( – promoted by buhdydharma )
Cross-posted from THE ENVIRONMENTALIST
Scientists at the Carnegie Institution have just completed a study that has concluded the only way to stabilize the climate is to reduce carbon emissions to a near-zero level:
In the study, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, climate scientists Ken Caldeira and Damon Matthews used an Earth system model at the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology to simulate the response of the Earth’s climate to different levels of carbon dioxide emission over the next 500 years. ~snip~
The scientists investigated how much climate changes as a result of each individual emission of carbon dioxide, and found that each increment of emission leads to another increment of warming.[…] With emissions set to zero in the simulations, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere slowly fell as carbon “sinks” such as the oceans and land vegetation absorbed the gas. Surprisingly, however, the model predicted that global temperatures would remain high for at least 500 years after carbon dioxide emissions ceased.
More below the jump…
In our earlier article, Everything but the Oceans’ Sink, we explored the connection between global warming and the inability of the Southern Ocean to absorb C02. Caldeira and Matthews’ study further points to the connection between carbon sinks and the impact on climate stability.
Matthews and Caldeira found that to prevent the Earth from heating further, carbon dioxide emissions would, effectively, need to be eliminated.
“It is just not that hard to solve the technological challenges,” [Caldeira] says. “We can develop and deploy wind turbines, electric cars, and so on, and live well without damaging the environment. The future can be better than the present, but we have to take steps to start kicking the CO2 habit now, so we won’t need to go cold turkey later.”
Whilst it is easy say it’s not hard, it is difficult when an entire world’s transportation and financial system is built upon fossil fuels. This includes the hungry populations of emerging nations like China and India that want their chance at the riches the West has enjoyed since the 1950’s.
Caldeira and Matthew’s study does point out the danger if we don’t find a way to wean ourselves cabon emitting fossil fuels. It is not clear how their findings will lead to a quicker implementation of zero emission policies, at least before it becomes clear to everyone that cold turkey is the only answer.
More to this story (links, charts, etc) at THE ENVIRONMENTALIST
Journal reference: Matthews, H. D., and K. Caldeira (2008), Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions, Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1029/2007GL032388, in press. Adapted from materials provided by Carnegie Institution (2008, February 18). Stabilizing Climate Requires Near-zero Carbon Emissions. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from www.sciencedaily.com.
19 comments
Skip to comment form
Author
that’s what this report was greeted with – near bloody silence until someone mentioned it to me over a drink at a conference, and only then to remark on the bloody silence.
Two of the most respected scientists in the field talking about the end of the bloody climate and it hardly made a bleedin’ blip.
Here’s a direct request: Please support our work at THE ENVIRONMENTALIST. Sign up for the free email subscription, visit the site to keep the numbers up. Send the links to your friends, get them to sign up. We live and die by our stats. The more stats, the more scientists will find us to give us the truth that no one else will publish.
There’s been enough damned silence.
of course being one of The premier and founding branches of the Illuminati. Depopulation is the other solution to the problem so how come, why nobody else is talking about that.
FWIW – I’m not a climatologist, although I took semesters of weather in college ..
Even if we could reduce our man made emissions of methane [rarely discussed] and CO2 to near zero, the damage will continue for at least 12 years with methane [which breaks down into CO2, eventually] ..
Here’s what I think is the really bad news.
CO2, once injected into the biosphere can last for thousands of years. The assumption that CO2 will be washed out of the atmosphere and ‘sunk’ as the levels injected into the system are reduced is an assumption made by scientists. Some think that once the genie is out, it’s OUT.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~ar…
http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jo…
Short of truly finding a way to sequester the added carbon load, I tend to think that once carbon is injected in a gaseous form into the atmospheric system it will decades, or hundreds of years to start the path back to a reduction of the level.
We already passed the threshold, and have made permanent changes to the planet: we may have already done it back 30, 40, 50 years ago.
By continuing on the path we are today, we simply increasing the effect and hastening the deleterious effects. Many of us will get to see the results, in our lifetime of a radically changed planet.
Hate to be a downer, but I think it’s really that bad.