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).

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
111 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 21, 2011 8:01 pm

Bertram Felden says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:06 am
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.
=======================
Likewise with the CSIRO here in Australia … once a great scientific organisation now reduced to CAGW rent seeking.

November 21, 2011 8:03 pm

Nick Shaw says:
November 21, 2011 at 6:45 am
… What will be the effect of so much more ozone in the atmosphere?
======================================================
Well for one, ozone is a lot more toxic to humans than carbon dioxide.

November 21, 2011 11:03 pm

R. Gates says:
November 21, 2011 at 4:10 pm
……………
Hi again
The CET correlates well with both the NAO and AMO. According to the BEST paper on natural variability:
“We find that the strongest cross‐correlation of the decadal fluctuations in land surface temperature is not with ENSO but with the AMO. “
The CET is not only longest and most reliable record available, but appears to be the closest to the Northern Hemisphere’s trends.

jonjermey
November 21, 2011 11:28 pm

I plan to reduce my carbon emissions to zero in about forty years’ time. Is that soon enough?

November 21, 2011 11:54 pm

M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 21, 2011 at 11:03 pm
……………..
TSI has been accurately measured since the 1970’s and change doesn’t appear to be a factor. For years solar and climate scientists on the basis on relatively good science rejected the solar TSI influence. Now they are finding that the dodgy CO2 hypothesis isn’t working they are fishing into solar effects.
I looked at the SF presentation, not too impressed. How Brekke (the author of the Santa Fe presentation)predicts solar output up to 40 years ahead, since only 2-3 years ago scientists were predicting strongest SC24 ever?
Perhaps he is copying my projection of 8 years ago which has come spot on:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC7a.htm
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
So come on, Pal Brekke tell us what your prediction is based on. The quotes on page (slide) 36 have no relevance to the 30-40 years prediction output as you show on page (slide) 37, as the quoted scientists would have told you only couple of years ago, unless of course they are now also subscribing to my hypothesis.

November 22, 2011 6:03 am

“I plan to reduce my carbon emissions to zero in about forty years’ time. Is that soon enough?”
Soooo many punchlines. Soooo little time.

Robert Stevenson
November 22, 2011 8:48 am

R. Gates says:
November 21, 2011 at 11:39 am
Robert S says:
November 21, 2011 at 9:37 am
“Not that an increase in emissions matters anyway as CO2 apparently does not cause global warming because spectral overlap with H2O reduces the latter’s effective emissivity/absorbtivity leading to a cooling effect.”
____
Have you ever actually looked at a spectral absorption chart of CO2 & H2O and compared it to the LW coming from the earth? The area around 15 microns should be especially interesting to you.
Yes I have! I have also computed the absorption to extinction of LWIR in that waveband. Have you got something illuminating to say about it bearing in mind Wien’s Law – maximum emission in that wavelength occurs at minus 73 deg C.

Gail Combs
November 22, 2011 9:18 am

#
#
Jeffrey Davis says:
November 21, 2011 at 10:33 am
When are plants going to start negating the increase in CO2? After all CO2 levels just keeps increasing. We hear that plants are going to take care of it, but there’s a little hitch: they haven’t…..
__________________________
That depends on whether or not you believe scientists are honest, especially when they have an agenda.
A recent article here at WUWT showed that the world was producing about 2 to 2.5 tonne of cereal crops per hectare in 1960 and that has increased to nearly 7 tonne per hectare. Other reports have shown an increase in the growth of trees. However Oceans are the other side of the coin. We have been in a relatively warm phase of ENSO. Bob Tisdale goes into the fine points.
Are Scientists truthful?
You can see the other side of the CO2 measurement argument here: CO2 : The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
“… In the words of the IPCC, this delay is needed for adjustment of the main text, so that “Changes . . . [could be] made to ensure consistency with the ‘Summary for Policymakers.’ ” Not a single word in these 1,600 pages is to be in conflict with what politicians said beforehand in the
summary!…. “

Indepth discussion in laymen’s terms.
Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma. Tom V. Segalstad Mineralogical-Geological Museum, University of Oslo: http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf
More technical peer reviewed paper
Do Glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? Z. Jaworowski, T. V. Segalstad N.Ono
http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf
I worked in industry as a chemist since 1970 and I found that lying and cheating are much more common than you would think when a pay check or advancement is at stake. Global Warming is a big money maker so take everything said with a huge grain of salt.

November 22, 2011 12:03 pm

“That depends on whether or not you believe scientists are honest, especially when they have an agenda.”
Then you’re really up a stump, aren’t you? If “having an agenda” negates your point of view, then everything is permitted, isn’t it?
Or do you just mean, “having an agenda different from mine”?

R. Gates
November 23, 2011 7:12 am

M.A.Vukcevic says:
November 21, 2011 at 11:03 pm
R. Gates says:
November 21, 2011 at 4:10 pm
……………
Hi again
The CET correlates well with both the NAO and AMO. According to the BEST paper on natural variability:
“We find that the strongest cross‐correlation of the decadal fluctuations in land surface temperature is not with ENSO but with the AMO. “
The CET is not only longest and most reliable record available, but appears to be the closest to the Northern Hemisphere’s trends.
____
Just to be clear on your stance here. Was or wasn’t the N. Hemisphere cooling we saw from about 1790 to 1830 or so, commonly known as the Dalton Minimum, primarily as result of solar influences combined with volcanic activity or not, in your estimation?

Robert Stevenson
November 23, 2011 8:32 am

In 1954, Hoyt C Hottel conducted an experiment to determine the total emissivity/absorptivity of carbon dioxide and water vapour. From his experiments, he found that the total emissivity of carbon dioxide is almost xero below 33 deg C (551 deg R) in combination with a partial pressure of 0.00039 atm.
17 years later B Lckner verified Hottel’s results finding that the emissivity of carbon dioxide was insignificant below 33 deg C and a pp of 0.00039 atm.
Hottel and Leckner’s graphs show a total emissivity for carbon dioxide of zero under those conditions.
The same investigators found by experiment that the emissivity/absorptivity for 5% atmospheric water vapour at 33 deg C was 0.4.
The absorption/emission spectral bands of CO2/H2O overlap and for atmospheric concentrations of 5% H2O and 0.039% CO2 it was found that CO2 attenuates the total absorptivity/emissivity of water vapour and acts to cool rather than warm the atmosphere.

1 3 4 5