NOAA's Susan Solomon, still pushing that 2 degrees in spite of limited options

From the University of Exeter , more Durban PR rampup:

Limited options for meeting 2°C warming target, warn climate change experts

We will only achieve the target of limiting global warming to safe levels if carbon dioxide emissions begin to fall within the next two decades and eventually decrease to zero. That is the stark message from research by an international team of scientists, led by the University of Exeter, published today (20 November) in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The research focuses on the scale of carbon emission reduction needed to keep future global warming at no more than two degrees Celsius over average temperatures prior to the Industrial Revolution. This target is now almost universally accepted as a safe limit.

The team examined the extent to which carbon emissions should be reduced, how steep this reduction needs to be and how soon we should begin. They used mathematical modelling techniques to construct a number of possible future scenarios, based on different assumptions on emissions reduction. They accounted for a likely range of climate sensitivities: the amount of warming for a given increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The research shows how quickly emissions need to drop in the next few decades. It also highlights how remaining emissions could cause the two-degrees target to be exceeded in the long term, over the next few hundred years.

The researchers found that zero or negative emissions are compatible with this target if we reduce our global carbon emissions by at least three per cent per year within the next two decades.

In a worst-case scenario of high climate sensitivity, we need to work towards negative emissions if we are to have a chance to keeping temperatures within the two-degrees target. This would mean using carbon-capture-and-storage technology combined with aggressive mitigation rates starting in the coming decade. The best-case scenario of low climate sensitivity allows longer delays and more conservative mitigation rates, but still requires emissions to be eventually cut by at least 90%.

The results clearly show that if we delay reducing global emissions by just ten or twenty years we will then need to make much steeper reductions in order to meet a two-degrees warming target.

Lead author Professor Pierre Friedlingstein of the University of Exeter said: “When I analysed these results, I was surprised to see so few options available to us. We know we need to tackle global warming, but our research really emphasises the urgency of the situation. The only way for us to achieve a safe future climate will be to reduce emissions by at least three per cent, starting as soon as possible. The longer we leave it, the harder it will be.”

Countries currently have different targets for carbon emission reductions. For example, the US proposes a 17 per cent reduction by 2020, the EU has set a target of a 20 to 30 per cent reduction by 2020 and Australia has an objective of a five to 25 per cent reduction by 2020, depending on other countries commitment.

“The good news is that it’s not too late,” said co-author Professor Susan Solomon of the University of Colorado. “The interesting news is that we really need to think in the very long-term as well as the near-term. Even a small amount of remaining emissions would eventually mean exceeding the target so we need to ensure that technologies are available to make our world carbon-free in the long run.”

###

The research was carried out by the University of Exeter (UK), University of Colorado (USA), University of Bern (Switzerland), ETH (Switzerland), CEA-CNRS (France) and CSIRO (Australia).

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
John Marshall

Send more money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Get a proper job Friedlingstein and stop wasting my time and my money with this Durban rampup

TurningTide

“The good news is that it’s not too late,”: it’s never going to be “too late”, because once the researchers declare that it is too late, the funding gravy train will grind to a halt: no point in doing further research if we can no longer avert the worst that could happen.

Jack Thompson

Meanwhile, what is mother nature doing about all this? Has she just opted out and left it to us?
I don’t like the sound of a carbon free world.

Enginer

The bad news is it is too late for science. Even though the Warming Alarmists will cry “it’s only pausing!” as the Dalton minimum takes over, and a few years without summers occur, the plethora of balderdash about “proven science” and CO2 will leave it’s mark.
The real problem is Entropy, which cannot be reversed, but in a system can be made to look like it is going backward by the input of clean energy.
The public is/will be totally confused about “clean energy” and may tend to make the situation worse. Even inventions like http://ecat.com/ecat-technology will be quaranteed and looked down upon at first. But if we are going to withstand a mini-ice age and live with 8E9 million souls on earth, we will need highly polished science and well trained scientists.
I fear it will not happen in the good-old USA, which doesn’t really exist any more.

sunderlandsteve

“The good news is that it’s not too late,” said co-author Professor Susan Solomon of the University of Colorado. “The interesting news is that we really need to think in the very long-term as well as the near-term. Even a small amount of remaining emissions would eventually mean exceeding the target so we need to ensure that technologies are available to make our world carbon-free in the long run.”
Carbon free????, what is she going on about, we are a carbon based life form, we breath co2.
She must be completely off her trolley!

“The only way for us to achieve a safe future climate will be to reduce emissions by at least three per cent, starting as soon as possible. The longer we leave it, the harder it will be.”
When, exactly is “as soon as possible”
I have been trying to find the answer to that for many many years.
Does anybody know?

Richard111

Please can we have the mathematical proofs for these claims.
Just how does carbon dioxide warm the atmosphere and then warm the surface?

“The research was carried out at … University … University … University …”
All you need to know. No valid research occurs at universities now. If any valid research is going on, it’s outside of Big Academia.

Greg Holmes

I reckon that I am at least 70% carbon, when do I get taxed directly for being me?l

DaveF

Greg Holmes 4:39am:
“…when do I get taxed directly for being me?”
Don’t give them any more ideas, Greg.

RockyRoad

The easiest option (and most logical, too), is to just turn off the computers they’re running these crazy models on. No garbage in; no garbage out. Academia is then cleansed from a festering blight they’re attempting to foist on humanity.
It is as simple as that! Of course, that means these people stuck on fairy-tale models would have to fall back into the world of reality, which might be a bigger jolt than their egos could take, but that’s their problem. Our problem was giving them any credability in the first place.

bertief

The moment I see Uinversity of Exeter or University of East Anglia I lose all interest. These two are if not AGW cheerleaders then willing shills. Not worth listening to anything they have to say. They really are only in it for the money.

Gofigure

How do these university folks reconcile their “scientific study” with the fact that CO2 has been 10 to 20 times higher than now and that lifeforms similar to us seemed to have had no problem ?

Could someone please inform Susan Solomon that even if we reduced our emissions to zero, that would only decrease global emissions by 3%, as the natural world will still be emitting CO2.

1DandyTroll

Only climate hysterical alarmists can call themselves experts even though they always end up not really knowing anything about why climate, and still claim with certainty the doom and gloom of tomorrow. It’s like they suffer hubris at the same time being utterly depressed paranoiacs. :p

charles nelson

here in australia the ABC Climate Change Orchestra is in full flow.
every hilarious morsel of scary global warming drivel is carefully inserted into their news items with the rythmic precision of pizzicato strings, their financial features are underscored with the comic, basso profundo of renewable energy while the percussion section bangs away on the benefits of a carbon tax. It’s a scary soundtrack alright…but all that rain over Sydney and Melbourne…the late cool spring…the dams all full and the drought long forgotten…somehow they just no longer seem to be able to hit the right note!

2 degrees C, yes at a stretch, but that is 2C down
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NVa.htm

Andrew

Slowly the AGW governments are being kicked out (ie Spain, next USA, next Australia ect). Temps are not rising (in fact November anomaly is going to come in negative if anything). It will still take another 3-4 years for the whole thing to completely stop, unless some smart lawyers start acting now to stop further waste of public monies (ie hansen et al)

ImranCan

“When I analysed these results, I was surprised to see so few options available to us. We know we need to tackle global warming, but our research really emphasises the urgency of the situation. The only way for us to achieve a safe future climate will be to reduce emissions by at least three per cent, starting as soon as possible. The longer we leave it, the harder it will be.”
… says Professor Numpty Friedlingbum …
Really … you only became surprised when you analysed “these results” ? What the hell have you been doing man ? Have you had your head in the sand …… .for 20 years now we have been up the creek without a paddle …. and you only find out now … after your analyses ?
Honestly … its pathetic.

Ian E

‘Greg Holmes says:
November 21, 2011 at 4:39 am
>>> I reckon that I am at least 70% carbon, when do I get taxed directly for being me?l’
OK – you are Sooty : I claim my five pounds (Sterling, not Avoirdupois!).

Katherine

If they want to make the world carbon-free, they should set an example and stop exhaling immediately.

I’ll take bets that my projections are better than Susan’s. Click on my name to see those projections.

Do they really believe it? Anyway, they can stop breathing NOW!

“The good news is that it’s not too late,” said co-author Professor Susan Solomon ———-“
Before the “Copenhagen Love-in” the then UK prime minister Gordon Brown, who was briefed by the “world’s leading scientists”, told us that “Copenhagen” was our last chance to tackle “Climate Change” – So why can’t Susanna understand that it is too late? – We’re Dooooomed!
By the way, I wonder if the BBC is, once again, going to broadcast their very informative production called “Earth; The Climate Wars” (just as they did the week before the Copenhagen Conference.)
Well, ‘The Climate Wars’ programs informed me that when it comes to “AGW” – or even just warming by gases, ‘The BBC’ manages to do all their experiments completely wrong, or else draw the wrong conclusions from the results.

Pamela Gray

The snow pack is returning to the Blue Mountains of NE Oregon, the stream flows are coming up, and we had a burst of late season pasture grass thanks to a bit of rain late in September and October. This isn’t new. 35 years ago we had this same cool moist pattern (green pea weather) till it suddenly went dry and hot, and peas didn’t grow worth a damn for decades. If CO2 is to blame, God bless CO2.

Steven Kopits

Interestingly, WUWT has become, I think, the leading source to read about what’s going on in the AGW world. That’s a very good thing. Better to see the studies and disagree, than not to know what’s out there.

Mike Bentley

Would someone kindly explain to me, a dumb ol’ engineer what “negative emissions” means?????
I have this impossible picture of a high stack sucking in just CO2 and blowing it out the boiler….
and then it gets obscene….
hummmmm.
Mike

The next few hundred years!!!! Good heavens I can’t even get people to think about saving Social Security for the next 20 years. Why are these people who tend to be of the political stripes that they don’t mind spending the next generation’s money on all sort of government programs all of a sudden so worried about a few hundred years from now? Do they not think there will be any technological advances between now and then? Do they think that people then will be so stupid they won’t use new technology to solve what if any problems have been caused by burning fossil fuels two hundred years ago? I guess if they get their way now, there won’t be and technological advances, then they can say “see we told you so.”

Nick Shaw

I admit, I am a science lightweight compared to most here but, as the path to becoming carbon neutral seems to revolve around conversion to electric cars, for the most part, and leaving aside that burning coal is still the most efficient and widely used fuel to produce electricity, what happens to all that ozone produced by electric motors (and windmills, for that matter)?
What will be the effect of so much more ozone in the atmosphere?

When tundra and taiga warm, they give up their embedded greenhouse gases. As they warm more, they contribute more. At 2C, the gases from natural sources will equal those from human sources. There’s hardly anyone who sees 2C of warming as “safe”. I have no idea how that idea gained any traction at all. 2C isn’t a natural plateau. It’s a number dreamed up like an advertising slogan. Since human contributions are actually accelerating, BAU scenarios which were once seen as dire are perversely “optimistic”. We’ll blow past 2C of warming like a sprinter going through a finish line tape.

Greg Holmes says:
November 21, 2011 at 4:39 am
I reckon that I am at least 70% carbon, when do I get taxed directly for being me?l
————————————————————————————————————————————You are more like 90% H2O but don’t worry about it; water doesn’t cure dehydration.

Bill Illis

I see no evidence that they took into account that plants and oceans are absorbing half of our emissions currently.
Plants and oceans are absorbing about 4 billion tons of Carbon (or about 2.0 ppm of CO2) per year which should rise as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere rises. So at the very most, to stabilize the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, we only have to cut our emissions by about 40% (not 100%).
The supplemental does not show they took this into account and I’d be interested if someone found a link to the full paper.

ferdberple

“Even a small amount of remaining emissions would eventually mean exceeding the target so we need to ensure that technologies are available to make our world carbon-free in the long run.”
A carbon free world is a world without life. All life on planet earth is based on carbon. Most of the carbon is bound up in rocks formed in the ocean basins of hundreds of millions of years, leaving very little available for life forms. On occasion this carbon is recycled through plate tectonics and returned to the atmosphere to support life.
Our current climate is cold and dry as compared to most of the past 600 million years. Without GHG the entire surface of the planet would be a permanently frozen block of ice. Is this the future that Susan Solomon wants?
Hardly the wisdom of Solomon.

ferdberple

“Gary Mount says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:07 am
Could someone please inform Susan Solomon that even if we reduced our emissions to zero, that would only decrease global emissions by 3%, as the natural world will still be emitting CO2.”
According to the Japanese satellite that measures CO2, most of the CO2 being released comes from the tropical regions. The industrialized West is a net carbon sink, when you consider both natural and human emissions combined.
The ideal that CO2 is rising due to industrialization is only an assumption. The Japanese satellite has put a lie to that assumption. It is the 3rd world that is creating the CO2 and it is the 3rd world that owes damages to the industrialized nations. Good luck collecting.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/japanese-satellites-say-3rd-world-owes-co2-reparations-to-the-west/.

Jay Curtis

>>The team examined the extent to which carbon emissions should be reduced, how steep this reduction needs to be and how soon we should begin. They used mathematical modelling techniques to construct a number of possible future scenarios, based on DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS (emphasis mine) on emissions reduction. They accounted for a likely range of climate sensitivities: the amount of warming for a given increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.<<
This is precisely what passes for "research" these days, i.e. a bunch of assumptions they quantified and plugged into nothing more than overblown spreadsheets. This is not research; this is soothsaying, which is then reported in the popular media as fact and having the weight of scientific authority. How we ever allowed ourselves to get into this state of affairs and permit this nonsense to go on is beyond me.
Speaking as someone who has formerly taught introductory graduate research courses, it makes me want to scream. People are paying good money to allow these charlatans to carry on with this charade. It's a shameful disgrace.

Joachim Seifert

Amazing is the following:
Mr. Friedlingstein and Mrs. Solomon can predict the future (+2 C warming) for a time AFTER we have all died, but they cannot predict the flat temperature plateau since 2001, in the time we are living. now ….too much “noise” as it is scientifically called, and “not enough earplugs available”……
……. lets all accept global warming and resurrect in 2100 to see whether AGW is true…., then we know for sure……
…..I already saw a tumbstone sayng: I didnt believe in AGW and want my money back…
JS

ferdberple

“Gofigure says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:07 am
How do these university folks reconcile their “scientific study” with the fact that CO2 has been 10 to 20 times higher than now and that lifeforms similar to us seemed to have had no problem ?”
Shhhh. There would be ZERO dollars given for climate research if that every gets out. The fact that the world has been 7C warmer for almost all the past 600 million years than it is now, with much higher CO2 levels, and life (including coral reefs) did just fine is not the message you will hear from climate science.
Remember, climate science only studies the harmful effects that industrial societies have on climate. Everything else is natural which makes it good so there is no need to study it.
Industry = bad = harms climate
nature = good = helps climate.
Storms, floods, hurricanes these are not natural events. They happen because humans have messed up the planet through pollution. Mostly by driving around in cars instead of taking the bus. Storms are natures way of punishing humans for being bad. Gore and Hansen tell us this so we know it is right.
If we continue to be bad, nature will punish us by warming the planet so that it will feel like we are living in Hawaii.

juanslayton

…we need to work towards negative emissions if we are to have a chance to keeping temperatures within the two-degrees
Negative emissions? Kind of like TV–just when you think it’s as low as it can get, they fool you. How low do they want CO2 levels to get? Perhaps the new slogan will be, “Stop photosynthesis now!”

harrywr2

pesadia says:
November 21, 2011 at 4:24 am
When, exactly is “as soon as possible”
About 2025 when the Gen IV Nuclear plants start coming online.

A bit off topic here, but I hope Dave Springer is around?
Henry@Dave Springer
You remember that thing we discussed some time ago?
You said that the oceans only gives up 20% of its solar heating which would explain matters with the CO2.
I did some checking and testing on this. It did not work out as you predicted.
I think you are wrong.
In the case of the leaf chart here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
I am finding an extraordinary correlation between warming in the red areas and actual cooling in the blue areas. In other words, if you pick a blue area, you will find mean temperatures declining,
if you pick a red area you will mean temperatures rising.
So, seeing that the overall chart shows more red (the earth is blooming) it explains the extra warming noted of the past decades. It is more vegetation that traps more heat.

Breckite

I’m going to breathe slower to do my part.

Steve Oregon

I wonder if there a direct relationship between the age of the warmers and their position on how much time is needed to either be too late to do anything or confirm AGW to be false?
Obviously many warmers have a convenient position that no answers can be available until enough time has passed that they are completely removed from any consequences for being horribly wrong and perpetrating a costly scam.
Of course the younger alarmists, fresh from academia processing, are in the worst position.
They’ll not only be facing some harsh consequences long before they can escape but their mentors will have abandoned them via the retirement villages, senior care facility or graveyard.
Leaping forward with another 17 years of “weather” failing to co-operate what then for the young? Considering how many AGW icons, along with their projections, will be gone, their once young protoges could be some mighty angry middle aged folks.

Matt

Poor stuff – she will never get it. With a bit positive thinking “an innocent mind” playing with the switches of computer models that have proven to not be close to reality and drawing inmature conclusions. One can only admire the willingness of the US-taxpayer to waste money for nonsense. With the tiny fraction of human emissions of CO2 nothing happens with the temps even if the change is drastic (up or down) – and they will never get this. The 95% natural share in CO2 will – same for water vapor – not follow Durban or whatever else place the AGW-circus is meeting next time. Bad nature simply doesn’t care.
Best from Chile

Gail Combs

#
#
polistra says:
November 21, 2011 at 4:35 am
“The research was carried out at … University … University … University …”
All you need to know. No valid research occurs at universities now. If any valid research is going on, it’s outside of Big Academia.
________________
I never considered that but you are quite correct. Any Prof at school who has not worked in the real world (Industry) wasn’t worth the powder to blow him up. Also the new grads with their holier than thou attitude needed a bit of humility (humiliation) from reality before they became worth anything.
I learned a heck of a lot more at seminars taught by real scientists working in industry than I did from the academics at Uni.

Steve Keohane

I can only think of ‘Brain Damage’ by Pink Floyd
http://www.pink-floyd-lyrics.com/html/brain-damage-dark-lyrics.html

Gail Combs

RockyRoad says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:01 am
The easiest option (and most logical, too), is to just turn off the computers they’re running these crazy models on. No garbage in; no garbage out. Academia is then cleansed from a festering blight they’re attempting to foist on humanity….
_________________________________________
Let’s go one step further and close down the Universities. Let’s go back to an apprentice system. It is pretty darn obvious the education system at least in the USA is one big fail anyway. Heck they came up with ADHD and now put 20% of the grade school kids on drugs. So remove the desks and have the inmates run on tread mills like hamsters to generate electricity instead of drugging them. A win-win situation.

Kaboom

Pointless exercise to combat a fictional problem.

I can’t believe what is going on! I should beware of my daily habit like turning the lights off when I am going to leave etc. Let us cooperate with each other to rescue this poor planet!

The formula: We need to limit GW to 2 degrees. Running another model, we are surprised by how few options we have. We need to take draconian action. We need to do it now.
That is research? There is zero originality in that regurgitation.