Via press release from the Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science
New carbon dioxide emissions model
Meteorologists have determined exactly how much carbon dioxide humans can emit into the atmosphere while ensuring that the earth does not heat up by more than two degrees
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculated projected temperature changes for various scenarios in 2007 and researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg have now gone one step further: they have developed a new model that specifies the maximum volumes of carbon dioxide that humans may emit to remain below the critical threshold for climate warming of two degrees Celsius. To do this, the scientists incorporated into their calculations data relating to the carbon cycle, namely the volume of carbon dioxide absorbed and released by the oceans and forests. The aim of the international ENSEMBLES project is to simulate future changes in the global climate and carbon dioxide emissions and thereby to obtain more reliable threshold values on this basis. (Climatic Change, July 21, 2010)
Fig.: Evolution of the carbon dioxide emissions calculated by the model (left) and the temporal development of the global mean annual temperature (right). In order to achieve the long-term stabilisation of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, fossil carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to around zero by the end of the century. The black lines represent the observed values. (GtC/year = gigatons carbon/year)
Image: Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by the combustion of fossil fuels (gas, oil) has increased by around 35 percent since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. If carbon dioxide emissions and, as a result, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations continue to increase unchecked, a drastic increase in the global temperature can be expected before the end of this century. With the help of new models for a prescribed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, scientists from all over Europe have now calculated for the first time the extent to which the global carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to halt global warming.
“What’s new about this research is that we have integrated the carbon cycle into our model to obtain the emissions data,” says Erich Roeckner. According to the model, admissible carbon dioxide emissions will increase from approximately seven billion tonnes of carbon in the year 2000 to a maximum value of around ten billion tonnes in 2015. In order to achieve the long-term stabilisation of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, the emissions will then have to be reduced by 56 percent by the year 2050 and approach zero towards the end of this century. Although, based on these calculations, global warming would remain under the two-degree threshold until 2100, further warming may be expected in the long term: “It will take centuries for the global climate system to stabilise,” says Erich Roeckner.
The scientists used a new method with which they reconstructed historical emission pathways on the basis of already-calculated carbon dioxide concentrations. To do this, Erich Roeckner and his team adopted the methodology proposed by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for simulations being carried out for the future Fifth IPCC Assessment Report: earth system models that incorporate the carbon cycle were used to estimate the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions that are compatible with a prescribed concentration pathway. In this case, the emissions depend solely on the proportion of the anthropogenic carbon in the model that is absorbed by the land surface and the oceans. Repetition of the experiments using different pre-industrial starting dates enabled the scientists to distinguish between anthropogenic climate change and internal climate variability.
The model used for this study is based on a low-resolution spatial grid with a grid spacing of around 400 kilometres, which takes the atmosphere, plus the land surface, the ocean, including sea ice, and the marine and terrestrial carbon cycle into account.
The overall aim of the study is to simulate future changes in the climate and carbon dioxide emissions in a single scenario in which the carbon dioxide equivalent concentrations in the atmosphere are stabilised in the long term at 450 parts per million (ppm), so that global warming increases to a maximum of two degrees above the pre-industrial level. The data are currently being evaluated by other European climate centres. “As soon as all of the results are available, we can evaluate the spread between the models,” says Erich Roeckner. “The more significant the data we have, the more accurate our forecast will be.”
Related links:
[1] Website of the ENSEMBLES project
Original work:
Erich Roeckner, Marco A. Giorgetta, Traute Crueger, Monika Esch, Julia Pongratz
Historical and future anthropogenic emission pathways
This study critically depends upon the estimate of the time CO2 spends in the atmosphere before being absorbed. The IPCC says “centuries”; everyone impartial says a number between about 5 and 15 years. Which half-life did the Max Planck Society use? That graph cries out that they used a big number.
My initial reaction: a disgrace to besmirch the memory of a brilliant physicist with such bad work.
Its worse than we thought
Finally, the “three legged stool” of AGW stands revealed before us:
1.Zero anthropogenic carbon emissions (350.org);
2.Veganism (Ban Ki Moon); and,
3.Population control.
The seat of the stool is global governance and wealth redistribution, brought to us by the experts who also operated the “Oil for Palaces, Payloads and Payoffs” program.
Now, let the comprehensive and candid discussion of the actions necessary to achieve the future of the globe and its inhabitants begin in earnest.
The program probably needs a “catchy” slogan, such as: “If we all lived like the people of Bangladesh, we could all live.”
BUT, volcano eruption volume of CO2 and other gasses has increased an easy 30% since 1995.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/find_eruptions.cfm
These people think we’re completely retarded mongoloids?
What a joke.
– “It will take centuries for the global climate system to stabilise,” says Erich Roeckner.
Ever since when has the climate been stable? How can they possibly know that?
I think the key word here again is “model”. Garbage in, garbage out I suspect.
At what point does someone claim they need to manage the relation between plant and animal biomass to control CO2?
I’m not kidding, you know it’s occurred to someone.
Yep. It’s the sound of new taxes. Nothing new. The science building is on the other side of the campus.
Max Planck must be rolling in his grave.
Why just fossil carbon dioxide emissions? Humans are breathing out about 2 Gt of the stuff annually. This irresponsible activity should be prohibited ASAP.
It will never cease to amaze me that people can be intelligent, articulate, have letters following their name, and yet still be total idiots.
I was going to follow that up with details, but I think it’s self evident.
“What’s new about this research is that we have integrated the carbon cycle into our model to obtain the emissions data,”
The carbon cycle was never integrated before? This would invalidate previous models, and they just admitted it. So the conclusions of the previous models were admittedly flawed, but used those faulty numbers and plugged it into a new model to spit out more faulty numbers. Where is the comprehensive estimate of pre-industrial emissions to base this on? What forcing factors from which faulty model did they use? When did they finally come up with the true measurement of the carbon cycle and its potential capacity to plug in to this? GIGO!
Max Planck used to be the pinnacle of good science in Europe.
It’s worse than we thought.
Where to begin?
“Although, based on these calculations, global warming would remain under the two-degree threshold until 2100, further warming may be expected in the long term:”
Now I try to be a nice guy but hang on thar just a go’darn minute!
“Nature’s CO2 balances itself out” we are told. So if we stop producing it, it stops increasing. In fact it starts to fall – most of the man-made stuff would be gone in a hundred years or so.
But “based on these calculations”, throughout the fall and after it’s mostly gone (back to pre-industrial levels I’d guess) temperature continues to go up. For hundreds of years.
‘Scuse me!!
I suppose they used the IPCC’s extraordinarily long CO2 residency time too. I wonder if they included the increase in the amount of chlorophyll in the biosphere in their calculations? How can they expect to be taken seriously when they use the IPCC as a starting point?– John M Reynolds
Right now we are emitting 8.5B tons Carbon and the oceans and plants are absorbing/sequestering about half of that so the content in the atmosphere is only increasing at 4.0B tons Carbon (or about 1.98ppm/year CO2).
It is apparent that that the oceans and plants absorb CO2 at an increasing rate according to the concentration in the atmosphere. As it goes higher they will absorb more. As it goes lower they will absorb less. CO2 has been at about 280 ppm for the last 24 million years so this could be looked at as the Equilbrium level in the current Earth continental and biosphere arrangement.
So we do not have to reduce emissions to Zero. We only have to reduce emissions by about Half. Now to stay below 450 ppm, we will have to start reducing emissions now (with a long-term goal of a 50% reduction) to reach the target but we certainly do not need to go to Zero.
… zero emissions by the end of the century…
Zero.
Zip.
Zilch.
Nada.
So how do we achieve this goal ?!
6+ billion people worldwide holding their breath (ie: no exhaling allowed) until the year 2100 to see if the models have it right ?!
I could laugh heartily at this garbage science… but these ridiculously insane fantasical dreams based on ‘what-if’ computer models and utilizing them as gospel to mould worldwide policies… just simply doesn’t permit me to do so.
*sigh*
“..researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg have now gone one step further: They have developed a new model that…” tells them exactly what they and the IPCC collective want to hear. The world may get really hot…. and we need a lot more money to model it because “The more significant the data we have, the more accurate our forecast will be.”
Ironically, the google ad (from ExploreTalent.com) above this comment window states “Models Wanted. Looking for inexperienced new faces, Sign Up! It’s Free!” Is the Max Planck Society behind this ad? It seems appropo they would soliciting for new “models”……… as the old ones are ‘long in the tooth’ and of questionable integrity!
Perhaps Max Factor is an affiliate of Max Planck Society and they hope to yet refute the old adage “You can put lipstick on a pig….. but it’s still a pig.”
};>)
All this assumes positive feedback is a.) true, and b.) As bad as IPCC AR4 says.
If it ain’t, then it’s wrong.
Do they mean that people may not cook anymore, not even by burning dung?
Am I ever glad that the Max Planck society is not in charge.
Zero C02 emissions to form the new Vegetarian Earth by 2080.
Sounds like a death sentence for all animal life.
Why don’t they just cut to the chase and play Global Thermonuclear War?
What perplexes me about the AGWers is their refusal to admit that the only way this is currently possible (and not put us back into the stone age) is through a massive nuclear power program, whether that means conventional or better yet intense research into new very promising ideas such as LIFE hybrid power engines. https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/missions/energy_for_the_future/life/ .
The idea is interesting; A laser would ingnite fusion targets surrounded by subcritical fission fuels that could include depleated and natural uranium, weapons grade plutonium (start burning those nasty weapons), thorium, and even all of the spent reactor fuels laying at the bottom of pools all over this country. The light energy required is half that of pure fusion, does not require uramium enrichment and produces 100 to 300 times the energy imputed (due to the fissionable material), and greatly reduces the long term storage needs.
The numbers don’t add up otherwise with current technology. There are good reasons (economic, geopolitical and environmental) to slowly bring an end to the use of fossil fuels. This country has the talent and resources to develope these technologies. I don’t think that CO2 causes warming and I don’t think the world will come to an end if CO2 is not near zero by 2100 but the mind boggling efficiency of producing energy from fission or fussion must be embraced and pursued.
Wot – stop breathing?
This report is far too cautious. 95-97% of CO2 emissions are of natural origin. As our planet warms, the oceans will discharge this GHG Into the atmosphere more and more rapidly. Catastrophic positive feedback is inevitable if we merely seek to reduce our lethal exhalations to zero.
No longer can we bask in the luxury of having a positive carbon footprint or dream about a carbon-neutral future. We have to become carbon negative!
How? Easy peasy. We simply remove oxygen-consumers from the Carbon cycle and recycle, as compost, to support those lifeforms that are capable of carbon sequestration.
We could begin with rats, roaches and nasty-insects. No one could have a problem with that, could they?
It’s hardly rocket-science and its impact on the average family budget will be barely noticeable.
Maybe not the family pet though!
Disclaimer. I received no funding for these findings and my tongue stayed firmly in cheek throughout (unlike the aforementiond good Burgers)
How nice of them to notify us of their decision…
If the black line in the second graph is supposed to represent observations, not only does it look like it doesn’t match other graphs, it also stops at 2000.
Is their study based on data that are 10 years out of date, or was it done 10 years ago?
Again and again they use as a basis for their models the 1960-2000 period (from the coldest most recent data point to the warmest most recent data point), conveniently ignoring everything that went on before and after.
This fact alone invalidates their grant-chasing extrapolations.