Guest post by Tony Brown
“If Europeans truly mobilize around the delivery of the 2050 goal, every business decision, lifestyle choice, political swing, every hallmark of European culture — from annual ski trips, to Champions League Football matches, to French cheese — will need to be tested against its contribution to climate change.” European Commission ‘Green Deal’ March 2020
This is an article with a simple proposition. Science tells us that rapidly rising Co2 in turn causes rising temperatures, which has become a very serious problem for humanity.
The three questions I ask, in the expectation that the answer can be provided from main stream published science is;
“Assuming we reach zero carbon emissions by 2030-Extinction Rebellion (XR) requirement, or 2050 -the aim of most governments under the Paris Accord- 1) how long would it take for Co2 levels to naturally fall below the’ safe upper limits’ of 350ppm espoused by such as James Hansen; 2) for it to fall further to 280ppm -the previous pre industrial level -AND 3) when will temperatures start to fall in turn, to achieve pre industrial levels, said to be 1 to 2 degrees Centigrade below present, according to the IPCC.”
There are all sorts of caveats of course, with methane, water vapour, clouds, feedbacks, ocean response, natural variations etc but having scoured various ‘official’ web sites I can find no definitive estimate. An examination of the Extinction Rebellion web site demonstrates they are anarchists, rather than a serious green organisation. A couple of more reasoned attempts to track the consequences of zero carbon emissions are given in Note 3 below the graphic-Figure 1 together with a variety of other useful background information.
Whether the reader personally believes excess Co2 to be a problem is not a matter this article is concerned with. Let’s take science at face value –our respective Governments have overwhelmingly agreed that humanity has added some 140ppm of Co2 to the pre industrial 280ppm and that, as a result, temperatures have risen substantially and are at a dangerous level and causing extremes of weather.
As a result of this scientific advice, Governments around the world intend to take dramatic measures to curb both Co2 levels and thereby limit temperature increases. The answer to my question must be in the public domain in a readily understandable form, in order for politicians-rarely versed in science- to feel it necessary to make the far reaching changes proposed. In this connection the EU’s position in Note 2 under the graphic will reward a read, as it will likely reflect the position of your own Government, or in the case of the USA-the opposition parties.
General comments on the subject are of course welcome, but If you wish to make a specific prediction of the Co2 reduction time and/or temperature reduction please quote evidence in the form of an equation, or a reference, or link to a science paper.
So here are the simple questions again. Assuming we reach zero carbon emissions by 2030-Extinction Rebellion (XR) requirement, or 2050 -the aim of most governments under the Paris Accord- 1) how long would it take for Co2 levels to naturally fall below the’ safe upper limits’ of 350ppm espoused by such as James Hansen; 2) for it to fall further to 280ppm -the previous pre industrial level -AND 3) when will temperatures start to fall in turn, to achieve pre industrial levels said to be 1 to 2 degrees Centigrade below present, according to the IPCC.
Note 1; Figure 1 below assumes a 430ppm concentration by 2030 or 450 ppm by 2050 based on Co2 levels continuing to rise from 2020 until towards the chosen date, when they would taper off, before becoming net zero. Consequently any estimated reductions need to start from that point. Figure 1 is left blank waiting for data from replies to be inserted;
Figure 1; Co2 and temperature-timescales and trajectory
Background information
Some 10 or 12 years ago, when I first started writing climate related articles, I emailed around a dozen leading climate scientists to ask that if emissions stopped dead, how long would it take temperatures to drop back towards the desired pre industrial levels?. That is to say around a couple of degrees centigrade. (This doesn’t take into account that the temperature by 2030 or 2050 should be higher than now as Co2 continues to increase, plus there is the ‘heat in the pipeline’)
Most responded. Some had never done the calculations, others didn’t feel there was sufficient data for accurate projections. One said we should start to see a slight reduction in temperatures in around 400 years, but the full effect would not come about for possibly thousands.
Until Covid 19 took over public debate, climate was a very hot topic and will do so again as the immediate effects of the pandemic recede into the rear view mirror.
Consequently it is relevant to ask the question again in the light of much more research and knowledge accumulated over the last decade or so. This has provided data that has persuaded governments to adopt stiff targets in such International agreements as the Paris Accord and encouraged the rise of activists like Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion, whereby the ‘climate crisis’ is being forcibly placed into the centre of the public domain.
In a future article, once the data is in, I hope to explore the measures needed to achieve the stated objectives and surmise whether the public would be more or less willing to accept the sacrifices and lifestyle changes needed, bearing in mind the drastic changes in everyone’s lives over the past few months.
In respect of climate mitigation ambitions, readers will find it worth spending a few minutes exploring the EU position under Note 2)
Note 2 ; This is a small segment from the Politico web site about EU plans, .which will mirror the views of many other signatories to Paris. The title is self-explanatory
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-climate-goal-revolution-net-zero-emissions/
“Cutting the Continent’s emissions to “net zero” — meaning Europe would sequester at least as much greenhouse gases as it produces — by 2050 will require a radical overhaul of nearly every aspect of the modern economy. Dramatic cuts in carbon will wipe out entire industries, transform others and force people to change the way they eat, work, live and travel”
“If Europeans truly mobilize around the delivery of the 2050 goal, every business decision, lifestyle choice, political swing, every hallmark of European culture — from annual ski trips, to Champions League Football matches, to French cheese — will need to be tested against its contribution to climate change.
The European Climate Law, proposed by the Commission in March, would submit every EU law, past and future, to a test of its compatibility with climate neutrality — a “tectonic shift,” according to E3G, a think tank that advocates for emission cuts.”
Note 3 A variety of papers, sensationalist and more rational, sketch out a wide variety of scenarios making it difficult to separate reality from fantasy. A couple of more reasoned attempts to track the consequences of zero carbon emissions are given below. ‘The Conversation’ has a recent editorial policy of not publishing ‘denialist’ climate comments or articles.
Summary from ‘The Conversation.’
Temperatures will stabilise at a higher temperature with some 0.6C of heat in the pipeline with, for the foreseeable future an irrevocable rise of temperature of up to 4C.
There is no real road map of temperatures coming down, and elevated levels of Co2 will remain for many hundreds of years. The article is from 2017.
From Nature, who reckon on a temperature rise for hundreds of years whilst Co2 will stay at an elevated level for thousands.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/what-happens-after-global-warming-25887608/
The Future?
The 2020 Covid economy, whereby Co2 emissions have continued to rise but more slowly than recently, provides some clarity as to the fundamental changes needed from industry and the public to actually achieve net zero. This effectively means ‘more of the same’ restrictions as during the pandemic. Much less air travel, fewer personal means of transport and more reliance on public transport, much less consumption, fundamental changes to industry, supplemented by measures on addressing additional sectors of the economy year on year, to permanently ratchet up the effect.
This will likely include less meat eating, less imported foods and drink, fewer electrical items including mobile phones and servers, the phasing out of gas central heating, a substantial reduction in home temperatures with thermostats set to 19degrees C ((66 degrees F) no wood or coal burning devices, phasing out of most conventional power sources, a much greater reliance on renewable energy and likely a carbon allowance and alterations to tax structures to encourage a change in behaviour. This is expected by governments to result in a gentler, slower, less polluted and more sustainable way of life, centred more round the local community.
Tony Brown August 2020
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“When will temperatures start to fall?”
Hopefully never. I don’t want to live in an ice age.
We are in an ice age. I think you meant glacial period. That would indeed be brutal.
You are correct. We are in between glacial periods but still in an ice age. If anthropogenic CO2 has delayed the arrival of the next glacial period, I would say that we’ve done humanity a favor.
rapidly rising Co2
What has cobalt got to do with global temperatures ?
About as much as CO2 does. Zilch
2030, I’m buying new skis.
I am lucky where I live will in an ice age it will be a ponderous pine Forest rather that desert.
I’m with David.
However, according to the scientific theory of CO2 “blocking” infrared light from radiating out to space and re-emitting infrared back to the earth, as CO2 falls from, say 500 ppm to 499 ppm, it should, theoretically, start cooling immediately and continue to do so as CO2 concentration declines. If the theory is correct or accurate. That also means that as it decreases by 100%, say 560 ppm to 280 ppm, global temperature should fall by at least 1° C. Which is not much. Which makes you wonder what all the weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth is about.
Sorry, that should be “as it decreases by 50%, say 560 ppm to 280 ppm…”
The theory is that as it increases by 100% (doubling) from 280 to 560 ppm, it will increase warming by 1° C or so. The reverse should also be true when it decreases by 50% from 560 to 280 ppm.
Oooopsie, I doubt that the loonies, the climate liars and that great oracle Mosher, would like it to drop back down by their “simpleton physics” number of 4 – 6 degrees F or C. They gonna take credit for that?
We could always bring back the guillotine, which is, as I believe, why it became popular in the first place ….. metaphorically speaking, of course.
I think this would be an ice age 🙂
“how long would it take temperatures to drop back towards the desired pre industrial levels? That is to say around a couple of degrees centigrade.”
I’m sure he meant “by”…
Some people might find a discussion starting with the premise that “the Moon is made of green cheese” intellectually stimulating. Personally, I do not have the time for such foolishness, any more than I have the time for one starting with the idiocy written at the beginning of this piece.
10+
+++
Temperatures will fall between now and the middle of next year due to La Nina. If solar cycle 25 is another mild one or actually weak (not just relatively weak compared to the Modern Maximum) then it will probably fall between now and 2030 regardless of how high the partial pressure of CO2 is in the atmosphere – making the desperation to end fossil fuels even more desperate for the charlatans because con artists don’t like being caught.
Sometimes it’s worth the time to take your opponents’ assumptions and proposals to their logical conclusion.
True but I’m more interested in predictions of 2020 to 2040. Hotter, colder and by how much (or same as we are now).
How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures would be considered a falsification of the premise that CO2 controls the climate?
We had an 18 year period with that exact scenario and some honest scientists threw in the towel but most just tried to adjust their way out of it.
It’s called “Reductio ad absurdum” and is a method of proof that taking the assumptions at face value leads to an absurdity.
Writing Observer-
I think you are missing the point. To you (and most of the rest of us here at WUWT) the statement that “CO2 is causing a catastrophic increase in ambient temperature” has a much validity as “the Moon is made of green cheese.” However, that is not the case for EU and the signers of the Paris agreement. They believe it is the Truth (with a capital T).
So Tony Brown’s question is “If we all have to sacrifice and return to the 17th century, when will our global temperature stop increasing and when will it start returning to the preindustrial level?”
In other words “Is the worlds sacrifice going to be worth it?’ Tony is asking them to prove that it is worth it.
Old engineer
Thank you. We can assert our position as much as we like but those in control are the ones that will promote the science as they see it, egged on by some who have become fanatical. The US has been protected from this to some extent ever since Kyoto but in particular by refuting Paris.
A change of President, should it happen, will completely upend the current US position overnight
So ‘prove it’ is one argument, but I am inclined to think that ‘is the worlds sacrifice going to be worth it’ is a more powerful one we need to employ, as well as chipping away at the science.
We don’t seem to have made any dent in co2 after the severe worldwide
Lockdown but as you saw on my mauna loa link there is an excuse for this which will presumably be employed ever more frequently as time goes on .
I don’t think ordinary people as yet realise the extent of the lifestyle changes demanded or if they do, they believe renewables will seamlessly take up the slack.
We need evidence to demonstrate that we are likely to make little difference and that the sacrifices with current technology are not reasonable
Tonyb
Change of President unfortunately won’t matter as governor s and local gov are moving ahead with Green scams regardless of president
Keep in mind that this is the same mindset of the people who say a full lockdown, etc. is “worth it” regardless of the cost “if it saves just one life”
So to them, the answer to “is it worth it” is ALWAYS “Yes”.
They believe “Truth over Facts” as Joe said. No amount of empirical evidence will change their faith.
As CO2 doesn’t increase temperatures in a good measerable scale, how / why will temperatures decrease in case of null emissions of CO2 ?
Time to sell more tiger-repelling rocks, I guess.
China and the rest of the “developing world”…the ones that get paid…are laughing
Latitude
August 28, 2020 at 2:29 pm
Yes indeed…all the way to the bank!
Alistair,
Indeed, indeed. China, India, all of the OPEC nations, Russia and non-OPEC Africa have no intention of abiding by the Paris climate agreement, at least until 2030 in China’s case. Collectively, they account for about half of the world’s population. Such a farce.
The EU, Green-New-Deal America (if realized), wacky Liberal Canada and Australia face an economic catastrophe if their proposed emissions-reduction plans are implemented. Social upheaval, depression, revolt and war will be the outcome.
Nice future to contemplate here in sunny British Columbia. Oh well, golf beckons later today even if it does amount to a good walk spoiled.
Or a stroll through Bouchardt Gardens would be nice in Victoria.
So, when will micromanagement of a single species’ fractional contribution provide a level to regulate global climate?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=an+ant+can%27t+move+a+rubber+tree+plant&qpvt=an+ant+can%27t+move+a+rubber+tree+plant&view=detail&mid=C9FE9931DD9883EC2C6BC9FE9931DD9883EC2C6B&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=%2Fvideos%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dan%2Bant%2Bcan%2527t%2Bmove%2Ba%2Brubber%2Btree%2Bplant%26qpvt%3Dan%2Bant%2Bcan%2527t%2Bmove%2Ba%2Brubber%2Btree%2Bplant%26FORM%3DVDRE
“Science tells us that rapidly rising Co2 in turn causes rising temperatures”
I’m not sure if Science tells us that, or if activists tell us that, so I reject the initial premise. Science certainly does tell us that rising temperatures causes rising CO2, due to ocean outgassing. If CO2 in turned was the dominant force in causing further temperature rises, then earth would have a history of constant out of control temperature swings, rising temps which cause rising co2 which cause rising temps, until some other tipping point is reached, at which point falling temps would cause falling co2 with causes further falling temps, and then all over again. However, the temperature record does not look like that at all.
CO2 causes rising temperatures like steam causes kettles to boil.
Brilliant. I will use that at every opportunity.
We should concentrate on something about CO2 that Science does tell us–that plant growth goes up or down depending on the concentration of atmospheric CO2.
Consequently, the biosphere is larger with more CO2, and not surprisingly, so is foodstuff production and ancillary products like construction lumber.
Political forces that push for a reduction in CO2 have to know this, too, so why follow advice that makes the human condition harder than it is?
Some people just aren’t very friendly!
Yep, 7.5 billion people have benefited from increase CO2 in the atmosphere, as far I can tell zero have suffered. If we reverse coarse the reverse will be true. Same for nature.
“….our respective Governments have overwhelmingly agreed that humanity has added some 140ppm of Co2 to the pre industrial 280ppm….” And therein lies a big problem…. assuming the CO2 rise is anthropogenic only. If we look at history atmospheric CO2 has varied without fossil fuel use by man. Just part of the scam.
I can predict with absolute certainty that if we do nothing to address CO2, temperatures will eventually start to fall. Whenever this is will be same time it would be if we implemented the most draconian CO2 mitigation scheme possible.
“One [scientist] said we should start to see a slight reduction in temperatures in around 400 years, but the full effect would not come about for possibly thousands.” I am with co2isnotevil on this one. The scientist that said the above quote was actually quoting the skeptic position.
Well one way or the other in 1 to 2 thousand years the temp will start dropping a lot.
Seeing that the sun is apparently going into a prolonged minimum(2 solar cycles) it is very likely “global” temperature will at worst stagnate where it is now. It also could drop a degree C or so if it follows the historical record.
“our respective Governments have overwhelmingly agreed that humanity has added some 140ppm of Co2 to the pre industrial 280ppm and that, as a result, temperatures have risen substantially and are at a dangerous level and causing extremes of weather.”
All of which suppositions are incorrect so why bother reading further.
TedM,
That mankind has added CO2 to the atmosphere is based on undeniably sound science and there’s no point in disputing this. What they have wrong is the the size of the climate effect increased CO2 concentrations are claimed to have and even if they had this right, they’re still wrong about warming being so much more dangerous than cooling.
You would think that a kilometer thick glacier bearing down on Manhattan would be far more concerning then a slight warming concentrated mostly in polar regions and dense urban areas, especially since the increased CO2 across the planet said to cause the warming has such a large positive effect on agricultural productivity. Lets not forget that glaciers have covered most of the Northeastern US, Northern Europe and Russia for more than 80% of the last million years through about 10 major glaciation cycles and that there’s no amount of atmospheric CO2 that can stop this from occurring again.
“
ScienceScientology tells us that rapidly rising Co2 in turn causes rising temperatures, which has become a very serious problem for humanity.”“Let’s take science at face value –our respective Governments have overwhelmingly agreed…”
That’s not the science, that’s the consensus among political entities. Science has nothing to do with consensus, only subjective things are decided by consensus. Objective testing of theory through observation is science at face value, anything else becomes politics, which hides the face value with masks of eminence. The models which overstate the atmospheric sensitivity to carbon and should be thrown out are the basis of the governmental “scientific consensus”.
C’mon man, “Co2?”
Yeah, what the blazes is Co2? Is this something really new and scary? Maybe they meant C zero 2, but I don’t know what that would be.
These fools can’t even get their opening sentence correct and then repeat it how many times I don’t know, cause I couldn’t read their garbage science past the next next time I saw them make the same mistake. Fools!
No, C capital O 2. The O is the sy Mobil for Oxygen.
The Blob
The climate establishment have committed themselves to prediction of essentially endless warming from the pulse of anthropogenic CO2.
Forever.
And ever.
Hallelujah.
Hallelujah.
That means that any cooling of climate that occurs, ever, refutes the CO2-alarmist mainstream position.
Any cooling and it’s game over.
Phil:
I am not sure that it will be game over. The climate alarmists have done so many unscrupulous things already (getting rid of warm weather records in the past, homogenizing data, raising the temperatures actually recorded, and on and on.) A steadying or falling temperature will be erased and replaced by a rising temperature record somehow.
Just something we will have to live with as long as leftist globalist are in charge of so many countries.
2=2=5
and we will crush your nuts till it is
+
2.4 is rounded to 2
therefore 2.4+2.4 = 4.8 4.8 is rounded to 5
therefore 2+2=5
The 2020 Covid economy, whereby Co2 emissions have continued to rise but more slowly than recently
Everything I’ve read and graphs I’ve seen, indicate there has been no discernable change in co2 increase. So is that still true?
Alan
Here are the Mauna loa figures.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
There is no discernible change despite the fiercest lockdown on industry in history. The ‘reasons’ that there has been no change are discussed in the link.
Quite what it takes before the apparent limited impact humans have is admitted I don’t know. I suspect it would take 5 Years of a fierce crackdown on co2 emissions with no effect before the powers that be start to admit there might be something wrong with the theory
Tonyb
The “fiercest” lockdown dropped CO2 emissions by about 10%. The fiercest part only lasted a few weeks and the economy (and with it, CO2 emissions) have been picking up since then.
Given the noise in the signal, a 10% drop for a month or so won’t be noticeable.
Correct. It’s sad to see so many skeptics embarrass themselves and validate the alarmists’ claim that skeptics deny sound science. There’s no reason to deny that human activity has managed, over centuries to raise CO2 concentration from 0.028% to 0.042%.
If we generate twice as much CO2 each year than the amount accumulating, how can any coherent explanation be constructed to explain how our emissions have no effect on atmospheric CO2 concentration.
I’m tired, the sun mediates our weather more than any co2. If you stay in the sun too long you can die. The world has cycles affected by the astonomical positions.
This one world global presumptive syndicate is just another Iteration of Roman’s acting like they are GODS!
If Harde be correct, temperatures should start dropping within years after CO2 stops increasing:
Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921818116304787?via%3Dihub#!
Highlights
• We present a carbon cycle with an uptake proportional to the CO2 concentration.
• Temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates are considered.
• The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is found to be 4 years.
• Paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate are well reproduced.
• Human emissions only contribute 15% to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era.
I’m dubious about the last conclusion, but it makes little difference.
The effect of CO2 is negligible in any case. Real ECS is probably about the same as its value without the positive feedbacks assumed in the worse than worthless GIGO models. Feedbacks on the actual Earth rather than on Planet Gigo are more likely net negative than positive, so ECS could well be below 1.0 degree C.
Natural variability swamps whatever enhanced GHE CO2 might contribute. Sinks expand to soak up the extra plantfood, as shown by the greening of our planet thanks to increased CO2, from whatever source.
They couldn’t address his arguments, so they attacked the reviewers.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117306586
Pretty funny that they say the peer review system is at fault, rather than the CACA hypothesis.
But predictable.
Even worse, they gagged Harde’s response to self-serving criticism by the IPCC industry, criticism that Harde demonstrated was rubbish. It’s equivalent to a court trying a case with only one of the parties present.
https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored
A lesson in how to survive – by Cancel Culture.
“If Harde be correct, temperatures should start dropping within years after CO2 stops increasing”
I think Harde is saying the CO2 will start to decrease after the temperature does. His work with Salby and Humlum concludes that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a function( probably an integral function) of temperature. His findings align with Berry’s (https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3/). Note that their position is that human emissions do not effect the CO2 content of the atmosphere very much so their response to Mr. Brown’s question about the time for the temperature to drop after ending emissions is meaningless. It is like asking how long after humans stop having pets will the global temperature go down. The former variable has no causal relation to the latter.
My opinion is that, while CO2 increases as a result of warmth rather than causing it, there might be a (difficult to detect) minor positive feedback effect from the additional plant food in the air.
Water vapor not only covers about the same bands as CO2, but outnumbers it by two orders of magnitude in the air, ranging from about 2000 to 40,000 ppm, with a global average around 25,000, vs 400 for CO2. Thus, horrors of horrors!, GHG concentration has grown over the past 160 years from about 25,300 to 25,400 ppm.
Maybe there were only 24,000 ppm of H2O in the air on average 160 years ago. Macht Nichts.
The range of water vapor concentration is several magnitudes larger than the tiny enhancement of atmospheric CO2.
Even if they had the actual science correct about atmospheric CO2, (and they don’t)
….they still couldn’t possibly measure any actual effect….. And they haven’t !
John sorry to step into your thread, but it is a good opportunity to explain some points of confusion to new WUWT readers…
Top of Troposphere, only 12Km up, water has rained and snowed out, temperature is -55, CO2 is still 400 ppm but water is only 10ppm at that altitude.
So CO2 controls how much heat radiates to outer space at that altitude. But more CO2 radiates more heat to outer space. Meanwhile down at ocean surface, 400 ppm of CO2 compared to 20,000 ppm of water vapor has very little effect.
Modtran does a pretty good job of integrating this water vapor/CO2 effect from ground level on up.
However, Modtran does not do a very good job of calculating the additional cloud cover that warmer ocean surfaces generate, and its effect on reflecting incoming sunlight.
And cloud cover is what really controls the Earth’s temperature. An increase of surface temperature from 15 to 16 C increases saturation water content by 7%. This moisture makes more low level clouds that reflect incoming sunlight (a couple of days later a few hundred Km away), restoring the overall heat balance.
Ramanathan in his “Cloud Radiative Forcing and Climate” paper of 1988 pointed out the strength of this cloud albedo effect. But modern Climate scientists strongly believe in the CO2 effect despite it’s overprediction of temperature change per CO2 doubling.
Thanks for stepping in!
1) how long would it take for Co2 levels to naturally fall…
If emissions halted overnight, baked in temperature rise would continue for another few decades (until it reached a new equilibrium) and atmospheric CO2 concentration would take maybe a hundred years to return to 350ppm. In a few thousand years CO2 has dropped back to 280 and the temperature has dropped back to the pre-industrial average. Answer in human terms = forever and emissions are not halting overnight.
https://www.nature.com/articles/climate.2008.122
Think geo-engineering is a bad idea, that train has left the station.
Off by orders of magnitude, as usual.
The perpetrator of this antiscientific lunacy is a freelance science writer based in Pakistan in 2008.
Please post a real scientific paper next time.
Alarmists declare expertise based on how well they agree with the premise.
Since Loydo agrees with the article, that proves the article is correct and authoritative.
“Off by orders of magnitude”
I think you might still be confusing the residence time for a single molecule with the residence of the total pulse. A single CO2 molecule is only in the air for an average of a few years but it will take millenia for the atmospheric concentration to fall back from 450ppm to 300ppm.
From: Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110
1. Introduction
[2] The idea that anthropogenic CO2 release may affect
the climate of the earth for hundreds of thousands of years
has not reached general public awareness. Goodstein [2004]
reports that fossil fuel CO2 will disappear after a millennium.
This misconception is widespread in scientific and public
discussion.
“17– 33% of the fossil fuel carbon will still reside in the atmosphere 1 kyr from now, decreasing to 10– 15% at 10 kyr, and 7% at 100 kyr. The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30– 35 kyr.”
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/43a5/acdfed668b96d760f4118c2ceb351e56a283.pdf
Loydo: Ice-core data from the Vostok and Law domes show that changes in temperature always PRECEDE changes in CO2, and have done so for hundreds of thousands of years and dozens of glaciation cycles.
Why do you still believe temperatures are a function of CO2, and not the other way round?
Why don’t you think it works both ways? Temperatures does strongly drive CO2, but also CO2 does drive temperature, only more weakly, but drive it it does.
Loydo: We’re making progress! So you accept that CO2 is NOT the control knob of the climate?
Positive feedback always leads to runaway. If CO2 drives temperature, why has there never been a thermal runaway, even during epochs of higher CO2 and temperature?
“but also CO2 does drive temperature”
You have absolutely ZERO evidence of that..
it is a NON-fact, based on a pseudo-physics fantasy.
“So you accept that CO2 is NOT the control knob of the climate?”
Nobody says its THE ONLY player, but a player it is.
There are negative feedbacks that prevent thermal runaway, Stefan-Boltzmann Law for example. The runaways are there, it just that they have a floor and a ceiling imposed and so they stop running away. The oscillations of glaciation/interstadial in the ice-core data triggered by the Milankovitch cycles for example; positive runaway followed by negative.
Whether you think CO2 has much of an effect on the climate or not, one thing is certain it is not going away quickly.
Loydo: Kindly give an example of a physical system with positive feedback which does NOT lead to runaway.
Please cite your evidence for the influence of CO2 on atmospheric temperature rather than vice versa.
CO2 levels remain high during cooling periods, only declining after 800-1000 years.
“but a player it is.”
Just like Loy when queuing for brains..
Left on the bench !
Still no evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming…
Just mindless protests.! Poor Loy
”confusing the residence time for a single molecule with the residence of the total pulse. A single CO2 molecule is only in the air for an average of a few years but it will take millenia for the atmospheric concentration to fall back from 450ppm to 300ppm.”
More nonsense/gospel from the usual suspects. The alleged difference is a major defense of the IPCC industry. Under scrutiny, however, it collapses – laughably.
https://youtu.be/b1cGqL9y548?t=64m50s
Selby? You might want to read a little more widely.
Loy, you need to employ some basic science and comprehension.
Sadly lacking.
Loydo is right to point out that residence time is not relevant to the change in concentration. There are vast seasonal fluxes (all-natural sources and offsetting sinks), far larger than the magnitude of our emissions. As a result, CO2 molecules emitted by fossil fuel burning (as well as from natural sources) are likely to sequestered again within a few years by natural sinks, without changing the CO2 concentration.
It is the e-folding rate that determines the asymptotic approach toward “equilibrium”. I put that in scare quotes because the ocean-atmosphere is always far from equilibrium, and the driving forces are perpetually changing so that the hypothetical equilibrium state is also constantly changing. Thus the e-folding rate must be varying over time as a function of temperature and other factors.
The e-folding rate is similar to a half-life only it is not 1/2 but 1/2.718 (base of the natural logarithm, e), and it is not the absolute quantity being reduced by 1/e but the excess amount. In one e-folding period, the delta between actual and equilibrium would be reduced by 1/e or about 37%.
The question is, what is the driving force that would drive CO2 concentration lower? It’s the excess partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere vs the ocean. In the absence of human-generated emissions, atmospheric CO2 should decrease toward that hypothetical equilibrium point where the partial pressures are equal. It will not decline linearly, but at an ever-diminishing rate because of the ever-diminishing driving force. (Think of the flow of water from a hole in the bottom of a tank—when full, the flow is fast, but nearing empty the flow slows to a drip).
If the current temperature corresponds to a CO2 concentration greater than 350ppm, say 380ppm (purely for the sake of argument, not based on any calculation), then we would never return to 350ppm, everything else remaining unchanged. We would only return to the equilibrium concentration.
Why should we want to return to the pre-industrial 280ppm, a level implying a colder average temperature and substantially lower agricultural productivity?
In short, while Loydo is right that under current conditions, it could take a long time to get back to 350ppm, who cares? Loydo isn’t thinking this through. He acknowledged the correct position that CO2 is driven primary by temperature and also produces a marginal feedback of additional warming as CO2 rises, or a marginal feedback of additional cooling as CO2 concentration falls. The only way someone can make that statement is by acknowledging that temperature can change independently of CO2.
CO2 concentration could fall back to 350ppm relatively quickly if the natural forces that have been slowly cooling the planet over the past several millennia suddenly tip us into a new little ice age that greatly increases the driving force by cooling the oceans.
In a (naturally) cooling world, it’s entirely feasible that temperatures and atmospheric CO2 would drop despite increasing anthropogenic emissions.
“who cares?”
That depends on the ECS doesn’t it, if its low then its a nothing burger. If it is 3 or 3+ then the next thousand generations are going to care a lot and it is trite and delusional to just say they’ll be happier with abruptly warmer than the Holocene. Good luck to the next thousand generations with that.
How do you come up with the fantasy JUNK comments of yours , Loy
Some sort of wacky green pill ?
The next many generations will NEED those raised atmospheric CO2 levels to produce the food required to feed themselves.
Or a whole heap of CO2 enhanced real greenhouses.. With CO2 manufactured for the purpose.
Why don’t you even the most basic understanding of biology and where the foods food comes from ???
(and you STILL haven’t produced any science showing that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.)
Loydo, my friend,
If TCR has given us about a degree (which assumes 0% of the observed warming was natural) after about 50% of a doubling of CO2, then ECS would be about 4K and that doesn’t get us to more than a 2 degree rise in this century, which is not close to the HCO. All the magik models run far too hot with ECS of 4. Too hot even with lower ECS. Reasonable conclusion: a good portion probably most of the observed warming is not CO2 feedback, but natural variability.
Svante Arrhenius was hoping for a 9 degree warming from fossil fuel burning to benefit Sweden. But you think it’s reasonable to consider a 2 degree rise to be a catastrophe?
Global milding raises night-time lows without affecting daytime highs. That raises the average temperature but mostly in high latitudes.
If your fear of a long-term 4-degree increase in average temperature resulting from higher Tmin is so concerning to you, why are you supporting unsustainable windmills and solar panels as a solution, when a natural gas to gen IV nuclear strategy would actually work and not bankrupt western civilization?
Don’t agree, natural sinks have theoretically increased to offset half of what we theoretically are pumping into the air. So if we shut down anthro CO2 concentration should drop dramatically at least at first. Temperature should follow very rapidly.
In a few thousand years, we are heading back into the next Glacial Maximum, and we will have much bigger things to worry about! Or at all, for that matter
Why stop there? Go for 42ppm.
Leads to death of complex life on Earth. Below 100-150 ppm kills. Safer to aim for 1000 ppm.
I love the way loydo actually believes his made up numbers have any basis in reality.
Since all of the CO2 we’ve emitted so far has caused, at the most, a few tenths of a degree of warming, then the “baked in” emissions couldn’t possibly cause more than a few hundredths of a degree of warming.
As to your beliefs regarding residence time of CO2, the science differs.
In November the US might find it has a President who will rejoin the Paris agreement and will in other respects buy fully into the climate change mantra.
Whatever we might believe will be immaterial. The public will need to be persuaded that they do not want to get on board.
Outlining the huge sacrifices that need to be made to reach zero emissions is one route, but for that to be effective part of the argument is that reducing co2 will have no short term impact on temperature and that it will take say 200 years for co2 and temperatures to reduce.
After the trials of covid over the last six months i Doubt people will want to get on board for such small or no returns by making yet more sacrifices
As can be seen from the first paragraph the EU is determined to press ahead as is 99% of the world. Just today extinction rebellion have been out in the UK causing disruption and this will only escalate. These people are fanatics. America may have been insulated to some extent over the last four years but there is absolutely no guarantee this will continue after November.
If people can answer any of my three questions I would be pleased to hear the arguments
Tonyb
China and India being the remaining 1% of the World I suppose?
The sane parts of the world don’t buy into CACA.
Russia and China use the madness of Western crowds to their advantage, but don’t for a second actually fall for climate alarmist nonsense, as shown by China’s coal plant building binge. The CCP laughs all the way to the bank, selling wind turbines and solar panels to the deluded West.
Those whom the gods would destroy, they first drive mad.
John, Well said
Yep
Are you betting on Biden?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/betting_odds/2020_president/
Yesterday Dementia Joe had to read prepared answers to softball questions from Anderson Cooper and still couldn’t get the words out.
There’s a reason why Pelosi is demanding that Biden cancel the debates.
If he goes to the debates he’s gonna get creamed.
If he cancels the debates he will look like an even bigger coward than he already does.
If Biden is still alive by the time the debates are held and he does attend, I wouldn’t be surprised to see him have a stroke or a heart attack right on stage, in front of tens of millions of Americans. His blood pressure will be through the roof, and DJT is going to chew him up and spit him out like the swamp creature he is. If there are no debates, and the memories of all the riots and arson are still fresh in the minds of most people, they are not going to reward the Democrats with any victory in the election, unless there is massive voter fraud via the mail in ballot. That should be a legitimate reason for questioning the legality of massive mail in voting.
Assuming the polls are even honest, how could one even make an honest assessment of what the actual odds would be from polling data if it were not already manipulated to be what is they want it to be. I suspect the polls are extremely biased to Biden and the Democrats right now. But it will probably be close and come down to a handful of states and a handful of undecided folks who determine the next POTUS. Just like last time. But it would be nice to have a resounding defeat of the Red Democrat Party and see it fracture into two parties, the other being a new Green Socialist/Marxist Party and they can harp on about their New Green Deal.
For that matter, how do we haven know Sleepy Joe its even still alive? He could have pre-recorded all those videos in his basement last month, along with CNN and MSNBC et al. Just like Kim Jong Un might be in a coma, and he has all these pre-recorded videos for Proof of Life. His sister seems to be much more active, which would be real funny if he is in a comma after meeting Trump on several occasions. He is probably so scared shItless, and being ground between the millstone of Washington and Beijing, that he has had a nervous breakdown leading to a comma. Or was poisoned by his sister or his Generals or even China. That would be a real treat to find out right about now that Rocket Boy is no more.
Even if Senile Joe is still alive, it is just barely alive. He looks like he is fading fast. And maybe why he doesn’t leave his basement. Really weird.
Smart bettors don’t rely on polls, although I’m sure that some do.
Polls really don’t mean mcuh until after Labor Day. Unfortunately, in many mail-in voting states, like PA, ballots were sent out even before the party conventions.
Not fast enough.
I don’t think it’s a realistic assessment that Biden is near death, or completely incapacitated by dementia.
It can feel good to go off about it, but frankly I think it’s best not to call him Dementia Joe (as I have also done). It sets the bar too low for him and even if it’s proven out by a sad performance, we risk offending those fighting dementia and their close relatives, generating sympathy. “Mean-spirited” loses even if it’s just highlighting an important reality.
Biden will most likely be tipped off on several of the exact questions he’s going to be asked at least by some of the propaganda ministry. His handlers will coach him on some apparently quick-witted responses. There’s a high probability that they can make him look “better than expected”. Never forget that we’re up against the whole dem. Soc. Party, including the media. If they can get even one snappy response out of Biden, that will be played on the loop. All the better if Trump makes any kind of error. And let’s not imagine that Trump can’t say something dumb.
So my gut says Pelosi is goading Trump into accusing Joe of being incapable of debating and really lowering the bar so that Biden can have a “shockingly strong performance, putting an end to any concerns about his mental acuity once and for all”. She wants a buzz about how Joe is afraid to debate. I’ll truly be shocked if this is not a feint. Please Trump, don’t take the bait. Instead if invited to comment on Biden’s reluctance to debate, say something like, oh I’m sure Joe’s going to debate us, he’s got so much to explain about defunding the police and banning fracking, and locking down the country again. (Those are negative, but fair statements that can be backed up with video clips). Don’t take the bait of calling him senile or repeat the nonsense about giving him a drug test.
Focus on the riots and disorder, but do it by playing those moving videos by black Republicans. Emphasize the hopeful MAGA,A message, emphasizing the impact on minorities and women—through their words, give hope about a vaccine, remind oil and gas workers what Trump policies did for them and our energy independence. You hardly need to mention how that contrasts with Biden-Harris. They know.
Make the media’s lies and unfair attacks obvious, not by relentlessly attacking the media, but by visibly not doing the awful things that they are accusing us of. The RNC was supposed to be the summit of white supremacy. The fact that it was the polar opposite of that is one of the reasons it was so successful.
The base is secure. Now is the time for moderation and giving comfort to moderates.
Hi Tony
You know my view the only way to reduce CO2 is to get half way through the next glaciation in say 50-70,000 years. Only cooling will lead to the control of atmospheric CO2.
Then the Oceans will again be able to re-absorb atmospheric CO2 and Man-kind as we know it in 2020 will have disappeared.
This has already been demonstrated by Bjorn Lomborg.
https://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises.
The effect that reductions in GHG emissions have on temperature are exclusively in reducing future increases in temperature until you reach a 50% reduction. Once our emissions are halved sinks should absorb all our emissions so atmospheric CO2 levels stop increasing. Even when atmospheric levels stabilize, most scientists believe we should still get what is known as committed warming, or “warming in the pipeline”. This warming is believed to come from the ocean lagged response to a change in radiative forcing. There’s ample discussion about it with the official position that it could be above 1°F in the short term, but around zero on a multidecadal scale.
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2007/11/20/the-global-warming-in-the-pipeline/
Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the Zero Emissions Commitment from CO2
https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/17/2987/2020/
The promise is more warming whatever we do until over a decade after atmospheric levels decrease. For that, a reduction greater than 50 % in our emissions is required. Quite a lot of scientists believe we have to go carbon negative to reduce atmospheric levels, but that is nonsense as sinks depend on atmospheric levels, not emissions. We are told the alternative is making the planet inhabitable. Either we buy their green scheme or we die.
If we reach zero emissions, the half-life of a carbon pulse released into the atmosphere is the subject of even more discussions. Estimates range between 30 years and centuries, with the IPCC settling at 100 years. This means they believe that from 430 ppm to [430-((430-270)/2)] 350 ppm would take 100 years. So it would take us 100 years to go back to the temperature of the mid 1980s, which was ~0.5°C lower than present.
Then from 350 ppm to [350-((350-270)/2)] 310 ppm another 100 years, that would be the temperature of the 1950s, a further reduction of ~0.2°C.
Then most scientists believe the last 20% of the pulse takes over a thousand years to be eliminated. It means in human terms we don’t go back to pre-industrial situation even with zero emissions.
“Quite a lot of scientists believe we have to go carbon negative to reduce atmospheric levels…”
“So it would take us 100 years to go back to the temperature of the mid 1980s…”
You don’t think there is a problem, but if you’re wrong, you’re wrong for generations and far from reducing, CO2 concentration seem to be rising exponentially. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html got your fingers crossed?
Loydo, what I have written is IPCC position, not mine. It is obvious that if sinks take half of what we emit, by decreasing our emissions by 50%, atmospheric levels should not raise further. Thinking otherwise is illogical.
Our emissions are not rising exponentially, as the rate of increase is decreasing. For all we know atmospheric levels should respond to our changes in emissions, don’t you agree?
Y = X ^ (z); where -0.95 < z < 1.02
exponentially … 🙂
It comes down to the perpetual question … are they outright deceptive liars, or are they ignorant deluded useful idiots, or some combination of both?
“by decreasing our emissions by 50%, atmospheric levels should not raise further…”
By your “logic”, back when our emissions were half what they are now there should have been no increase in atmos. conc., alas there was.
I didn’t say our emissions are rising exponentially, but that atmospheric conc. is, which implies there is a growing natural source contributing to the increasing rate; outgassing from thawing permafrost for example.
Anyway you slice it, human’s CO2 pulse – in terms of a human lifetime – is permanent. Lets hope our children and their children and their children’s children and their children’s grand and great grand children etc, and for a hundred generations after that, aren’t inconvenienced too much by this generation’s lifestyle choices.
How can you be so ignorant? Natural sinks depend on atmospheric levels, so back when we emitted half, atmospheric levels were lower and closer to equilibrium, so sinks were taking less and levels increased as they should.
Again, how can you be so ignorant? We are emitting far more than atmospheric levels increase, so THERE ARE NO NET NATURAL SOURCES. Nature is decreasing CO2 levels, not increasing them. Read your bible, apostate. All increase is ours, all decrease is natural. If we stop emitting, levels will go down. Believing in natural sources on top of emissions is heresy. Check with your climate priest if you are having doubts, lost soul.
My dear Javier, just for you…
https://emagazine.com/the-next-30-years-fasten-your-seat-belts-were-in-for-a-bumpy-ride/ Good luck.
LOL, Loy really?
An rabid opinion piece containing absolutely ZERO real science.
A mish-mash of fake temperature series, fake correlations
ZERO causality.. and you fall for it..
So funny !
You are a JOKE. !
Loydo, you are totally disconnected from the science of climate change. The article you cite is just an opinion piece.
The evidence that the article is just a bunch of lies is in the CO2 concentration vs temperature anomaly 2020-2050 chart. “The temperature in this chart was calculated by using the ratio of the change in the temperature anomaly to the change in the concentration of CO2 over the past 60 years.”
Except that it is not true. +1°C in 30 years is a +0.33°C/decade. This is over double the warming rate of the past 60 years.
Shame on you for bringing up such deceitful article. Alarmists are an easy to fool bunch.
No, your blinkers got in the way causing you to mis-interpret the graph – it “WAS calculated by using the ratio of the change in the temperature anomaly to the change in the concentration of CO2 over the past 60 years”.
You’ll claim that’s wrong, fine, whatever, but I can’t be bothered following you down your grimey little rabbit hole any further.
BS La Niña is proof that temperatures would drop quickly. If any of their BS was actually true.
If ocean legacy was true then the temperature increases we are seeing now have nothing to do with CO2. Probably true, but invalidates their theory in the first place. Can’t have it both ways.
In Spain temperatures dropped 12°C over the last two days. However the global average over long periods of time changes very little. Over periods > 15 years the global average does not change at more than 0.4°C/decade. Since 1979 the rate of warming has been ~ 0.12°C/decade.
The planet has a huge thermal inertia. It will not warm or cool fast. Right now the thermal inertia of the oceans is resisting warming. That’s why the ocean surface is warming more slowly than land.
If true than a reduction of CO2 would result in land temperatures moving towards ocean temps ie cooling. But again land temperatures are always higher than ocean, the warming we are seeing is from the oceans reversing their cooling trend that led to the LIA. Otherwise warming would have started long after the anthro GHG introduction not before.
Global land surface is warmer than the ocean during interglacials and colder during glacials, as it should be since the ocean acts as a thermal capacitor with different inertias due to its slow mixing rate.
The warming we are seeing is not from the ocean, as the ocean is now recharging as its increasing OHC shows.
Since the mid-Holocene transition, the land surface had been cooling as the growth of global glaciers shows. Over that time period the ocean has been cooling too, discharging enthalpy to resist this cooling trend. See figures 2 & 3 of
Rosenthal, Y., Linsley, B.K. and Oppo, D.W., 2013. Pacific Ocean heat content during the past 10,000 years. Science, 342(6158), pp.617-621.
The LIA was an accentuation of that trend. The LIA was a land surface phenomenon due to atmospheric loss of enthalpy so the planet drew more on the OHC at the time. Afterwards the land surface started warming and the ocean started to increase its OHC.
Generally speaking the ocean acts as a brake against whatever the land surface is doing at the time. The ocean has not warmed the land surface after the LIA. It has reduced land surface warming by increasing OHC. That enthalpy will be returned when the Earth enters its next phase of cooling.
I think you have the relationship backwards, again the ocean started warming then the atmosphere then GHG rise not the other way round
Not true. All the energy comes from the Sun. It warms the outer atmosphere, and the middle atmosphere all the way to the ozone layer, and the surface and down to a few feet in the ocean. GHGs backradiation just warms the surface and does not penetrate the ocean. The effect can be understood as having a stone and a bucket of water in the backyard; when the sun comes out it will warm the stone faster, when night falls the stone will also cool faster.
Land is always leading, the ocean is always lagging. As long as the planet is warming the ocean will not warm the land (globally). The idea that there’s heat hiding in the ocean waiting to jump on us is absurd.
The warming we are seeing is not from the ocean, as the ocean is now recharging as its increasing OHC shows. and
Land is always leading, the ocean is always lagging. As long as the planet is warming the ocean will not warm the land (globally). The idea that there’s heat hiding in the ocean waiting to jump on us is absurd.
The data show the land and lower troposphere both lag the ocean by 2 months:
All the energy comes from the Sun. It warms the outer atmosphere, and the middle atmosphere all the way to the ozone layer, and the surface and down to a few feet in the ocean.
No, TSI/insolation warms the ocean down to hundreds of feet via absorption that creates sensible heat which then upwells and warms the air by conduction and by evaporation via convection and loss of latent heat to space.
Javier
I respect you a lot but if the ocean is holding back the atmospheres warming as you stated earlier than it’s the ocean warming that allows the land to warm in lock step.
The end Of LIA is the oceans leaving it’s cooling phase and entering it’s warming phase logically this would have been a slow processes starting hundreds of years before land warming actually happened. Again global warming started long before GHGs increased in the atmosphere and the increase in GHGs started before significant anthro sources. Logically this indicates natural change not anthro, but the warmest want to have it both ways, they want GHGs to be the cause and then thermal inertia of the oceans to last thousands of years, if so then logically the warming we are see started thousands of years ago.
Outlining the huge sacrifices that need to be made to reach zero emissions is one route, but for that to be effective part of the argument is that reducing co2 will have no short term impact on temperature and that it will take say 200 years for co2 and temperatures to reduce.
After the trials of covid over the last six months i Doubt people will want to get on board for such small or no returns by making yet more sacrifices
As I said elsewhere, there is a mindset that even the worst lockdown would have been fine “if it saves just one life”. So, yes, there ARE people who will get on board. They’re generally well-off and not in a place where they’ve suffered much, if anything, and they’re incapable of understanding how bad things might be for others. They’ll be perfectly fine telling everyone they have to sacrifice even more to “save the planet”.
Where is this often-touted ”heat in the pipeline” supposed to be? A new CO2 molecule has its full effect within a few microseconds, the delay in the climate system is about three months, as shown by the annual cycle. Not much pipeline there.
The only possible place would be the oceans. If so it must be a matter of reaching thermal equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere, which however never occurs, since the oceans have a turnover time of a millennium or more, which is much longer than it takes for CO2 to be absorbed by the ocean. And the heat (if any) being pipelined into the atmosphere now is presumably due to the MWP, which we probably can’t do much about now, not even by CO2 taxes.
Actual science is strictly forbidden from government-approved consensus “climate science” (TM).
To reach the ideal consensus whereby every human being on this planet agrees to any one thing will take time … an infinite amount of time. So it stands to reason that to agree to two things, it will take twice as long.
The metal Cobalt (Co) is not diatomic. It exists as a metallic lattice and science does not tell us (or has ever even hinted) that it warms the atmosphere. There is, however, some evidence that gaseous CO2 has a slight warming effect (as shown by Tyndall, Angstrom, Happer, Heller and Modest) but this effect is weak and dwarfed by a) the warming effect of water vapour and b) multifarious natural causes and cycles.
If Tony Brown studied real science instead of highly flawed computer models he would discover this for himself. Furthermore, if he read Shellenberger’s new book ‘Apocalypse Never’ he would also discover that the slight warming (and fertilising) effects from CO2 far from being a ‘serious problem for humanity’ is, on balance, beneficial.
Anthony
I have read his book. I am fully aware of the theories. Unfortunately it is not me setting climate policies so what I believe is immaterial. Those setting policy believe something quite different .
Tonyb
Let’s all play the Climate Catastrophe Ouija Board game! It’s seancetific!
I think the easiest thing for those who want CO2 to drop is for them to just self-select out of the gene pool. That takes care of two “problems” at once!
But seriously, perhaps we should be touting the benefits of a warmer planet, specifically comparing now to say, the winters of the 1780s and 90s; all the green out there; all the extra food!
Just imagine if we could get to 1,000 ppm! It would be great.
The 1690s to 1700s sucked the worst, after decades of the Maunder Minimum.
Things I will do:
The Calculations
Things I will not do:
Take this seriously.
Things you can do:
Carry this on further.
First, the rate law. I choose First Order Decay Kinetics. It is fast, easy, and everybody uses it. I have long maintained that CO2 going into the sinks (primarily the oceans) will follow Approach To Equilibrium Kinetics, to no good result of my efforts. Apparently Equilibrium Kinetics is too difficult for Climate Science, so first order kinetics it is.
Second, the rate constant. Perhaps the best way is to grab a copy of the MLO data and graph up a Keeling Curve of your very own. Then fit an exponential curve and grab the rate constant directly.
Justification: It is often said that the planetary sinks take up just about half of all anthropogenic emissions each year. So it follows that once emissions are halted, the sinks will keep working at the same rate, and atmospheric CO2 will fall mirroring it’s previous rise. Very convenient, but I did not come up with the mass balance calculation of 50%, others did that.
On with the show:
First Order Kinetics:
log(X/X0) = -KT where X is the ending concentration and X0 is the start concentration.
I think the minus sign is ugly so I reverse the log term.
log(X0/X) = KT
{Note: chemists use log(), physics people use ln(). The results are the same, but the K values differ by the factor 2.303. Before using any K value you find check to see if it is a log() K value, or a ln() K value. No mixing and matching, it does not work.}
Now determine the Rate Constant:
As I mentioned, grab the Keeling curve and fit it to an exponential. Unfortunately, I am way too lazy for that, so I will use the data provided.
Data Given:
430 ppm at 2030
450 ppm at 2050
Put into the rate equn.
log(450/430) = K * 20
K = 9.87 X 10e-4
{Remember we said the decrease will mirror the increase, because 50% absorption going up, and a similar mass getting absorbed going down.}
Now then:
Year 2030 down to 350 ppm –
log(430/350) = 9.87 X 10-4 * T; T = 91 or year 2121
Year 2030 down to 280 ppm –
log(430/280) = 9.87 X 10-4 * T; T = 189 or year 2219
Year 2050 down to 350 ppm –
log(450/350) = 9.87 X 10-4 * T; T = 111 or year 2161
Year 2030 down to 280 ppm –
log(450/280) = 9.87 X 10-4 * T; T = 209 or year 2259
Now the Money Question!!!!!!!
How long to cool off the planet??????
I say just a year or two or three.
Why??????
Atmospheric processes are fast. In the temperate zones, annual temperature swings with the seasons are *vastly* larger than any temperature change caused by greenhouse gasses. As greenhouse gasses fall, the temperature must follow, lagging by no more than one winter season. This argument also works for the tropics with their rainy and dry seasons, and anywhere with monsoons, or ice caps.
NOTE:
No Bitching! No Whining!
Do your own calculations, show us what you got.
Post your results here.
{Bonus points awarded for anyone who grabs the MLO data and fits an exponential to get a “real” rate constant.}
“atmospheric CO2 will fall mirroring it’s previous rise.”
Nuh, not even close.
Provide your own calculations or stop bitching.
Bitching? Anyone who thinks our CO2 is gone in less than 10,000 years needs to be bitch-slapped back to reality.
No calculation; Just more bitching.
Empty blah-blah yet again , hey Loy… DOH !
Try some actual evidence rather than suppository driven models.
You sound like you have been bitch-slapped all your life !!
Bitch Slap you!
Show your work!
Mathematically Illiterate Coward.
10,000 years, Ha Ha Ha. The one who can do math laughs at the one who can’t.
“The mean lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 is about 30– 35 kyr.”
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/43a5/acdfed668b96d760f4118c2ceb351e56a283.pdf
According to a suppository 2004 model.
LOL..
You never cease to come up with slap-stick comedy. !
Just think Loy.. all that failed effort to remove life-giving CO2 emissions, and its thankfully still going to hang around for another many thousands of years
This is absolutely great news for life on Earth, isn’t it. ! 🙂
in the immortal words.. DON’T PANIC !
“for another many thousands of years…”
Yes, can’t you already sense it, those lucky people born in the year 5500 will look back with gratitude, so will those born in 12500 and even those born in the year 35500, too. All thankful. Forever thankful. Aren’t they so ever lucky they have wise, selfless, saints like us to permanently geo-engineering their atmosphere for them. They didn’t even have to ask, wer’re just doing it, because, well because thousands of future generations are way more important than making a buck and, ah… never mind.
It will fall a lot quicker because of the extra natural sinks that are theoretically taking away half of the anthro production.
The developing nations completely control present and future energy and emissions and will continue use fossil fuels for the great majority of their energy. Global emissions won’t decline below present levels regardless of what the developed nations try to push. If CO2 controls global temperatures (they don’t) global temperatures will not drop. Only the rate of future increase will change.
Larry
The west will be asked to make huge sacrifices in order to go carbon neutral. The rest of the world will not.
I suspect therefore that co2 emissions are likely to be higher in ten years time than now. Perhaps then the west will realise they have been fooled.
Tonyb
Here is a reasonable guess of the state of CO2 emissions as population rises to 9 billion and CO2 emissions rise as the Developing world reaches reasonable levels of development.
Any damage to Western Nations from Net Zero policies will leave Global CO2 virtually unaffected
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/quantifying-futility-2020-estimate-of-future-co2-emissions/
That is not a given. The rate of increase in CO2 emissions has been going down since mid-2000s. The COVID crisis is going to be multi-year, reducing our emissions. There is a distinct possibility that by 2029 emissions could be lower than in 2019.
“The rate of increase in CO2 emissions has been going down since mid-2000s.”
But atmospheric conc. is accelerating. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html
Are you suggesting they are not related?
The only conclusion is that natural sources are increasing; out-gassing from thawing permafrost for example.
Your logic is flawed. An increase in natural sources is equivalent to a decrease in natural sinks. The end result is that the airborne fraction should increase. We know that is not the case. The airborne fraction has been decreasing over time so we know that natural sinks have been increasing faster than natural sources.
Atmospheric levels just take some time to respond to changes in emissions because they are small compared with fluxes, so variability in fluxes masks small changes in emissions for some time. But in a few years we should see atmospheric levels reducing their rate of increase.
Your assumption is flawed.
“The airborne fraction has been decreasing over time so we know that natural sinks have been increasing faster than natural sources.”
“We estimate a positive, yet statistically insignificant, slope
in the data for the airborne fraction”
https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/16/3651/2019/bg-16-3651-2019.pdf
“they are small compared with fluxes…” So small they could be rising.
Or in other words there is nothing “flawed” about interpreting an accelerating CO2 conc. while anthro sources decline as being a possible consequence of a rise in natural sources.