Climate Change

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 13° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

Climate chaos predicted by CO2 study

World will have exceeded 2050 safe carbon emissions limit by 2020, scientists say

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

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.

Post a Comment

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.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Can't even put in the temperatures!
[info]thomasgoodey wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 01:57 am (UTC)
What's funny is that all the temperature data in this article has been left out - as " keep within a C rise" and so on - no doubt to be filled in later, almost at random, according to how scary it can be made!
Re: Can't even put in the temperatures!
[info]john_levett wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 06:09 am (UTC)
What's scary is that with a few honourable exceptions, the media and the politicians continue to peddle this as 'science'.
Re: Can't even put in the temperatures! - [info]sara_sense - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 10:31 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Can't even put in the temperatures! - [info]wormery - Saturday, 2 May 2009 at 07:43 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Can't even put in the temperatures! - [info]sara_sense - Saturday, 2 May 2009 at 09:49 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Can't even put in the temperatures! - [info]wormery - Saturday, 2 May 2009 at 11:29 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Can't even put in the temperatures! - [info]global_changes - Friday, 1 May 2009 at 02:29 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Can't even put in the temperatures! - [info]thomasgoodey - Friday, 1 May 2009 at 10:17 pm (UTC) Expand
CO2 Study
[info]margaret222 wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 06:36 am (UTC)
Concentration of CO2 is determined by the [dynamic] equilibrium between atmospheric gas and dissolved gas, as disturbed by human emission of additional gas.

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.
Re: CO2 Study
[info]sirosser wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 09:43 am (UTC)
Sounds ridiculous... CO2 levels are increasing at around 1.8 ppm ( parts per million ) each year. They have risen from around 280 ppm in 1750 to 385 ppm now. Greenhouse gas levels are even higher. The regarded safe limit for CO2 levels is around 400 ppm/450 ppm for Greenhouse gases generally If that threshold is reached world temps could increase by 2 degrees C above the pre-industrial average, we are already up by 0.74 degrees C. I suspect the article should read 1 degree C, not "C"! In any event, world temp has gone up, and if CO2/Greenhouse gas levels continue to go up as they are... we will reach 400 ppm CO2 by around 2017... it's simple math. As for sea temps, they are not decreasing, but increasing along with world temp... unless of course the recent news about decreasing sun spot activity reduces world temps over the next decade...but don't count on it... S. Rosser- A-Z of Global Warming.
Re: CO2 Study - [info]colinru - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:28 pm (UTC) Expand
Never mind
[info]sheumais wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 07:06 am (UTC)
If swine flu's to decimate the World's population, CO2 output will fall and those who aren't killed by the flu won't have to worry about climate change. That's assuming we aren't wiped-out by an asteroid, the sun doesn't die and a super volcano doesn't erupt. Best stay in bed, eh?
Sanity and Risk Management
[info]danceron wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 07:41 am (UTC)
The point is from a Risk Management Perspective, in the context of a possibility of catastrophic climate change (and well over 90% of scientists agree that our CO2 output is the cause of CO2 increase), the only sane option is to risk losing the profit of a number of vested interest groups by acting to reduce it before risking the loss of billions of lives by not.
Rubbish article
[info]ptstroud wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 07:53 am (UTC)
Another doom and gloom prediction based on flawed computer models. So carbon dioxide levels are rising faster than we thought, so what? The IPCC forecast a monotonic rise in global temperatures under these conditions but they have leveled since 1998 and are now falling again. And don't let them tell you that ten years is not enough to indicate a trend. All of the alarmists temperature data were taken over a mere twenty year period.

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.
Climate Chaos is Real
[info]jesuspascual wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:01 am (UTC)
I see the climate change deniers are out in force. Climate change IS happening. One of the symptoms of the early stage we are at is the loss of sea ice in both poles, which not even the deniers can deny. Global average temperature is increasing. The local changes in climate will only get worse in time: desertification of arable land, loss of rainfall, loss in vegetation. Spewing out more CO2 only reinforces the destructive loop. Science has already demonstrated the mechanisms beyond reasonable doubt. We need to start changing our consumerist way of life, and ask the politicians invest in renewable energy in earnest.
Re: Climate Chaos is Real
[info]sheumais wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:19 am (UTC)
"Climate change IS happening."

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.
Re: Climate Chaos is Real - [info]jesuspascual - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 02:16 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Climate Chaos is Real - [info]phe15 - Friday, 1 May 2009 at 10:40 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Climate Chaos is Real - [info]canadastan - Friday, 1 May 2009 at 01:54 am (UTC) Expand
Re: Climate Chaos is Real - [info]happy21frank - Wednesday, 8 July 2009 at 10:47 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Climate Chaos is Real - [info]jesuspascual - Thursday, 9 July 2009 at 09:23 pm (UTC) Expand
What Rubbish
[info]frankiew wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:23 am (UTC)
What rubbish Mr Connor what utter rubbish. Just a few points I wish for you to clarify and write about:
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.
Re: What Rubbish
[info]edjzet wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 01:55 pm (UTC)
"Carbon dioxide , once put in the atmosphere, stays there for centuries - so science shows - causing warming as long as it is ther".

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.
[info]mikebrisco wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:51 am (UTC)
Yes, the change deniers are out in force; something got them seriously rattled.

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.



Which deniers are you talking about?
[info]canadastan wrote:
Friday, 1 May 2009 at 02:06 am (UTC)
The Global Cooling Deniers?
Skeptics galore
[info]janvb1 wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:53 am (UTC)
Would the skeptics please supply arguments (let's say scientific evidence), instead of just claiming "it's no so" or "it's all a conspiracy", or "I think the oceans are cooling and will take up the CO2". It doesn't help.
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!
Re: Skeptics galore
[info]colinru wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:38 pm (UTC)
You seem to use sceptic as a term of abuse. Science should be sceptical until data supports a theory.

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!
More Alarmist Nonsense
[info]calum100 wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 09:08 am (UTC)
GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out. Another dime-a-dozen modelled based scenario that produces a doom-laden result.

Here is a study that throws a big spanner into the settled CO2 science.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols_prt.htm

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.
RE: Skeptics galore
[info]ptstroud wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 09:19 am (UTC)
You really want proof that that the AWG hypothesis is false. Well there are literally dozens of sceptic websites and blogs that will lead you to many peer reviewed scientific papers but here is just one you might like to explore: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
Climate change deniers.
[info]exportskip wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 09:35 am (UTC)
You are welcome to deny the environmental peril we're facing. Just don't come knocking on my igloo for shelter.
And it's the "Science Editor" himself!
[info]thomasgoodey wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 09:57 am (UTC)
And this is not just some part-time hack writing for a pittance, it is the so-called "Science Editor" of the Independent himself! But... I see now... the company which owns the Independent and the Independent on Sunday is going bust... not surprising with this level of journalism...
Re: And it's the "Science Editor" himself!
[info]canadastan wrote:
Friday, 1 May 2009 at 02:23 am (UTC)
Journalistic suicide.
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!
Y2K again
[info]famulla wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 10:21 am (UTC)
Y2K again
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla

"C"
[info]thorntongate wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 10:45 am (UTC)
The original page from the Potsdam Institute's website clears up the mysterious use of "C" in Steve Connor's rather sloppy article:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/on-the-way-to-phasing-out-emissions-more-than-50-reductions-needed-by-2050-to-respect-2b0c-climate-target

He actually means "2C" so why not print it that way, Steve?
Arctic aerosols
[info]thorntongate wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 10:56 am (UTC)


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.
Re: Arctic aerosols
[info]calum100 wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 11:31 am (UTC)
...............but what is the cause of the current global cooling?

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.
Denial
[info]rdjg wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 11:29 am (UTC)
ptstroud - you are a very irresponsible individual and clearly lack the integrity to accept facts as they are, preferring the wish-fulfilment fantasy of 'all's right with the world' to the reality of global warming. It really is shocking that people like you still exist, VERY worrying. How is it that you have the capacity to ignore so many hard facts just for the sake of your own twisted view of the world? Do you never go out of your house?
P.S.
[info]rdjg wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 11:37 am (UTC)
I thought the man who denies global warming (as well as the dangers of white asbestos and passive smoking) was called Christopher, not Charles Booker. Do pay attention to details, ptstroud. It really is a necessity if you want to be taken seriously as the climate expert you clearly see yourself as.
Re polar Ice
[info]margaret222 wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 12:18 pm (UTC)
"jesuspascual" wrote

" 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".
Re: P.S. - [info]colinru - Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 08:47 pm (UTC) Expand
For those who deny "the deniers"
[info]sheumais wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 12:22 pm (UTC)
A trifle
[info]edjzet wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 01:40 pm (UTC)
Those 1000 billion tons correspond to 0.2 grammes per square cm of the Earth's surface. There is at the moment 0.4 grammes of CO2 per square cm in the atmosphere. Of the extra stuff we put in, at least half will dissolve in the oceans (with on average 240 kilogrammes of water to accommodate the 0.1 gramme extra CO2) and the rest will cause vigorous growth of i.p. forests in the temperate zones (as has already been observed).

Sorry, this is a non-story.
What we really deserve
[info]ohyeazz wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 04:03 pm (UTC)
The endless and pointless debate continues.

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&Schools must teach pupils about babies, Aids and sex
[info]famulla wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 06:10 pm (UTC)
Let's prepare for the change instead.When?
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

The Independent gets it backwards
[info]canadastan wrote:
Friday, 1 May 2009 at 01:50 am (UTC)
Co2 levels rise after temperature increases, not before.
Cures that make the 'problem' worse
[info]canadastan wrote:
Friday, 1 May 2009 at 02:00 am (UTC)
Implementing Kyoto would increase pollution and C02 emissions, not decrease it.
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.
He's put in the temperatures now!
[info]thomasgoodey wrote:
Friday, 1 May 2009 at 04:23 am (UTC)
Ah ha ha! The author, Steve Connor (funny, that name!) the so-called "Science Editor" who could not even check his own article, has now finally amended it by putting in the temperatures, due no doubt to our mocking criticisms. As we see so clearly, for the Independent and the environmentalists, the facts (factoids? guesses? counterfacts?) are purely an afterthought - what matters to them is "raising the consciousness" of the stupider members of the public. (They have already given up with the intelligent ones.)
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date