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.
A warmist is suspended over a huge vat of caustic soda. I am in another room, I don’t know what is going on next door, except that something is required of me to prevent disaster. I see controls for adding chemicals to a large vat somewhere. The warmist notices an intercom that he can use to talk to me.
Does he say “Quick! Neutralise the water in the vat!”
Or does he say:
“Quick! Acidify the water in the vat!”
According to him, they are both equivalent, right? So why do we suspect he wouldn’t go near the “acidify” version when his own welfare depends on it.
I don’t read anything produced or co produced by PIK and it’s Activist Scientists, especially if they go by the name of Schnellnhuber. All Gore Vomit
R. de Haan
A maxim I too will follow having endured about five minutes of model-based carp – before stopping to drone.
Auto
Caldeira is lucky that CO2 causes him to breathe out on account of because i don’t think he has the brain power to do it on his own if it required conscious thought.
“the chemical echo of this century’s CO2 pollution ”
As soon as anyone starts calling CO2 at any possible atmospheric level “pollution”
You KNOW that they are a rabid, anti-science NUTTER. !!
never mind the RHETORIC, here’s reality:
3 Aug: Financial Times Blog: Nick Butler: The reports are false – coal burns on
The coal industry is growing. Demand was up last year despite the slowdown in China, and globally almost 30 per cent higher than a decade ago. Coal will soon (perhaps as soon as next year) overtake oil as the world’s most substantial single source of energy, regaining some of the market share it has lost to oil and gas over the last half century.
The first era of coal began with the industrial revolution and extended through the 19th century, thanks to the development of railways and shipping across the world. The second era has its origins in the economic transformation of China which began in the last two decades of the last century, followed now by that of India. The next 50 years are likely to see more coal burnt than in the whole of the 20th century…READ ALL
http://blogs.ft.com/nick-butler/2015/08/03/coal-burns-on/
“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”
Why not jus bury the bloody trees!!!
This so typical of the half baked qualitative ideas of fancy that pass as analysis these days. This just tells me that the whole thing is being driven by graduates of humanities and soft ‘sciences’ rather than anyone with a grounding in quantitative science or even basic logic.
This latest paper puts the lie to Obama’s agenda on CO2 emissions: http://pindanpost.com/2015/08/03/significant-releases-of-co2-has-no-essential-effect-on-the-earths-climate/
ABSTRACT
In the Earth atmosphere, methane gradually converts into carbon dioxide which, according to the conventional anthropogenic theory of global warming, is the main driver of global climate change. The authors investigated the greenhouse effect of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere using their tested adiabatic model, which relates the global temperature of troposphere to the atmospheric pressure and solar activity. This model allows one to analyze the global temperature changes due to variations in mass and chemical composition of the atmosphere. Even significant releases of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere do not change average parameters of the Earth’s heat regime and have no essential effect on the Earth’s climate. Thus, petroleum production and other anthropogenic activities resulting in accumulation of additional amounts of methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have practically no effect on the Earth’s climate.
Alke seltzer …lots of it, problem fixed.
can I take that in cash?
I don’t want to break up the party but when you folks have got a minute take a look at the Antarctic sea ice page in WUWT ref section .
Since mid July it has lost about 1million sqkm of ice apparently compared to this time last year – and it is mid winter down there. Could it be that Obama is right in his precautionary legislation?
Are you having a laugh or is this a serious comment ?
This year’s 2 ppm increase in CO2 has caused this horrendous effect on the daily lives of all humanity ??
Did you also happen to notice where Antarctic sea ice levels were in 1980 ??
Unexpected events are usually worth investigating , even if the suspicion is that they are just due to instrument or experimental error. I assume , given the quality of the technical staff , the latter is not the case , so something is happening .
Reference to the seaice imagery shows that the ice extent is close to or exceeds the line that I take to be the long term median or mean extent , except in the region between longitude 45Eand70E , ie not the West Antarctic ice that is said to be vulnerable. So is this the area that lost 1M sqkm so rapidly ? If so why?
mikewaite,
Are you expecting more Antarctic sea ice as a consequence of “global warming”, or less?
==============================
April 6, 2009:
“UP TO one-third of all Antarctic sea ice is likely to melt by the end of the century, seriously contributing to dangerous sea level rises, updated scientific modelling on global warming shows.”
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/antarctic-ice-melting-faster-than-expected-20090405-9t9v.html
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
April 23, 2009
“It seems that global warming may actually be leading to an increase in sea ice in parts of the Antarctic. Scientists in the United Kingdom have produced a study which shows ice has grown by 100,000 square kilometres each decade in the past 30 years. And perversely the increase is being put down to the hole in the ozone layer.”
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2550320.htm
==============================
More or less? Which will it be?
The same question applies to your expectation of snow cover in the northern hemisphere: do you expect global warming to bring more snow, or less?
==============================
Telegraph UK, May 21, 2008
Climate change threat to alpine ski resorts
By Graham Tibbetts
[…]
In some years the amount that fell was 60 per cent lower than was typical in the early 1980s, said Christoph Marty, from the Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research in Davos, who analysed the records.
“I don’t believe we will see the kind of snow conditions we have experienced in past decades,” he said.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Telegraph UK, Dec 29, 2008 (6 months later)
The Alps have best snow conditions ‘in a generation’
By Peter Hardy
Heavy storms this week mean that skiers will enjoy records amounts of snow in Alpine resorts this Christmas.
==============================
Lake ice – more or less?
==============================
National Science Foundation
January 10, 2008
Winter Ice on Lakes, Rivers, Ponds: A Thing of the Past?
Records over 150 years show trend toward fewer days of ice cover
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Historical Great Lakes Ice Cover
March 02, 2014
During the winter of 2013/14, very cold temperatures covered the Great Lakes and surrounding states. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana each had winter temperatures that ranked among the ten coldest on record. The persistent cold caused 91 percent of the Great Lakes to be frozen by early March. This was the second largest ice coverage for the lakes, with data dating to 1973, and the largest on record for the date.
==============================
Winters – colder or milder?
==============================
Independant UK,
March 20, 2000
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past
Charles Onians
[…]
Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain’s culture, as warmer winters – which scientists are attributing to global climate change – produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Telegraph UK,
Cold winters have been caused by global warming: new research
Dec 04, 2014
Climate sceptics often claim that recent icy winters show that global warming is not happening. New research suggests the opposite is true.
==============================
Drought or flood?
Why is always head I win, tails you lose?
Why do the heads of Institutes and the Editors of newspapers not recognise the often contradictory nature of the statements that emanate from their establishments .
They must know that this is happening , but it seems that the political agenda is the dominant influence.
Carbon pollution is bad, but it leads to water pollution which is much worse. (See how ridiculous it sounds.)
,,, and acid rain.
Industrialist Andrew Carnegie is probably gaining angular velocity in his grave at the garbage the Institute bearing his name is producing today.
Perhaps the Institution should be reminded of its roots?
This is insane!!! There are so many levels in which the above assumptions are wrong. First of all, if piddley small amounts of anthropogenic CO2 sourced heat can hide in the deep oceans, so can solar insolation uptickes due to extended clear sky conditions, and all the more so, to return and provide providential warmth. Second, the Earth has been greening, in part due to warmth and in part due to additional CO2, in an amount still not optimal for productive flora and fauna to thrive. Third, this being the most important one, whenever some gooberment concrete footer tries to “return the lands to nature”, they screw it up. Biologic controls, done by government muddle heads, nearly always becomes the next problem, and usually left for us to solve after the muddle heads clear out. Finally, it is very likely that periods of drought and periods of rain, along with periods of stable climate and periods of extremes, are part of the natural course. If we let these gooberment outsiders tinker with the land that rightly belongs to the common people within each state to make productive or not, not to Obama and his ilk as frozen monuments, we certainly will deserve the destruction that will come.
Is it true Isotope-ratio mass spectrometry can tell the difference between naturally produced CO2 and man produced CO2? The claim is most, or all if you believe the alarmists, of the CO2 in today’s atmosphere is of the fossil fuel produced variety (which includes a small percentage from deforestation). I have found few papers on the subject but nothing definitive. Not trying to hijack this thread but appealing to this forum’s expertise. Thanks
See if this helps with your question. Remember, a reader’s goal when digesting a research article is to find the holes in assumptions, methods, results, and conclusions. Further, it the taint of bias rises like a smelly 3 day old fish, research it’aint.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/1473/2011/acp-11-1473-2011.pdf
damn. typo. “Further, IF the taint…”
Thank you for the link. The research didn’t answer the question but they sure opened the doors for more grant money 🙂 I’m skeptical that the claim is true and I’m guessing it’s more of another theory, to bolster their theory. You’d think if it were true it would be widely publicized.
Heard a bit of NPR’s Diane Rehm show this morning about the new US power regulations (listen here if you dare: https://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-08-04/president-obama-announces-new-limits-on-power-plant-carbon-emissions )
One of the guests was Rhea Suh, who is President of the National Resources Defense Council, a $120 million/year organization that lobbies on environmentalist causes. She came through the revolving door from a post in the Obama administration’s Interior Department. She read her talking points very well, but her absurdly emotive language used to describe weather along with her completely innumerate descriptions of power generation had me screaming at the radio. NRDC pays this propagandist $400,000 per annum, and benefits from tax payers through their frequent use of “sue and settle” cases against federal agencies. These are heavily incestuous government/foundation/news relationships, abetted by large donations from unnamed individuals as well.
Where is her conflict of interest statement?
“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.”
I find this interesting. Would this even lower global co2 levels? We have seen atmospheric co2 raise at consistent rates while emissions rose fast. My running theory is that plants use up every bit we release and co2 levels themselves might be in relation to an entirely different variable like overall temp. Cant prove that is true, but it fits the data much more cleanly then the idea co2 rose at consistent rates while emissions skyrocketed.
This reminds me I once read a published paper trying to explain why co2 levels never had a relationship to temp until pangea broke up and co2 levels were considerably lower. Forget all the details but that paper must be floating around somewhere for someone who might want to look it up.
Only in Switzerland, apparently becoming the last bastion of democratic governance and having a free press, can we find the real reasons for the manmade global warming fraud. To leave no doubt, in an interview published in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 14 November 2010, Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, is quoted saying::
“The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War…. one must say clearly that de facto we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy…. One has to rid oneself of the illusion that international climate politics have anything to do with environmental concerns.”
If further proof were needed after this IPCC official statement, I suggest a read of Joseph A Klein’s book “Global Deception”.
Can someone please help me out with carbonic acid? One seemingly objective site I read indicated a lifespan of that compound having a life measured in nano-seconds before the elements took a different form. Is this correct?
Here is what Australia’s famous ‘global warming alarmist’ actually said on radio back in 2011:
“If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet’s not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over 1000 years”.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/year-vision-fuels-climate-fight/story-fn59niix-1226029695904
Yep… this actually came from Tim Flannery, the Aussie master climate change alarmist extraordinaire who has yet to make a correct climate prediction and who was effectively dumped by Australia’s Prime Minister as Chairman of Australia’s useless Climate Commission.
Agree. They forget that plants also provide oxygen to our lower atmosphere, and nitrogen is the main component of our breathable air. Water vapor is also considered the largest component in greenhouse gases. But the colder we get less rain.