Research suggests climate change target ‘not safe’
From the University of Exeter via Eurekalert
An analysis of geological records that preserve details of the last known period of global warming has revealed ‘startling’ results which suggest current targets for limiting climate change are unsafe.
The study by climate change experts at the University of Exeter has important implications for international negotiators aiming to agree binding targets for future greenhouse gas emission targets.
Professor Chris Turney and Dr Richard Jones, both from the University’s Department of Geography, have reported a comprehensive study of the Last Interglacial, a period of warming some 125,000 years ago, in the latest issue of the Journal of Quaternary Science.
Caption: This is Professor Chris Turney in the field in Svalbard. Credit: University of Exeter
The results reveal the European Union target of limiting global temperature rise to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels shouldn’t be considered ‘safe’.
From their analysis, the scientists found 263 estimates of the conditions when sediments and ice were laid down during the Last Interglacial, allowing them to reconstruct past temperatures around the globe. To compare the reconstructed estimates with today, they took the Last Interglacial values away from modern temperatures averaged over the period 1961 to 1990.
The results show temperatures appear to have been more than 5˚C warmer in polar regions while the tropics only warmed marginally; strikingly similar to recent trends. Not only this, but taken together, the world appears to have been some 1.9˚C warmer when compared to preindustrial temperatures. Critically, the warmer temperatures appear to have resulted in global sea levels some 6.6 to 9.4 metres higher than today, with a rate of rise of between 60 to 90 centimetres per decade — more than double that recently observed.
The higher temperatures seen during the Last Interglacial are comparable to projections for the end of this century under the low emission scenarios contained within the recent Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Turney said: “The results here are quite startling and, importantly, they suggest sea levels will rise significantly higher than anticipated and that stabilizing global average temperatures at 2˚C above pre-industrial levels may not be considered a ‘safe’ target as envisaged by the European Union and others. The inevitable conclusion is emission targets will have to be lowered further still.”
The full paper, Does the Agulhas Current amplify global temperatures during super-interglacials?, appears in the latest edition of the Journal of Quarternary Science. It can be viewed here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jqs.1423/abstract
Notes for editors:
A blog by Professor Chris Turney on this subject, called A Lesson from Past Global Warming, can be viewed on his website at www.christurney.com
Spector says: October 1, 2010 at 9:02 pm
“we would need to find and burn almost four times as much fossil fuel as has already been done in the last 100 years. I assume that burning carbon recovered by plants from the atmosphere would not count.”
Burning carbon recovered by plants from the atmosphere would not count?
Where exactly do you think the carbon in fossil fuels originally came from?
Are you saying that if you rake the leaves and then burn them it is ok, but if you toss the leaves in a bog and burn them 250 million years later it is not ok?
Both cases are simply recycling CO2, which is the entry point for all carbon onto the food chain on earth, back into the food chain. Same same.
It would help if these Professors would tell us, or maybe discover, what humans did 125,000 years ago to make the temperature stop increasing – obviously it was not the cessation of burning coal.
Kan says:
October 1, 2010 at 10:29 pm
It would help if these Professors would tell us, or maybe discover, what humans did 125,000 years ago to make the temperature stop increasing – obviously it was not the cessation of burning coal.
======================================
The wisdom of the ages.
-Chris
RE: Andrew30: (October 1, 2010 at 9:38 pm)
“Are you saying that if you rake the leaves and then burn them it is ok, but if you toss the leaves in a bog and burn them 250 million years later it is not ok?
Both cases are simply recycling CO2, which is the entry point for all carbon onto the food chain on earth, back into the food chain. “
The ‘fossil’ carbon has been ‘sequestered’ from previous atmospheres over a long period of time; so that adding CO2 from that source will increase to the overall CO2 in our atmosphere. Burning ‘fresh’ carbon will only restore the status quo ante its removal from our existing atmosphere.
I am sure there are people who would prefer that we abstain from either process and give nature a chance to replace all the carbon we have removed from the ground.
The UK is facing truly unprecedented cuts in government expenditures – this is now imminent.
Undoubtedly several climate ‘startle’-mongering institutions will soon be getting the chop.
The only defence the people in these institutions have to avoid the chop is to ratchet up the scare stories – preferably something with a new twist which requires ‘urgent study’ and large amounts from the dwindling grant trough.
So expect more of this stuff, but it’s nice to know that at least one of the these guys has a conflict of interest up to his ying yang.
The article below is from the October 2008 edition of New Scientist – note the comments by Turney. This strikes me as being one of the goofier types of green technology being touted around today.
“The world’s first commercial plant that uses microwave technology to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to help reduce the effects of global warming has started operating in New Zealand.
Humans emit 8 to 10 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year. While nature fixes about 120 billion tonnes of carbon annually, primarily due to the growth of forests, this natural cycle is in equilibrium, and the same amount is respired back into the atmosphere as trees die and rot.
One way to sequester this carbon before it’s released is to turn plant waste into charcoal. “It’s a stable form of carbon and can last tens of thousands of years,” says Chris Turney of the University of Exeter, UK.
Carbonscape, based in Blenheim, New Zealand, has developed technology that turns organic waste, such as wood and wood chips, into charcoal using microwaves. Turney, who advises Carbonscape, says that at full capacity the plant can produce a tonne of charcoal a day. And even when the plant is using electricity generated by conventional non-renewable sources, the process will result in a net reduction of one tonne of CO2 in the atmosphere every day, claims Turney.
The figure could be significantly higher if the electricity came from renewable sources. “If you have got a green source for electricity, then everything you fix is a net gain,” says Turney. “
Get a load of this, from Chuck Shepherd’s “News of the Weird” in the Oct. 2010 issue of Funny Times:
Robert of Ottawa says:
David Wendt, “even if I accepted your “doubling increases 2 centigrade” theory; two piddling centigrade will make no darn difference whatsoever.”
Hi Robert, I believe David was responding to a post in which I cited Knutti and Hegerl 2008, a climate sensitivity meta-analysis which provides wide ranging evidence for a likely climate sensitivity of 3C (+/-1C). The paper covers ten separate methodologies for arriving at this estimate along with their strengths, weaknesses and uncertainties. David has applied penetrating analysis to the paper’s findings, likening the results to a “bologna sandwich”. I have arrived at a different conclusion, namely that we are
headed for +3C.
I recommend Mark Lynas “Six Degrees” to how a +2C, +3C global temperature increase might unfold. In many places it has the potential to push agriculture regimes outside norms established for much of modern human history. Tag this as “alarmist rubbish” or read the book – your choice.
A future temperature of 2°C above “pre-industrial levels” would presumably have to be maintained for several hundreds of years to effect the predicted sea level rise.
According to giss.nasa, the Arctic temperature rose about 2°C 1880 – 1940,
http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic1880-2004_2.gif
without any significant help from human CO2 emissions,
http://www.treehugger.com/earthpolicy/Global%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20Emissions%20from%20Fossil%20Fuel%20Burning,%201751-2009.GIF
while the sea level rose about 5 cm.
http://officialcarbonoffsets.com/images/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png
It’s interesting that this paper takes CO2 as the current major climate driver as an established fact.
About Professor Turney mixing up metric units: The 60-90 cms are just as wrong in his blog which refers to an article in Nature from last year which says the following: “When global sea level was close to its current level (≥-10 m), the millennial average rate of global sea level rise is very likely to have exceeded 5.6 m kyr-1 but is unlikely to have exceeded 9.2 m kyr-1.”. 5.6-9.2 meters per millennium, that’s 5.6-9.2 centimeters per decade.
So we must have been emiting dangerous levels of CO2 during the last interglacial, too. Amazing what paleoclimatology can reveal.
I am starting to think that the real “divergence” problem is divergence from reality, although to be fair, paleostuff was neber a very hard core science.
It hurt my eyes: “never”
Sorry big fingers on the iphone
@Patrick Kelly says: October 1, 2010 at 2:25 pm
In 1996, my daughter, then aged 17 & studying geography seemed to me to be lacking basic facts. I tackled her teacher and was told “Geography is not about that anymore but more about how we interact with the planet; human geography”. I understood the change in ‘geography’ had happened before 1996.
The discrepancy between the paleo sea level in the last interglacial and the present situation does imply that is is worse that we thought; i.e., the overstating of the present warming in respect to past warm periods is apparently more greatly exaggerated than many may have thought and thus does not replicate the past sea level.
Why did the temperature rise then? Not CO2!!! And are we constrained about a 2 deg. rise? or is a 2 deg. fall ok. I would rather it was a rise as I hate cold. CO2 never caused climate change in the past! Why now?
Exeter University works with Hadley so we can see where this is coming from and the grant season is around the corner.
Christopher Hanley:
“A future temperature of 2°C above “pre-industrial levels” would presumably have to be maintained for several hundreds of years to effect the predicted sea level rise.”
Yes, and it would only be after the altitude of the Greenland ice sheet had been significantly reduced that the melting and sea level rise would accelerate. The paper could just as easily have been spun and reassuring, since our lower rate of sea level rise shows we are not at that climate stage yet, and even in the unlikely event we are at that rate of rise in 100 years, we can address any concerns then, when we are wealthier, more technological capable and hopefully understand the climate a little better.
The FUTILITY of Mankind trying to Control Climate
Just running the numbers
On average world temperature is +15 deg C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect ~33 deg C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at -18 deg C. The Biosphere and Mankind need the Greenhouse Effect.
Just running the numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into degrees centigrade:
• Greenhouse Effect = ~33.00 deg C
• Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = ~ 31.35 deg C
• Other Greenhouse Gases GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65 deg C
• CO2 is 75% of the effect of all accounting for the enhanced effects of Methane and Nitrous Oxide GHGs = ~1.24 deg C
• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than 93%
• Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = ~0.087 deg C
• the UK contribution to CO2 is 2% equals = 1,740 millionths deg C
• the USA contribution to CO2 is ~20% equals = 17.6 thousandths deg C
So closing carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable less than 0.01deg C. How can the Green movement and their supporting politicians think that their remedial actions can limit warming to only + 2.00 deg C?
So the probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic.
As this is so, the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:
• concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
• it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.
• if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.
• any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility and reducing water needs of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.
• a warmer climate, within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development. This has been well proven in the past and would now especially benefit the third world.
Nonetheless, this is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:
• security of supply
• increasing scarcity
• rising costs
• their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.
The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation). Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world.
However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades. And as power stations face closure the lights may well go out in the winter 2016 if not before.
All because CO2 based Man-made Global Warming has become a state sponsored religion.
About these 2°C:
Can ANYBODY tell me
1) the starting year of this calculation, and what the temperature was then?
2) how much of these 2°C has humanity “used up” up to 2010?
Hail the new emperors of the solar system.
Can I wish for longer summers to northern Europe? The winter is ok, though a bit harsh, we had -20 for several weeks last year. Surely we should be able to achieve this through controlled carbon release. Also, autumn is a bit too dark, maybe co2 could be used to control this too ?
“2 deg. C”. “That’s how much the planet will be allowed to warm.”
Say what !?
The mean global temperature of the Earth rises by 3.8 deg. C from June to January each year and cools by the same amount from Januay to June each year.
So, the planet warms by nearly double 2 deg. C within each year.
They intend to stop this?
How?
And can they tell us the harm that would be caused by their attempts to stop it?
Richard
Yet the ice caps came back, the polar bear survived, penguins are still here. This study is based on the assumption that co2 is the main cause of the recent warming. If it turns out to not be the main cause then the study itself is wrong in its conclusions.
“I’m a Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Exeter where I’m focussing my efforts on … To do something positive about climate change, I’m a Director of a small company called Carbonscape which has developed technology to fix carbon from the atmosphere and make a host of green bi-products, helping reduce greenhouse gas levels.” – Professor Chris Turney
Hello everybody, could you do me a favour and forget what you’ve all seen here the past few moments? Thanks. Seems somebody is infringing on my IP. Just some lawyer stuff.
I didn’t notice anything new in this paper. We already knew that the Sangamonian (Eemian) was 2-5C warmer with a 5-10m higher sea level at its peak warmth.
The climate has cooled by more than 2C since the Holocene Climatic Optimum. The nadir of the Little Ice Age (~1600 AD) was the coldest part of the Holocene so far.
The climate changes over the last 60 years have not been anomalous relative to the Holocene in general or the Sangamonian.
edmh says: October 2, 2010 at 2:26 am
… • Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = ~0.087 deg C
edmh, your chain of reasoning assumes the water vapour content would not be affected if all other GHGs are removed from the atmosphere. This is not the case. Your conclusion is flawed.
Politicians are superhuman. They can control the planet’s temperature to a tenth of a degree, providing you give them enough money to spend on their friends.
Since our resources and leaders are focussed on minor warming and have put much resources and research into this, what happens if the BIG FREEZE starts to occur?
Will they recommend buying condos in the Keys as our only choice?