On the day Obama announces a new plan to curb CO2 emissions, this statement comes along…
These changes would linger even if the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration were to be restored to pre-industrial levels at some point in the future
From the Carnegie Institution:
Washington, DC–Continuing current carbon dioxide (CO2) emission trends throughout this century and beyond would leave a legacy of heat and acidity in the deep ocean. These changes would linger even if the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration were to be restored to pre-industrial levels at some point in the future, according to a new Nature Climate Change paper from an international team including Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira. This is due to the tremendous inertia of the ocean system.
Greenhouse gases emitted by human activities not only cause rapid warming of the seas, but also an unprecedented rate of ocean acidification. Ocean acidification occurs when atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean and forms carbonic acid, inhibiting coral reef growth and threatening marine life.
Some experts propose that climate and chemical damage due to high levels of greenhouse gases could be avoided by removing active carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, processes broadly called CDR for carbon dioxide removal. One idea is that fast-growing trees such as poplars, which consume a great deal of carbon dioxide during growth, could be farmed and then burned in bioenergy plants where their carbon dioxide would captured and stored underground instead of released back into the atmosphere. However, none of the proposed removal-and-storage strategies have been proven at an industrial scale yet, and ideas such as poplar farming would have to be carefully balanced against land use for food production.
Using computer modeling to investigate the success of CDR strategies, the team discovered that the clock is ticking for CDR to substantially reduce risks to much marine life. If these processes are applied too late, they might as well not be applied at all, as far as ocean acidification is concerned, the team found.
“Geoengineering measures are currently being debated as a kind of last resort to avoid dangerous climate change–either in the case that policymakers find no agreement to cut CO2emissions, or to delay the transformation of our energy systems,” said lead-author Sabine Mathesius from GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “However, looking at the oceans we see that this approach carries great risks.”
As policymakers consider what might occur if various near- to mid-term climate policy targets are not achieved, it becomes increasingly important to understand what happens if society exceeds these targets.
“If we overspend our carbon dioxide emission budget now, can we make up for it by paying back a carbon dioxide debt later?” asked Caldeira, who worked on this issue during a research stay at PIK. “Can later carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere offset today’s emissions?”
The team conducted a computer experiment and simulated different rates of carbon dioxide extraction from the atmosphere. One of these rates, 22 billion tons per year, would remove carbon dioxide at slightly more than half current emission rates. Another was the probably unfeasible rate of more than 90 billion tons per year, which is more than two times today’s yearly emissions. The experiment did not account for the availability of technologies for extraction and storage.
“Interestingly, it turns out that after business-as-usual until 2150, even taking such enormous amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would not help life that exists deep in the ocean very much. After large-scale ocean circulation has transported acidified water to great depths, it is out of reach for many centuries, no matter how much carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere,” Caldeira said.
The scientists’ model also looked at increasing temperatures and decreasing concentrations of dissolved oxygen in the sea. Oxygen is, of course, vital for many creatures. The warming reduces ocean circulation, harming nutrient transport. Together with acidification, these changes put heavy pressures on marine life. Earlier in Earth’s history, such changes have led to mass extinctions. However, the combined effect of all three factors has not yet been fully understood.
“In the deep ocean, the chemical echo of this century’s CO2 pollution will reverberate for thousands of years,” said co-author John Schellnhuber, director of PIK. “If we do not implement emissions reductions measures in line with the 2 degrees Celsius target in time, we will not be able to preserve ocean life as we know it.”
###
Ken Caldeira’s participation in this project was supported by the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research and the Carnegie Institution for Science endowment.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“On the day Obama announces a new plan to curb CO2 emissions, this statement comes along…”
obama cares not about CO2 – mm global warming/climate change is a wrecking ball he swings against America.
Exactly correct — CO_2 reduction doesn’t matter insofar as the climate is concerned, but huge, mandated reductions really do matter for the U.S. economy and, as you noted, the purpose is to wreck the economy.
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
PLIMER: “Okay, here’s the bombshell. The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know….it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50p light bulbs with £5 light bulbs ….. well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes, FOUR DAYS – by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time – EVERY DAY.
I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippinesin 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it!!!!
Of course, I shouldn’t spoil this ‘touchy-feely tree-hugging’ moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the westernUSA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus ‘human-caused’ climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention ‘Global Warming’ anymore, but just ‘Climate Change’ – you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past few years and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But, hey, relax……give the world a hug and have a nice day!!
Absolutely SPOT ON.
Let me get this straight. The magic CO2 molecule causes rapid warming of the oceans, but keeps the ocean warm for a very long time because of the “tremendous inertia”. So this thermal inertia only works one way. The stupid is strong with this one…
When you start your abstract with complete nonsense, you can expect the rest to follow suit
“Greenhouse gases emitted by human activities not only cause rapid warming of the seas, but also an unprecedented rate of ocean acidification. Ocean acidification occurs when atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean and forms carbonic acid, inhibiting coral reef growth and threatening marine life.”
May as well write…
Flatulance emitted by unicorns not only cause rapid warming of the seas, but also an unprecedented rate of ocean acidification. Ocean acidification occurs when atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean and forms carbonic acid, inhibiting coral reef growth and threatening marine life.”
“One idea is that fast-growing trees such as poplars, which consume a great deal of carbon dioxide during growth, could be farmed and then burned in bioenergy plants where their carbon dioxide would captured and stored underground instead of released back into the atmosphere. However, none of the proposed removal-and-storage strategies have been proven at an industrial scale yet, and ideas such as poplar farming would have to be carefully balanced against land use for food production.”
One lot of nonsense followed by the absurd. Queensland Government spent close to $500million on carbon capture and failed. So these people are waiting for a unicorn to magically appear on a magic carpet. Good luck with that but at least it keeps them safe and off the street.
“Greenhouse gases emitted by human activities not only cause rapid warming of the seas, but also an unprecedented rate of ocean acidification.”
Is this claim based on solid data, or just a
predictionprojection based on computer models?AMEN ONE OF THE WORSE OPINION PIECES EVER APPEARING ON THESE PAGES.
It’s amazing that they keep claiming ocean acidification when none has ever been seen. They just assume it happens and ignore the facts that carbonic acid is a weak acid and that seawater is a complex buffer solution that cannot be pushed around by CO2 dissolved in it.
Furthermore, the illogical next assumption is that acidification would be bad for shelled organisms and coral reefs, which begs the fact that most sea organisms evolved under much higher concentrations of CO2 and that no acidity released by carbonic acid can alter it’s own equilibrium, which includes the long chain of equilibrium from carbonic acid to calcium carbonate. Then, add to that the fact that calcium carbonate is less soluble in warm water than cool, and you have coral reefs thriving with warmer oceans, from having more building material and a more stable product.
Anyone who thinks oceans can warm and absorb CO2 at the same time has never watched a cold beer go flat as it approaches room temperature. I have no advanced degree, but I understand observation of reality
The same thought occurred to me. These alarmists want it both ways. The “tremendous inertia of the ocean system” does not slow magical CO2 from causing “rapid warming” and an “unprecedented rate of ocean acidification,” but it will cause these changes to linger “for many centuries, no matter how much carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.” If high temperatures and low pH can linger in the oceans for centuries, why can’t low temperatures and high pH linger just as long? It’s not as alarming, that’s why.
To me – the stupid, it burns . . .
Auto, desperately sad that THIS is where we seem to have arrived at . . . . .
Dear Auto,
“OFF TOPIC here” but still relevant to certain questions in this thread.
Paul asked Anthony, “What action can folks take that would yield positive results ?”.
A very good question indeed and that question applies to folks in Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, The France, The Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Belgium and other countries.
The answer is this:-
It needs SOMEONE very special (and yes, we know who that person is) to produce a Special Feature Film for general public viewing and “viral” transmission in various languages across the world.
This film / movie will cause government collapses quickly: it will (hopefully) create havoc.
Folks: please remember that the shite-hawks in the bunkers (oops … did I just say that ?) in Berlin, Washington, London and The France and Brussels, Belgium are watching here, so be careful.
If you (Paul) can give us all a better idea, I’m sure we would genuinely love to hear of it.
At this stage of the year, what with the up-coming Parasite meeting in November, I think you will find me correct in my “answer” above. I do hope so.
Regards,
WL
Just saw his speech live on CNN (that’s all I get here on Dish in the Baja). Interesting, he went off script for a while and described arriving in LA for College and he went for a run – after a short while he found it hard to breathe. Now he said in LA runners can breathe without smog. Don’t you get it – EPA or whatever (the catalytic converter) has done it’s job and maybe you should leave well enough alone. He also mentioned that acid rain has been cleared up due to EPA I guess… All of this was done with coal fired power plants in operation, but he didn’t mention that. His emphasis was with the skeptic alarmists about the economy and not the CAGW alarmist about carbon (CO2)…I could go into a rant, but I won’t…
http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/244497-obama-smoking-president-caught-on-camera-holding-pack-of-cigarettes
running in LA during smog events with the high ozone content always maxe my eye turn red and exercise breathing more labored. but it was the ozone and other bad stuff (nitrites, sulfites) that caused the difficulty, not CO2.
Just like the Gruberism for passing ObamaCare, the US President once again relies on the stupidity of the US voter to not put pressure on Congress to intervene in his regulatory lawlessness.
Models and simulaiting. No more then that all the panic over models and simulations but no real world opservations. And humans still belief this crap???????????????
So, let’s see…..it takes a long time for changes in CO2 levels to show up..
…but yet, they can nail it down to the day (industrialization) when it started
Obviously an increase in CO2 has an immediate effect…
..and a reduction in CO2, not so much
AGW, CO2 and all the other buzzwords, key phrases and public hype are only one thing… political sleight-of-hand to distract the public from the fact that politicians have no idea how to handle the REAL problems of overspending, immigration, unemployment, etc.
Bingo!!
It’s just a substitute problem to gigantic issue of the world depression II.
In the movie “Idiocracy” the protagonist had to stay in suspended animation for 500 years before he emerged into a world dominated by total morons. Although the plot was definitely prophetic, it was decidedly pessimistic in it’s timeline. We appear to be closing on the end state at lightspeed and will likely achieve total “Idiocracy” by the end of the decade and possibly by the next Presidential election.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
― H.L. Mencken
As if GW Bush wasn’t that moron! You people are a hoot. You whine that the left makes the climate a political issue. Then you turn around and make it a political issue yourselves. This site is good only when it sticks to the science of what’s happening. The politics is childish.
We have had a number of morons in the White House but it’s been on a downward trend, and rapidly getting worse.
donj,
Thanks for your input.
Appreciated.
Auto
don jindra
I don’t whine that the left makes the climate a political issue. It is primarily a scientific, economic, and moral issue. If it requires a political solution to roll back regulatory changes, so be it.
So tell us don jindra, what about obama do you like so much?
“So tell us don jindra, what about obama do you like so much?”
I don’t like any politician so much. As I said, I’m not interested in the politics of climate science no matter who is behind it. That includes all political sides. The climate itself will have its say, one way or another. Anyone who is serious about the issue should concentrate on that, imo.
Donji
The issue is political or had you not realised? The science is reasonably clear, its crap.
@ur momisugly donjindra August 3, 2015 at 2:43 pm
“As if GW Bush wasn’t that moron! You people are a hoot. …”
My dear fellow, I wonder if you realize that H.L. Mencken wrote that quote long before Bush (any of the three) were in public life. Mencken died in ’56. He wrote that quote decades before that even. So, your comment seems a little weird to me.
I don’t have time this morning, but there is a wonderful quote by another An-Cap (like me), who said something along the lines of: “every president of my lifetime made me nostalgic for the one before him!”.
Since you sound like a true believer Democrat, let me tell you that the least bad president was … wait for it … a democrat! Martin Van Buren who served as the eighth President of the United States (1837–1841) and was a member of the Democratic Party was about as good as it ever got. (See Rothbard or Tom Woods for reasons)
“I don’t whine that the left makes the climate a political issue.”
Good, because it was the right (Thatcher and Gore) who dragged it into politics. It is true that the left keeps it there, as well as American Democrats. (Democrats count as right to far right.)
” This site is good only when it sticks to the science of what’s happening. The politics is childish.”
Ageed, donjindra.
RoHa
I was partially quoting donjindra in order to answer him. I’m aware of Thatcher’s role in the agw scam. My point was to challenge the false assumption put forth by donjindra.
As far as American Democrats being right or far right…..you are either massively uninformed or you are from another country and don’t understand the left/right continuum as it is defined in the USA. In the USA, but it appears, not in Europe, the left equals big government and the right equals small government. In between are variations on the theme. Hope this helps.
To Louis Hunt’s point
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/feb/12/state-of-the-union-reading-level
+10 with Bernie Sanders playing President Camacho
The Model has spoken.
Now all humble themselves and make offerings to the Model.
Those who do not voluntarily make offerings to the Model, will be forced to make them.
The Model has spoken.
Speaking of models, the good news is
Any movie with Ben Stiller is very bad news. Same for Adam Sandler.
If they want a method to capture the CO2, then there is no need to Burn the poplar wood and subsequently try to capture the CO2 released in the process. The CO2 is already locked up in the wood so just leave it as wood and either build with it or chip it and store the chips underground. You could store a lot of poplar wood cords as solids or chips as infill in the bottom of petered out Coal Strip Mines. Who knows, eventually this mountain of Poplar chips covered in tons of earth could become a new Coal Seam or other energy source for future generations
Growing poplar trees will be bad for termites. They just won’t eat that stuff. Their species could be endangered.
Even better for building then
We’ll have to grow millions of other trees to keep them fed in that case. But first we’ll need some grants to study the issue.
Just warm up sea water under controlled conditions and you will get all the CO2 you want.
Just maybe and secretly knowingly that termites produce enormous amounts of the dreaded CO2 ‘they’ are waging a war on the little devils…que the Dr. Evil laugh
https://youtu.be/BdvUR67nZs0
All apologies…
CO2 reductions to solve Climate change? Wrong solution for the world. A Limerick.
Renewable energy: – Clean.
The world is so dirty and mean.
Never mind the expense
and it doesn’t make sense.
CO2 is what makes the world green.
The White House Aug 3 announced a target of 32% reduction in CO2 emission from U.S. power plants by 2030. This is a target that no existing Coal fired power plant can meet, only natural gas fired power plants. He also proposed a 70% reduction in emissions other than CO2, which has its merits.
Obama may yet succeed in his campaign promise: “Under my plan the electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.”
more: http://lenbilen.com/2015/08/03/co2-reductions-to-solve-climate-change-wrong-solution-for-the-world-a-limerick/
There have been times in the past when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was much higher than today. And the marine life survived just fine.
I wonder how much longer this assault on prosperity will be tolerated. The proof that CO2 has no effect on climate and identification of what does cause climate change are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
Only until the vast majority of people catch on that this indeed is what it’s all about…an assault on our prosperity.
nigel
Agree
Indeed –
Concur totally.
May be using WUWT – whilst speaking to ‘Our’ side consider the transformancy . . . .
AQuto
It’s very interesting that increasing water temperatures decrease the oxygen dissolved in the ocean (2nd last paragraph), but that CO2 and acidification aren’t affected by the warmer temps and keep on getting worse. Compartmentalized thinking?
O2 follows the gas laws; CO2 not.
What?
CO2 is more controlled by acid base equilibrium.
They just said that because of the deep oceans, CO2 lags temperature…
…and they have the computer model to prove it
the little “o” would love to see the US electricity consumer paying German prices at the meter. The more of this massive increase that can go to taxes the better (for him).
Related ignorance at work.
Years ago i was in a nursery on Sydney’s ugliest thoroughfare, Parramatta Road that specialised in water plants and stuff.
Surrounded by vibrant greenery and the joyful sound of running water, it was a marvellous place to potter and have a cuppa with the septuagenarian who created it on the site of a defunct Caltex petrol station.
The peace was disturbed by on officious bloke who announced he was from the Sydney Water, Sewage and Drainage Board and that he was there to investigate what was happening to all the “waste water” this haven must have produced, given the amount of metered HO2 they were consuming.
The lady’s response after she recovered from this pitiful creature’s statement, came short and swift,
“You are breathing it you moron”
NOboma’16
I just saw a on the BBC professor Alexander Golub of the American University, say while it would be difficult to implement a 1% cut overnight, a 30% (or more) cut in 15 years was entirely realistic. He sounded to me to be an academic who was totally out of touch with reality.
http://www.american.edu/cas/faculty/agolub.cfm
One question I would like to see asked of Obama, and all of the so called “experts”, is how much difference will these measures, if fully implemented, make to global temperatures and other so called “climate change” events ?
I don’t think they could answer that.
C’mon 15 years of ‘research and bulldust reports’ on a 6 digit annual stipend? Now there is a goal for this esteemed chap.
I noticed the guy had a Russian accent and I see that he graduated from the Moscow State University in 1982.
I guess there are more opportunities in the field of “climate change” in the U.S.A.
This is laughable for two reasons. First even if global warming were true any action taken by us would not matter and secondly global warming is not what lies ahead but rather global cooling.
At least for the next 30 years or so until it starts warming again.
Well that all depends upon whether the modern warm period is coming to an end, just as the MWP, the Roman Warm Period, The Minoan Warm periods did before.
Presently, we do not know what the near term future holds, and anyone who claims to know is not being scientific, and is a crank.
Not only are these clowns deficient in their knowledge of thermodynamics but it seems of chemistry as well.
Total BS. The fact that there are idiots out there that believe this means there will be lots more candidates for the Darwin awards.
The extra H- ions in ocean water come from the dilution of the oceans, and not from dissolved CO2.
So CO2 will leave a legacy of heat and acidity in the deep ocean. And it is going to stay for a long time. Right. I have no immediate interest in visiting the deep ocean anytime soon. I do wonder how it got there in the first place, however.
Acid ocean. Sea level rise. Moon dissolving. Poplar trees. It doesn’t look good.
Add in pushcart nation as a policy objective too…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-03/california-regulator-mary-nichols-may-transform-the-auto-industry
“Clean Power Plan: Isn’t it an artificial emergency with impossible deadlines created by poorly written regulations for unwilling states?”
So, no possible conflict of interest there, then?
” …asked Caldeira, who worked on this issue during a research stay at PIK…” It comes from Potsdam. It is therefore bullcrap .
“Greenhouse gases emitted by human activities not only cause rapid warming of the seas, but also an unprecedented rate of ocean acidification………”
Strange, I’m not a scientist but I thought it was the sun the warmed the oceans. Silly me.
And then there’s that world “unprecedented” again. So an alkaline ocean stunningly becomes not just acidic, but at a never-seen-before rate. So I assume the authors of this piece have ocean pH records going back to their start which enabled them to draw this conclusion. And how do they know what the oceans’ pH level was before that?
I know things are supposed to get worse before they get better, but I’m wondering if this will ever be the case with this CAGW cattle dung. These people are an absolute riot if they think they can make the world a better this way……
” never-seen-before rate” well…. I’ve never ever seen it before!! so there….
Repent! the end is near. The universe is rapidly filling up with never-seen-before planets.