From the UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE and “that ain’t gonna fly” department comes this wishful thinking for Earth Hour.
A ‘carbon law’ offers pathway to halve emissions every decade, say researchers
Such a “carbon law”, based on Moore’s Law in the computer industry, applies to cities, nations and industrial sectors.
The authors say fossil-fuel emissions should peak by 2020 at the latest and fall to around zero by 2050 to meet the UN’s Paris Agreement’s climate goal of limiting the global temperature rise to “well below 2°C” from preindustrial times.
A “carbon law” approach, say the international team of scientists, ensures that the greatest efforts to reduce emissions happens sooner not later and reduces the risk of blowing the remaining global carbon budget to stay below 2°C.
The researchers say halving emissions every decade should be complemented by equally ambitious, exponential roll-out of renewables. For example, doubling renewables in the energy sector every 5-7 years, ramping up technologies to remove carbon from the atmosphere, and rapidly reducing emissions from agriculture and deforestation.
“We are already at the start of this trajectory. In the last decade, the share of renewables in the energy sector has doubled every 5.5 years. If doubling continues at this pace fossil fuels will exit the energy sector well before 2050,” says lead author Johan Rockström director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University.
The authors pinpoint the end of coal in 2030-2035 and oil between 2040-2045 according to their “carbon law”. They propose that to remain on this trajectory all sectors of the economy need decadal carbon roadmaps that follow this rule of thumb, modeled on Moore’s Law.
Moore’s Law states that computer processors double in power about every two years. While it is neither a natural nor legal law, this simple rule of thumb or heuristic has been described as a “golden rule” which has held for 50 years and still drives disruptive innovation.
The paper notes that a “carbon law” offers a flexible way to think about reducing carbon emissions. It can be applied across borders and economic sectors, as well as both regional and global scales.
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, says, “Our civilization needs to reach a socio-economic tipping point soon, and this roadmap shows just how this can happen. In particular, we identify concrete steps towards full decarbonization by 2050. Businesses who try to avoid those steps and keep on tiptoeing will miss the next industrial revolution and thereby their best opportunity for a profitable future.”
Co-author Nebojsa Nakicenovic, deputy director general of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and member of the Earth League, said “Humanity must embark on a decisive transformation towards complete decarbonization. The ‘Carbon law’ is a powerful strategy and roadmap for ramping down emissions to zero so as to stay within the global carbon budget for stabilizing climate to less than 2°C above preindustrial levels.”
Joeri Rogelj, also at IIASA, said, “The carbon law outlines a global path towards achieving climate and sustainability goals in broad yet quantitative terms. It sketches a general vision of rapid emission reductions in conjunction with the development of sustainable carbon dioxide removal options. It clearly communicates that no single solution will do the job, and that this deep uncertainty thus implies starting today pursuing multiple options simultaneously.”
Malte Meinshausen, director of the Climate & Energy College at the University of Melbourne, said “Regions that make way for future-proof renewable energy and storage investments will turn a zero-emissions future into an economic opportunity. While for years, we’ve seen the ramp-down of incumbent fossil technologies only as burden, the other side of the coin is now finally visible: lower costs, more jobs and cleaner air.”
Following a “carbon law”, which is based on published energy scenarios, would give the world a 75% chance of keeping Earth below 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures, the target agreed by nations in Paris in 2015.
###
Notes:
The paper “A roadmap for rapid decarbonization” appears in Science as a peer reviewed “policy forum article” on 24 March 2017.
The Paris Agreement sets out a goal to attempt to keep global temperatures “well below 2°C” above pre-industrial temperatures. http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php
The global average temperature is currently about 1.1°C above pre-industrial temperatures.https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-confirms-2016-hottest-year-record-about-11%C2%B0c-above-pre-industrial-era
What are the key carbon roadmap milestones to 2050?
Each decade has key milestones to reach:
2020: 40 Gigatonnes of CO2
2030: 20 GtCO2
2040: 10 GtCO2
2050: 5 GtCO2
Carbon dioxide emissions from land use fall from 4 GtCO2/yr to 2 Gt CO2, to 1 to 0,5 by 2050. New carbon sequestration technologies ramp up to remove CO2 from the atmosphere from 0 to 0,5. 2,5 to 5Gt CO2 by 2050.
How to get there:
- 2020: remove fossil fuel subsidies. Put a price on carbon starting at $50 per ton rising to $400 per ton by 2050. Large-scale energy efficiency measures and large scale trials of carbon sequestration begin at 100-500MtCO2/yr.
- 2030: coal exits energy mix, in this decade construction becomes fully carbon neutral or stores carbon, several cities reach carbon neutral status. Carbon sequestration of 1-2 GtCO2 begins.
- 2040: oil exits energy mix early in this decade. Europe starts the decade with close to zero emissions. Other continents finish the decade close to zero.
- 2050 global economy carbon neutral.
“The authors say fossil-fuel emissions should peak by 2020 at the latest and fall to around zero by 2050 to meet the UN’s Paris Agreement’s climate goal of limiting the global temperature rise to “well below 2°C” from preindustrial times.”
Zero FF emissions by 2050, basically in 33 years? Not going to happen. We won’t even hit peak oil by then. Pricing of FF might be an economic issue that slows FF use especially if another cheaper energy option becomes a reality, but that is a another topic for another day.
Especially after another 3-4 years when we will be finding out that the whole premise of CAGW will be in rapid retreat now that the political winds have shifted to allow for real skeptical science inquiry vs. the last 8-10 years of being branded a denier or a heretic if one didn’t follow the Gov’t/academic dogma. Which forced honest scientists to get on the bandwagon if they didn’t want to perish for inability to publish, or receive grant funding for their research. Yes, finally, scientific truth will be closer to the norm than last year, but I really feel some of these academic nut-bars won’t be happy until we are in another full blown ice age. The little bit of theoretical warming we do get from human induced warming is a tiny insurance policy on a period of short global cooling, which would really throw a wrench into global survival. That should be the absolute highest concern knowing what we do now about historical wild shifts in weather and climate.
While I used to worship Earth Day in my younger dryas days when it first started, now every ED I turn on every electrical appliance and lights at my place for the hour as a way of expressing my frustration locally with my neighbours and community whom have been drinking the kool-aid for far to long now. And I was one of the first IPP’s selling electricity back to the grid commercially 25-30 years ago in my neck of the woods, hoping to save the world. I still want to save the world, but CAWG via FF is a weak argument.
Don’t get too excited – just ignore the ED. If you run on solar, turning your appliances on does nothing.
“[Moore’s Law –] this simple rule of thumb or heuristic has been described as a “golden rule” which has held for 50 years and still drives disruptive innovation.”
That claim perfectly illustrates the fatuous thinking going into the idea of a carbon law. Moore’s Law doesn’t drive innovation. Rather, innovation results in Moore’s Law, which isn’t a law at all. It’s merely an observation.
These people have not only put the cart before the horse, but they don’t understand “horse” or the origin of motive power.
And then Science magazine publishes it.
I hope all these people live long enough to witness the recovery of critical sensibility and then to get really, really, embarrassed by their stupidity.
Science magazine USED to be about science.. Not after the 2013 publication of Marcott’s academic misconduct. Just like Scientific American is no longer either scientific or American.
+1!
Rud, do you have any explanation apart from Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds?
According to the published timetable:
Each decade has key milestones to reach:
2020: 40 Gigatonnes of CO2
2030: 20 GtCO2
2040: 10 GtCO2
2050: 5 GtCO2
By ordinary linear regression, carbon emissions will reach 0 by 2060 and then go negative to reach -5 GtCO2 by 2070 and so on. I propose to call negative emissions CarbonSuck.
(\sarc for the logarithmically-challenged)
P.S. I will be turning on lights and perhaps lighting off an Adake kerosene railroad signal lantern
http://www.adlake.com/online-store.html
for the occasion of Earth Hour.
Hmm… reduce by half each year never gets to 0.
Departure of nonlinear reality from model linearity is accommodated by the \sarc, a coefficient according to judgment.
Reminds me of the old joke about a scientist, and engineer and a beautiful woman.
The scientist and engineer are placed at opposite ends of a long hallway with the woman halfway between them.
The scientist and engineer are told that each time the bell rings, they can each go halfway to the woman.
The bell rings, the engineer moves and the scientist doesn’t.
The bell rings again, and the engineer moves and the scientist doesn’t.
When the bell rings a third time and the same thing happens, the engineer asks the scientist why he isn’t moving.
The scientist replies that if he can only go half way, he’ll never reach the woman so why bother.
The engineer replies, that may be true, but eventually you reach the point where the difference doesn’t matter.
As someone who has innovated (13 US patents), run a VC operation, and run startups, I can assure all readers here that innovation does not respond either to a ‘carbon law’ or a real law like Bush’s EISA07 mandating switchgrass based cellulosic ethanol. For not so amusing details on the latter, read essay Wishful Thinking in ebook Blowing Smoke.
Moore’s law applies primarily for economic reason’s: there’s a fantastic amount of money to be made by cramming more stuff into a smaller space, and it takes about 18 months to pay for the last cycle and build the next. (Companies are always working on implementing the next “node” and researching the next one past that.)
Unfortunately, the greenie meanies nix anyone actually making money, so there’s no incentive to drive a “carbon law”.
Moore’s law, as usually though of, is history.
Advances continue in a new sense — specialized hardware and innovative software.
Yup. Lots of articles about that now appearing. Moore’s ‘Law’ died on two realities: the quantum physics of miniaturization (yield, unreliabilty), and the iron economic law of diminishing marginal returns.
The fact is, Gordon Moore of Intel fame DID NOT formulate, stipulate or mandate any such thing as “Moore’s Law”.
Gordon Moore simply made a comment in reference to a question ….. and someone took the liberty of referring to said comment as being “Moore’s Law”. To wit:
1965 was a time when horrific changes were being accomplished in the production of integrated circuits. Especially the decrease in manufacturing costs.
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, says “… we identify concrete steps… ”
No. “Concrete steps” would be like this:
In 2017, turn off X, Y, …., and Z coal powered plants, and build 1,000,000 windmills on designated acres. Specifics are required — what, where, when? Joachim is full of hot air.
This guy looks like Harold Camping of “Rapture” fame but is more crazy.
Simple arithmetic calculations refute Schellnhuber’s nonsense.
Harold said he only got the date wrong and Rapture was still in our future. Refute that.
A concrete step, like the scaling of “earth day’ to “earth hour”, would seem to be a further reduction to “earth minute”.
But…but… All concrete steps contain “Carbon”.
Do they really want more of them?
Such a “carbon law”, based on Moore’s Law in the computer industry …
The “carbon law” is based on wishful thinking and has nothing to do with Moore’s law which is based on “the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law
It’s all marketing of the worst kind … lies and deception.
Rovingbroker,
Sorry, I was typing while you posted. I didn’t mean to plagiarize.
“Great minds……etc etc.”
Is it actually possible to stop all fossil fuel emissions ? What about the emissions from nature such as coal seams that were ignited by lightening and other natural seeps etc .
Natural CO2 emissions make up roughly 96% of all CO2 emissions.
(Source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html (See Item 4.))
LOL — more baloney to laugh at.
Re:
Well!
So, like, if sales of my product double every 5.5 years, then all my direct and indirect competition will dis-a-pear.
Thus! Pogo sticks will soon be replacing CARS!
So, like, fork over the investment cash, suckahs! 🙂
And if you can double the jumping height of the product every five years we’ll all have pogo sticks that go a mile high in 50 years or so! Science!
🙂
Sigh. If we remove all the “extra” carbon dioxide and start sequestering it as recommended, all the plants will die, and then so will the rest of life on earth.
I also cannot imagine the Middle East not producing oil. That’s how they finance everything. They will withdraw every last drop out of the ground before switching over to something else.
To celebrate earth hour, I will be driving my kids to dance classes in my big SUV, that is 13 years old. Guess what my mpg is.
Quite low?
(my bold)
Moore’s “Law” was an observation (not a law) for a specific silicon based process during a specific period of time. In contrast, there is plenty of existing DATA that the innovation of “renewables” has NOT followed that curve.
There is no evidence Moore’s “Law” continues to “describe” (certainly not “drive”) disruptive innovation.
They are scientists so they should understand that.
Therefore this is pure PR.
Any surprise Schellnhuber has jumped out in front of this announcement?
(Reminds me of what even Democrats used to warn regarding Senator Schumer: “Never get between Chuck and a microphone.”
Remember if you are going to protest this stupidity with a show of massive carbon use you are wasting your time if you can’t see it from outer space. He He.
I am using all renewable energy I produce myself…just won’t get paid for the hour what I waste. Worth every penny…
Wouldn’t it be easier to simply sign a law that removes CO2’s greenhouse gas capabilities?
Not necessary. Thermalization with the Maxwell-Boltzmann velocity distribution of gas molecules biasing reverse-thermalization to the approximately 2000 times greater number of water vapor absorption bands (at low altitude) explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate.
Glad we got that sorted so easily.
The global average temperature is currently about 1.1°C above pre-industrial temperatures.
I am not so sure about that. First, it looks as if bad microsite has exaggerated both the ups and the downs. Since the temps actually have risen a bit, that translates to a net warming trend bias.
Also, from what I am seeing with those wacky Tmax numbers for CRS units, I am thinking CRS Tmax trend is more than doubled for those stations, with only a slight cooling bias for Tmin.
So I am thinking that GAT is more likely about 0.7°C above pre-industrial temperatures. Remember, prior to 1982 the USHCN was well over 95% CRS units (with a very occasional HYGRO or Sixes), so the whole historical record is in question back to the getgo.
I did my schooling about six decades ago and the standard then for the world was 14.7C@1313mb what are they saying it is now?
That Science published this dreck is more evidence that the wheels truly are coming off the CAGW bandwagon. Ever more shrill, ever more obviously stupid. Nothing not to like.
Melbourne is the capital of the Australian state of Victoria. Lovely city, visited on business. They are (perhaps appropriately) shutting their 52 year old Heywood coal plant end of this month–next week. They have foolishly planned no dispatchable power alternative. Adjacent state SA suffered 5 blackouts in the past six months despite depending on an intwrconnector from Victoria powered by Heywood. So the good news is U. Melbourne will also go dark next Aus summer when the grid blacks out. They will then not be able to get their word processor software to write such drivel in the extended regional blackout sure to come.
LOL….I like that
They best throw out all the books in the library, they don’t need them anyway based on this study, and install plenty of bicycles attached to a generator. And maybe the trams can be solar powered. Yeah, that’ll work!
Throw out the books?
Printed, historical data that can’t be changed with a keystroke?
No need anymore.
“Google is your friend.”
They’ve been working on replacing “hard-copies” for a couple of decades.
“Gunga Din March 24, 2017 at 3:29 pm
They’ve been working on replacing “hard-copies” for a couple of decades.”
Yes, that is true. Those who control information, control the past and the future.
Speaking of “Ever more shrill, ever more obviously stupid”… Consider the latest and greatest from AR5 WGIII’s Co-Chair, Ottmar “It was never about the climate” Edenhofer. His prelude to this weekend’s confab of G20 Finance Ministers in Baden-Baden includes the following:
Look, folks! “sustainable infrastructure” and “sustainable finance” seem to over-shadow “carbon pricing”. Greener pastures for the UN, perhaps?! Although, while I have seen signs of this shift for some time, I really wonder how these genii think that the gazillion$ the UN wants to redistribute will come from the wealthier nations when they are urging that such ludicrously pricey “solutions” be adopted by their designated golden geese! But I digress …
This “Climate policy brief for G20 finance ministers” also urges:
Source h/t the indefatigable DennisA who had previously ruined an earlier day by pointing me towards Christiana Figueres (aka Tinkerbell)’s latest and greatest on the green-slide front.
Amazing, eh?!
The average person emits through their breath, which has CO2 concentrations of up to 40,000 ppm, an “estimated” 380 kilograms of that noxious “carbon” aka CO2 per year.
[ Nothing as in “nothing” is ever measured with any degree of accuracy at any level in climate alarmism.
Everything is “estimated” only. ]
China’s 1.35 billion people therefore, as a population and based on those estimated personal human emissions of 380 kgs of CO2 per person per year, breathe out an estimated 500 million plus tonnes of CO2 each year.
Australia with its 23 million population has a “Total” annual estimated CO2 emission tonnage from all sources of 550 million tonnes.
Numeracy illiteracy and scientific myopia allied with an ideologically based bigoted blindness to reality have become the hall marks of almost the entire scientific climate alarmist establishment and its running dogs in the academic, political and media elitist establishments.
All the carbon (except a very, very tiny amount from some food additives) comes from carbon recently extracted from the atmosphere by plants. This is not fossil carbon and does not add to the atmospheric concentration on the scale of a few years. The illiteracy is entirely yours.
Seaice1, you show ignorance of the carbon cycle. About half of atmospheric carbon is sequestered by oceans. More than half of that is ‘quasi-permanent’ biologically pumped into limestone beds. The white cliffs of Dover are a coccolyth chalk equivalent. Now, those Quasi permanent carbon sequestration rocks only get recycled by plate tectonic subduction zones. And the best estimates are that without subductiion zone volcanoes, all plant life and therefor all life would be extinguished by CO2 sophocation in about 2.5 million years. The planet is greening from extra CO2. About 85% of plant biomass is C3, needing more CO2 and less water than the (mostly arid, mostly grassss) less needy C4 plants.
Please bone up on basic plant biology and carbon cycles and plate tectonics before reposting. That way you won’t embarrass yourself again.
seaice1 “This is not fossil carbon and does not add to the atmospheric concentration on the scale of a few years.” Perhaps you can explain your point a bit better scientifically so as we can understand your point more precisely?
Sure, it is all recycled…including the FF that gets dragged down into the earth’s crust by plate tectonics and later gets released by belching volcano’s. Human exhalation does release 3 Giga Ton of CO2 annually. Why are you sounding so shrill on ROM’s point?
The way I see it, the main problem is 7.35 billion people on the planet at once, and having grown exponentially the last 60 years in my life time, is one of the larger problems we have globally that are causing much bigger problems that are not be addressed. And runaway population growth will not be checked until a significant cooling event wipes out 1 crop year in the northern hemisphere.
Ron Williams @5:42 “ And runaway population growth will not be checked …”
Population is difficult to forecast (under normal assumptions) beyond about 20 years and the smaller the area of interest the worse the problem gets.
However, “world” population looks to be approaching an inflection point between 2050 – 2075. That population is expected to be about 9.22 billion, and beyond that things get very iffy.
The change in individual countries is more fascinating than the total. Nations such as Japan, Germany, and Russia are in decline. Immigration may slow the loss – happening in the mid-west of the USA. Japan will likely not allow much inflow, and so is destined to decline. These are all small areas and important things, happening now — but not about your assertion.
Here is one total population forecast (~175 pages total).
“In these projections, world population peaks at 9.22 billion in 2075. Population therefore grows
slightly beyond the level of 8.92 billion projected for 2050 in the 2002 Revision, on which these projections are based. However, after reaching its maximum, world population declines slightly and then resumes increasing, slowly, to reach a level of 8.97 billion by 2300, not much different from the projected 2050 figure. ”
Source:
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
Ristvan, I have no objection to you disagreeing with me, or pointing out errors in my posts. I do object to your apparent inability to read and then calling me ignorant on the basis of your lack of comprehension. I specified on the scale of a few years, which is what concerns us here. We are not so concerned about geological time, but really only hundreds of years. The processes you describe occur over geological time, as you point out with your 2.5 million years.
Fossil fuel use adds carbon to the atmosphere over the timescales that interest us in a practical sense. Breathing does not.
Ron. I more detail for you. In the short carbon cycle plants take carbon from the atmosphere, animals eat it and produce CO2, which the plants then use again. The carbon emitted by the animal was recently extracted from the atmosphere by plants. In order to produce more CO2 in breath, the animal must consume more plant material, and the plant will have removed this carbon from the atmosphere. This is why it is called a cycle. It does not add carbon to the atmosphere that was not recently removed from the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentration is shifted by a few years as the plants grow, store carbon and then release it. It is this time scale that is important because we do not cause any long term increase in CO2 by breathing.
Now with fossil fuels the carbon was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago. When we burn this it is shifting the carbon concentration not by a few years but by millions of years. This carbon was not recently removed from the atmosphere, so when we release it it adds to the current concentrations in the atmosphere.
Over millions of years the carbon is laid down as rocks, subducted and returned to the atmosphere by volcanoes. The timescales involved are very different than those we concern ourselves with regarding policy.
Burning fossil fuels is basically releasing some of this carbon from the long cycle into the short cycle. It would have the same effect if vulcanism suddenly started producing 100x as much CO2. We would anticipate that atmospheric levels of CO2 would rise were that to happen.
I don’t think I can put it any more clearly than that.
Sea ice, how is the ppm still around 3 ppm ? The record probably needs adjusting? You should be be alarmed that 8 of the years since 1998 were below 2 ppm. I am. If the entire rise in co2 was entirely anthropogenic, then if we weren’t producing co2, co2 ppm would be negative. The total co2 would be dropping 4 ppm per year. If you are hoping for a dead world, that’s great news.
seaice1:
ristvan observed the great ignorance of the carbon cycle displayed by your post, he stated it, and he gave you information to remove some of that ignorance. You have complained at his commenting on your ignorance, and you wrongly assert he misread what you wrote. Sadly, there is a long series of examples of you behaving as you have to ristvan.
Proper behaviour would have been for you to thank ristvan for giving you his knowledge.
Richard
seaice1:
You assert
NO!
At issue is what the atmospheric CO2 concentration would be if the CO2 emission from human emissions (i.e. the anthropogenic emission) were absent.
I refer you to our analyses which show the atmospheric CO2 concentration would probably be the same if the CO2 emission from human emissions were absent. It would probably be the same.
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
Those analyses show the short term sequestration processes can easily adapt to sequester the trivially small anthropogenic emission in a year. But, according to each of our six different models, the total emission of a year affects the equilibrium state of the entire carbon cycle system. Some processes of the system are very slow with rate constants of years and decades. Hence, the system takes decades to fully adjust to a new equilibrium. So, the atmospheric CO2 concentration slowly changes in response to any change in the equilibrium condition.
Importantly, each of our models demonstrates that the observed recent rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration may be solely a consequence of altered equilibrium of the carbon cycle system caused by, for example, the anthropogenic emission or, for example, may be solely a result of desorption from the oceans induced by the temperature rise that preceded it.
The most likely explanation for the continuing rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is adjustment towards the altered equilibrium of the carbon cycle system provided by the temperature rise in previous decades during the centuries of recovery from the Little Ice Age.
This slow rise in response to the changing equilibrium condition also provides an explanation of why the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere continued when in two subsequent years the flux into the atmosphere decreased (the years 1973-1974, 1987-1988, and 1998-1999). Your assertion fails to explain this.
Richard
rishrac – what ppm’s are you referring to?
Richard.
Please explain why CO2 from fossil limestone would behave differently from fossil CO2 from coal once it got into the atmosphere.
That is exactly my point to which you respond NO.
You quote my words so there is no reason to repeat them. I cannot put it any more clearly. IF vulcanism pumped the same amount of carbon from subducted limestone into the atmosphere it would have the same effect as humans pumping CO2 into the air from fossil coal.
If you point is that doing either of those things would have no effect then say so and we can move on. Otherwise explain the difference.
You will note that I have not insulted you at all and I hope you can refrain from that also.
What’s there that the you don’t understand about parts per million per volume per year. I never sited the source. The source or lack is it is what the data points to. What it seems that you don’t understand is that the difference in most of the anthropogenic co2 has been produced since 1998 yet it isn’t making it into the atmosphere. While 1 or 2 ppm/v per year may not seems like much, it represents 17 to 30% of all anthropogenic co2 produced. That’s on top of the amount that is acknowledged to have been sunk. If you aren’t alarmed by this, you should be. It means that if we weren’t producing co2, the total level of co2 would be decreasing.
Richard, as I said to someone else, I take care with my writing, please take some care with your reading. I am not ignorant of the long carbon cycle referred to, so I took careful steps to avoid confusion by inserting the clause “on the scale of a few years”. It is quite revealing that you ignore my to response to ristvan explaining this, and you double down in the unjustified allegation of ignorance. I recommend reading before responding, and if you don’t understand then either keep quiet or ask for clarification. Personally I apply these principles, so I am not suggesting anything I don’t do myself.
Your proper response would be to thank me for giving you this insight.
rishrac. “What’s there that the you don’t understand about parts per million per volume per year” Thank you for the clarification. You only mentioned ppm. not ppm/year. As I understand it you are saying that the rise is 3ppm/year, when we are putting out 6ppm/year, or something like that. The answer is that the sinks are not fixed, but depend on the level of CO2. About half of the extra CO2 is quite rapidly adsorbed by the sinks Higher levels mean more adsorption – in the oceans and by plants. However you are discussing details of the size of sinks and sources that is nothing to do with my point. It is an interesting topic for discussion but is not the point I was making. If we do not introduce fossil CO2 the sinks will remain the same.
The sinks were always capable of handling this much co2 or they weren’t. If anything the sinks should have shrunk. There is definitely less of the earth covered by tropical forest which was called ” the lungs of the earth “, and oceans that are warmer, therefore not able to absorb as much. If there is variability in the sinks that can go from 6 BMT in 1965 to 19 BMT in 2014, what is it ? …..(Don’t try and confuse the issue. 12 BMT was produced in 1965, 6 BMT went into the sink, and 6BMT went into the atmosphere. In 2014 38 BMT was produced with 19 BMT going into the sink. That year 2.13 ppm, a full 1 ppm off, 6 BMT additional was sunk.) ….. And what I’m not able to get through to you is that the year after 1998 which was 2.93 ppm, 1999 the level was 0.93 , in one year 12 BMT just went poof. No levels exceed 3.00 ppm per year until 2016 (except for 2005 which NOAA adjusted sometime soon after the realization that for the last 60 years co2 followed temperature ). There has not been any make up years were the co2 ppm per year exceeded production. They have ALL been below.
All numbers from NOAA.
Richard, since you assure me that you always answer questions, I will phrase my comment explicitly as a question. Why would CO2 introduced into the atmosphere from fossil limestone behave differently than fossil CO2 introduced to the atmosphere by burning coal?
rishrac. Henry’s law says that the higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere the more the oceans will absorb. The temperature rise of the oceans means that they can absorb less, but the temperature rise of the oceans is minuscule compared to the Henry’s law aspect. It is widely commented here that more CO2 means more plant growth, so increasing CO2 increases the plant sink. I really don’t see what problem you have with this. We would expect that if CO2 increases the sinks would increase, so we would expect that not all the added CO2 would remain in the atmosphere.
None of this is at all controversial and I don’t really see what your point is. Please explain.
” Henry’s law says that the higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere the more the oceans will absorb.”
Only if the temperature of the oceans remains constant.
Which of course it doesn’t, it is warming.
Hence, it emits dissolved gas, it doesn’t absorb it.
You don’t see a problem with the sink currrently at 19 BMT as opposed to 6 BMT? You don’t see a problem with 7.5 BMT in one year that’s over and above the 19 BMT that is calculated to have been absorbed by your Henry’s law ? On the one hand, your saying the carbon cycle is so finely balanced that any anthropogenic co2 shows up in the system, then on the other 25 BMT out of 38 BMT gets sunk, no problem ? Put another way, we would have to produce 25 BMT for the total co2 level increase/decrease to be 0. The only increase came from 13 BMT. That’s about 2.15 ppm/v . The actual record amount in 2014 was 2.13 ppm. 2016 hottest year on record from an el nino, co2 ppm came in at 3.10 and an additional 12 BMT more co2 than produced in 1998. . Why do you think levels were 2.93 ppm in 1998 ? You don’t understand in terms of this balance idea, how much has been added and how much isn’t accounted for.
Some have said about the input of co2 from volcanoes. So what happened with Mt Pinatubo? The year before, 1991, co2 ppm was 0.99 and 1992 was 0.48 ppm ?
catweazle. This one comes up here frequently and i did mention it in my comment. The increase in amount of CO2 absorbed through the increase in concentration is orders of magnitude larger than the amount desorbed through warming.
As a first approximation, doubling concentration doubles amount absorbed.
here is a table of solubility at different temperatures and pressures. Partial pressure is a measure of the concentration. Atmospheric pressure is 100kPa (approx), so 5kPa is 5%
http://sites.chem.colostate.edu/diverdi/all_courses/CRC%20reference%20data/solubility%20of%20carbon%20dioxide%20in%20water.pdf
We see that at 20C 5 kPa we have 0.035%. Doubling the concentration to 10 kPa we get 0.071%, or about double. If we were to raise the ocean temperature a full 5C we would have 0.062% – still much higher than the lower concentration at the cooler temperature. However, we are talking about an increase in ocean temperature closer to 0.1C. This would give about 0.00708%. This increase in temperature has very little effect on the amount absorbed.
Increasing CO2 levels in the atmospheres causes more CO2 to dissolve in the ocean even when we have accounted for the increase in temperature.
rishrac.
“The sinks were always capable of handling this much co2 or they weren’t. If anything the sinks should have shrunk.”
I explain above why the ocean sink has grown. That is just thermodynamics and it is inevitable. There were articles here recently about the Greening of the Earth because of raised CO2 – that is an increasing sink. I don’t see why the sinks should have shrunk. I am sure one could speculate that these land sinks may shrink or rise, but it certainly does not seem at all improbable that they would rise. It therefore seems unlikely that CO2 levels would be dropping without anthropogenic emissions.
That should be 0.0708% (not 0.00708%).
Seaice, the theories, and assumptions on the observed data you make is disturbing. There is really no point in discussing this with you. There is no iteration in the final analysis. You cant use Henry’s law ad infimum until you reach you stated reasoning. You can’t assume that both the ocean is getting, at least the top layers are getting much warmer, and at the same time assume that a great quantity of co2 has gone into it. Both can not be true. Neither can, the sinks become larger and co2 can last hundreds of years in the atmosphere. One or the other has to be false. Exactly how do you think NOAA calculated the amount every year that is being sunk? You think you have a brand new explanation ? You should tell NOAA so they can correct their numbers. Which they have no problem adjusting anyway. Maybe they just guessed ? I will say it again, the sinks are way too big, and the amount of co2 that has gone missing is equal to all the additional co2 produced since 1998, using 1998 as a base.. It is roughly 78 BMT that is over and above what is officially sunk. If you aren’t alarmed, you should be. What ever you believe or being told to argue.
seaice1:
You ask me
I answer:
IT DOESN’T:
I never said it did whatever you may mean by “CO2 introduced into the atmosphere from fossil limestone”.
And what limestone do you think is not fossil?
Richard
seaice1:
I provide an important addendum.
1.
I gave you a clear explanation of our work (which I referenced) that refutes your untrue assertion.
2.
You replied by ignoring everything I wrote and asking a question which suggested I had said something I had not.
3.
You say you don’t want me to insult you.
4.
In light of
(a) your ignoring what I wrote,
(b) you falsely claiming I had said something I did not,
(c) you asking me to justify the something you had falsely claimed I said,
(d) your (deliberate?) idiocy, and
(e) your cowardice in posting from behind an alias,
please tell me how it is possible to insult you because I want to.
Richard
Richard, comrade sea ice knows ‘ a few eggs must be broken to make an omlet’. Truth being one of them if necessary. You’re arguing with a slightly insane person. Sea ice can’t possibly be wrong if it helps achieve the overarching agenda. It doesn’t matter what you say or what the facts are. When the argument can’t be won, the next step is to claim to be insulted. Of course in the overall scheme of things, I’ve committed crimes against humanity for disagreeing with them.. in that person’s or persons view. Who cares if the actual events occured or not. Already as of 2013, 50 million climate refugees have died from climate change. That was promised in 2000. It’s always some future time if we don’t cede power to them right now, something really bad will happen… soon. Democracy just can’t respond to this imminent threat quick enough. We need a command economy, like North Korea, to respond to this dire threat. They know what’s best for us. We are stupid and child like. So comrade Richard, give up your deiner ideas come over to the warmist side.
That’s what you’re dealing with Richard.
Running dogs. Haven’t heard that one in a long time. Great turn of phrase; it sounds so disparaging. I’m going to start using it again.
Would the carbon law make this mandatory?
https://youtu.be/YlXAbi7RSBU
This “carbon law” is complete stupidity. Neither carbon nor carbon dioxide has anything to do with global warming. Look at this: in the Cambrian atmospheric CO2 was 7000 ppm. . By Cretaceous, which is 400 million years closer to us, carbon dioxide is down to only 1000 ppm.This is a reduction by a factor of seven. You will find the necessary data in figure 30 of my book “What Warming?” And the corresponding Cretaceous temperature? Still just 22 degrees Celsius, That means no change in 400 million years. You have to be awfully stupid if these figures do not tell you that carbon dioxide can not change global temperature. And note especially how its atmpospheric amount keeps going down. If we now come even closer to us, like the Holocene for instance, the amount of carbon dioxide will be down to 280 ppm, our pre-industrial value. Do you ever wonder what its post-industrial value might be.? You can calculate this if you assume that the lowering of carbon dioxide we observed is linear. Doing this linear extrap[olation tells us that in another two million years, CO2 will be down to 250 ppm, the photosynthyetic limit, and life will end. Can we do anything about that? Just maybe, if we can change the climate. To prevent the extinction of life we must add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The best way to do it is to burn more fossil fuels. And also, if you want to furyher reduce ythe likelyhood of exrinction, get rid of all the renewables whose only function is to bring the extinction day closer to us.
Typos corrected
This “carbon law” is complete stupidity. Neither carbon nor carbon dioxide has anything to do with global warming. Look at this: in the Cambrian atmospheric CO2 was 7000 ppm. Corresponding global mtemperature was 22 degrees Celsius. By Cretaceous, which is 400 million years closer to us, carbon dioxide is down to only 1000 ppm. This is a reduction by a factor of seven. You will find the necessary data in figure 30 of my book “What Warming?” And the corresponding Cretaceous temperature? Still just 22 degrees Celsius. That means no change in 400 million years. You must be awfully stupid if these figures do not tell you that carbon dioxide cannot change global temperature. And note especially how its atmospheric amount keeps going down. If we now come even closer to us, like the Holocene for instance, the amount of carbon dioxide will be down to 280 ppm, our pre-industrial value. Do you ever wonder what its post-industrial value might be.? You can calculate this if you assume that the lowering of carbon dioxide we observed is linear. Doing this linear extrapolation tells us that in another two million years, CO2 will be down to 250 ppm, the photosynthetic limit, and life will end. Can we do anything about that? Just maybe, if we can change the climate. To prevent the extinction of life we must add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The best way to do this is to burn more fossil fuels. And also, if you want to further reduce the likelihood of extinction, get rid of all the renewables whose only function is to bring the extinction day closer to us.
Sounds great. Let all the concerned perfessers at Melbourne Uni lead the way and shut down the campus aiconditioning straight away and open the windows. Back to the future like the grandparents and all for the sake of the grandkiddies eh perfessers?
The world hasn’t reduced its’ human CO2 generation in the last 30 years despite the efforts and look at all the problems that are occurring related to those attempts and how the temperature isn’t increasing at their projected rates. These people need a reality intervention.
Ah..the celebration of North Korea showing us how to do Earth Hour ALL night .. Every night
And south Australia and now Victoria .
The idea of a carbon law as described is a bit silly. Of course, nobody with any sense would confuse laws such as Poe’s Law, Goodwin’s law and Moore’s Law with actual physical or legal laws (no apologies to those above who appear to have done so). The word Law does not mean the same in this context. Nonetheless, these “laws” are derived from observation of the world, not prescriptions of how the world ought to be. They seem to share some attributes of the aforementioned physical laws, in that they seem to fit with continuing observations. The suggested carbon law is even further removed from such physical laws because it is not describing what we will see, but what the authors believe we ought to see. I am not in favor of describing such things as laws, no matter how desirable the outcome.
“Forward, always forward” Erich Honecker October 1989 40th anniversary of the GDR.
The President of the United States believes that Anthroprogenic Climate Change is an invention of the Chinese to steal American jobs. -reports of Donald Trumps private statements on AGW.
Climate agitprop is running on as if nothing has changed.
I don’t think that the Chinese Communists invented the hoax, but they may very well be taking advantage of it. Unfortunately, they don’t have a clue of just how bad they need these United States. Without us and our economy, they don’t have an economy. The same goes for Mexico. We buy their oil, spend tourist dollars down there, and remittances provide even more hard currency than oil. Some 10% of Mexicans have fled to these United States for a better living and many send their earnings home. Mexican economic refugees have made Los Angeles the second largest Mexican city in the world. (We also spend a zillion dollars on drugs with all the attendant problems on both sides of the border.) Countries that wish us ill should worry that they just might get their wish!
Earth Hour? Is that still a thing? I thought just about everyone except the self-flagellating enviro-kooks ignored that silliness. Oh well, for Earth Hour I’ll plan on watching the hockey game on the HDTV while running the dishwasher, self-cleaning oven and clothes dryer, while enjoying a cold beer or two from the refrigerator with the lights on. Life is good. ;->
Wrong “M” Law –
it looks more like they are enamored with Murphy’s Law.
Or maybe they mean Mary Tyler Moore’s Law.
Maybe if i chain myself to the bottom of an empty swimming pool and slowly full it with water, my body will be forced to disruptively innovate some gills.
Necessity is the mother of invention, right?
Hahaha…That’s funny as hell
Necessity is not the mother of invention, laziness is. If something is really necessary, you do it however you can, typically using existing methods. When lazy people want to do something, they invent easier ways to do it.
Bill Gates advocated hiring lazy programmers for precisely this reason.
I thought he just stole it, CP/1?
As a UNIX sysadmin (along with network and storage) these past 30 years, I agree that laziness indeed plays a large part in the creative process. God bless shell scripting. And perl.