More gloomy outlook worries from this NCAR press release: Climate conditions in 2050 crucial to avoid harmful impacts in 2100
BOULDER–While governments around the world continue to explore strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a new study suggests policymakers should focus on what needs to be achieved in the next 40 years in order to keep long-term options viable for avoiding dangerous levels of warming.
The study is the first of its kind to use a detailed energy system model to analyze the relationship between mid-century targets and the likelihood of achieving long-term outcomes.
“Setting mid-century targets can help preserve long-term policy options while managing the risks and costs that come with long-term goals,” says co-lead author Brian O’Neill, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
The study, conducted with co-authors at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, is being published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It was funded by IIASA, a European Young Investigator Award to O’Neill, and the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor.
The researchers used a computer simulation known as an integrated assessment model to represent interactions between the energy sector and the climate system. They began with “business as usual” scenarios, developed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2000 report, that project future greenhouse gas emissions in the absence of climate policy. They then analyzed the implications of restricting emissions in 2050, using a range of levels.
The team focused on how emissions levels in 2050 would affect the feasibility of meeting end-of-century temperature targets of either 2 or 3 degrees Celsius (about 3.5 degrees or 5.5 degrees Fahrenheit, respectively) above the pre-industrial average.
—–Mid-century thresholds—–
The study identifies critical mid-century thresholds that, if surpassed, would make particular long-term goals unachievable with current energy technologies.
For example, the scientists examined what would need to be done by 2050 in order to preserve the possibility of better-than-even odds of meeting the end-of-century temperature target of 2 degrees Celsius of warming advocated by many governments.
One “business as usual” scenario showed that global emissions would need to be reduced by about 20 percent below 2000 levels by mid-century to preserve the option of hitting the target. In a second case, in which demand for energy and land grow more rapidly, the reductions by 2050 would need to be much steeper: 50 percent. The researchers concluded that achieving such reductions is barely feasible with known energy sources.
“Our simulations show that in some cases, even if we do everything possible to reduce emissions between now and 2050, we’d only have even odds of hitting the 2 degree target-and then only if we also did everything possible over the second half of the century too,” says co-author and IIASA scientist Keywan Riahi.
The research team made a number of assumptions about the energy sector, such as how quickly the world could switch to low- or zero-carbon sources to achieve emission targets. Only current technologies that have proven themselves at least in the demonstration stage, such as nuclear fission, biomass, wind power, and carbon capture and storage, were considered. Geoengineering, nuclear fusion, and other technologies that have not been demonstrated as viable ways to produce energy or reduce emissions were excluded from the study.
—–The 2-degree goal—–
Research shows that average global temperatures have warmed by close to 1 degree C (almost 1.8 degrees F) since the pre-industrial era. Much of the warming is due to increased emissions of greenhouse gases, predominantly carbon dioxide, due to human activities. Many governments have advocated limiting global temperature to no more than 1 additional degree Celsius in order to avoid more serious effects of climate change.
During the recent international negotiations in Copenhagen, many nations recognized the case for limiting long-term warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, but they did not agree to a mid-century emissions target.
“Even if you agree on a long-term goal, without limiting emissions sufficiently over the next several decades, you may find you’re unable to achieve it. There’s a risk that potentially desirable options will no longer be technologically feasible, or will be prohibitively expensive to achieve,” O’Neill says.
On the other hand, “Our research suggests that, provided we adopt an effective long-term strategy, our emissions can be higher in 2050 than some proposals have advocated while still holding to 2 degrees Celsius in the long run,” he adds.
—–Cautions—–
The researchers caution that this is just one study looking at the technological feasibility of mid- and end-of-century emissions targets. O’Neill says that more feasibility studies should be undertaken to start “bounding the problem” of emissions mitigation.
“We need to know whether our current and planned actions for the coming decades will produce long-term climate change we can live with,” he says. “Mid-century targets are a good way to do that.”
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research under sponsorship by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As far as their simulations go – GIGO.
Sea levels were down for about 100,000 years (remember the “land bridge”), during which time there would have been no flow from the Pacific to the Arctic. We are supposed to believe that this “all of a sudden” made the glaciers melt at the end of the last glacial period?
Maybe the person who wrote the short article botched the explanation, or maybe I don’t understand, but if that’s what they’re selling, I’m not buying.
“Modelling”
Sorry, there is about as much chance of my taking this latest study seriously as there is of the Hubble telescope examining a black hole spotting a little man with a flashlight looking for the circuit board. (H/T The Big Bang Theory)
“Much of the warming is due to increased emissions of greenhouse gases, predominantly carbon dioxide, due to human activities.”
If the premise is wrong, then all of the modeling is wrong.
This modeling is famous for assuming clouds and a variety of other variables remain constant. They of course are unable to test their model in a controlled study. So these models may be 2,3 or 4 degrees too hot or it may cool.
I have to admit – my thoughts were precisely as Martin Brumby states above. “Climate models” is a null phrase in my book.
But it really doesn’t matter what the models say. We already know the solution: world-wide socialism and the destruction of the Western economic system – hopefully with as much lowering of our nasty standard of living as is possible.
Our careers are sinking, send help.
WOLF! WOLF! oh yeah they went extinct with thousands of birds and mammals sorry continue on……
—–Cautions—–
Post-normal science can cause oral cancer and is detrimental to healthy brain and respiratory function.
Our careers are sinking, send help.
Actually we know there’s no help any more, but at least we can claim payment for delivering last year’s goods.
Modeling to the 2nd degree? How inaccurate, misleading, and downright vile do the models of these climate “scientists” have to be to get a 1st degree conviction?
O/T, but is there anything on the heat that is released by human oxidising all that carbon every year. Is this heat measured via the UHI effect? Where does this heat go?
And, if CO2 itself has such a powerful warming effect, how about using it as a double-glazing filler-gas? If there was enough of it used, could it significantly reduce heating bills?
I wonder why they ignored fusion? The first commercial scale plant is planned to be in service within a decade or so. It is virtually guaranteed to be a technology option by 2050.
I consider fusion the most likely long term replacement for the fleet of coal plants.
With or without CO2 as an issue, coal plants still have a lot of negative environmental impacts that make fusion preferable.
So, what this di-assuming model is predicting is that
1.) We will enter a Mini Ice Age in the same manner as a regularly scheduled Ice Age
2.) The Mini Ice Age will reach maturity and reverse itself in 40 years in a scaled-down veriosn of the Big Ice Age 80,000 yrs and
3.) By 2050 massive warming will ensue.
And all this is based on a further assumption that cold is good and warm is bad.
That’s 1 unproven assumption and one big stretch of correlation.
If we are supposed to accept this Hollywood Thriller then it’s ok to peddle Sci-Fi grafted onto the Real World and the fruit produced is palatable.
And in the meantime, while the Earth falls into this Ice Age we will cut off the means to survive (energy use) in order to save the Planet by 2100.
Nicely painted into a no-win situation.
Which leads me to ask: Are we talking serious science here, or are we poring over a sci-fi script for the latest blockbuster doomsday thriller?
Looking for the actual article, I instead found this article in PNAS even more interesting:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/01/07/0906531107.abstract
Abstract:
“Decadal-scale climate variations over the Pacific Ocean and its surroundings are strongly related to the so-called Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) which is coherent with wintertime climate over North America and Asian monsoon, and have important impacts on marine ecosystems and fisheries. In a near-term climate prediction covering the period up to 2030, we require knowledge of the future state of internal variations in the climate system such as the PDO as well as the global warming signal. We perform sets of ensemble hindcast and forecast experiments using a coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model to examine the predictability of internal variations on decadal timescales, in addition to the response to external forcing due to changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, volcanic activity, and solar cycle variations. Our results highlight that an initialization of the upper-ocean state using historical observations is effective for successful hindcasts of the PDO and has a great impact on future predictions. Ensemble hindcasts for the 20th century demonstrate a predictive skill in the upper-ocean temperature over almost a decade, particularly around the Kuroshio-Oyashio extension (KOE) and subtropical oceanic frontal regions where the PDO signals are observed strongest. A negative tendency of the predicted PDO phase in the coming decade will enhance the rising trend in surface air-temperature (SAT) over east Asia and over the KOE region, and suppress it along the west coasts of North and South America and over the equatorial Pacific. This suppression will contribute to a slowing down of the global-mean SAT rise.”
Oh! Now it’s Mid-century? what happened to “time is running out?
Do I hear Bi-centennial?
Millenial?
Semi-Era-ish?
Can I get a mid – Eonic?
Now we’re talking rationally.
Some French blogger, likely from the Jussieu LMD a IPCC contrbutor, was blaming the lack of precision of the 5 to 10 y models run on the butterfly effect, explaining with a straight face that this is the reason why mthe same models predictions should be taken with a higher level of confidence when they predict the climate in 2100… The same luminary who calls himself ICE on the blogosphere also explained that if we run climate models for 5 to 10 years we should get a good answer for the 5 to 10 years predictions. Yes he might even be able to predict yesterday’s weather today too!
So I decided to take this ICE seriously and figured that in order to know with confidence the climate 5 years from now I should look at what was told at least 20 years ago because of this butterfly!
Hansen made predictions and oooooppppsss: we all know what they are worth now do we?
So Mister ICE, looks like the butterfly effect tricked you… LOL
“They began with “business as usual” scenarios, developed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2000 report”
In the beginning, they were wrong.
“The researchers used a computer simulation known as an integrated assessment model to represent interactions between the energy sector and the climate system. ”
With over 20 years professional experience in Systems Analysis/Systems Engineering, this was a new one. It turns out that “integrated assessment models” began their “life” in the 1980s as tools to “inform decision makers” in “environmental policy.”
Or, as the ethically challenged in our community used to do, “tell me the answer you want and I’ll build a simulation that gives it.”
Hope these clowns accepted some government money so they can be prosecuted.
Call me stupid, but winds are now predominantly from North/East, while in milder winters they were mostly South/West. Simple explanation for the heavy snowfall and cold snaps.
Now, where can I apply for a research grant?
lowercasefred
not only that: as glacial conditions were just getting going, even before sea levels dropped enough to expose the Bering Strait, year-round sea ice would almost certainly have blocked the Strait for decades (or even centuries) before the continental ice sheets developed [because the Strait is so shallow, cold winters of the 20th century saw sea ice blocking the passage well into summer – wouldn’t take much colder to block it year round].
In other words, blocked flow of Pacific water thru the Bering Strait into the Arctic would have been a feature throughout the entire period, not just at the height of it.
Modeling to the second degree. This means you get a first degree in Media Studies then get your second degree in Applied Playstations.
“This altered ocean currents, increasing the flow of Atlantic water northward from the tropics and producing warming in the north Atlantic (right, shown in dark red) that melted ice sheets and affected climate patterns and sea levels across much of the world.”
No mention that at that time Earth’s inclination was approaching max, 24.5 degrees, along with NH summer solstice approaching perihelion. Happens every 100,000 years or so.
Let’s see if they can get it right for 5 years from now, or even just 3 years ahead, then perhaps consider listening. There would still be plenty of time to adapt then.
This waste of research money provides us with another pile of IF’s that fail to provide a foundation for spending trillions of dollars (Pounds, Euro’s etc.) of the people’s money.
They have to CAUTION the readers… to the effect that this is only one study but surely they need more money to produce more GIGO models…