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
These horrible, fear mongering, poorly thought through “papers” keep on appearing like bugs at a picnic. Last week it was the phytoplankton nonsense, before that those poor bloody polar bears it is just nauseating but obviously there are a number of “policy makers” who believe this whole CO2 crock.
That being the case why aren’t these same policy makers and political scientists just pushing for the immediate replacement of coal/gas fired power stations with nuclear plants? Truly if they believe that the world is in peril from CO2 then a quick ( decadal ) fix is there and it is well understood in the form of nuclear fission. The long term issue of waste disposal can tolerate an extended period to fix while we are told this AGW fiction needs to be solved immediately.
This ridiculous excursion into “renewables” is just a waste of time, money and effort. They are minor and expensive solutions and offer no long term benefits at all given their expense and unreliability for a range of reasons. Any serious electrical power experts will tell you that these are at best niche solutions and at worst a total waste of time and a blot on the landscape while sucking up inordinate amounts of public money in the forlorn hope that it will all get better over time. It won’t.
Our political elite is not serious about the CO2 story. If they were they would be enabling a world wide nuclear power initiative which would reduce the amount of CO2 by well over 50% and lead to greater energy security and lower costs at the same time.
The AGW movement and it’s political acolytes are playing parlor games with renewables while the actual solution is right in front of them , nuclear. This leads me to conclude that they are not sincere in their arguments and are driven by objectives unrelated to the effects of CO2. CO2 forms the basis of their alarmism and yet they don’t want to do the obvious thing to immediately ( within the next 10 years ) to solve a huge amount of the anthropogenic CO2 that they claim is the problem.
My argument is not dependent on whether the world is warming or whether CO2 is the cause , it depends only on the AGW people being serious about reducing our CO2 output in a meaningful way. Personally I think their whole argument is based on FUD and that is a debate that will go on for a while yet regrettably.
steveta_uk says:
August 4, 2010 at 7:57 am
RockyRoad says: Your bright sunny day is sufficient and necessary evidence that the hysteria you believe in is total bunk.
Hang on a mo, I said up front that I think it’s all bollux. My only complaint was with the “better stop breathing” comments, which are basically nonsense by any standards.
————–Reply:
Don’t you get it? They’re making fun of this press release. Often, the only way to wake people up is to hang idiocy around their necks.
Welcome to the Khmer Vert, and the road to CO2 year zero. Some advice – if you wear glasses, change to contact lenses.
Courage. None of the scientist involved in this paper will live to see the day they are proven right or wrong. There are two possibilities: either some climatologists have superior knowledge which is not cummunicable to the public or they have superior courage to make bold statements about a system we have only begun to chart and we understand still very little about. I am convinced that in a few decades, we will have much more comprehensive and comparable data -allbeit for a still limited period of time in view of the climate scale- and a more profound, allthough still incomplete understanding of the climate system. Arguing and claims based on models cannot be refuted, but at the same time models are not convincing in the sense that theyare built and used in areas where the human mind can no longer comprehend the interactions. So far, in my perception, the climate models produced have proven inadequate for the purpose of giving guidance to policy makers so I am afraid we should all be patient for a couple of decades.
Polar bears and humans breathe out different kinds of CO2
One is WNOCO2 (Wholesome natural organic CO2) and the other is DWMCO2 (Dirty white man CO2.) You can measure the different concentrations in the sky using a fairly new device, developed in western europe and the USA, called a guiltometer. Basically, what you do is show various trendlines to people and record the outrage. The percentage of outrage is directly proportional to the percentage of DWMCO2.
To prevent the spread of disastorous DWMCO2, you put out collectors called “economic depressions.” These function just like “tropical depressions,” in that they start in really poor areas and sweep into richer areas, wreaking destruction and often being upgraded into “recessions.” The number of DWMCO2 molecules collected is proportional to the number of RDWM (Rich dirty white men) downgraded into TTWM (trailer trash white men,) who emit significantly less CO2.
Oddly, the sky over areas of India and China are filled with vast amounts of a different type of CO2, CCISDTAICO2 (cant change it so dont talk about it CO2,) which probably doesn’t effect the climate at all.
Further, if you look at the trendlines in the guiltometer, you will clearly see that the one calling for the most “economic depressions” clearly shows an ideal level of DWMCO2 at the VHEL (voluntary human extinction level.) Obviously society can only reach utopia by using “economic depressions” which upgrade rapidly into “recessions” efficient enough to help us reach the ideal, VHEL state.
It’s only funny because it isn’t true. Oh, wait.
Carbon dioxide absorbs infra red at only certain limited wavelengths and not across the whole spectrum. The atmosphere is transparent to the majority of radiation which ‘disappears’ into space. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere would not absorb any additional infra red ie no Global Warming. One would think that the Max Planck Institute above all would know this.
grayman says:
August 3, 2010 at 7:44 pm
“The 2 graphs are not working together. They show co2 going down but temps still going up, . . .”
Do not forget that they have given heat momentum and, once warming, it takes time to slow down.
What THE INSTITUTE has proven beautifully is that THEIR COMPUTER MODELS SUCK!
Let’s assume that trailer parks cause tornadoes and project future tornadoes from the sale and distribution of RVs and camping trailers. Wow, we have overlooked the number of tornadoes that people do not even notice while camping in Maine in the summer, as we know that there are lots of those vehicles up there in that season. We cannot explain why these tornadoes are not being reported by the campers; maybe we can assume that all such witnesses are either in denial or dead. But, it does mean that we MUST stop making such vehicles immediately, tax those out there and make it too expensive to own them. We could also threaten to charge trailer and RV owners with criminal negligence for maintaining a tornado generating device.
Henry Pool writes:
“Here we go again!!. Can ANYONE here help me with the questions that I have been posting ?”
You are not going to get genuine science from the Warmistas. They do not practice it. They latch onto some small point, make some pseudo-scientific claim on the basis of it, and switch the topic to policies. Climate science is in its infancy. The best is has produced is Mann’s hockey stick, which is full of flaws and you can read about them on McIntyre’s site daily. The closest thing we have to climate science is an attempt to use proxies to reconstruct a history of temperature changes. That’s it. That’s all there is. Ponder that for a moment. And their policy claims are ever more draconian and hysterical. I am sad to say that your questions about climate science will not be answered by proponents of AGW, at least not for several decades.
It seems they have already predicted the outcome.
Man’s own arrogance and stupidity will be his downfall
Ok… it’s a daft idea but – if mankind could only make a machine to take CO2 out of the air and swap it for.. I don’t know… oxygen say – that would help a bit wouldn’t it?
And then if we built loads of these, er – machines…
Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
Richard S Courtney says:
August 4, 2010 at 5:57 am
What an excellent post. I dare say that the mix of science and politics that you describe continues to be characteristic of the Max Planck Institute.
I pray that Ajad’s military advisors do not use computer models as input to strategic decisions.
The atmosphere presently contains 750 gigatons of carbon and is at 390 ppm CO2.
If all the known 4,000 Gt of fossil fuel reserves were burned, the atmsopheric carbon would increase to 4,750 GT. Using the HITRAN calculations, the resulting logarithmic temperature increase would be a paltry 1.4C. Add this to the 14.5C we’re at now and the temperature would increase to 15.9C.
Over the last 550 million years the temperature according to PALEOTEMP has remained in a stable band betwen 12C and 22C, being at 22C about 46% of the time, and at 12C only about 6% of the time.
600 milllion years ago CO2 was at 7,000 ppm, 18 times higher than today. In 1825, CO2 was 425 ppm (Beck 2007).
So where’s the tipping point? and what’s the problem?
Henry@ur momisuglyTheo Goodwin
I figured that one. Because no one has done the right kind of tests, there are only theories and stories. But no results.
Henry @ur momisugly Richard Courtney
I liked what you said. I also figured out that the IPCC put the cart before the horse with their assumptions. They looked at the problem (of global warming) from the wrong end.. They assumed what the cause was and then worked their way back. That is the worst mistake a scientist can make. I am saying: There is no solid basis from tests or experiments where I can report that the net effect of CO2 is cooling or warming.
“According to the model, admissible carbon dioxide emissions will increase…to a maximum value of around ten billion tonnes in 2015.” “… the emissions will then have to be reduced by 56 percent by the year 2050 and approach zero towards the end of this century.”
That is an interesting magic year the model has chosen, 2015.
Perhaps carbon legislation can be put off until then, due to its unpopularity and public scepticism; and perhaps the sun will have become more active by then as well.
Then….will our grandkids will be stop breathing by then? You fool kool-aid drinkers!
Ignorants of all ignorance!…is it evil or mega stupidity?
Dave,
Only if you like, say, living stuff.
Planck must be spinning in his grave.
It’s really interesting that their model outputs through 2000. Plug in the GISS or CRU data through the current date and see that their model comes completely off the track. You would think that scientists would be embarrassed to print stuff that is so obviously wrong.
As a climatologist have you had any education in physics and thermodynamics? From my reveiw of many individual that claim knowledge in climatology they are very lacking in knowlege of the basic laws of physics. The ghg effect has been proved to not exist as early as 1909 by R.W. Wood an American physisist and expert in IR and UV radiation. since then many physicists have shown that the concept of the ghg effect violates the second law of thermodynamics and others laws of physics. The conclution then is that Mann-made global warming or climate change just does not exist. Below and attached are several references that back up this including my definition of climate.
Definitions of the Climate Discussion
What is Climate?
Definition:A few thousand weather days end to end for a specific location.
How many climates are there in the world?
Every part of the country and the world has a unique climate -the south of France, the North slope of Alaska, the heart of Africa, the northeast Great Lakes region of the US ,the north of Italy, the south of Italy,thousands of different climates etc.
What is weather?
The atmospheric conditions where you are.
Can mankind control the weather?
We have tried for thousands of years from the Indian rainmaker, to the cloud seeders of the 1950-60. Man can not control the weather, then how the hell can man be controlling the climate. This whole B.S of MANN-made global warming is a fairy tale. The MANNipulation of temperature data is a crime against humanity and these criminals should be put in jail.
List of references:
The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.
“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”
After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.
University of Pennsylvania Law School
ILE
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Pennsylvania
RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
Jason Scott Johnston
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 2010
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
http://ssrn.
Web- site references:
http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
http://www.stratus-sphere.com
SPPI
many others are available.
The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein
Maybe if all the Global Warmers would all stop breathing at once, keep holding their breath for say, a week, then maybe we would save the World……………Zero C02 by end of century!………………ridiculous comments from ridiculous people!…………what about trees and plants?……..oh yeah……….they don’t matter…….they only live on C02!
Dave Lowery says:
August 4, 2010 at 10:34 am
Ok… it’s a daft idea but – if mankind could only make a machine to take CO2 out of the air and swap it for.. I don’t know… oxygen say – that would help a bit wouldn’t it?
And then if we built loads of these, er – machines…
Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
That machine has already been invented. Though it’s not needed now, it might be needed when we run out of fossil fuels. With the machine described here (pat. pend.):
http://www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/Green_Freedom_Overview.pdf
We can make liquid fuels for our transport infrastructure out of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Of course the more we have there the easier this would be.
That’s of course in the case that we DO run out of fossil fuels (which at some point we will) and we DON’T invent some magic large battery for electric cars (which I don’t thing we will).
With uranium and thorium as primary energy sources mankind has enough energy to last until the sun has exhausted its fuel.
I am always surprised that people don’t seem to understand what is meant by the numbers, 450ppm. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has actually increased from about 0.003% to about 0.004% of the air. Do these small numbers frighten you as much as 350 or 450ppm, which sound huge but are really minuscule!
I am always surprised that people don’t seem to understand what is meant by the numbers, 450ppm. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has actually increased from about 0.003% to about 0.004% of the air. Do these small numbers frighten you as much as 350 or 450ppm, which sound huge but are really minuscule!
Have I an extra zero there? Does it make much difference?