ISIS Report 09/09/09
350 ppm CO2 The Target
Reducing present atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm is needed to avert
irreversible climate catastrophe, top climate scientists say Dr.
Mae-Wan Ho
A fully
referenced and illustrated version of this article is posted on ISIS members’
website. Details here
An electronic version of the full report can be downloaded from the ISIS online
store. Download Now
Please circulate widely and repost, but you must give the URL of the original and preserve all the links back to articles on our website
Rajendra Pachauri, United Nation’s top climate scientist and head of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), took everyone by surprise
when he said that the target to aim for is 350 parts per million (ppm) CO2
in the atmosphere, bearing in mind that we now have 385 ppm.
The IPCC produces an authoritative assessment of climate science every five
years. Its last report in 2007 helped set the target of 450 ppm that many
environmental groups and national governments have adopted as their goal for
the Copenhagen negotiation this December.
But 450 ppm is out of date. When Jim Hansen from NASA Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, New York, in the US and other scientists looked at phenomena
such as how rapidly polar ice has been melting in summer [1], they produced
a convincing demonstrating that 350 ppm is the bottom line. “But it's been
hard to get that news out to the powers that be. So today it comes as enormous
and welcome news that Pachauri, from his New Delhi office, said that 350 was
the number,” [2] wrote Bill McKibben, prominent author and environmentalist.
350 ppm needed to avert “irreversible catastrophic effects”
Concern about global warming due to greenhouse
gases (GHGs) led to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
[3] that has the objective of stabilizing GHGs in the atmosphere at a level
preventing “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
In its 2007 report [4], the IPCC estimates
that global warming of more than 2-3 °C may be dangerous. The European Union
adopted 2 °C above pre-industrial global temperature as a goal. This and other
considerations led to the 450 ppm CO2 maximum target.
But Hansen and colleagues
[5] point out that IPCC climate models are inadequate, as they include only
fast feedback processes, which gives ~ 3 °C warming for doubled CO2, a figure referred to
as ‘climate sensitivity’. Instead, the more realistic climate sensitivity
that includes also slow feedback processes is ~6 °C for doubled CO2. The earth’s history shows
that this doubling of CO2 covers the range of climate states between glacial conditions
and ice-free Antarctica.
The decrease from a high
atmospheric CO2 was the main cause of a cooling trend that began
50 million years ago, when the planet remained nearly ice-free until CO2
fell to 450 ± 100 ppm. Hansen’s team point out that unless we have prompt
policy changes, the critical level of atmospheric CO2 will be passed
in the opposite direction - glacial to ice free - within decades. “Paleoclimate
evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need
to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less
than that.” They wrote.
They suggest this target
may be achievable by phasing out coal use, except where CO2 is
captured; and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester
carbon.
If the present overshoot
of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding
“irreversible catastrophic effects”.
Slow climate feedback not included in IPPC models
The first indication that the IPPC models are inadequate
is that they fail to capture the rapid summer melting of polar ice caps for
the past several years. That, together with paleoclimate data, alerted Hansen’s
team to the importance of ‘slow’ processes feeding back on climate that are
not taken into account in most climate models. These slow processes include
ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and GHG release from soils,
tundra or ocean sediments, which may begin to come into play on ‘longer’ time
scales that are as short as centuries or less.
The team used paleoclimate
data to show that long-term climate has high sensitivity to human induced
GHGs, which is not captured by current IPPC models; and that the present global
mean CO2 of 385 ppm is already
in the dangerous zone.
Despite the rapid current
CO2
growth
at ~2 ppm/year, it is conceivable to reduce CO2 this century to less than the current amount,
but only via prompt policy changes.
The idealized ‘climate
sensitivity’ was originally defined by asking how much global surface temperature
would increase if atmospheric CO2 were instantly doubled, assuming that slowly-changing
planetary surface conditions, such as ice sheets and forest cover, were fixed.
Long-lived GHGs, except for the specified CO2 change, were also fixed and not responding to climate
change. This provides a measure of climate sensitivity including only the
effect of ‘fast’ feedback processes, such as changes of water vapour, clouds
and sea ice.
Classification of climate
change mechanisms into fast and slow feedbacks is useful, even though the
time scales of these changes may overlap. The climate sensitivity estimated
with climate models using only fast feedback processes is 3 ± 1.5°C. Water
vapour increase and sea ice decrease in response to global warming were both
found to be strong positive feedbacks, amplifying the surface temperature
response.
Paleoclimate data doubles climate sensitivity
Climate models alone are unable to define climate
sensitivity more precisely, because it is difficult to prove that models realistically
incorporate all feedback processes. The history of the earth however, provides
independent data for checking the models and whether the appropriate fast
and slow feedback processes have been included.
The atmospheric composition
and surface properties of the planet in the late Pleistocene (2 million to
11 000 years bp (before present)) are known well enough for accurate assessment
of the climate sensitivity. The team first compared the conditions at two
time points, the pre-industrial Holocene (the last 10 000 years) with the
last glacial maximum (LGM, 20 000 y bp). The planet was in energy balance
(equilibrium) in both periods. The approximate equilibrium characterizing
most of Earth’s history is unlike the current situation, in which GHGs are
rising through human activities at a rate much faster than the coupled climate
system can respond.
Climate forcing in the LGM state due to the ice age surface properties, i.e.,
increased ice area, different vegetation distribution, and continental shelf
exposure, was -3.5 ± 1 W/m2 relative to the Holocene (negative forcing
represents cooling). Additional forcing due to reduced amounts of long-lived
GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O), including the indirect
effects of CH2 on trophosphere (lowest layer of the atmosphere) ozone
and stratosphere (next layer up of atmosphere) water vapour was -3 ± 0.5 W/m
2. The total -6.5 W/m2 forcing and global surface temperature
change of -5 ± 1°C relative to the Holocene give an empirical sensitivity ~¾
± ¼ °C per W/m2 forcing, i.e., a sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C for the 4
W/m2 forcing of doubled CO2. This empirical fast-feedback
climate sensitivity allows water vapour, clouds, aerosols, sea ice, and all
other fast feedbacks that exist in the real world to respond naturally to global
climate change.
Climate sensitivity varies
as Earth becomes warmer or cooler. Toward the colder extremes, as the area
of sea ice grows, the planet approaches runaway snowball-Earth conditions,
and at high temperatures it can approach a runaway greenhouse effect. At its
present temperature Earth is on a flat portion of its fast-feedback climate
sensitivity curve in between the two extremes.
The empirical fast-feedback
climate sensitivity, derived by comparing conditions at two points in time,
was checked over the longer period of time using CO2 and CH4 data from the Antarctic
Vostok ice core and sea level from the Red Sea sediment cores. The results are presented in Figure
1. The temperature from ‘Observations’ (Fig. 1c) is Antarctic temperature
change divided by two (as rough approximation of global average) ‘Calculated’
global temperature change is based on fast feedback climate sensitivity of
¾ °C /W/m2.
Figure 1. Matching IPPC
model to data from ice and sediment cores
As can be seen, the calculated
and observed temperatures do not coincide well. Models with fast feedback
only cannot account for the temperature changes. GHGs and surface albedo changes
are mechanisms causing the large global climate changes, but they do not initiate
these climate swings. Instead changes of GHGs and sea level (a measure of
ice sheet size) lag behind temperature change by several hundred years. GHG
and surface albedo changes are positive climate feedbacks. Increased albedo
from ice melting increases warming causing more ice to melt, while decreased
albedo from ice sheets decreases warming, causing more ice sheets to form;
Similarly, GHG induced warming results in further releases of GHGs due to
out-gassing from the oceans and further warming, while decrease in atmospheric
GHG results in cooling and further GHG declines from enhanced solubility in
the cooled ocean water.
Plotting GHG forcing from
ice core data against temperature changes shows that global climate sensitivity
including the slow surface albedo feedback is s 1.5 °C /W/m2, or
6 °C for doubled CO2, twice as large as the fast-feedback sensitivity.
The timescale is expanded for the industrial era post 1850, and the plot includes
GHG as well as non-GHG forcings and the global temperature. Notice that the
curves in the industrial era do not coincide, as indicative of an out-of-equilibrium
situation.
Figure 2 Climate forcing
and temperature form Pleistocene to the present
Time to equilibrium faster than previously thought
How long does it take to reach equilibrium temperature
with a specified GHG change? The response is slowed by ocean thermal inertia
(the ocean taking longer to heat up than the land) and the time needed for
ice sheets to disintegrate. Using a coupled atmosphere-ocean model, it is
estimated that one-third of the response occurs in the first few years, in
part because of rapid response over land. One-half occurs in ~25 years, three
quarters in 250 years, and nearly full response in a thousand years. The ocean-caused
delay is a strong quadratic function of climate sensitivity (goes up as square
of climate sensitivity) and depends on the rate of mixing of surface and deep
water.
Ice sheet response time is often assumed
to be several thousand years, based on sea level changes far back in the earth’s
history. However, those long term effects may reflect influences due to the
slowly changing orbit of the earth, rather than inherent inertia in ice sheet
response, as there is no discernable lag between the maximum rate of ice sheet
melting and local absorption of the sun’s energy that favours melting. Paleontological
sea level data with high time resolution reveal frequent sea level changes
at rates of 1m/century or more.
Current observations of Greenland and Antarctica show increasing surface
melt, loss of buttressing ice shelves, accelerating ice streams, and increasing
overall mass loss. These rapid changes are not captured in existing ice sheet
models, “which are missing critical physics of ice sheet disintegration,”
Hansen and colleagues said. Sea level changes of several metres per century
occur in the paleoclimate record in response to slower and weaker forcings
than the present anthropogenic forcings. “It seems likely that large ice sheet
response will occur within centuries, if human-made forcings continue to increase.
Once ice sheet disintegration is underway, decadal changes of sea level may
be substantial.”
The expanded time scale for the industrial
era (Fig. 2) reveals a growing gap between the actual global temperature (purple
curve) and equilibrium (long-term) temperature response based on net estimated
climate forcing (black curve). Ocean and ice sheet response times together
account for the gap, which is now 2 °C.
The forcings in Fig. 2 for the industrial
era (black curve) when used to drive a global climate model yields global
temperature change that agrees closely with observations (purple curve). But
even that climate model, which includes only the fast feedback has additional
warming of ~ 0.6 °C
in the pipelines because of ocean thermal inertia. The remaining gap to equilibrium
temperature is ~1.4 °C due to the slow surface albedo feedback, specifically
the ice sheet disintegration and vegetation change.
Further paleoclimate evidence
The Cenozoic era, beginning 65.5 My bp, provides
a complement to the Pleistocene for exploring climate sensitivity.
The Cenozoic data are not
precise but larger variations occur, including an ice-free planet. At times
with negligible ice sheets, oxygen isotope change d18O provides a direct measure
of deep ocean temperature, Tdo (see Fig. 3). The lighter 16O
evaporates preferentially from the ocean and also accumulates in ice sheets
during glaciation. Thus, the rapid increase of d18O at about 35 My is associated with glaciations
of Antartica. From then until the present, 18O in deep ocean foraminifera
is affected by both ice volume and Tdo.
Figure 3. Temperature changes
since the Cenozoic 65 My bp
The large Cenozoic temperature
change (~14°C) between 50 My and the ice age at 20 000 years (LGM) must have
been forced by changes of atmospheric composition, as no other forcings could
have had such a big effect. CO2 concentration varied from ~ 180
ppm in glacial times to 1 500 + 500 ppm in the early Cenozoic, a forcing of
more than 10 W/m2, an order of magnitude larger than other known
forcings. CO2
was ~450 ± 100 ppm when Antarctica glaciated 35 My bp. That
point in time (see arrow in Fig. 3) is of particular significance, as it marks
the transition between an ice-free and a glaciating earth, and it is important
to check if the CO2 level was indeed 450 ± 100 ppm.
There is a great deal of uncertainty
in the proxy measures of CO2 that far back in the earth’s history.
Nevertheless, the data indicate that CO2 was of the order of 1
000 ppm in the early Cenozoic but <500 ppm in the last 20 My. By specifying
CO2 at 35 My as ~450ppm and running their climate model assuming
that CO2 provides 75 percent of the GHG forcing as in the later
Pleistocene, Hansen’s team was able to reproduce the range of early Cenozoic
proxy CO2 data. Furthermore, it yielded a good fit to the amplitude
and mean CO2 level in the late Pleistocene.
Implications
Thus, the Cenozoic data suggest that CO2
was the dominant forcing, that CO2 was ~450 ± 100 ppm when Antarctica
glaciated, and that glaciations is reversible, as ~450 ± 100 ppm straddles
both the ice-free and the glaciating branch of the curve (see Fig. 3). These
findings have profound implications.
The GHG forcing from the
deepest recent ice age (LMG, 20 000 bp) to current interglacial warmth is
~3.5 W/m2. An additional 4 W/m2 forcing would carry the planet, at equilibrium,
to the ice-free state. Thus equilibrium climate sensitivity to GHG change,
including the surface albedo change as a slow feedback, is almost as large
between today and an ice-free world as between today and the ice ages.
The global climate sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2 is a considerable understatement
of expected equilibrium global warming. Additional warming, due to slow climate
feedbacks including loss of ice and spread of flora over the vast high-latitude
land area in the Northern Hemisphere, approximately doubles the (equilibrium)
climate sensitivity.
Equilibrium climate
sensitivity of 6°C for doubled CO2
is relevant
to the present global warming due to human activities. Equilibrium climate
response would not be reached in decades or even in a century, because surface
warming is slowed by the inertia of the ocean and ice sheets. However, the
history of the earth suggests that positive feedbacks, especially surface
albedo changes, can spur rapid global warmings, including sea level rise as
fast as several metres per century. Thus if we push the climate system sufficiently
far into disequilibrium, positive climate feedbacks may set in motion dramatic
climate change and climate impacts that cannot be controlled.
Human-made global climate forcings now prevail over natural forcings. Warming
‘in the pipeline’, mostly attributable to slow feedbacks, is now about 2°C (see
Fig. 2). No additional forcing is required to raise global temperature to at
least the level of the Pliocene, 2-3 million years ago, a degree of warming
that would surely yield ‘dangerous’ climate impacts.
This raises the spectre
of the ‘tipping point’ at which rapid changes proceed practically out of our
control. Arctic sea ice and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are examples of potential
tipping points. Arctic sea ice loss is magnified by the positive feedback
of increased absorption of sunlight as sea ice retreats.
Hansen and colleagues define
the tipping
level as the global climate forcing
that, if long maintained, gives rise to a specific consequence, and
the point
of no return,
a climate state beyond which the consequence is inevitable, even if
climate forcings are reduced. A point of no return can be avoided,
even if the tipping level is temporarily exceeded. Ocean and ice sheet inertia
allow some overshoot, provided the climate forcing is returned below
the tipping level before initiating irreversible dynamic change.
Points of no return are inherently difficult to define, because the dynamical
problems are nonlinear. Existing models are more “lethargic” than the real world
for phenomena now unfolding, including changes of sea ice, ice streams, ice
shelves, and expansion of the subtropics.
The tipping level is easier.
It is a measure of the long-term climate forcing that humanity must aim to
stay beneath to avoid large climate impacts. The tipping level does not define
the magnitude or period of tolerable overshoot. However, if overshoot is in
place for centuries, the thermal perturbation will so penetrate the ocean
that recovery becomes unlikely.
A CO2 level of 450 ppm or larger,
if long maintained, would push the earth toward the ice-free state. Although
ocean and ice sheet inertia limit the rate of climate change, such a CO2 level is like to cause
the climate tipping point and initiate dynamic responses that could be out
of control.
The climate system, because
of its inertia, has not yet fully responded to the recent increase of human-made
climate forcings. Yet climate impacts are already occurring that allow us
to make an initial estimate for a target atmospheric CO2 level of 350 ppm.
A large fraction of fossil fuel CO2 emissions stays in the air a
long time, one-quarter remaining airborne for several centuries. Thus moderate
delay of fossil fuel use will not appreciably reduce long-term human-made climate
change. What’s needed is for most remaining fossil fuel carbon to be
never emitted to the atmosphere. Coal is the largest reservoir of conventional
fossil fuels, exceeding combined reserves of oil and gas. The only realistic
way to sharply curtail CO2 emissions is to phase out coal use, except
where CO2 is captured and sequestered.
There are serious doubts about the
economics, efficacy and safety of carbon capture and storage (CCS), which
is still very much on the drawing board [6] (Carbon Capture and Storage A False Solution,
SiS 39). Even if it were to work, the cost of coal power would go up
so much relative to renewable that it would be priced out of the market.
Hansen and colleagues also
suggest improved agricultural and forestry practices, reforestation, biochar, biofuels
on degraded or marginal lands with associated biochar production.
We support improved agricultural
and forestry practices as well as genuine reforestation with indigenous biodiverse
tree species, as argued in [7] Food Futures Now: *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil
Fuel Free (ISIS
Report), where we presented evidence for the potential of organic agriculture and localised
food and energy systems to mitigate more than 50 percent GHGs and energy use,
updated in
[8] Organic Agriculture and Localized Food &
Energy Systems for Mitigating Climate Change (SiS 40).
But the evidence is damning against biofuels [8] and biochar [9] (Beware
the Biochar Initiative, SiS 44), especially in light of recent finding
that O2 is depleting from the atmosphere much faster than CO2
is rising [10] (O2 Dropping Faster
than CO2 Rising, SiS 44). Fast-growing trees for biofuels, and worse,
burying trees as biochar will severely compromise the earth’s ability to regenerate
O2 creating extra oxygen sinks and carbon sources besides.
In a forthcoming report [11] Green
Energies, we shall present the truly renewable and sustainable energy options
that would bring us on target with 350 ppm without false solutions such as nuclear
and CCS.
|
There are 5 comments on this article so far. Add your comment
| Svempa Comment left 20th September 2009 08:08:48 This is nothing else but political propaganda with no science attached. There is absolutely no reason to worry about higher temperatures in the future due to anthropogenic CO2-emissions. It is true that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere theoretically could cause a global temperature increase of about 1 degree Celsius - but a doubling of CO2 is not possible. We do not have enough oil, gas and coal to achieve a doubling of CO2. And the assumption of positive feedbacks doubling or tripling this figure are pure fantasies - in reality the feedbacks are negative.
Furthermore, there are other climate effects that dominate over the increase in CO2 and which are causing a gradual cooling of the climate. This has already progressed over a number of years, but will continue over the next 20 years at least. | Dr Peter Lester Comment left 21st September 2009 21:09:38 I would like to point out that animals, especially grazing ruminating cattle and sheep,are not responsible for high carbon outputs as they are being painted, these animals cannot and do not make carbon, they are natures most efficient recyclers. The carbon they are forced to recycle is a result of poor fertilizer practices. Don't blame the animal, blame MAN. | Sky McCain Comment left 23rd September 2009 10:10:27 I suggest that you do some research with Google. The following URL is a good start.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm
My research led me to believe that the amount of variance of irradiance due to sunspot activity is far, far too little to be considered a significant driver of global warming. The Little Ice Age, chosen by sunspot activists, was most probbly caused by a halting of the Atlantic Current due to rapid ice melt.
Citing a correlation between event A and event B with no rational scientific evidence to support a hypothesis is insufficient evidence to even suggest cause and effect. The solar argument follows a propogandist path and is part of the obvious climate change skeptic's irrational line.
There is sufficient evidence available to anyone through the web to allow anyone to find their own evidence and make their own conclusions.
For instance, most temperature and CO2 graphs clearly show a cooling trend (normal after an interglacial period) up until the 1900s. There are simply no orbital forcing drivers that can account for this upward temperature. We are past due for a significant downward temperature swing. All one needs to do is look at the ice core samples from the last 3 interglacial periods to see that the rising and then falling temperatures of an interglacial period has always been a spike and not a prolonged period. Yes, it may well be that the orbital forcing drivers cannot force a tipping toward rapidly decreasing temperatures. But we cannot just throw up our hands and blame natural factors when our CO2, methane and NO2 emissions are reinforcing this possible inability. One must be aware that global warming and climate changes are the result of very complex interactions of many positive and negative forcings. The close correlation of temperature and CO2 is beyond question. The fact that CO2 is higher than ever recorded over the last 3 glacial/interglacial periods is beyond dispute.
We simply will not ever have a 2 X 2 = 4 certainty over Gaia's behaviour. We don't have that over any being's behaviour. Gaia is not a machine with a speedometer. In the past interglacial periods, carbon was sequestered by millions upon millions of trees. Humans have destroyed Gaia's natural methods of cooling herself. We know enough to act toward limiting human produced GHG. We simply don't know enough about Gaia's behaviour to bet against her. Lack of certainty must not sway our efforts to act.
| Judy Cross Comment left 28th September 2009 07:07:20 I just discovered i-sis' position on AGW/CC. It throws into doubt everything else I may have read here over the years when supposed scientists can't seem to understand that CO2 has no effect on climate.
What causes the climate to change is not the real issue. The real issue is whether CO2 does it.
In spite of the $79 Billion spent on climate studies, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis.
"The most telling point is that after spending $30 billion on pure science research no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on the global climate.
If carbon is a minor player in the global climate as the lack of evidence suggests, the
“Climate Change Science Program” (CCSP), “Climate Change Technology Program” (CCTP), and some of the green incentives and tax breaks would have less, little, or no reason to exist. While forecasting the weather and climate is critical, and there are other good reasons to develop alternative energy sources—no one can argue that the thousands of players who received these billions of dollars have any real incentive to “announce” the discovery of the insignificance of carbon’s role."
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/ | Sharon Medway Comment left 15th September 2009 07:07:51 I am curious to know if there is any information on the solar flares and other ejections from the sun affecting the global warming.
In Science News, June 2009, there is a report that solar flare activity is quite low at this time and they anticipate even less activity within the next two years. In the past this lack of activity prompted the 'little ice age' and record low temperatures. I would like to know if there is any evidence that this would help cancel out the rising temperatures. |
|