes on and on with the whole litany (I won’t post it here, and there is no link, but I’m sure Benny can provide a copy if you contact him at B.J.Peiser@ljmu.ac.uk ).
Anthony, it might be worth repeating here at the top level and having a contest: Who can provide the best rebuttal of each of Glikson’s wild-eyed claims?
/Mr Lynn
It makes no sense to think about “350” until we stabilize at some level. It makes no sense to think about stabilizing at some level until we stop increasing annual emissions. The increases in annual emissions are occurring predominantly in the developing countries, led by China and India. Unfortunately, those who logically must go first, politically and economically insist they go last.
“Catch 22” anyone?
Anthony……..completely off topic I know, but you might be interested to know (if you don’t already) that last night (Saturday 24/10/09), Carol Kirkwood on the BBC Weather Show made the following assertion as to what can be expected in coming decades……..”WE’RE LOOKING AT HARSHER WINTERS”. This was backed up with imagery of snowy scenes, just in case we were in any doubt about what was meant by the word “HARSHER”. This is a maasive departure from what the message has been until now. Deserving of further exploration perhaps?
Ben
Surely the point of the ‘350’ campaign is that we need to stop the continued rise in CO2 – it’s not just a matter of going from 388 to 350. The paleoclimate evidence suggests that we might have an ice-free world at 450ppm, but who wants to bet a human-friendly climate on that figure being exactly right? What if it’s actually 400ppm? We’ll probably be there in less than a decade at this rate.
The point is that we don’t want to find out exactly where that point is, because by the time we find out, it will be much too late. If 350ppm is very likely to avert major climate change then doesn’t it makes sense to aim for that?
So does that graph show the temp rise caused by CO2 or the CO2 rise caused by temp?
It clearly makes the mistake (i think) of assuming that CO2 was responsible the temp increase, rather than say the observed 4% decrease in low level clouds.
Of course how CO2 warms the planet by absorbing energy emitted at -70C is beyond me!
As Deap dark Iowa pointed out, there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb 50% of the energy within 26m (peak 15cm) My guess is that calculations were never scaled up from the 100m experimental length to the full 6000m atmosphere distance (constant 1atm pressure) which would cause an over estimation of 2 to power 60
If you read sites like PlantsneedCO2, you’ll see a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere from the current level would do wonders for plants, according to greenhouse growers the optimal CO2 level for all plants is 1000-1500 PPM, and we have plenty of time to find new technology so as to shut off CO2 production when that level is reached.
Deepest Darkest Iowa (13:00:18) : I have read that CO2 “absorbs to extinction” at well below the 385 ppm level. As I understand it, CO2 only captures infrared in three narrow frequency bands with wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns, and that these bands are already saturated. If true, this means that all the infrared that CO2 can capture is already being captured, and would be at 350 ppm. Thus, more or less CO2 in the atmosphere makes no difference. Will someone with more scientific knowledge than I have please confirm or correct?
IANAP (I Am Not A Physicist) but as I understand it there are two main reasons why the “CO2 is saturated” argument fails –
1: CO2, unlike water vapour, is fairly evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere. Regardless of the situation at ground level (even if CO2 *was* saturated), at a high enough altitude the atmosphere is so thin that most of the infrared radiation from warmer lower layers escapes to space (i.e. it’s not saturated). This *must* be true *whatever* the absorption properties of the atmosphere. Add more CO2 to this thin upper atmosphere and more of the infrared radiation will be absorbed, causing all the lower levels of the atmosphere to get warmer and infrared radiation to increase accordingly until Earth’s radiation budget once again reaches equilibrium – i.e. the Earth warms up.
2: Absorption of infrared by CO2 isn’t saturated anyway, even in the lower atmosphere, as modern spectroscopy clearly shows.
I do not believe in any visible effect of present rise of CO2 on temperature.
1) most of the temperature increase during the 20th century occurred in 1900-1950 period, when CO2 did not increased much (but Sun cycles ramped up like hell)
2) actual temperature difference between 40ties and 2000s ranges from negative (USA, Greenland – 30/40ties were warmer) to fraction of degree (Europe). SST as good global indicator were maybe 0.2 deg C higher in 2003 than in 40ties
3) second half of 20th century experienced series of extra high sun cycles and to the end, combined positive AMO/PDO oscillations
4) Satellite observations show increase of LW radiation escape to the space, contrary to all greenhouse GCM models and confirming that variations in clouds control incoming SW and outcoming LW radiation, not CO2.
There is no space left for any visible CO2.
Did I say global temperatures go down, despite incrasing CO2?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2002/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/plot/rss/from:2002
Icarus (13:48:15) wrote “The paleoclimate evidence suggests that we might have an ice-free world at 450ppm”
what evidence?
During the Ordovician, atmospheric CO2 levels were 11 times the current value and there was an ice age.
Mark Morano was on the Thom Hartmann radio program a few days ago with Bill Gibbon or somebody from 350.org. Morano did a pretty good job but sounded nervous. Hartmann is intimidating with his junk science… I sure would like to hear a Hartmann/Watts debate!
a jones (13:05:45) : As I have pointed out before fossil fuel burning has little effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Then how do you explain this?:
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig2-3.jpg
A return to 350 ppm would disastrously reduce agricultural productivity.
Illinois corn ran around 130 bu/acre when CO2 was 350 ppm. At the current CO2 level, it runs about 180 bu/acre.
We have enough people starving around the world due to despotic governments (think Zimbabwe, North Korea, Burma). It would be a shame to have them starving because of an actual food shortage.
There is no way to get to 350 ppm.
First, we would have to cut our emissions from roughly 32 billion tons per year today to Zero (effective tomorrow).
Then we would have to wait 20 years for oceans and plants to start bringing the levels down (if indeed they would continue to absorb CO2 at the rate they are today).
I imagine the 350 ppm is just a stretch target which is based on another target set by the EU and Hansen of 450 ppm. This level is contained in Hansen’s latest paper in which he says that all the ice will melt if we get over 450 ppm but that is not supported at all by the data contained in the paper.
Antarctica glaciated over (for the fourth time) 34 million years ago when CO2 levels were as much as 1,300 ppm and then Antarctica glaciated over again for the fifth time as well as Greenland 14 million years ago when CO2 was about 250 ppm.
william (13:59:30) : Icarus (13:48:15) wrote “The paleoclimate evidence suggests that we might have an ice-free world at 450ppm”
what evidence?
“Decreasing CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, large scale glaciation occurring when CO2 fell to 425±75 ppm, a level that will be exceeded within decades, barring prompt policy changes. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf
During the Ordovician, atmospheric CO2 levels were 11 times the current value and there was an ice age.
The Ordovician was mostly a warm world. 450 million years ago the Earth was a different place – the continents were in different places (largely in the southern hemisphere) and the sun was about 2% cooler, so you wouldn’t expect any particular level of CO2 to result in the same climate as it would today. In particular, in the late Ordovician most of the dry land on the planet was centred on the South Pole – massive glaciers formed causing shallow seas to drain and sea levels to drop.
None of this changes the fact that atmospheric CO2 is closely correlated with global temperature for many millions of years into the past… It’s a fact that higher temperatures are correlated with higher CO2, and lower temperatures are correlated with lower CO2.
If we look at the red line whe should be aiming for a co2 with 600 ppm. I think that is the ideal temperature for our world.
Mike McMillan (14:06:13) :
A return to 350 ppm would disastrously reduce agricultural productivity.
Illinois corn ran around 130 bu/acre when CO2 was 350 ppm. At the current CO2 level, it runs about 180 bu/acre.
When you understand that population control is one of their aims, it fits right into the narrative. Also, if you understand that the alarmists KNOW temperatures are actually coming down it begins to make sense. They must get these policies enacted and running so they can artificially show they are brining down the temperatures. It’s a cart-before-the-horse mentality. If they can go to a horse farm and place carts before every horse, then show that on the nightly news they can change public opinion.
Icarus (14:03:10) :
a jones (13:05:45) : As I have pointed out before fossil fuel burning has little effect on CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Then how do you explain this?:
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig2-3.jpg
How do you explain it?
You are quite right – there is No explanation – the plots you refer to would appear to be have been selected deliberately and manipulated by some sloppy or dishonest persons to scare people – no doubt for some sort of political agenda.