Carbon cuts 'only give 50/50 chance of saving planet'
As states negotiate Kyoto's successor, simulations show catastrophe just years away
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
The world's best efforts at combating climate change are likely to offer no more than a 50-50 chance of keeping temperature rises below the threshold of disaster, according to research from the UK Met Office.
The key aim of holding the expected increase to 2C, beyond which damage to the natural world and to human society is likely to be catastrophic, is far from assured, the research suggests, even if all countries engage forthwith in a radical and enormous crash programme to slash greenhouse gas emissions – something which itself is by no means guaranteed.
The chilling forecast from the supercomputer climate model of the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research will provide a sobering wake-up call for governments around the world, who will begin formally negotiating three weeks today the new international treaty on tackling global warming, which is due to be signed in Copenhagen in December.
The treaty, which is due to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, is widely seen as the Last Chance Saloon for the community of nations to take effective action against the greatest threat the world has ever faced. But the Met Office's new prediction hits directly at the principle guiding all those hoping for an effective agreement, with the European Union in the lead: that of stopping the warming at two degrees Centigrade above the "pre-industrial" level (the level of average world temperature pertaining two hundred years ago).
Today, world average temperatures stand at about 0.75C above the pre-industrial, and many scientists and politicians agree that further increases have to be stopped at 2C if catastrophic impacts from the warming are to be avoided, ranging from widespread agricultural failure and worldwide sea level rise, to countless species extinctions and irreversible melting of the world's great ice sheets.
But the Hadley Centre's simulation indicates that even if global emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas causing the warming, were to be slashed at a very high rate the chances of holding the rise at the C threshold are no better than even. The scenario, prepared for Britain's Climate Change Committee, the body recommending the UK's future carbon "budgets", visualises world CO2 emissions peaking in 2015, and then falling at a top rate of 3 per cent a year, to reach emissions of 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.
At the moment, global emissions are thought to be rising at nearly 3 per cent a year – so turning that into a 3 per cent annual cut would be a gigantic slashing of what the earth's factories and motor vehicles are pumping into the atmosphere. There is as yet nothing remotely like that on the table for potential agreement in Copenhagen, and if a deal of this ambition were to be done, it would be regarded as a triumph.
Yet even with that, the Hadley Centre research suggests, the chances of keeping the rise down to about 2C by 2100 would be only 50-50. Furthermore, the simulations suggest that there is a worst-case scenario – about a 10 per cent chance – of the rise by the end of the current century reaching, even with these drastic cuts, a level of 2.8C above the pre-industrial, which is well into disaster territory.
With any action that is slower than the scenario above, the likeliest outcome is a much higher eventual temperature – and in fact, the model indicates that each 10 years of delay in halting the rise in global emissions adds another 0.5C to the likeliest end-of-the-century figure. So if emissions do not peak and start to decline until 2025, we can expect a 2.6C rise by 2100, and if the decline only begins in 2035, the figure is likely to be 3.1C – even with 3 per cent annual cuts.
These new figures suggest quite unambiguously that the world is on course for calamity unless rapid action can be taken which is far more drastic than any politicians are so far contemplating – never mind the general public.
If action is sluggish or non-existent, the model suggests that climate change is likely to cause almost unthinkable damage to the world; under a "business-as-usual" scenario, with no action taken at all and emissions increasing by more than 100 per cent by 2050, the end-of-the-century rise in global average temperatures is likely to be 5.5C, with a worst-case outcome of 7.1C – which would make much of life on earth impossible. "Even with drastic cuts in emissions in the next 10 years, our results project that there will only be a 50 per cent chance of keeping global temperatures rises below 2C," said Dr Vicky Pope, the Met Office's Head of Climate Change Advice.
"This idealised emissions scenario is based on emissions peaking in 2015 and changing from an increase of 2-3 per cent per year to a decrease of 3 per cent per year. For every 10 years we delay this action another 0.5C will be added to the most likely temperature rise. If the world fails to make the required reductions, it will be faced with adapting not just to a 2C rise in temperature but to 4C or more by the end of the century."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
Why is the planet's temperature about the same as 29 years ago, when satelite measurements began?
Meanwhile, the sun, the real source of planetary heat, shows no sign of breaking out of its current lethergy. Last time it behaved like this, serious cooling was observed. Of course, those womderful computer models leave out any solar effects.
The solar argument is uttley derisable. So, as you say, the Sun should be cooling the Earth, yet OBSERVED warming is happening on the planet? So if you are correct, when teh SUn gets going it will pump up temps even higher. And as we know, temp/CO2 are VERY closely linked (sometimes temps before CO2, sometime vise versa - either way it changes climate).
Indeed we should eb seeing higher temps with the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere (and the rate of change which important too). If this is down to 'global dimming' as some believe, I look forward to the instant jump in temps when China's economy falls over - whether it be through teh economic problem now or the lack of cheap fuel in about 2 years' time. Horrid scenario, but possible!
By the way - weather and climate are two very different things.
It will be interesting to follow oil prices over the next few months, now that peak oil is well past and fiat currencies are under such severe pressure: a rapid rise in energy prices would achieve far more, far faster, than any any theoretical carbon cut treaties or protocols.
The big question though is global dimming (which seems to be holding back global warming for the moment). The anticipated reduction in aircraft movements and reduction in industrial output could well result in a reduction in global dimming and a massive surge in temperatures in a very short time frame (a few months), especially in the Arctic, where temperatures are already significantly hgher than the long term average.
PS (I don't know which planet the people who think the Earth is cooling live on, but it is clearly not the same one as the rest of us, and must either be the planet Denial or the planet Uninformed, or as another contributor commented, some mindless computer that is sponsored by oil and coal corporations to generate spam at every opportunity).
I post it again - http://hadobbs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/d
Perhaps you could check it and let me know if you think that I am misinterpreting the first column on this site?
I do not know about Global Dimming but Professor Stott (letter to The Economist. 27/09/08) says that it is because the Models do not take account of the Atlantic, Multi-decadal Oscillation.
Just 500 gigatonnes of yesterdays CO2 has reached the oceans where Revelle’s Rule tells us 80% of CO2 ends up. The first carbon bomb will be exploding in the ocean for more than a century even if we stop the emission of new CO2 today. No amount alternative energies, recycling, bicycling, or “clean coal” will tend to the first carbon bomb. Sure lets reduce the size of the second bomb but first things first. Here's how.
ONLY ocean replenishment and restoration can enlist, as allies, the most powerful force of nature - the ocean plants, the bloomin’ plankton. But high and rising CO2 in the air is not only responsible for ocean acidification worse it has fed green plants on land making them greener, bushier, and living longer making them "good ground cover." Ground cover improvements have reduced the amount of dust blowing in the winds by 1/3 in just a few decades. For the oceans dust in the wind brings vital mineral micro-nutrients, that terrestrial Yin (dust) is just as important as rain, the Yang, blowing from sea to land nurturing plant life. Since earth and ocean satellites went aloft 30 years ago we've measured decimation of ocean plants, 10% are gone from the Southern Ocean, 17% from the N. Atlantic, 26% from the N. Pacific, and 50% from the tropical seas. Just yesterday, a few decades past, ocean pastures grew more verdant consuming 4-5 billion tonnes more CO2 each year than today.
Today, as stewards of our blue planet, we must replenish ocean micro-nutrients to restore the verdant ocean pastures. If we bring the ocean plankton blooms back to levels seen only 30 years ago those plants will annually convert billions of tonnes of CO2 into ocean life instead of acid ocean death. Those verdant restored ocean pastures will deliver 7 times the CO2 reductions called for by the Kyoto Protocol.
To begin, and we must without delay, the work requires only tens of millions of dollars, to succeed in a matter of a decade requires only a few billion dollars. In the bargain the restored oceans will feed everything from tiny krill to the great whales and everything and everybody in between - fish, seabirds, penguins, seals and us.
Replenish and restore the oceans without delay. Read more at www.planktos-science.com
Computer program would also like to point out that it lives in Melbourne, and is looking forward to winter to cool itself to a more reasonable operating temperature.
Not even the scientists know.
Totally pointless converstaions..... I'm right, no I'm right, no I am!!!
The computer models rely on the assumption that the heating due to carbon dioxide precipitates positive feedback due to water vapour the most prevalent greenhouse gas. However, there is increasing evidence that the feedback is probably negative, or at least neutral. If this is so then there can be no catastrophic warming and cutting the emissions of this trace but life giving gas is a complete waste of time. This will be discussed in New York today and tomorrow when eight hundred climate scientists, economists and policy makers will attend the second International Conference on Climate Change. Funny though, the BBC has not publicised this important meeting, I wonder why?
The whole point about climate change is the greater iclimate nstability and greater extremes or weather. In particular warmer oceans generate more rain and more snow, so the attempt to negate global warming actually confirms it!
And sure, Arctic ice reforms every winter -but not to the historical norm. Hence the discussion about the Arctic being icve'free by 2013. The previous comments about 'the computer' being uninformed have been very much vindicated.
In Ordovician Period, carbon dioxide concentrations were at least ten times current levels, but articles on climate insist this was coldest period in last billion years. Humans insist that carbon dioxide controls temperatures, so computer program is thoroughly confused.
This is a huge move that will take all the industries, and also every common people in his own way of living. Slashing by 4 or 5 our CO2 emissions means slashing by 4 or 5 times our car journeys, our air flights, our heating expenses, our energy use, and even our red meat.
A carbon tax is the mandatory tool to put a price on carbon and to financially drive our purchases and the company investments towards low carbon products and services.
This is the single policy decision to be met by the industrialized governments (Al Gore statement).
To read more and improve your french, please visit our web site: http://taca.asso-web.com/
okay, so its still snowing in the Us and London.. Well, it was snowing here in Copenhagen last week too..
Read the article again please. And you will learn that the major climate change is not happening right now! But will happen to your kids and your Grandkids.
Got any stock tips or horse racing tips I can bet against?
Global warming disciples are wrong about everything.
The temperature on this planet has changed only by 0.17% or 1 degree fahrenheit during the 20th century. Where is the rationale in what has been written by Mr McCarthy considering that daily temperatures fluctuate by 20 to 30 degrees fahrenheit and by over 100 degrees fahrenheit from winter to summer in temperate areas? The passage of a strong cold front can drop temperatures by 30 degrees fahernheit in a matter of hours.
This is a very poor article written by Mr McCarthy. The Earth has warm years and cool years, warm decades and cool decades.
Summer 2008 in the UK was predicted by the Met Office to be the hottest ever on record. It wasn't.
Winter 2008/09 in the UK was predicted by the Met Office to be very mild. It turned out to be the coldest in 13 years.
To predict dire changes in climate based on flawed computer models flies in face of the satellite data that shows that over the past 30 years there has been no overall increase global temperature and the earth is currently experiencing global cooling.
By basically indulging in scaremongering this story highlights that scientists like Vicky Pope are incompetent and should be sacked.
1) At levels of 150 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere plants cease to grow.
2) At levels of 1,000 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere plant growth is prolific provided there is enough water and warmth.
3) At 10,000 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere it starts to get toxic for humans who are sensitive to carbon dioxide.
4) Present levels of atmosphereic carbon dioxide is approximately 380 parts per million.
In view of the above atmospheric carbon dioxide should be increased. A decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would lead to poor plant growth resulting in low food production. Bad news for all humanity. Starvation.
Now according to the warmers we are left with two choices.
1) Increase atmospheric carbon dioxide and become warmer and increase food production. But their logic says we are all doomed and warming causes destruction
2) Decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and decrease global temperatures. And their logic advocates freezing to death and starving to death.
Make your choice. Nice and warm and a full belly. Or alive and cold and with an empty belly. What a dilemma these warmers have placed upon us and what logic.
There is no scientific method by which it can in any way be verified.
I also would like readers to consider that - by statistical analysis over a millennium- it can be shown that CO2 concentration is a POSSIBLE RESULT of global warming - not a cause. This is because changes in CO2 follow after changes in Global temperatures.
This article is pure scaremongering.
I agree that CO2 normally follows a temperature rise (due to Solar Input/Orbital Mechanics?) and may reinforce it in a positive feedback. It does seem likely, though, that we may now be starting a new cycle with our CO2 output. I doubt the more extreme Model predictions but still think that we should take some easy, lower cost routes to reduce CO2 emissions as a precaution. We will have to do this within a century or so, in any case, as fossil fuel supplies will decrease.
In global terms it is not a big issue, just a change in time-scale and a re-distribution of the benefits. There will still be rich people and hungry people.
Isn't it a no brainer? If there is a problem then by taking action we have a chance to avert disaster. If there isn't a problem then the efforts we make will still create a new economy based on sustainable industry, clean energy and a non-destructive relationship with the other living things on the planet.
Unfortunately the naysayers will win and whether it is climate change, nuclear war, irreversible destruction of natural habitats or mass species extinction caused by human activity something will eventually catch up with us and wipe us out. It is truly in our nature to destroy ourselves.
"2007 is likely to be the warmest year on record globally, beating the current record set in 1998, say climate-change experts at the Met Office."
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/p
The result?
2007 was cooler than 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.
Oh, and 2008 was cooler than 2007.
So why give credence to a 50 year prediction?
A system of bartering will be next to impossible with an Industrial Society. I think that your idea of sharing runs counter to our genetic inheritance - symbiosis at this level is quite rare in Nature. If we reduced our energy levels to pre-Industrial levels then population also has to do about the same - there are alternatives (Nuclear Fission) but I presume that you would not be in favour?
The human race was not wiped out by various other catastrophes, so I do not think that you need to fear it now.
Yes - it saves on refrigeration costs to have the seed bank in Norway (nothing to do with AGW).
On the other hand, it is more comfortable to stick our heads in the sand and base our long term strategy on climate change on whether we need an extra jumper or not come the August bank holiday. But are we really prepared to ignore the mounting scientific evidence and gamble that this is just another Y2K type piece of hysteria?
Not me. I don't fancy having to apologise to my grandchildren for getting it wrong.
Where is this? There is certainly an opinion by the IPCC, and many scientists who agree with it (which is a perfectly valid part of the scientific process). The 'evidence' that global warming is caused by CO2 is in fact weak - supported for example but the current stagnation in warming (of course not a proof that it has stopped for good, but certainly contradictory to the paranoia of armagedon). Most of the 'mounting evidence' is the selective highlighting of any heat-related event (melting ice, heatwaves, fires, etc), and selective ignoring of any cooling-related event.
And regarding your grandchildren. I believe there is greater risk in putting the brakes on an economic and cultural development that has given us the longest life-expectancy and quality of life in human history. Many don't yet have what we have in the West, but its not fair to keep it from them just to appease our own sense of guilt. And this on the basis of a theory.
BREAKING NEWS: DRESSES SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM LAST YEAR.
(inside: the end of the world is nigh).