From the University of Exeter , more Durban PR rampup:
Limited options for meeting 2°C warming target, warn climate change experts
We will only achieve the target of limiting global warming to safe levels if carbon dioxide emissions begin to fall within the next two decades and eventually decrease to zero. That is the stark message from research by an international team of scientists, led by the University of Exeter, published today (20 November) in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The research focuses on the scale of carbon emission reduction needed to keep future global warming at no more than two degrees Celsius over average temperatures prior to the Industrial Revolution. This target is now almost universally accepted as a safe limit.
The team examined the extent to which carbon emissions should be reduced, how steep this reduction needs to be and how soon we should begin. They used mathematical modelling techniques to construct a number of possible future scenarios, based on different assumptions on emissions reduction. They accounted for a likely range of climate sensitivities: the amount of warming for a given increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The research shows how quickly emissions need to drop in the next few decades. It also highlights how remaining emissions could cause the two-degrees target to be exceeded in the long term, over the next few hundred years.
The researchers found that zero or negative emissions are compatible with this target if we reduce our global carbon emissions by at least three per cent per year within the next two decades.
In a worst-case scenario of high climate sensitivity, we need to work towards negative emissions if we are to have a chance to keeping temperatures within the two-degrees target. This would mean using carbon-capture-and-storage technology combined with aggressive mitigation rates starting in the coming decade. The best-case scenario of low climate sensitivity allows longer delays and more conservative mitigation rates, but still requires emissions to be eventually cut by at least 90%.
The results clearly show that if we delay reducing global emissions by just ten or twenty years we will then need to make much steeper reductions in order to meet a two-degrees warming target.
Lead author Professor Pierre Friedlingstein of the University of Exeter said: “When I analysed these results, I was surprised to see so few options available to us. We know we need to tackle global warming, but our research really emphasises the urgency of the situation. The only way for us to achieve a safe future climate will be to reduce emissions by at least three per cent, starting as soon as possible. The longer we leave it, the harder it will be.”
Countries currently have different targets for carbon emission reductions. For example, the US proposes a 17 per cent reduction by 2020, the EU has set a target of a 20 to 30 per cent reduction by 2020 and Australia has an objective of a five to 25 per cent reduction by 2020, depending on other countries commitment.
“The good news is that it’s not too late,” said co-author Professor Susan Solomon of the University of Colorado. “The interesting news is that we really need to think in the very long-term as well as the near-term. Even a small amount of remaining emissions would eventually mean exceeding the target so we need to ensure that technologies are available to make our world carbon-free in the long run.”
The research was carried out by the University of Exeter (UK), University of Colorado (USA), University of Bern (Switzerland), ETH (Switzerland), CEA-CNRS (France) and CSIRO (Australia).
Send more money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get a proper job Friedlingstein and stop wasting my time and my money with this Durban rampup
“The good news is that it’s not too late,”: it’s never going to be “too late”, because once the researchers declare that it is too late, the funding gravy train will grind to a halt: no point in doing further research if we can no longer avert the worst that could happen.
Meanwhile, what is mother nature doing about all this? Has she just opted out and left it to us?
I don’t like the sound of a carbon free world.
The bad news is it is too late for science. Even though the Warming Alarmists will cry “it’s only pausing!” as the Dalton minimum takes over, and a few years without summers occur, the plethora of balderdash about “proven science” and CO2 will leave it’s mark.
The real problem is Entropy, which cannot be reversed, but in a system can be made to look like it is going backward by the input of clean energy.
The public is/will be totally confused about “clean energy” and may tend to make the situation worse. Even inventions like http://ecat.com/ecat-technology will be quaranteed and looked down upon at first. But if we are going to withstand a mini-ice age and live with 8E9 million souls on earth, we will need highly polished science and well trained scientists.
I fear it will not happen in the good-old USA, which doesn’t really exist any more.
“The good news is that it’s not too late,” said co-author Professor Susan Solomon of the University of Colorado. “The interesting news is that we really need to think in the very long-term as well as the near-term. Even a small amount of remaining emissions would eventually mean exceeding the target so we need to ensure that technologies are available to make our world carbon-free in the long run.”
Carbon free????, what is she going on about, we are a carbon based life form, we breath co2.
She must be completely off her trolley!
“The only way for us to achieve a safe future climate will be to reduce emissions by at least three per cent, starting as soon as possible. The longer we leave it, the harder it will be.”
When, exactly is “as soon as possible”
I have been trying to find the answer to that for many many years.
Does anybody know?
Please can we have the mathematical proofs for these claims.
Just how does carbon dioxide warm the atmosphere and then warm the surface?
“The research was carried out at … University … University … University …”
All you need to know. No valid research occurs at universities now. If any valid research is going on, it’s outside of Big Academia.
I reckon that I am at least 70% carbon, when do I get taxed directly for being me?l
Greg Holmes 4:39am:
“…when do I get taxed directly for being me?”
Don’t give them any more ideas, Greg.
The easiest option (and most logical, too), is to just turn off the computers they’re running these crazy models on. No garbage in; no garbage out. Academia is then cleansed from a festering blight they’re attempting to foist on humanity.
It is as simple as that! Of course, that means these people stuck on fairy-tale models would have to fall back into the world of reality, which might be a bigger jolt than their egos could take, but that’s their problem. Our problem was giving them any credability in the first place.
The moment I see Uinversity of Exeter or University of East Anglia I lose all interest. These two are if not AGW cheerleaders then willing shills. Not worth listening to anything they have to say. They really are only in it for the money.
How do these university folks reconcile their “scientific study” with the fact that CO2 has been 10 to 20 times higher than now and that lifeforms similar to us seemed to have had no problem ?
Could someone please inform Susan Solomon that even if we reduced our emissions to zero, that would only decrease global emissions by 3%, as the natural world will still be emitting CO2.
Only climate hysterical alarmists can call themselves experts even though they always end up not really knowing anything about why climate, and still claim with certainty the doom and gloom of tomorrow. It’s like they suffer hubris at the same time being utterly depressed paranoiacs. :p
here in australia the ABC Climate Change Orchestra is in full flow.
every hilarious morsel of scary global warming drivel is carefully inserted into their news items with the rythmic precision of pizzicato strings, their financial features are underscored with the comic, basso profundo of renewable energy while the percussion section bangs away on the benefits of a carbon tax. It’s a scary soundtrack alright…but all that rain over Sydney and Melbourne…the late cool spring…the dams all full and the drought long forgotten…somehow they just no longer seem to be able to hit the right note!
2 degrees C, yes at a stretch, but that is 2C down
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm
Slowly the AGW governments are being kicked out (ie Spain, next USA, next Australia ect). Temps are not rising (in fact November anomaly is going to come in negative if anything). It will still take another 3-4 years for the whole thing to completely stop, unless some smart lawyers start acting now to stop further waste of public monies (ie hansen et al)
“When I analysed these results, I was surprised to see so few options available to us. We know we need to tackle global warming, but our research really emphasises the urgency of the situation. The only way for us to achieve a safe future climate will be to reduce emissions by at least three per cent, starting as soon as possible. The longer we leave it, the harder it will be.”
… says Professor Numpty Friedlingbum …
Really … you only became surprised when you analysed “these results” ? What the hell have you been doing man ? Have you had your head in the sand …… .for 20 years now we have been up the creek without a paddle …. and you only find out now … after your analyses ?
Honestly … its pathetic.
‘Greg Holmes says:
November 21, 2011 at 4:39 am
>>> I reckon that I am at least 70% carbon, when do I get taxed directly for being me?l’
OK – you are Sooty : I claim my five pounds (Sterling, not Avoirdupois!).
If they want to make the world carbon-free, they should set an example and stop exhaling immediately.
I’ll take bets that my projections are better than Susan’s. Click on my name to see those projections.
Do they really believe it? Anyway, they can stop breathing NOW!
“The good news is that it’s not too late,” said co-author Professor Susan Solomon ———-“
Before the “Copenhagen Love-in” the then UK prime minister Gordon Brown, who was briefed by the “world’s leading scientists”, told us that “Copenhagen” was our last chance to tackle “Climate Change” – So why can’t Susanna understand that it is too late? – We’re Dooooomed!
By the way, I wonder if the BBC is, once again, going to broadcast their very informative production called “Earth; The Climate Wars” (just as they did the week before the Copenhagen Conference.)
Well, ‘The Climate Wars’ programs informed me that when it comes to “AGW” – or even just warming by gases, ‘The BBC’ manages to do all their experiments completely wrong, or else draw the wrong conclusions from the results.
The snow pack is returning to the Blue Mountains of NE Oregon, the stream flows are coming up, and we had a burst of late season pasture grass thanks to a bit of rain late in September and October. This isn’t new. 35 years ago we had this same cool moist pattern (green pea weather) till it suddenly went dry and hot, and peas didn’t grow worth a damn for decades. If CO2 is to blame, God bless CO2.
Interestingly, WUWT has become, I think, the leading source to read about what’s going on in the AGW world. That’s a very good thing. Better to see the studies and disagree, than not to know what’s out there.
Would someone kindly explain to me, a dumb ol’ engineer what “negative emissions” means?????
I have this impossible picture of a high stack sucking in just CO2 and blowing it out the boiler….
and then it gets obscene….
hummmmm.
Mike
The next few hundred years!!!! Good heavens I can’t even get people to think about saving Social Security for the next 20 years. Why are these people who tend to be of the political stripes that they don’t mind spending the next generation’s money on all sort of government programs all of a sudden so worried about a few hundred years from now? Do they not think there will be any technological advances between now and then? Do they think that people then will be so stupid they won’t use new technology to solve what if any problems have been caused by burning fossil fuels two hundred years ago? I guess if they get their way now, there won’t be and technological advances, then they can say “see we told you so.”
I admit, I am a science lightweight compared to most here but, as the path to becoming carbon neutral seems to revolve around conversion to electric cars, for the most part, and leaving aside that burning coal is still the most efficient and widely used fuel to produce electricity, what happens to all that ozone produced by electric motors (and windmills, for that matter)?
What will be the effect of so much more ozone in the atmosphere?
When tundra and taiga warm, they give up their embedded greenhouse gases. As they warm more, they contribute more. At 2C, the gases from natural sources will equal those from human sources. There’s hardly anyone who sees 2C of warming as “safe”. I have no idea how that idea gained any traction at all. 2C isn’t a natural plateau. It’s a number dreamed up like an advertising slogan. Since human contributions are actually accelerating, BAU scenarios which were once seen as dire are perversely “optimistic”. We’ll blow past 2C of warming like a sprinter going through a finish line tape.
Greg Holmes says:
November 21, 2011 at 4:39 am
I reckon that I am at least 70% carbon, when do I get taxed directly for being me?l
————————————————————————————————————————————You are more like 90% H2O but don’t worry about it; water doesn’t cure dehydration.
I see no evidence that they took into account that plants and oceans are absorbing half of our emissions currently.
Plants and oceans are absorbing about 4 billion tons of Carbon (or about 2.0 ppm of CO2) per year which should rise as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere rises. So at the very most, to stabilize the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, we only have to cut our emissions by about 40% (not 100%).
The supplemental does not show they took this into account and I’d be interested if someone found a link to the full paper.
“Even a small amount of remaining emissions would eventually mean exceeding the target so we need to ensure that technologies are available to make our world carbon-free in the long run.”
A carbon free world is a world without life. All life on planet earth is based on carbon. Most of the carbon is bound up in rocks formed in the ocean basins of hundreds of millions of years, leaving very little available for life forms. On occasion this carbon is recycled through plate tectonics and returned to the atmosphere to support life.
Our current climate is cold and dry as compared to most of the past 600 million years. Without GHG the entire surface of the planet would be a permanently frozen block of ice. Is this the future that Susan Solomon wants?
Hardly the wisdom of Solomon.
“Gary Mount says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:07 am
Could someone please inform Susan Solomon that even if we reduced our emissions to zero, that would only decrease global emissions by 3%, as the natural world will still be emitting CO2.”
According to the Japanese satellite that measures CO2, most of the CO2 being released comes from the tropical regions. The industrialized West is a net carbon sink, when you consider both natural and human emissions combined.
The ideal that CO2 is rising due to industrialization is only an assumption. The Japanese satellite has put a lie to that assumption. It is the 3rd world that is creating the CO2 and it is the 3rd world that owes damages to the industrialized nations. Good luck collecting.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/.
>>The team examined the extent to which carbon emissions should be reduced, how steep this reduction needs to be and how soon we should begin. They used mathematical modelling techniques to construct a number of possible future scenarios, based on DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS (emphasis mine) on emissions reduction. They accounted for a likely range of climate sensitivities: the amount of warming for a given increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.<<
This is precisely what passes for "research" these days, i.e. a bunch of assumptions they quantified and plugged into nothing more than overblown spreadsheets. This is not research; this is soothsaying, which is then reported in the popular media as fact and having the weight of scientific authority. How we ever allowed ourselves to get into this state of affairs and permit this nonsense to go on is beyond me.
Speaking as someone who has formerly taught introductory graduate research courses, it makes me want to scream. People are paying good money to allow these charlatans to carry on with this charade. It's a shameful disgrace.
Amazing is the following:
Mr. Friedlingstein and Mrs. Solomon can predict the future (+2 C warming) for a time AFTER we have all died, but they cannot predict the flat temperature plateau since 2001, in the time we are living. now ….too much “noise” as it is scientifically called, and “not enough earplugs available”……
……. lets all accept global warming and resurrect in 2100 to see whether AGW is true…., then we know for sure……
…..I already saw a tumbstone sayng: I didnt believe in AGW and want my money back…
JS
“Gofigure says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:07 am
How do these university folks reconcile their “scientific study” with the fact that CO2 has been 10 to 20 times higher than now and that lifeforms similar to us seemed to have had no problem ?”
Shhhh. There would be ZERO dollars given for climate research if that every gets out. The fact that the world has been 7C warmer for almost all the past 600 million years than it is now, with much higher CO2 levels, and life (including coral reefs) did just fine is not the message you will hear from climate science.
Remember, climate science only studies the harmful effects that industrial societies have on climate. Everything else is natural which makes it good so there is no need to study it.
Industry = bad = harms climate
nature = good = helps climate.
Storms, floods, hurricanes these are not natural events. They happen because humans have messed up the planet through pollution. Mostly by driving around in cars instead of taking the bus. Storms are natures way of punishing humans for being bad. Gore and Hansen tell us this so we know it is right.
If we continue to be bad, nature will punish us by warming the planet so that it will feel like we are living in Hawaii.
…we need to work towards negative emissions if we are to have a chance to keeping temperatures within the two-degrees
Negative emissions? Kind of like TV–just when you think it’s as low as it can get, they fool you. How low do they want CO2 levels to get? Perhaps the new slogan will be, “Stop photosynthesis now!”
pesadia says:
November 21, 2011 at 4:24 am
When, exactly is “as soon as possible”
About 2025 when the Gen IV Nuclear plants start coming online.
A bit off topic here, but I hope Dave Springer is around?
Henry@Dave Springer
You remember that thing we discussed some time ago?
You said that the oceans only gives up 20% of its solar heating which would explain matters with the CO2.
I did some checking and testing on this. It did not work out as you predicted.
I think you are wrong.
In the case of the leaf chart here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
I am finding an extraordinary correlation between warming in the red areas and actual cooling in the blue areas. In other words, if you pick a blue area, you will find mean temperatures declining,
if you pick a red area you will mean temperatures rising.
So, seeing that the overall chart shows more red (the earth is blooming) it explains the extra warming noted of the past decades. It is more vegetation that traps more heat.
I’m going to breathe slower to do my part.
I wonder if there a direct relationship between the age of the warmers and their position on how much time is needed to either be too late to do anything or confirm AGW to be false?
Obviously many warmers have a convenient position that no answers can be available until enough time has passed that they are completely removed from any consequences for being horribly wrong and perpetrating a costly scam.
Of course the younger alarmists, fresh from academia processing, are in the worst position.
They’ll not only be facing some harsh consequences long before they can escape but their mentors will have abandoned them via the retirement villages, senior care facility or graveyard.
Leaping forward with another 17 years of “weather” failing to co-operate what then for the young? Considering how many AGW icons, along with their projections, will be gone, their once young protoges could be some mighty angry middle aged folks.
Poor stuff – she will never get it. With a bit positive thinking “an innocent mind” playing with the switches of computer models that have proven to not be close to reality and drawing inmature conclusions. One can only admire the willingness of the US-taxpayer to waste money for nonsense. With the tiny fraction of human emissions of CO2 nothing happens with the temps even if the change is drastic (up or down) – and they will never get this. The 95% natural share in CO2 will – same for water vapor – not follow Durban or whatever else place the AGW-circus is meeting next time. Bad nature simply doesn’t care.
Best from Chile
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/massive_oyster_die-offs_show_ocean_acidification_has_arrived/2466/
#
#
polistra says:
November 21, 2011 at 4:35 am
“The research was carried out at … University … University … University …”
All you need to know. No valid research occurs at universities now. If any valid research is going on, it’s outside of Big Academia.
________________
I never considered that but you are quite correct. Any Prof at school who has not worked in the real world (Industry) wasn’t worth the powder to blow him up. Also the new grads with their holier than thou attitude needed a bit of humility (humiliation) from reality before they became worth anything.
I learned a heck of a lot more at seminars taught by real scientists working in industry than I did from the academics at Uni.
I can only think of ‘Brain Damage’ by Pink Floyd
http://www.pink-floyd-lyrics.com/html/brain-damage-dark-lyrics.html
RockyRoad says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:01 am
The easiest option (and most logical, too), is to just turn off the computers they’re running these crazy models on. No garbage in; no garbage out. Academia is then cleansed from a festering blight they’re attempting to foist on humanity….
_________________________________________
Let’s go one step further and close down the Universities. Let’s go back to an apprentice system. It is pretty darn obvious the education system at least in the USA is one big fail anyway. Heck they came up with ADHD and now put 20% of the grade school kids on drugs. So remove the desks and have the inmates run on tread mills like hamsters to generate electricity instead of drugging them. A win-win situation.
Pointless exercise to combat a fictional problem.
I can’t believe what is going on! I should beware of my daily habit like turning the lights off when I am going to leave etc. Let us cooperate with each other to rescue this poor planet!
The formula: We need to limit GW to 2 degrees. Running another model, we are surprised by how few options we have. We need to take draconian action. We need to do it now.
That is research? There is zero originality in that regurgitation.
This is research? Running computer models based on deep ignorance of most of the highly complicated weather systems that constitute climate? Given that the models are built to ascribe warming to CO2 levels (despite all the evidence that CO2 levels rise in response to warming), is it any cause for astonishment that they predict ever-increasing temperatures with rising CO2 levels?
C- See me.
Please refer to Donna Laframboise’s new book, The Delinquent Teenager’, for a view into the integrity of Susan Solomon. It is not a pretty view.
The Japanese people would sure feel better if Fukushima-Daichi had been a good old coal plant…
ferd berple says:
November 21, 2011 at 7:01 am
You’re right. And here’s an enlightening view about it (and the reason Ms. Solomon is wrong):
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/global_warming_we_can_all_cheer_YuaZ4rbJSEIerSIa8Ij25I
(The above link has Dante’s description of Hell, which is something the enviros apparently want.)
Does pandering qualify as research? Perhaps it should be in their job description or fixed to their diploma to establish qualification and an ethical level of conduct.
Reading chicken bone patterns came to mind, the result are known before the throw and the art of divination has been performed by revealing future events.
Has divination now entered the realm of mathematics and computer models or is it only pandering. It gives new meaning to over the top, proves some lies are not believable no matter how big or many times told and proves unlike the long held belief promoted in movies there is more than one nutty professor.
Or perhaps when they look at the world all they see is carbon taxes and regulation.
The one thing that has the ability to eventually beat this nonsense is oceanic surface tension. You can heat gases in the atmosphere but to get that heat into the ocean you need to raise the temperature enough to reduce the surface tension and get the heat into the water.Try heating a bucket of water with a heat gun, you’ll find that you have to blast away for about 10 to 12mins before the heat starts to penetrate the surface. Thats at 450 degs. the only way the ocean gets heat is from the suns rays which can penetrate the surface tension. Vale agw.
@Bill Illis: November 21, 2011 at 6:51 am
Bill,
I hate to burst your bubble, but your own comment contains the reason you are incorrect. CO2 absorption would increase as CO2 concentrations rose, but it would also fall as CO2 concentrations fell. Therefore, anthropogenic CO2 emissions would have to approach zero asymptotically to halt the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, ignoring the long term CO2 decay in the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not begin to rise when annual emission rates were ~60% of current emissions rates; they began to rise when we began emitting CO2 into the atmosphere in significant quantities (~1750), with inflection points in the rate of increase at ~1850 and ~1950.
Oh, don’t forget that UN FAO says ~20% of global annual GHG emissions are from animal husbandry. Therefore, prepare to go vegan along the way. Also, remember that the “consensus” appears to be that a global population of ~1 billion is the maximum sustainable population, at least in a zero carbon emissions world.
I know that it is difficult to envision free people eliminating carbon emissions, adopting veganism and reducing global population by ~86% based on data that aren’t and models that don’t. However, who said that we’d always be free? Tyrannical individuals have sought global governance previously. Our world is not without its tyrants today; or, its advocates of global governance.
Jeffrey Davis says:
November 21, 2011 at 6:48 am
When tundra and taiga warm, they give up their embedded greenhouse gases. As they warm more, they contribute more. At 2C, the gases from natural sources will equal those from human sources. There’s hardly anyone who sees 2C of warming as “safe”. I have no idea how that idea gained any traction at all. 2C isn’t a natural plateau. It’s a number dreamed up like an advertising slogan. Since human contributions are actually accelerating, BAU scenarios which were once seen as dire are perversely “optimistic”. We’ll blow past 2C of warming like a sprinter going through a finish line tape.
________________________________
OH, good grief we are in an overall COOLING mode. If you want to get hysterical about the future worry about the coming Ice Age that is around the corner.
GRAPHS:
(542 million years) Phanerozoic Climate Change – Present on RIGHT: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
50,000 yr Greenland Ice Core – Present on RIGHT: http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/DO.png
15,000yr Greenland Ice core: http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a719dbb4970b-pi
10,000 yr Vostok Ice Core – Present on LEFT: http://mclean.ch/climate/figures_2/Vostok_to_10Kybp.gif
3,000 years d18O (oxygen 18 proxy) http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/Main/Warm_periods.jpg
2000 years from 18 proxies: http://www.plusaf.com/pix/2000-years-of-global-temperatures.jpg
The climate changes naturally and an insignificant effect from a minor component of the atmosphere is not what is causing it. Heck 95% of the greenhouse gas effect is from WATER VAPOR not CO2. Mankind’s contribution to Green House Gases” (total) is about 0.28%. Also the effect is not linear. Most of the effect is from the fist couple of 100 ppm and then saturation is achieved so the effect declines rapidly after that (logarithmic)
This is an excuse to raise prices, taxing people and the next big economic bubble. Shell Oil and BP have been in on it from the beginning. They FUNDED the Climate research Unit at East Anglia and now the World Bankers are salivating at the thought of all the money they can make ripping people off with the carbon credit bubble.
Goldman Sachs engineered the 2008 Food crisis/riots: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis?page=0,1
Goldman Sachs, engineering a carbon credit bubble? http://www.alternat1ve.com/biofuel/2009/07/04/goldman-sachs-engineering-a-carbon-credit-bubble/
It has been my theory for some time that the Blue Mountains are not mountains at all, they are in fact gigantic heaps of compressed tumbleweeds — meaning that the variety of Mother Nature’s own methods of carbon sequestration may be much more extensive than is presently believed.
The public can expect a “doom and gloom “article per day as the Durban meeting gets closer and the requests for more free escalete . Solomon is the same scientist that was making predictions a thousand years ahead about the effect of rising carbon dioxide yet the AGW scientists seem to be incapable even getting the current decade right. I would like to see these scientists make credible global temperature predictions 1 ,3,5 and 10 years ahead to first establish their scientific credibilty before making these exaggerated forecasts . Until that day , these latest articles seem to be just requistions for more money for unproven science in my opinion.
The planet cares not a twit what you say or do… and neither do I. GK
@jeffrey Davies
“When tundra and taiga warm, they give up their embedded greenhouse gases.”
++++
When tundra and taiga warm, they produce a massive increase in plant growth. This embedded GHG scare looks like nonsense. It is not even cherry picking – it is just stoopit.
You have to look at all the outcomes of a temperature change, not just one (increased rotting of biomass). The biomass got there, right? It grew there on the tundra, right? How? It grew when it was a heck of a lot warmer than it is now. When it warms it will start growing again (well it does now but slowly). Natural variation, my man. Natural variation dominates. When it gets warmer the tundra turns into a vast forest like northern Alberta-to-Manitoba. That causes a massive carbon sequestration – the very carbon you now fear coming back. If it gets warmer and stays warmer (which is the promise) the effect will be to greatly increase biomass accumulation. Biomass is just about 50% Carbon by mass.
Fred says:
November 21, 2011 at 8:03 am
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/massive_oyster_die-offs_show_ocean_acidification_has_arrived/2466/
__________________
AHHhhh I was right! Ocean neutralization is going to be the next scam. They forget that we chemist and others are very well aware the oceans are a BUFFERED system and so it is so much easier to disprove this.
Ocean buffer system explained here: http://www.co2web.info/np-m-119.pdf
The oceans are alkaline -pH over 7.0. When an acid is added to an alkaline solution it is neutralized not acidified until it reaches a pH of 7.0 or less. It seems they can not even get the scientific nomenclature right.
“According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted.
Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet.”
[Jay Leno]
We don’t want to hear from “climate change experts”. We want to hear what genuine scientists prove using real evidence, not models.
“to make our world carbon-free in the long run”…
Idiots, dressed like monkeys, yelling murder, drinking wine.
Lost me right there.
The lunatic greens have taken over the planet, key areas of policy are dictated by them. Stupid wind turbines despoil the countryside, damage wildlife and actually increase CO2 emissions. Not that an increase in emissions matters anyway as CO2 apparently does not cause global warming because spectral overlap with H2O reduces the latter’s effective emissivity/absorbtivity leading to a cooling effect ( see recent ‘Trenberth post’ by Bob Fernley Jones).
Ed Reid says:
November 21, 2011 at 8:58 am
==============================
Ed, what was the natural rate of CO2 increase or decrease prior to 1750, or was it stable?
I just watched a Futurama cartoon on global warming.
Apparently the robots’ exhaust valves caused global warming. As usual, Al Gore starred as the holy, enlightened one.
It all made perfect sense to me, much more than this typical, unfounded, scary forecast from grant addicted, ‘climate scientists’ – best of all, there were no dodgy models or dubious assumptions in the cartoon.
One thing I am convinced of : there will be batteries that will be ten times cheaper and with ten times the capacity and will recharge 20 times faster within 2 to 4 years from now. At that point gasoline powered vehicles become totally obsolete , although it will take a few years before most will get off the roads. What effect that will have on carbon emissions obviously depends upon
how much carbon was emitted creating the electricity versus the amount emitted when gasoline was burned. For electrical production, I would prefer nuclear , perhaps using modular technologies, or Thorium reactors.
An earlier article said:
“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”
So presumably Santer will wait for UAH to have 17 years of no warming, or whatever, to identify if there are indeed any “human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature”.
So isn’t Solomon jumping the gun a little bit with: “We will only achieve the target of limiting global warming to safe levels if carbon dioxide emissions begin to fall within the next two decades and eventually decrease to zero.”?
Does the right hand not know what the left is doing?
I’m rooting for the +2 degrees. It’s cold outside.
Greg Holmes says:
November 21, 2011 at 4:39 am
I reckon that I am at least 70% carbon, when do I get taxed directly for being me?
We on the average are 18% carbon by weight, second only to Oxygen.
My guess is that negative carbon input means our smokestacks have to be sucking it up and “sequestering” it for a time when the climate gets colder. The real carbon reserves are in our limestone and dolomite formations. These all need to be capped off or they might leak! (Sarc)
Steve from Rockwood @ November 21, 2011 at 9:41 am
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
Isn’t Madam Susan Solomon the prominent scientist featured in Donna Laframoise book? My suggestion is not to ask her for more or clarifying info. She will expel you on the spot for daring to doubt the findings of her “research”
Not just any buffered system… but the largest buffered system in the known universe! GK
When are plants going to start negating the increase in CO2? After all CO2 levels just keeps increasing. We hear that plants are going to take care of it, but there’s a little hitch: they haven’t. There’s all sorts of reasons, of course. CO2 is only one constituent of the equation. Water availabilty. Genetic limits. Consumption by pests. Fire. Land use conversion. Agriculture and forestry products consumption. (And, ironically, flood: Pakistan last year and Thailand this year.) Excess CO2 getting taken up by plants is like Lindzen’s Iris Effect. It sounds almost plausible, but the problem is it just never happens.
Ed Reid says:
November 21, 2011 at 8:58 am
——————————-
Here is how the math works.
We are emitting about 9.5 billion tons Carbon per year. Plants and Oceans are absorbing 4.0 billion tons of that. Therefore the concentration of Carbon is rising at about 4.5 billion tons or 2.0 ppm per year.
The amount that Plants and Oceans absorb each seems to be closely related to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The absorption rate is consistently about 1.7% per year of the excess CO2 above the equilibrium level of 280 ppm.
If we cut our emissions by 40% down to 5.7 billion tons per year by 2040, plants and oceans will then be absorbing the same 5.7 billion tons per year and CO2 will stabilize at 440 ppm (just below the 450 ppm, 2.0C “magic” level proposed).
A little background on the “2 degree target” from the man who came up with the figure in the first instance!
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697-8,00.html
……. a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.
It was a pretty audacious estimate. Nevertheless, the powers-that-be finally had a tangible number to work with. An amazing success story was about to begin.
Rarely has a scientific idea had such a strong impact on world politics. Most countries have now recognized the two-degree target. If the two-degree limit were exceeded, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen announced ahead of the failed Copenhagen summit, “life on our planet, as we know it today, would no longer be possible.”
But this is scientific nonsense. “Two degrees is not a magical limit — it’s clearly a political goal,” says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated.”
Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.
“Yes, I plead guilty,” he says, smiling. The idea didn’t hurt his career. In fact, it made him Germany’s most influential climatologist. Schellnhuber, a theoretical physicist, became Chancellor Angela Merkel’s chief scientific adviser — a position any researcher would envy.”
Political junkie,
Your post is interesting, but “recognize” is not the same thing as “bring about policies to implement”. As noted earlier, 2C is a misleading number since it would be impossible with current technologies to stabilize there. At 2C, even if human emissions were 0, atmospheric concentrations of GHGs would continue to grow. At the same rate that they are now.
So, right now we’re in a situation a bit like the last scene of the Michael Caine version of The Italian Job.
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:14 am
2 degrees C, yes at a stretch, but that is 2C down
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm
______
Very very unlikely.
Gail Combs says:
November 21, 2011 at 9:01 am
“The climate changes naturally and an insignificant effect from a minor component of the atmosphere is not what is causing it. Heck 95% of the greenhouse gas effect is from WATER VAPOR not CO2. Mankind’s contribution to Green House Gases” (total) is about 0.28%. Also the effect is not linear. Most of the effect is from the fist couple of 100 ppm and then saturation is achieved so the effect declines rapidly after that (logarithmic).”
___
Oh my, this nonsense again? Please, for your own education, see:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/
Read all 8 of the very detailed (full of maths and science) overview…and perhaps you’ll stop spewing this kind of dribble.
Robert S says:
November 21, 2011 at 9:37 am
“Not that an increase in emissions matters anyway as CO2 apparently does not cause global warming because spectral overlap with H2O reduces the latter’s effective emissivity/absorbtivity leading to a cooling effect.”
____
Have you ever actually looked at a spectral absorption chart of CO2 & H2O and compared it to the LW coming from the earth? The area around 15 microns should be especially interesting to you.
To Bill Illis,
Try this mass balance approach instead of the IPPC model. Click on my name.
Look at the energy flows and you will see that this is doable if we are ready to return to the world much as it was in the 1850’s, with a mostly dispersed agrarian society, extremely limited travel, a 50 year average lifespan (Longer than the actual for 1850, but allowable with STRICT birth controls – i.e. extra births carry the death penalty.) and a global population of approximately 1 billion people. All within a single generation.
Some of the true believers in ‘global warming’ may be able to qualify exterminating 5.5 billion people to prevent global warming as something other than genocide, but I cannot. Inevitably it will turn into a ‘them vs. us’ issue and ethnic cleansing will commence. I’ll leave it to the reader to speculate on who the cleansed and the cleansers will be.
That is what the media either cannot, or willfully refuses to, understand and report.
R. Gates says:
November 21, 2011 at 11:18 am
Very very unlikely
Hi Gates
Long time no see.
2C down, happened before, 1670 – 1690, and no reason why not again:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-100-150-100.htm
I can explain (my article is nearly ready) both 2C down followed by 3C up, all in 50 years.
Can you?
2 degrees of sense – 358 degrees of non-sense
Nice pie-chart! GK
Earth 2011 does not equal Earth 1670, or more importantly, Earth 1790, as I believe we’re more likely to see a Dalton type solar minimum rather than a Maunder. We may drop 0.5C during this at the very most, but it will be up up and away for temps over the course of the 21st Century. A 2C drop would take a serious re-write of atmospheric physics…not that it couldn’t happen, but it would be very very unlikely. But even in your scenario you see us as 1C higher in 50 years, and I’d put us just a bit ahead of that, but close enough to call us even in the net result after 50 years.
Henry@R.Gates
Why don’t you actually spend some trying to understand what other people say about what you want to understand….
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-Aug-2011
>> we need to ensure that technologies are available to make our world carbon-free in the long run.
>>
Carbon is the very base of life on Earth. The whole of organic chemistry, that is LIFE, is based around the carbon atom.
Do these idiots even think about what they are proposing?
China is increasing emissions by an amount equivalent to 2-2.5% of the global number, India another .5%
R. Gates says:
November 21, 2011 at 12:16 pm
, as I believe we’re more likely to see a Dalton type solar minimum rather than a Maunder.
If you really carefully study the CET records than you may find out that the CET does not agree with the solar minima. Around 1710 temperature has already shot up by more than 2C, while the Maunder was approaching its end. Similarly with the Dalton, average of the CET around 1810 was higher than average around 1840 (not to mention 1890s) but by then Dalton was well over.
Calling on the Maunder and Dalton minima, unless is supported by data and explainable in terms of the TSI, does not resolve the dilemma.
Either debating sceptic or the AGW believer, you should be able to support the argument by reliable data, and facts as they are imbedded in the data.
If you take a good look at last graph in
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-100-150-100.htm
in the UK we are already 1.5C down on the peaks of two previous decades; who says that it will not oscillate around its new low, but go back to the old peaks?
Gate I suggest to anyone interested in the climate change:
the past is behind, learn from it
the present is here, understand it
the future is ahead, prepare for it.
Gates, get yourself a warm woolly jumper.
the good news is that the world is waking up to the global warming fraud
R. Gates says:
Very very unlikely.
Say, aren’t those the latest odds on the doomsday climate sensitivity scenarios of the last IPCC report (3C or more from 2X CO2)? Why yes, I think they are … Tho actually, I think the technical term used was “implausible”.
Talk fast, sweetheart. Your window for pushing this crap is being walled up with implausibility. Brick, by brick.
We may drop 0.5C during this at the very most …
LOL. That is a keen admission. 0.5C is the entirety of all warming since 1940, if you buy into the overly adjusted GISTEMP rererevisionist history. Now you postulate that all of it, even that pesky little anthropogenic bit, might be completely erased. *POOF* – global warming is gone.
You are becoming something of a mason yourself. Not a bad idea for you to have an alternate career awaiting the point when your position as Pullman Porter on the ‘global warming’ gravy train goes away.
Speaking of points, whatever happened to that “tipping point” that we were supposed to be only ten years away from, about 6 years ago? The only thing that has been tipping during that timeframe has been the slope of the surface temp curve – tipping over flat. Those several very scary uncontrolled feedback loops we were warned about should have us staring across the threshold of Hell by now – but you are saying that it might all just go away? Huh. Sounds like anthropogenic climate change change to me.
You know they are talking rubbish when they say
“They used mathematical modelling techniques to construct a number of possible future scenarios, based on different assumptions on emissions reduction.”
This is simplistic reporting of modelling and we all know how that has worked out.
Mathematics can be said to be” infallible” but GIGO still applies. If the model is flawed who cares what results bad logic fed into a microprocessor returns.
“The research shows how quickly emissions need to drop in the next few decades. It also highlights how remaining emissions could cause the two-degrees target to be exceeded in the long term, over the next few hundred years.”
I thought we were all doomed in about 89 years not a few hundred more.
Well that is good news – we have some breathing space at last.
M.A.Vukcevic,
How closely does your CET correlate with the rest of Europe, and then how well does Europe correlate with the rest of of N. Hemisphere, and then how does the N. Hemisphere correlate with the rest of the globe in terms of the temperatures during the time frames you’ve given? Here is the best recent summary that I’ve seen recently on solar-climate interactions, given recently at the Sante Fe conference. There’s lots the look at here, so take your time.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/santafe/papers/Sun_climate_SantaFe.pdf
Mike Bentley says onNovember 21, 2011 at 6:37 am:
“Would someone kindly explain to me, a dumb ol’ engineer what “negative emissions” means?????”
It means the opposite of “positive emissions” and new studies show they are far worse than we previously thought!
You stupid boy. – Fall into line – And pay more attention from now on!!!!
Conclusions from “an international team of scientists”?
Are these “scientists” aware that photosynthesis would cease at levels below 100 ppm, only 290 ppm below where we are now, and this lush world would be turned into a ball of ice?
Are these “scientists” aware that this planet has endured CO2 levels 18 times higher than today without hardly a notice? (GEOCARB)
Are these “scientists” aware that in 1825 CO2 was 425 ppm, 35 ppm higher than today?
Are these “scientists” aware that for the last 6E8 years our planet has varied in temperature from 12C to 22C, being 22C 46% of the time and 12C only 6% of the time (PALEOTEMP), and that we are now just 2.5C above the low point of the range?
Are these “scientists” aware of the above, or are they just drowning in their dogma?
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
November 21, 2011 at 6:41 pm
“Are these “scientists” aware that in 1825 CO2 was 425 ppm, 35 ppm higher than today?”
——
I don’t mind that they aren’t aware of nonsense like this…or if they are aware that some poor unfortunate soul such as yourself actually believe this, they can only realize how much ignorance is out there.
Bertram Felden says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:06 am
The moment I see Uinversity of Exeter or University of East Anglia I lose all interest. These two are if not AGW cheerleaders then willing shills. Not worth listening to anything they have to say. They really are only in it for the money.
=======================
Likewise with the CSIRO here in Australia … once a great scientific organisation now reduced to CAGW rent seeking.
Nick Shaw says:
November 21, 2011 at 6:45 am
… What will be the effect of so much more ozone in the atmosphere?
======================================================
Well for one, ozone is a lot more toxic to humans than carbon dioxide.
R. Gates says:
November 21, 2011 at 4:10 pm
……………
Hi again
The CET correlates well with both the NAO and AMO. According to the BEST paper on natural variability:
“We find that the strongest cross‐correlation of the decadal fluctuations in land surface temperature is not with ENSO but with the AMO. “
The CET is not only longest and most reliable record available, but appears to be the closest to the Northern Hemisphere’s trends.
I plan to reduce my carbon emissions to zero in about forty years’ time. Is that soon enough?
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 21, 2011 at 11:03 pm
……………..
TSI has been accurately measured since the 1970’s and change doesn’t appear to be a factor. For years solar and climate scientists on the basis on relatively good science rejected the solar TSI influence. Now they are finding that the dodgy CO2 hypothesis isn’t working they are fishing into solar effects.
I looked at the SF presentation, not too impressed. How Brekke (the author of the Santa Fe presentation)predicts solar output up to 40 years ahead, since only 2-3 years ago scientists were predicting strongest SC24 ever?
Perhaps he is copying my projection of 8 years ago which has come spot on:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
So come on, Pal Brekke tell us what your prediction is based on. The quotes on page (slide) 36 have no relevance to the 30-40 years prediction output as you show on page (slide) 37, as the quoted scientists would have told you only couple of years ago, unless of course they are now also subscribing to my hypothesis.
“I plan to reduce my carbon emissions to zero in about forty years’ time. Is that soon enough?”
Soooo many punchlines. Soooo little time.
R. Gates says:
November 21, 2011 at 11:39 am
Robert S says:
November 21, 2011 at 9:37 am
“Not that an increase in emissions matters anyway as CO2 apparently does not cause global warming because spectral overlap with H2O reduces the latter’s effective emissivity/absorbtivity leading to a cooling effect.”
____
Have you ever actually looked at a spectral absorption chart of CO2 & H2O and compared it to the LW coming from the earth? The area around 15 microns should be especially interesting to you.
Yes I have! I have also computed the absorption to extinction of LWIR in that waveband. Have you got something illuminating to say about it bearing in mind Wien’s Law – maximum emission in that wavelength occurs at minus 73 deg C.
#
#
Jeffrey Davis says:
November 21, 2011 at 10:33 am
When are plants going to start negating the increase in CO2? After all CO2 levels just keeps increasing. We hear that plants are going to take care of it, but there’s a little hitch: they haven’t…..
__________________________
That depends on whether or not you believe scientists are honest, especially when they have an agenda.
A recent article here at WUWT showed that the world was producing about 2 to 2.5 tonne of cereal crops per hectare in 1960 and that has increased to nearly 7 tonne per hectare. Other reports have shown an increase in the growth of trees. However Oceans are the other side of the coin. We have been in a relatively warm phase of ENSO. Bob Tisdale goes into the fine points.
Are Scientists truthful?
You can see the other side of the CO2 measurement argument here: CO2 : The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
“… In the words of the IPCC, this delay is needed for adjustment of the main text, so that “Changes . . . [could be] made to ensure consistency with the ‘Summary for Policymakers.’ ” Not a single word in these 1,600 pages is to be in conflict with what politicians said beforehand in the
summary!…. “
Indepth discussion in laymen’s terms.
Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma. Tom V. Segalstad Mineralogical-Geological Museum, University of Oslo: http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf
More technical peer reviewed paper
Do Glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? Z. Jaworowski, T. V. Segalstad N.Ono
http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf
I worked in industry as a chemist since 1970 and I found that lying and cheating are much more common than you would think when a pay check or advancement is at stake. Global Warming is a big money maker so take everything said with a huge grain of salt.
“That depends on whether or not you believe scientists are honest, especially when they have an agenda.”
Then you’re really up a stump, aren’t you? If “having an agenda” negates your point of view, then everything is permitted, isn’t it?
Or do you just mean, “having an agenda different from mine”?
M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 21, 2011 at 11:03 pm
R. Gates says:
November 21, 2011 at 4:10 pm
……………
Hi again
The CET correlates well with both the NAO and AMO. According to the BEST paper on natural variability:
“We find that the strongest cross‐correlation of the decadal fluctuations in land surface temperature is not with ENSO but with the AMO. “
The CET is not only longest and most reliable record available, but appears to be the closest to the Northern Hemisphere’s trends.
____
Just to be clear on your stance here. Was or wasn’t the N. Hemisphere cooling we saw from about 1790 to 1830 or so, commonly known as the Dalton Minimum, primarily as result of solar influences combined with volcanic activity or not, in your estimation?
In 1954, Hoyt C Hottel conducted an experiment to determine the total emissivity/absorptivity of carbon dioxide and water vapour. From his experiments, he found that the total emissivity of carbon dioxide is almost xero below 33 deg C (551 deg R) in combination with a partial pressure of 0.00039 atm.
17 years later B Lckner verified Hottel’s results finding that the emissivity of carbon dioxide was insignificant below 33 deg C and a pp of 0.00039 atm.
Hottel and Leckner’s graphs show a total emissivity for carbon dioxide of zero under those conditions.
The same investigators found by experiment that the emissivity/absorptivity for 5% atmospheric water vapour at 33 deg C was 0.4.
The absorption/emission spectral bands of CO2/H2O overlap and for atmospheric concentrations of 5% H2O and 0.039% CO2 it was found that CO2 attenuates the total absorptivity/emissivity of water vapour and acts to cool rather than warm the atmosphere.