On the day Obama announces a new plan to curb CO2 emissions, this statement comes along…
These changes would linger even if the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration were to be restored to pre-industrial levels at some point in the future
From the Carnegie Institution:
Washington, DC–Continuing current carbon dioxide (CO2) emission trends throughout this century and beyond would leave a legacy of heat and acidity in the deep ocean. These changes would linger even if the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration were to be restored to pre-industrial levels at some point in the future, according to a new Nature Climate Change paper from an international team including Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira. This is due to the tremendous inertia of the ocean system.
Greenhouse gases emitted by human activities not only cause rapid warming of the seas, but also an unprecedented rate of ocean acidification. Ocean acidification occurs when atmospheric carbon dioxide is absorbed by the ocean and forms carbonic acid, inhibiting coral reef growth and threatening marine life.
Some experts propose that climate and chemical damage due to high levels of greenhouse gases could be avoided by removing active carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, processes broadly called CDR for carbon dioxide removal. One idea is that fast-growing trees such as poplars, which consume a great deal of carbon dioxide during growth, could be farmed and then burned in bioenergy plants where their carbon dioxide would captured and stored underground instead of released back into the atmosphere. However, none of the proposed removal-and-storage strategies have been proven at an industrial scale yet, and ideas such as poplar farming would have to be carefully balanced against land use for food production.
Using computer modeling to investigate the success of CDR strategies, the team discovered that the clock is ticking for CDR to substantially reduce risks to much marine life. If these processes are applied too late, they might as well not be applied at all, as far as ocean acidification is concerned, the team found.
“Geoengineering measures are currently being debated as a kind of last resort to avoid dangerous climate change–either in the case that policymakers find no agreement to cut CO2emissions, or to delay the transformation of our energy systems,” said lead-author Sabine Mathesius from GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). “However, looking at the oceans we see that this approach carries great risks.”
As policymakers consider what might occur if various near- to mid-term climate policy targets are not achieved, it becomes increasingly important to understand what happens if society exceeds these targets.
“If we overspend our carbon dioxide emission budget now, can we make up for it by paying back a carbon dioxide debt later?” asked Caldeira, who worked on this issue during a research stay at PIK. “Can later carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere offset today’s emissions?”
The team conducted a computer experiment and simulated different rates of carbon dioxide extraction from the atmosphere. One of these rates, 22 billion tons per year, would remove carbon dioxide at slightly more than half current emission rates. Another was the probably unfeasible rate of more than 90 billion tons per year, which is more than two times today’s yearly emissions. The experiment did not account for the availability of technologies for extraction and storage.
“Interestingly, it turns out that after business-as-usual until 2150, even taking such enormous amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would not help life that exists deep in the ocean very much. After large-scale ocean circulation has transported acidified water to great depths, it is out of reach for many centuries, no matter how much carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere,” Caldeira said.
The scientists’ model also looked at increasing temperatures and decreasing concentrations of dissolved oxygen in the sea. Oxygen is, of course, vital for many creatures. The warming reduces ocean circulation, harming nutrient transport. Together with acidification, these changes put heavy pressures on marine life. Earlier in Earth’s history, such changes have led to mass extinctions. However, the combined effect of all three factors has not yet been fully understood.
“In the deep ocean, the chemical echo of this century’s CO2 pollution will reverberate for thousands of years,” said co-author John Schellnhuber, director of PIK. “If we do not implement emissions reductions measures in line with the 2 degrees Celsius target in time, we will not be able to preserve ocean life as we know it.”
###
Ken Caldeira’s participation in this project was supported by the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research and the Carnegie Institution for Science endowment.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“In the deep ocean, the chemical echo of this century’s CO2 pollution will reverberate for thousands of years,” said co-author John Schellnhuber …
poetry right, that’s enough
“…removing active carbon dioxide…” If there is active carbon dioxide is there inactive? How do we tell the difference?
Andrew Carnegie founded the Carnegie Institution of Washington in 1902 as an organization for scientific discovery. Did anyone hear him rolling over in his grave?
He’s spinning like a sideways Top!!!
Seriously, with quotes like this:
“These changes would linger even if the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration were to be restored to pre-industrial levels at some point in the future,”
the Carnegie relationship is quite fitting, as these (pick an appropriate insulting description) want to take us back to the time when Carnegie was growing up!
Better start saving up horseshoes, unless you want to ride on your goat!!!
I tried riding my great uncles horse when I was a kid, it wasn’t a pleasant experience. My dad said that when the environmentalist get cold and hungry, you won’t be able to find one. I hope we can stop them before it gets to that.
692, number 692 is next to be granted a quid pro quo. So you’re the Pope? Well Number 692, what have you done for climate change overreach lately to deserve your hearing with his holiness Climate Pope the First?
Curiously should the earth begin cooling as a result of Solar influence all the AGW crowd will take credit for the cooling on the basis that those measures implemented by these lunatics are what made the difference. In fact, I’ll wager that Obama ( his science advisors) took note of the 15 year timescale for cooling recently in the press and figured “what the heck if we get cooling no matter what the cause we can take our bows for ‘following the science’ in Carbon Policy and ‘healing the earth’. If temps increase then, by golly, we just haven’t done enough yet. It’s a win/win for irrationality and a body blow to science. Not unprecedented though; Ehrlich’s predictions would have come true save for the “Green Revolution” according to the current pack of lies masquerading as green academia.
But, but… nobody is working on the geoengineering to keep us from sliding into a glacial period. It doesn’t take a climate scientist to figure out that a colder, drier Earth with agriculturally productive areas covered by ice are problematic compared to a warmer, wetter world.
Oh wait. ‘ Dangerous Climate Change’ means the oceans will boil, we’re all gonna fry and WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!! For a minute there I forgot ‘climate change’ has a new, very specific meaning unrelated to any reality the Earth has ever experienced. For most of Earth’s history, the climate has been palm trees and Mai Tais with the occasional snowball Earth and asteroid-induced mass extinction thrown in for a little variety. It’s different now, right? Climate Change = Boiling Oceans (and it’s all our fault).
The odd thing is in the 70s the coming iceage was our fault too.
Bit puzzled by the concern over ocean acidification arising from the change in CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm and its predicted effect on shelled marine life.
The plot from geocraft , seen many times here:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
shows a 3000 – 7000ppm concentration of CO2 in the Cambrian, a period in which shelled gastropods had already evolved : eg
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236217225_The_Cambrian_basement_of_gastropod_evolution
Admittedly temperatures were higher than current and there is considerable uncertainty about the level of CO2 500 M years ago but I can’t help wondering if the current concerns over the effect of small changes in pH on marine life have not been somewhat exaggerated.
The co-author himself …
He needs education in presentation skills. I couldn’t stand it long enough to hear him out.
Hard to believe that everything in this presentation is an exaggerated false truth taken to the extreme. All of it. It starts with mean global temperature in the last ice age at -20C and it doesn’t stop from there.
Even when they cut to the audience, you can tell the pro-warmers in the audience are uncomfortably shifting in their chairs saying to those near them and to themselves “I can’t believe he just said that. We are taking this global warming bandwagon too far now.”
This guy is just not someone who should be in charge of a well-funded organization. He doesn’t care about the truth.
Schellnhuber and PIK are the primary alarmist and institute that consulted Angela Merkel into the “Energiewende” which skyrocketed the German electricity price to the second highest in Europe (after wind champion Denmark). He was also the “specialist” advising the Pope…
at 3:50, describing how the industrial revolution is not over yet:
“… on the right hand side you see a destroyed, a collapsed building in Bangladesh, where more than a thousand people lost their lives, eh. So the ugly face of the industrial revolution is all over the planet now.”
Another wasted effort. They ran the ipcc “business as usual” case, which is impossible to achieve simply because we don’t have the ability to extract such huge fossil fuel volumes.
Their model probably assumes we will be importing methane from Jupiter.
So gravity is also going to get worse.
Typical…. you dont need to know, you just need to know WE know. From the EPA proposed rule :EPA cannot exactly
predict how emissions from specific
EGUs would change as an outcome of
the proposed rule due to the state-led
implementation. Therefore, the EPA has
concluded that it is not practicable to
determine whether there would be
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority, low income, or indigenous
populations from this proposed rule.
Here in England it’s 10.27pm and it is 55F degrees outside temperature and falling fast.
Three nights ago there was a slight FROST down the valley and it is the middle of our British summertime. In Australia too, the place of Albert Gore’s recent visit, it was cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.
“The climate is what we expect: the weather is what we get” … and yes, I do know who wrote that a very long time ago. My points are:-
1. The likes of “team Caldeira” are ONLY interested in Gravy Train Money (tax-payers’ monies) so; until the whole system is shut down, these blood sucking hypocrite “teams” and their so-called universities and the “subsidy farming” vandals will continue to spout their self-perpetuating drivel as long as “governments” are daft enough to pay it.
2. It is perverse that “team Caldeira” have their drivel in a paper named “NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE”: such a title states the bleedin’ obvious !
3. I stopped reading at para. 4 which starts with … “Using climate modelling…”.
4. At least we get to know quite a bit about who these morons actually are and how they operate and what they spew out but of course, we ONLY get to know it because of WUWT and for that I am very grateful to Anthony and all his people. Thank you again.
5. The large “CO2” colour/color PHOTO is of course ABSURD: no-one can actually, ever see such a thing.
Ah well; getting chilly now, so time for more wood and coal on the fire. Now where did I put that glass of Scotch ? … wait a minute: the entire “glass” is made of …
Snow on the ground at sea level in Tasmania. First time since 1986.
And some Tasmanians are just crazy !
http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2015/08/03/1227468/174264-d390e37c-3984-11e5-ac4d-1a42e7315cf6.jpg
Tasmania is the only Australian state outside the subtropical boundary. All the rest of Australia is either subtropical or tropical.
Its certainly interesting to see just how little land is outside the subtropics in the SH compared to the NH.
seems you need to right click open in new tab to see pic..
It might look cold but the water is pretty much the same temp as always.
Some hype in there, “British summertime” only occurs in models, not in real life!
The ocean is not acidic. CO2 forms the basis of carbonates for shells and corals. It’s time that these liars were held accountable. The same goes for the imaginary greenhouse effect.
This article is industrial grade stupidity. I cannot believe that anyone, no matter how stupid, would still believe in this subsidized garbage. The geoengineering ideas being floated are the most dangerous garbage of all.
I have an Idea!!! What if we build HUGE deep sea pumps, bring the hot, acidic, CO2 laden water from the deep, back to the surface, then we strip all of the CO2 out of it, re balance the calcium and cool the water out, then we can re-pump it in the abyss of the ocean. It must be feasible! We will probably need a purpose built natural-gas solar powered electricity station to run the pumps and the filters and we end up SAVING THE WORLD!!! Grants, money, donations to: Bahama Bank…….
Anyone that thinks that the small increase in atmospheric CO2 is in any way going to change the CO2 content of the deep ocean waters is a total loonie !!
And the Royal Society and NAS report goes even further. Point 20 states that humans could stop all co2 emissions today and we wouldn’t see any changes in co2 levels or temps “for thousands of years.”
https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-20/
And at last count the authors of this report included 5 lead authors and 2 authors from the IPCC reports. You’ll recognise some of the names here.
https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/contributors/
Of course there will be no change in temps since the temperature really is not to sensitive to CO 2 level as proven by 18 years of no warming despite ever increasing CO 2. the correlation must be weak based on the data.
The tragedy is that this pile of puffed-up bovine scat is called “science” and will be treated as such.
Maybe if more money was thrown at the climate scientists, they could come up with a scenario more hopeful than so hopeless? How about the greening of the allegedly warming sub-polar regions of Canada because of all that extra CO2 wherein barley and winter wheat could be grown to feed more people?
All your comments are trenchant and make good sense. However the warmists do not want to hear from you and they will just censor or ignore your arguments. You are preaching to the converted. The whole scenario is utterly sad and rather futile.
That’s the gist of it, yes.
Obama has only one thing in mind: greenicide. This is defined as the destruction of western societies by the global warming extremists.
I’m serious. Start measuring these charlatans for their prison garb. They have defalcated the American public for billions and helped promulgate billions more in regulatory damage and mischief. Their criminality deserves to be made an example for all in the future.
Run with models with and without the estimate cut backs. What is the difference in the results of the model runs? Virtually zip. Zilch. Nothing.
“defalcated ” is that a misspelling for an unsanitary act?
Until we have mapped and accounted for the “legacy of heat and acidity in the deep ocean” produced by every deep ocean volcano, this is purely blind speculation.
From any “long-term” geological aspect, the earth is currently in an Ice Age. Why, there are even rumors of glaciation at the poles:-) Who ever his “handlers” are as per a “Legacy”… they are assuming that science knows far more, than we actually do.
Arrogant people! Far too self-important.