Climate chaos predicted by CO2 study
World will have exceeded 2050 safe carbon emissions limit by 2020, scientists say
The world will overshoot its long-term target on greenhouse gas emissions within two decades. A study has found that the average global temperature will rise above the threshold that could cause dangerous climate change during that time.
Scientists have calculated that the world has already produced about a third of the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that could be emitted between 2000 and 2050 and still keep within a 2C rise in global average temperatures.
At the current rate at which CO2 is emitted globally – which is increasing by 3 per cent a year – countries will have exceeded their total limit of 1,000 billion tons within 20 years, which would be about 20 years earlier than planned under international obligations. "If we continue burning fossil fuels as we do, we will have exhausted the carbon budget in merely 20 years, and global warming will go well beyond 2C," said Malte Meinshausen of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, who led the study, published in Nature.
"Substantial reductions in global emissions have to begin soon – before 2020. If we wait longer, the required phase-out of carbon emissions will involve tremendous economic costs and technological challenges. We should not forget that a 2C global mean warming would take us far beyond the variations that Earth has experienced since we humans have been around."
It is the first time scientists have calculated accurately the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that can be released into the atmosphere between 2000 and 2050 and still have a reasonable chance of avoiding temperature rises higher than 2C above pre-industrial levels – widely viewed as a "safe" threshold.
The scientists found the total amount of greenhouse gases that could be released over this time would be equivalent to 1,000 billion tons of CO2. This is equivalent to using up about 25 per cent of known reserves of oil, gas and coal, said Bill Hare, a co-author of the study.
The study concluded that the world must agree on a cut in carbon dioxide emissions of more than 50 per cent by 2050 if the probability of exceeding a 2C rise in average temperatures is to be limited to a risk of 1 in 4.
"With every year of delay [in agreeing on further cuts], we consume a larger part of our emissions budget, losing room to manoeuvre and increasing the probabilities of dangerous consequences," said Reto Knutti of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, a member of the research team.
Myles Allen of Oxford University said the total emissions of CO2 that have accumulated in the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-18th century are the really important figure for future climate change.
"Mother Nature doesn't care about dates. 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," Dr Allen said.
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
As the oceans are now cooling, and carbon dioxide is much more soluble in cold water, I predict that within three years atmospheric CO2 concentrations will be stable or falling.
Won't that be a pickle for the above "scientists' to explain.
Look Mr Connor, your article is just rubbish. Yes, as others have pointed out, what do you mean by a C rise in temperature. For God's sake write about real environmental problems such as China not only emitting more carbon than any other nation but filling the atmosphere with the sort of smog not seen in the West for fifty years.
I suggest the Indy asks Charles Booker to write a few sensible articles on the environment and rids itself of these Guardian like pieces. Most newspapers and the BBC are fighting a losing battle. The numbers of so called deniers is increasing so the warmists are becoming more and more shrill and panicky.
Yes it is, but then it always has. Man-made global warming is another issue, which is why the doom-sayers keep proclaiming climate change as the problem now and not global warming.
"Science has already demonstrated the mechanisms beyond reasonable doubt."
Really? There's one heck of a lot of scientists who doubt that.
"ask the politicians invest in renewable energy in earnest."
Tell you what, you invest your own money first and when the lights go out, you'll only have yourself to blame.
1) The relationship between the Potsdam Institute and Greenpeace.
2) Show us the calculations how these magical numbers were arrived at for should I show you I would stand accused of making up the numbers.
3) How much funding did the researchers obtain for this nonsense.
I think you should check your sources: the time trace gasses like CO2 persist in the atmosphere is between 6 and 10 years, a far cry from "forever". That's what has been measured.
It is this. The new system simplifies things, bring clarity, and accountabilty, to an area where targets and measures are usually vague, unhelpful, and easily avoided. It says, humans can only burn a certain amoutn of fossil fuel and stay safe; if they burn more - they risk dangerous change.
The denies dont like this, as put this way, its a lot easier for regulators to set firm limits and track progress. This makes them (and the rest of us) accountable for every damned kg of carbon dioxide we give out, as at least half of that kg goes straight to the problem. Responsiblityi put in those terms is hard to wriggle out of, and that is why the deniers or burners dont like it. They drive 10 km in their car? They just brought humanity, 2 kg of carbon dioxide closer , to the safe limit - end of story.
Carbon dioxide , once put in the atmosphere, stays there for centuries - so science shows - causing warming as long as it is there. If humans intend to keep burning fossil fuels til they run out - it does not matter what rate we burn them at - all the carbon ends up in the atmosphere anyway, and we have not avoided warming at all. This is why all the curernt schemes are flawed. They merely slow down the rate of use. The warming is not prevented, but happens anyway, and the only difference is it is delayed a bit.
You've all fallen for the misinformation campaign of the fossil fuel industry, just like the tobacco companies managed to muddle the discussion on whether smoking is bad for your health. Yes, it is bad for you, just like global warming!
Global Temps since 1997 have been flat/slightly declining. Does that not suggest a level of scepticism about the IPCC Model(s) is in order?
Why is it that "warmists" always claim a fossil fuel Industry conspiracy when their claims are doubted by anyone? Yet you use this as a form of abuse re "denialists" in your first sentence!
Here is a study that throws a big spanner into the settled CO2 science.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur
So what is the cause of global warming? Is it CO2, is it aerosols, or is it neither?
More importantly, what is the cause of the current global cooling? That is where all these modelled studies fall down.
The media is committing suicide by telling us all these lies.
Perhaps the so called 'Science Editor' could do a few articles on this strange phenomenon?
But no rush, I'm enjoying watching the media lemmings head over the cliff and have made out like a bandit by shorting NYT!
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-re
He actually means "2C" so why not print it that way, Steve?
Thanks for that link, calum100, which reveals a rather more nuanced argument than implied:
"Atmospheric chemists theorize that the climate system may be more responsive to changes in aerosol levels over the next few decades than to changes in greenhouse gas levels, which will have the more powerful effect in coming centuries."
Hardly support for climate denial, and in any case if melting ice is caused by aerosols rather than CO2s the net affect is still rising sea levels, which our children - and their children - will not enjoy.
Whatever the arguements over the independent or the joint impact of aerosols and CO2, none of the models have an answer, nor explanation, for the current cooling.
" Climate change IS happening. One of the symptoms of the early stage we are at is the loss of sea ice in both poles"
At the moment the Antarctic ice shelf is more than i MILLION sq kms above its long term average, and the Arctic is pretty well back to normal.
Google "Cryosphere Today".
http://www.climatescienceinternatio
Sorry, this is a non-story.
Let's prepare for the change instead.
I don't really understand the "climate-denial"'s, who suddenly becomes a climate-expert after one book or movie.
You are working FOR "big corp." and governments because BOTH REALLY HATE new big costs.
Lets hope it will get worse than the financial crisis, because we don't deserve less. "Financialcrisis-denials", "tobacodamage-denial"'s and other "what crisis?"-denials have one big thing in common: That little idea in your head you want to believe in, whatever the cost..
I say as Mr Chamberlain (if I remember right) very long time ago said: "We will have peace in our time!" and then the whole bloody second world war broke out.
The Climate change and this are so related that I had to put this here. See the changes and we still wonder why we say this, and why we do not put this to practice. Makes sense?
Schools must teach pupils about babies, Aids and sex
Lessons made compulsory from the age of five but faith schools given right to dissent
We ought to have the practical like we have in Biology, dissecting the rats, and chemistry, we have burning the phosphorous. Students understand the education better
Parent out to talk of this at the breakfast time and dinner so students have the morning dose and night doe. They will then remember the sex very well. Rest we leave to the boy and girls in the parks.
Teaching about contraception will become part of new compulsory sex education lessons, it emerged yesterday. A Government review of personal, health, social and economic education, which covers lessons about sex and relationships, ruled that sex education should be a compulsory subject in both primary and secondary schools.
Did you learn this when you were young, the way you write.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Forcing higher costs on businesses here but not on business in China would force more production to move to the much dirtier factories there.
And we'd produce more pollution and C02 emissions by shipping raw materials there and finished products back.
Another brilliant idea from the Church Of Global Warming!
Almost as brilliant as starving the poor by using food for fuel.
Or banning DDT...
Or a whole lot of other dumb ideas from the so called environmentalists.