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
How much carbon dioxide is emitted is actually irrelevant and trying to control it is simply extreme stupidity. This is because Ferenc Miskolczy [E&E 21(4):243-262 (2010)] has shown that further addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere cannot change the already-existing greenhouse effect that keeps the earth habitable. Using NOAA’s database of weather balloon observations he demonstrated that the “…global average annual infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere has been unchanged for 61 years, with a value of 1.87. It will be inferred that CO2 does not affect the Earth’s climate through the greenhouse effect.” Optical thickness is a logarithmic measure of the transparency of the atmosphere to heat radiation from below. Constant addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere for 61 years straight has not changed its transparency or its optical thickness would have increased, and this did not happen. This means that the greenhouse absorption signature of the added carbon dioxide simply isn’t there. I have been spreading this info in various blogs and it seems to fall into a black hole, even in this gathering of skeptics. Are you really afraid to say that the emperor has no clothes on? I myself have demonstrated that the vaunted “anthropogenic global warming” has never been observed. I now understand why this is so: Miskolczy’s work shows that it is physically impossible.
If it wasn’t, then this report should have been printed on low grade (preferably at least 2ply) continuous feed paper with convenient page perforations every few (approx 5) inches.
That would at least make it of some practical use.
Let’s see
CO2 has gone from about 280 to 380, a 35% increase.
So they atribute the entire increase to human activity.
Willis just posted a new study showing that plankton levels have dropped 50%
NOAA says plankton “Scientists looked at atmospheric CO2 and tiny marine plants known as phytoplankton, which remove almost 60 billion tons of carbon from the surface ocean each year” I’m assuming they mean at todays levels of plankton.
So if plankton levels have dropped 50% in the past 100 years, then that’s an extra 60 billions tons a year that the oceans did not take up.
No, I don’t think anyone can blame the entire increase on human activity.
Looks like most of it is from lazy plankton.
Paul Anderson says:
August 3, 2010 at 6:08 pm
Zero. That sounds good. Hey wait, *I* emit carbon dioxide!
=================================================
LOL Paul you are the weakest link
Are they not just pointing out that the “critical threshold for climate warming of two degrees Celsius” will most probably be exceeded.
That goes along with Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdern’s definition of a “human being”
“The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being….” Source: http://grendelreport.posterous.com/obamas-science-czar-advocates-de-developing-t
Since we skeptics obviously have not had the “essential early socializing experiences” then we are not human. The consensus figures show we are a very small minority (3%) so that makes us “endangered species” Therefore we deserve the full protection of Greenpeace and Sierra Club and the EPA so we can enjoy our native habitat – high tech western Civilization – in peace un-threatened by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The 2 graphs are not working together. They show co2 going down but temps still going up, going by the IPCC 50 yr temp trends the temps should be going down by the last 20 to30 yrs after the c02.
Damn! I can feel that “socially disruptive cognitive disorder” kicking in again, anybody have a few Prozac you can spare ….or maybe just a bag of peanut M&Ms.
No one said it yet, so I volunteer:
It’s worse than we thought!
Sigh. More garbage that doesn’t even rise to the level of pseudo-science. If this doen’t stop soon, we humans are going to need to take planet back from the idiot “elites” and their enablers. Lock and load…..
In a 2006 report by Bengtsson, Lennart, Hodges, ROECKNER, Erich, Brokopf and Renate, they stated:
We suggest that climate variability in Europe for the “pre industrial” period 1500-1900 is fundamentally a consequence of INTERNAL FLUCTUATIONS OF THE CLIMATE SYSTEM. Global temperatures are highly correlated with ENSO.
How far they have fallen since then–into the IPCC quagmire. Quite a comedown for Roecker–an acclaimed scientist.
Hm:
“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.”
Do they actually say PRESCRIBED atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration
Prescribed by who?
And STABILIZING?
So the earth is in intensive care now.
And only Dr. Mann and Dr Jones can save it.
In good hands, of course.
All in good hands.
i had a go at david adam on bishop hill over the use of “stabilised” in the following sub-heading:
17 June: Guardian: David Adam: Cutting greenhouse gases will be no quick fix for our weather, scientists say
UK study predicts increased floods and droughts will continue for decades after global temperatures are stabilised
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/17/cutting-emissions-not-fix-water-cycle
WMO looking silly too:
10 Feb: World Meteorological Organization: Sea level rise: a new Task Group formed
Sea level will continue to rise for many centuries even after global temperatures are stabilized as it takes that long for the ocean and ice sheets to fully respond to a warmer climate…
http://www.wmo.int/pages/publications/meteoworld/archive/feb10/sea_level_en.html
The terror of it all.
I promise, by all that is holy, to end all my CO2 emissions in all forms prior to my birthday in December 2099. I hope I won’t regret this pledge when I’m blowing out the 153 candles on my cake. Just think of the bliss that will spread across all the lands when we experience a stable climate for the first time in the planet’s existence. Such is mankind’s power.
If mankind has such power to save the earth, why stop there? Let us go forth and first save the solar system, then the galaxy, then save the entire universe. We are on a mission from Gore!
Go tell the Chinese.
They really ought to have saved themselves the trouble…
I think they need to be renamed the “Thick as Two Short Planks Institute”
I like the cherrypicked 1960 starting point for their graph.
The respiration of just one insect species, termites, produces three times the CO2 expired by all humans. That is apart from the Gtons of methane they produce by fermentation. These are just one facet of the wonderful biota of this planet that keeps us habitable.
We should be at or above 1000 ppm CO2 to be at optimum plant growth. As as been shown by Arno and many others, this 3-fold increase will not affect the temperature, since it is already at saturated levels for the relevant wavelength absorption.
Go man! Go termites!
Arno Arrak says:
August 3, 2010 at 7:33 pm
This is well understood here. Along with a variety of other reasons why AGW is junk science. But they can’t hardly quote Miskolczy and then shut the blog down, eh? What fun would that be?
Merovign says:
August 3, 2010 at 6:29 pm
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.
_____________________________________________________
It did occur to them and a whole lot more:
Livestock cut urged to tackle carbon emissions
“A new report, published today, which features input from 13 universities and 12 research bodies, including the University of East Anglia, urges… cutting livestock numbers, which generates 82pc of green house gases in the agricultural sector…”
Which leads into telling us what we can eat is planned:
Obesity Rating for Every American Must Be Included in Stimulus-Mandated Electronic Health Records, Says HHS
“all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 … record [of] not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity.
The obesity-rating regulation states that every American’s electronic health record must: “Calculate body mass index. Automatically calculate and display body mass index (BMI) based on a patient’s height and weight.”
The law also requires that these electronic health records be available–with appropriate security measures–on a national exchange.
The new regulations are one of the first steps towards the government’s goal of universal adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) by 2014…. The new regulations also stipulate that the new electronic records be capable of sending public health data to state and federal health agencies..”
(Reuters) – U.S. researchers estimate that an 18 percent tax on pizza and soda can push down U.S. adults’ calorie intake enough to lower their average weight by 5 pounds (2 kg) per year.
Under the skin RFID tags are in the works too: RFID Implants Aimed At Chronically Ill
Next we will be denied the right to buy a pizza and soda if we are 10 kilos overweight — Oh that’s right there has already been a commercial about that too.
Arno,
No black hole here. We hear you.
Ferenc Miskolczy is remembered.
Emperor has no clothes on!
Emperor is naked!
There!
The 10 years of cooling starting in 2039?
A super volcano?
One of my hobbies is writing fiction. At least my plots have some substance.
I believe none of this stuff until it is published in a reputable, peer-reviewed format such as Car & Driver or Barry Mitchell’s Fishing Guide.
it never ends…
4 Aug: SMH: AAP: Frozen CO2, methane a time bomb: experts
Massive volumes of carbon dioxide and methane frozen in the earth’s soils are a “time-bomb ticking under our feet”, soil scientists say…
The World Congress of Soil Scientists in Brisbane has been told that frozen soils and peatlands in the northern hemisphere are estimated to store up to 50 per cent of the world’s organic soil carbon.
University of Wisconsin-Madison soil scientist Dr James Bockheim said global warming threatens to thaw these soils, some of which have been frozen for thousands of years.
“Atmospheric temperatures have increased by 3 (degrees) C over the past decades in the Arctic and Antarctic regions and this continued warming may cause carbon stored in the surface permafrost to be released to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide,” he said.
The potential release of greenhouse gases from frozen soils is not currently taken into account in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculations as it is not known exactly how thawing will impact on greenhouse gas emissions…
Dr Merritt Turetsky, from the University of Guelph in Canada, is studying peatlands and describes them as a time-bomb ticking under our feet…
“Peatlands have served as a long-term sink of carbon dioxide but today also represent one of the largest natural sources of methane….”
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/frozen-co2-methane-a-time-bomb-experts-20100804-117hw.html