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
Oslo says:
August 3, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Ask your Climate Modeler if Nuclear Waste is right for you.
If Scotland killed all its sheep, CO2 emissions would be reduced by fifty percent. Is it really necessary to kill all the humans too? Same for New Zealand. Same for all nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes in Africa and Asia, though substitute the local animal for sheep.
I found the loophole.
At the beginning they said all human caused CO2 and then back peddled to fossil fuel. Nancy Pelosi says natural gas is NOT a fossil fuel. That gives us something to work with.
Paul Anderson says (August 3, 2010 at 6:08 pm):
Zero. That sounds good. Hey wait, *I* emit carbon dioxide!
Grant Hillemeyer says:
August 3, 2010 at 6:48 pm
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…
__________________________________________________________
Which was killed in the 1970’s. We would not have the C02 emissions or pollution problems or the mass loss of manufacturing to third world countries if the same idiots pushing CAGW had pushed nuclear power in the 1970’s instead.
Cheap power means prosperity and that means the politicians and more importantly the socialists lose power over the masses. It always comes down to power and money.
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.” Henry L. Mencken
Hey I thought we were supposed to cut our emissions by 80% by 2050. 50 years for the last 20% shouldn’t be that tough. Does that mean we have to stop breathing too?
Paul Anderson says (August 3, 2010 at 6:08 pm):
“Zero. That sounds good. Hey wait, *I* emit carbon dioxide!”
Good point. Maybe someone will invent a personal CO2-containment breathing apparatus. Heck, if they do, I’m buying shares in the company.
once again another model, which have been soooooooooo right so far, predicts something scary in an attempt to scare the public. So what if we don’t hit 0 emmisions? are we going to warm 3, 4, 5, maybe 6C by 2100. I don’t think so.
Also, just because we cut CO2 emmisions to 0, which is a waste of time and money, doesn’t mean CO2 won’t still increase. Just by building more infrastructure and business we are eliminating plants that take CO2 out of the atmosphere, which will then cause CO2 to increase from a lack of plants. Bottom line, stop building more buildings and roads, and that will help stop the increase of CO2,
That above paragraph is only pertinent if CO2 has an actual impact on temperature, which i have not seen any reason to believe, or any study actual correlating CO2 increase to temperature increase, If such a study does exist that shows this correlation please let me know, but i haven’t seen it yet
Gail Combs I always like reading your comments, mostly because of the details you throw in. I’m well aware of the agenda. I think you should write an article on the AGW-world government link, and send it to http://henrymakow.com/.
I think Henry would surely post it. Many who are aware of socialist world government agenda, are clueless to the GW role in it. I hope you shine some light on it.
Personally I think, it is the most lethal bullet the oligarchs have. The transformation potential it has, is HUGE! It can literally demolish the old way of life, paving the way for a new order to be build.
Max Planck would have not been pleased to see his name mistreated in such a way I am sure.Now the reality is that of all the atmospheric carbon dioxide human activity is responsible for around 5% which leaves around 95% over which humanity has no control and a cooling of the planets oceans via a la nina will more than account for that puny contribution anyway.
I have just read what is perhaps the worst and most dangerous article yet published, it crosses the line into the realms of insanity. Two degrees Celsius? But where is the proof that killing our industrial society and handing over vast powers to a tiny elite will limit or control the earths temperatures when these same people failed to predict the current solar minimum, failed to predict oceanic cooling, failed to prove CO2 is the main driver of the greenhouse effect,failed to predict a cooling planet, failed to predict a fall in hurricane intensity, failed to predict a polar icecap regeneration and in fact have failed utterly in explaining and predicting the events now happening.
The utter failure of climate models over the last twenty years, the utter failure of climate science to live by and obey the basic rules of scientific endeavour and in fact the only area which climate science has excelled is in soaking up vast amounts of funding and pedaling political socio economic narratives in the guise of science .
I have always believed that science is the tool which humanity must use to escape the cesspit of ignorance,stupidity and superstition, it seems that some scientists are abusing their position to drag humanity back into that cesspit of fear and superstitious belief and wanton ignorance.
My only comfort is that the planet will show them up for the fools they truly are and I hope that occurs before they wreak too much much damage.
Stop Global Dumbing Now says:
August 3, 2010 at 6:55 pm
BTW:
Do they realize that to achieve zero human CO2 emissions we’ve all gotta DIE?!!
—–Reply:
Congratulations–You have just gone one step further, sir.
But all in all, I don’t think Anthony’s playing fair! He asked us all to tone it down and then he throws crap like this at us. Nobody can play by those rules! Nobody!
/sarc off.
So what’s next, pigs can fly? I know one who can, but he is fictional.
I always wonder about the people who release this kind of steamy [snip], If they believe it why aren’t they … (not nice to suggest suicide as a final solution).
Climatology almost sounds like Scientology, and it surely looks like it. A Pyramid scheme in wich people have to invest a lot (if not everything) for so little (nothing is more likely). But then Climatology has achieved more than Scientology, it has become a state/world religion in a way that Hubbard never could have dreamed off.
Empörend!
hmmm…. CO2 in ALL past history has no historic infuence on golbal climate. So…suddenly in the the 21st century BC it awakens as the end all climate changer gas. I see no sense in any form of retorhic regarding CO2 affecting global climate. Why all the time and energy wasted is beyond logic.
I have to agree with the assessment of this report. Far too many people are living in a land of denial. We need stop producing CO2 right now or human civilization is toast. Its up to you now.
REPLY: OK, since you want to take the lead, I’ll give you a front and center post tomorrow (or as soon as you can get to it). You can show us how you’ve given up your car and sent it to the scrapyard, and now ride a bicycle everywhere, how you’ve taken out that A/C and heating from your home, how you’ve shut off your natural gas and electricity to your home/apartment, and how you’ve sent in your computer for recycling (but first send us the photos and essay).
I look forward to receiving your submission. The offer is open for one week which I see as equating to your “right now” statement. Thanks in advance for being an inspiration to us all! – Anthony
The Society should be renamed.
Thick as a Plank Society is more apposite IMHO.
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.”
If this were not so serious, it is a ROFL matter, but it is serious and it would be llike laughing at a maniac coming at you with a knife.
These people are so out of any scientific ethos that they call model results “data”, and expect them to be validated by other model results, also called “data”.
Like lemmings they follow each other down the cliff. The bad thing is they try to take the rest of the world down with them. The good thing is it seems we are really entering a cold cycle and all this will have to stop by the coming freezing ahead.
BTW we are having a cool summer in Greece. July was like June or September, very pleasant.
The emissions must be around zero, ideally negative. Humans will have to switch from breathing to photosynthesis. All of us should be replaced by the extra trees above our graves. Prof Schneider has already been transmuted in this way – will the other RC folks and the rest of us follow?
Anthony, not only should you require Ale Gorney to show us all what he is doing to reduce CO2 emissions in a week, you should require him to love the consequences of such actions. Or at least forbid him from complaining any further.
As for this report, it would not surprise me if they just picked the number “zero” for future emissions to start with and then worked backwards from there. A little sleight-of-hand by reverse engineering. Max Planck would be rolling in his grave, I think.
Ale Gorney says:
August 3, 2010 at 9:47 pm
I have to agree with the assessment of this report. Far too many people are living in a land of denial. We need stop producing CO2 right now or human civilization is toast. Its up to you now.
REPLY: “OK, since you want to take the lead, I’ll give you a front and center post tomorrow (or as soon as you can get to it). You can show us how you’ve given up your car and sent it to the scrapyard, and now ride a bicycle everywhere,….”
I hope that bike is made of wood. And the tires……well…
Ale, in what manner do you reckon we’ll be toast? Do you believe man has lost the ability to adapt to and overcome his environment? I keep reading all the doom and gloom, but really, specifically, in what manner do you believe the apocalypse will happen to us if we don’t quit emitting CO2? I’m really curious. Do you think man can’t cope with a few more inches of water? Or a drought? At what point in time do you believe we lost the ability to cope with these things? Do you believe the total collapse of our social-economic systems would bring a better offering? Honestly? Do you believe we should lose our humanity in order to save mankind? Have you given a thought to the less fortunate people of this earth and how they are dependent(for better or worse) upon us, the more fortunate? Do you not understand the economics of CO2 emissions or the implications of doing without? How do you figure on feeding yourself? Jeez.
The Max Plank Institute has just gone down an order of magnitude in my estimation. A few weeks ago I was overcritical of a post by Willis regarding the amount of anthropogenic carbon in our atmosphere for which I apologize, however I still think he overestimated significantly the effect of human CO2 on the atmosphere and the following is a simple calculation to explain this.
There is approximately 860 GT of carbon in the atmosphere which is approximately 2.2 GT per ppm. A very conservative estimate of the total carbon cycled in and out of the atmosphere is 215 GT per year which is 25% of the carbon in the atmosphere, personally my calculations are closer to 400 GT per year. Break that down into weeks and you get 0.48 % per week of all the carbon in the atmosphere.
Now construct a simple Excel program which starts with 100 GT i.e.45.5ppm of anthropogenic carbon, deduct 0.48 % and on the next line you have the balance remaining after 1 week of the original amount i.e. 99.52 GT just repeat that calculation ( copy and paste ) and you have 78.24 GT of your original carbon left after 52 weeks.
This means 21.76 GT of the original anthropogenic carbon has been removed from the atmosphere but our output is only 9 GT per year so that does not balance.
To achieve a balance one must reduce the anthropogenic carbon to 18.8 ppm i.e. 41.36 GT. Now 21.76% of 41.36 is 9 GT per year thus the CO2 levels are not increasing because of human emissions the remain in equilibrium. Now if you assume a 400 GT carbon cycle per year the human contribution really becomes insignificant.
If you think my numbers are way out go to page 515 of IPCC AR4 fig 7.3 and check them out.
So much for all the Max Plank brainpower.
sorry I misspelled Planck, what happened to Sami Solanki? surely he could endorse such a piece of rubbish.
August 3, 2010 at 6:19 pm [Evan]
In the absence of humans the mass balance for the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is
dC/dt = R – kC
where R is the rate into the atmosphere and kC the rate of removal. There is a possible steady-state here (dC/dt = 0) at a level
Css = R/k
The same in the presence of human emissions
dC’/dt = R’ – kC’
and a steady-state
C’ss = R’/k
Comparing the two
C’ss/Css = R’ss/Rss
so the 0.5% increase from R to R’ (which you claim) means a 0.5% increase from Css to C’ss. From the data from C14 after atomic testing it would take a bit more than 5 years to reach a new steady-state.
The warmists say that CO2 is “saturated” (so the kC term is wrong) but this is ridiculous for a highly soluble compound present at 0.038%.
When you see the terms “Meteorologists have determined exactly” and “computer models”, then you know there is no science here.
Shows you that intellectual horsepower does not guarantee intelligence not even a semblence of common sense. This paper embodies all that is wrong in the CAGW universe.