Preventing a 2-degree C temperature rise = almost no fossil fuel use
By Judy Lowe | 04.30.09
As nations look ahead to the December global climate meet in Copenhagen, many have been considering goals to slow global warming/climate change. Now, their deliberations may take on more of a sense of urgency:
“Less than a quarter of the proven fossil fuel reserves can be burnt and emitted between now and 2050, if global warming is to be limited to 2 degrees C [3.6 degrees F.],” says a study published in the journal Nature yesterday, which was conducted by researchers at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
Also published in Nature was another study by scientists at England’s Oxford University. Most of the climate goals currently being considered by various countries include slowing carbon dioxide emissions by a certain amount during the next five or six years and a larger amount by 2050. But that isn’t good enough, warns Oxford scientists, who say: “Emitting carbon dioxide slower will not prevent dangerous climate change unless it involves phasing out carbon dioxide emissions altogether. …”
“To avoid dangerous climate change, we will have to limit the total amount of carbon we inject into the atmosphere, not just the emission rate in any given year,” explains Dr. Myles Allen of the Oxford physics department. “Climate policy needs an exit strategy: as well as reducing carbon emissions now, we need a plan for phasing out net emissions entirely.”
What that translates to in real terms is that instead of the 80 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions envisioned by the Obama administration, the US would really need a 90 to 95 percent reduction, according to Bill Hare, study coauthor at the Potsdam Institute.
Is that possible? Stephen Schneider of Stanford University told Andrea Thompson of Fox News’ LiveScience that as the effects of warming become evident, he thinks cleaner technologies and a galvanizing to take action will make the difference. “I don’t think the world is going to be that stupid for most of the century,” he said.
Cutting carbon dioxide emissions that extensively will mean leaving three-quarters of the world’s fossil fuels unused. “Only a fast switch away from fossil fuels will give us a reasonable chance to avoid considerable warming,” said Dr. Malte Mainshausen of Potsdam.
“World emissions must start dropping by 2015, otherwise cuts will have to be too draconian,” he said.
No doubt these studies will give a certain impetus to the Copenhagen talks and the other climate-related gatherings of world leaders that come before the big meeting.
Added later: Here’s a link to a PDF that answers 26 questions about the German study.
<< Is a bad economy good for the environment? | MainComments
2. AntonioSosa | 04.30.09
An increasing number of scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…” http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
Progressive (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the United Nations and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes and increase the cost of energy, which will limit development, destroy our economy and enslave us.
3. russ | 04.30.09
The near total domination of the issue of fossil CO2 by climate science ignores at the planets peril the far more dire effects of CO2 on the worlds oceans, you know that 70% blue part of this smll blue planet. Climate science and scientists attempt and mostly succeed in parrying every attempt to refocus on yesterdays CO2 impacts and instead command focus only on tomorrows CO2. While reducing tomorrows emissions is surely important we must deal first with yesterdays.
The 1000 billion tonnes of CO2 already emitted, of which only 1/4 has been absorbed into oceans and ecosystems is a deadly carbon bomb that has more than sufficient lethality to destroy and force a re-boot of the oceans ecosystems back to bacterial seas of slime from which green plants and animal life evolved a billion years ago. The impact of CO2 is more than the acidification of the oceans by 30% in the past few decades. The worst of the impact is the many fold decimation of ocean plant life which will continue from the remaining CO2 in the first carbon bomb for centuries. ONLY the replenishment and restoration of ocean plants will see those ocean plants compete for CO2 and fix it as ocean life instead ocean acidification. Just 30 years ago the ocean plants and pastures converted 4-5 billion tonnes of CO2 into ocean life each year, fully half of the global CO2 problem.
The decline of ocean plant life is quantified as 10% lost in the Southern Ocean in the past 26 years. The Southern Ocean is least afflicted but perhaps best studied and reports state it will be on the wrong side of the CO2 tipping point by 2030. 17% of ocean plants are missing from the North Atlantic, 26% from the North Pacific, and 50% from some of the tropical seas.
But this is not merely a doomsday story. Twenty years and a quarter of a billion dollars in public and private research on how to replenish and restore the ocean plants and pastures show us it can be accomplished affordably, begun immediately, and succeed in time to make a difference. The crisis the oceans face is from high CO2 in the air nurturing plants on land which have become better ground cover denying dust from blowing in the wind and delivering vital mineral micro-nutrients to ocean plants. By replenishing those natural mineral mcro-nutrients, the dust in the wind, the oceans ca be helped back to life to bloom again and convert half the burden of CO2 into life instead of death.
Read more about how we are working to tend to the victim of the fossil fuel age, Mother Nature. Others can chase after the fossil fuel truck that ran her down in her gardens but we will replenish and restore her SEAS and TREES and help her and ourselves back to life. http://www.plnktos-science.com
4. David44 | 05.01.09
Excuse me, but what is more draconian that a 95% cut in fossil fuel use. These guys are just nuts. If they really believe their own hysterical nonsense, they’d better start concentrating on how to adapt because nothing approaching even a 50% cut in fossil fuel use is gonna happen. As more and more good science trickles out questioning their doomsday scenarios, these computer modelers just become more and more alarmist! Give it up boys, games over, we aren’t buying it anymore.
5. John | 05.01.09
When you do a story like this, it would really be nice to know whether the scientists are speaking about real data or their models. In general, speaking as a physicist myself, their models are rarely even close to accurate because they involve suspect assumptions. Please try to distinguish real science from supposition.
6. Jon | 05.01.09
Yeah, like some have said…Let’s just forget about it. My mom, dad, favorite politician, and talk radio commentator have told me human caused climate change is a joke. Plus, I still get lots of compliments on my tricked out truck at the game and that feels pretty good. Not only that, in the past, scientists said the world was round and that turned out to be a hoax, so I’m just not going to buy anything scientists are selling. Heck, they don’t even believe the earth is 6,00 years old!!!
7. BB | 05.01.09
This data is not suprising. If people actually bothered to read the news they would notice that glacial ice is melting at an accelerated pace. Once that ice is gone, that’s it, it’s not coming back. Why is this imporant? Because without the ice to reflect sunlight the earth warms as darker oceans absorb the energy. I’m going to be around in 2050, so I for one am for reducing ALL greenhouses gases drastically. It is better to be safe than sorry. As for the naysayer, what if your wrong? What happens then when its to late to change anything? An apology expressing that you were wrong is not going to save civilization.
8. editorial | 05.01.09
Hi John, Nature says this about the studies: “Here we use ensemble simulations of simple climate-carbon-cycle models constrained by observations and projections from more comprehensive models to simulate the temperature response to a broad range of carbon dioxide emission pathways.” (See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature08019.html) Also, see the PDF link I added above at the end of the blog post. It goes into much more detail about the methods used.
9. Jason | 05.01.09
Instead of having all these meetings about how we better stop doing this or that, or else global warming kills us all, perhaps they should be meeting to come up with ECONOMICALLY VIABLE alternatives to present day fossil fuel use. Until the powers that be come up with green options that provide reliablity and performance, without hitting our pocketbooks, it’s going to be all for naught. No average joe is going to spend anywhere from two to four, to six times as much for his current living standards just to make the sky a tad bit clearer and the temperature a tad bit cooler.
10. James | 05.01.09
Hey AntonioSosa, how about having those same 32,000 scientists form a petition saying that ocean acidification is a hoax also? I would like to see that! In case you hadn’t noticed, the consequences of ocean acidification make climate change look like a bad joke. Seriously, read something about it so you will realize how stupid the viewpoint you have been spoonfed into becoming your own deeply and personally held beliefs really are.
You should try changing your information sources to places that aren’t politically oriented so you’ll stop being a propaganda victim.
11. JD Fisher | 05.01.09
It is disturbing that the Monitor has decided to fall in lockstep with the dubious claims of global warming. Isn’t it normal for weather conditions to follow 500 year warming patterns? You could circumnavigate Greenland 500 years ago. Was that caused by exhaust emissions? What’s wrong with another warm-up cycle? Oh, it must be because of awful Americans and their cars! This is why the Monitor still fails to be balanced in its coverage.
12. Steph | 05.01.09
PS: AntonioSosa, it doesn’t really make sense to compare the number of international scientists speaking out against Global Climate Change (70 according to you) with the number of scientists who authored a report. Those numbers are uncomparable. If you really care to learn the scientific consensus, look for survey research (there has been some conducted) that tries to get a representative sample of scientists and get their opinion on the matter. You’ll find that the majority of scientists agree that global climate change is a problem, and that patterns of dissent often follow disciplinary lines.
And re: CO2 vs. other gases. They are all bad. I agree that critical thinking and criticism are important to any social movement or area of discourse, but we are at a vital time where action is needed. We need to agree on something and move on it. As for economically viable solutions, have you (Jason), done any research on this? We, members of the human species-especially in industrialized nations-are already living beyond our means, in terms of natural resources. If you are suggesting that any fight against climate change needs to preserve our current standard of living, you’re in for a rude awakening. We have to learn to get by on less–we can, we have before, and we will.
13. Ruth20 | 05.01.09
Regardless of whether the climate science is completely accurate, when it comes to energy we should always be striving for cleaner technology and increasingly positive impact on the planet. What are the potential consequences of this approach? Greater opportunities for creative thinkers and designers, more optimal use of our natural resouces (e.g., making maximal use of the sun in AZ and CA, the wind in ND an SD), job-creation, cleaner oceans, less air pollution, unlimited potential and drive for innovation, etc. These are consequences I’m willing to live with. On the other hand, sticking with the status quo leaves us no margin for error in the event that the climate scientists prove right.
14. BobH | 05.01.09
“AntonioSosa | 04.30.09 An increasing number of scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims…more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.”
No, no, no. 1. The first sentence is simply hype (”increasing number” and “thinking people”). The rest is at best misleading and totally contrary to the mainstream science. I can’t begin to answer it all, but just consider the silly statement that the dissenters outnumber the authors 13-fold. That is a nonsensical apples vs. oranges comparison. The dissenters are a tiny proportion of the global climate researchers, even if they were all actually experts. Google it and see the reality for yourselves: the numbers are bogus, including non-scientists, scientists who have argued that their names should not be on the list, and various people with an ideological axe to grind. Even if they were ALL truly climate experts, this would be only a tiny fraction of the world’s true climate researchers. Have you noticed that this comment compares all those who have opposed the mainstream science with ONLY the actual authors of the report? That’s insane. So if the report had been authored by 1 person, this commenter would have claimed that the critics outnumber the supporters 700 to 1?? What nonsense. If you don’t read professional science journals, at least read Science, Scientific American, Nature, National Geographic, or any other mainstream publication that deals with science issues. They have excellent articles, not one of which supports this minority contrarian view. This is not the controversial issue that the ideologues would have you believe. I haven’t even gotten into other issues, such as the nonsense of calling Pres. Obama a Communist! At least AntonioSosa reveals his true stripes, showing that this is just political propaganda.
15. cbrtxus@yahoo.com | 05.01.09
James, the oceans aren’t becoming “acidified.” They can’t because of the chemical composition of sea water. It is like a buffer system. The oceans can only become slightly less alkaline. It is possible that CO2 influences that to some extent. But simply warming sea water would reduce the alkalinity also (lower the pH) We know that there has been a warming on average since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-1800’s.
.
I have never heard an adequate explanation of how we know to three decimal places what the pH of sea water was over 100 years ago. If that isn’t knowable, how is it possible to know that there has been even been a change? I suspect that there has been because it is probably constantly changing. Also, how do we know that any measurement then or now of the pH of around 70% of the earth’s surface was really a representative sample 100 years ago or now? The pH varies from ocean to ocean. And it varies from place to place in an ocean.
16. Mike Higgins | 05.01.09
Hello? CO2 emissions are important because they are the foundation of the greenhouse gas theory of human-caused global warming. They are the target of the environmental movement. They say, “reduce CO2 emissions and you reduce dangerous global warming.”
My question to all the believers: What evidence is there beyond computer models that CO2 emissions have caused the global warming between 1970 and 2002, while not having any effect between 1940 and 1970 and the recent 2002 and 2009 cooling?
17. Eve | 05.02.09
Steph, are you trying to compare the 32,000 scientists who have signed a petition against the theory of C02 caused global warming against the 51 scientists who work for the IPCC? Bad numbers for the global warming crowd. And no consensus.
As to the cleaner planet group, the planet is cooling at 11 degrees F a decade. What fuel would you like to use to keep yourselves warm? In Europe and the UK people are dying of cold because they cannot afford to heat their homes. This is what the environmental groups have done.
18. Jon | 05.02.09
It’s hard to believe that it takes such a large body of scientists bringing data on climate change and the perils of pollution to our attention before some folks will admit that car exhaust, etc., is detrimental to our planet. If it’s not a good idea to stick our noses up the tailpipe while the engine is running, doesn’t it follow that our planet will be poisoned since it receives all the products of combustion? Where do all the naysayers think the smog, chemicals, and every other poisonous thing humans produce go? We and all other life forms are living in it. We’re spoiling our nest and everybody else’s, too. Incredible that the fear of change and the love of driving big rigs with big shiny rims could temp one to throw away a high quality of life for the future’s children.
19. JambaJuice | 05.02.09
We all live in a zero sum game society where the few successful people take all the rewards. So is it any wonder that the average joe blow has no interest in the future. he’s scraping by in a dog eat dog world. i was thinking today about the poor folks who burn up the rain forest in parts of africa just to cook food. we’re no different, using a chain saw, as barry commoner put it to cut butter - transporting one passenger and a huge chunk of metal back and forth to work every day.
we’re living in a primitive 19th century fuedal society. how the **** can we make these kind of quick changes, considering that we’re still knuckle dragging neanderthals.
20. harbinger | 05.02.09
Strange that the vested interest of the two Potsdam researchers is not revealed. Bill Hare has been the Climate Campaign Director for Greenpeace International since 1992 and has been esconced at Potsdam on secondment from Grenpeace since 2004. His “research” there is described by them as “communicating with policy makers”. He is also an IPCC lead author and helped write the summary for policy makers. Just try doing a search for his scientific credentials. I haven’t found any yet.
Malte Meinshausen has been a freelance consultant for Greenpeace and WWF since 2000. If you don’t believe me, google both of them.
Compare this with the constant ad hominem claims of “oil company shills” whenever highly credible scientists such as Lindzen and Singer criticise the accepted wisdom. I think it is unethical for these Potsdam guys not to declare their commercial links with the AGW industry.
21. Mike O’Brien | 05.03.09
Amazing how these comments portray people living in parallel but separate universes, each claiming to represent truth.
Arguments based in anger, personal attacks and easily disproved claims, are usually bogus.
22. John | 05.03.09
Thanks for the source of the story. I appreciate your response and enjoyed having feedback.
I have read the pdf file and now understand what they profess to have done. Such a simulation is a good idea, but it is likely to be based on a false model (with a Nature article, who can tell) Statistical analysis of such a model is worthless because the uncertainty in the basic assumptions goes untested.
Just a few notes:
Articles in Nature are unrefereed and can not be reproduced. Journalists who report them at face value run a risk… read “cold fusion”
Nature requires $199 to get the full story. Hidden expensive science is not science at all, but merely localized opinion. Even though my APS membership gets me access to many physics journals, others who might be interested can not get them.
Thanks again for listening.
23. Pat | 05.03.09
I haven’t heard anyone mention the actual percentage of CO2 emissions that we humans are responsible for. I believe it is actually less than 1%. Common sense tells me that its probably not too likely that we are going to be able to change much of the global warming or cooling trends. One asteroid hit or volcano could do a lot of cooling of the climate in a much shorter time. This whole issue has become way too political and there are not enough actual temperature measurements over a long enough period of time to accurately predict what is happening. If there were then we wouldn’t have everyone disaggreeing. Obviously pollution is not good,so cutting that would make sense but when people start on the “greenhouse” thing and say things like everyone has to basically stop using fossil fuels, it gets ridiculous and a lot of people are not going to listen. Whatever happened to “Common Sense”?
24. ChrisMarks | 05.03.09
The title of the article says it all. Regardless of how one might feel about the truth of AGW a reasonable human being is not going to believe that the whole world is all of a sudden going to stop using fossil fuels. Especially since the majority of the people in the world don’t believe it. Better come up with a different solution.
25. BobH | 05.04.09
JDFisher, why is it that “balance” on every issue seems to be to present two sides, even if the science is pretty solidly on one side? Yes, I know–we don’t know exactly how much of climate change is caused by human activity, nor do we know how much we can change it. But that is a far cry from the dissenting (and ideologically biased)views mostly from groups with a financial interest in the status quo who ridicule all of the mainstream science. The few dissenting think tanks with nice, innocent-sounding names actually turn out to be single-issue groups sponsored by biased industry groups worried about their short-term profit more than long-term survival. Just check them out on line, digging deeply enough to find out who is REALLY sponsoring them! There don’t seem to be any that are not industry fronts–at least after a lot of digging, I haven’t found any.
26. rman1900 | 05.04.09
While there is strong evidence that carbon emissions could cause global warming, I do wonder if there is no another agenda behind all this hype.
Could it be that a lot of folks are just plain upset that the energy producers are becoming more assertive. Besides, I don’t hear a lot of noise around the destruction of forests. The CO2 and deforestation debates are closely linked, since plants convert CO2 back into O2 - see high school chemistry - photosynthesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis.
Rather than complain about CO2, we should probably be thinking about how to grow more plants and how to make them more efficient at photosynthesis.
27. Richard | 05.04.09
Let’s all switch to nuclear energy and hybrid cars. It’ll only cost the economy setbacks up to a trillion dollars.
28. ER Johnson | 05.04.09
Once again, another pandering article parroting the alarmist rhetoric of the extreme left. Notice once again that there is NO MENTION of the fact that the earth, in fact, has been COOLING since 1998. No Mention of the fact that more and more evidence piles up to support the notion that warming is caused… now sit down for this…. BY THE SUN! No mention of the fact that the earth has experienced many, many cycles of warming and cooling — without a single SUV or Flat Screen TV or Evil Capitalist on the planet.
Where are the bold, independent journalists who are going to crack this hoax open and expose this for what it is ==> a trojan horse for anti-capitalist environment mandates to impose a lifestyle on the world’s population. This is all about control and power.
What facts to back this up: Pick up a copy of Red Hot Lies and be ready to be horrified at the lack of real debate in this area.
29. jack | 05.09.09
So much alarmism and nobody doing anything. A zillion laws passing but no real action to even save money, let alone the planet. Because the truth is the planet is run by legitimized oppressive mafia and they could care less about us. Wow, does anyone have a brain or just me? Yes, global warming is humanmade and real, but no it isn’t going to cause all those catastrophes you hear about. It will cause climate change, but relatively speaking, humans cause more direct damage to each other and the planet from the endless other types of pollution and sheer greed and stupidity than climate change ever will.
30. John | 06.07.09
I think, if anything, this article and the associated comments go to prove my point that no one really knows what is happening with the Worlds climate right now, let alone predict future climate conditions. There are so many arguments for and against it’s almost impossible to form an opinion. The only thing that I’m worried about right now (purely for selffish reasons) would be the potential ‘Global Cooling’ effect of the UK if the Gulf Stream packs up. Would anyone like to comment on that?
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
3. Global Warming Scam Rocket » Blog Archive » Quick scan of the net - global warming scam | 05.11.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Fred | 04.30.09
Why the near exclusive focus on carbon dioxide? Nitrous oxide is a worse greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere longer than carbon dioxide. Nitrous oxide “leaks” into the atmosphere as a result of using nitrogen-based fertilizers on food crops. A recent study by European Union scientists indicates that the mandate to mix ethanol with gasoline probably increased greenhouse gases (because of the increased use of nitrogen fertilizer to grow corn) more than skipping ethanol entirely and simply burning fossile fuels. We must think carefully instead of reacting emotionally before we jump into massive new programs.