Dear David‹I don¹t understand your point. IPCC WG 1 figure TS-3 (page 27) shows that the concentration equivalent of the CO2 emissions is indeed rising, and so, with some variability (e.g., Pinatuubo eruption in 1991 slows increase as increase in diffuse light penetrates more deeply into canopy and so promotes extra growth of biomass for a couple of years), is the annual increment in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. What is harder to discern is the slow change in the airborne fraction, which I believe has started very slowly to increase.
As to your calculations, note that one cannot just consider fossil fuel emissions, but must consider fossil fuel plus net biomass change (deforestation minus afforestation/reforestation) and this latter term can change over time (e.g., Brazil¹s varying success in limiting Amazonian deforestation). Given the nature of the fossil and biomass terms, there will clearly be uncertainties (remember, it is not fuel generation that counts, but fuel combustion, so changes in inventories of coal lying around can make a difference‹and it is actual production, not some value that is made to show a target is reached, etc.). Best, Mike On 11/23/08 3:25 PM, "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ken: > > I have followed the carbon cycle literature and agree with Mike's basic > statement that as we pull carbon out of "deep sinks" and inject it back into > the dynamic cycle, we can't help but see some increases in atmospheric carbon. > > The point I make is much more simple - the Mona Loa data is showing a slower > rate of increase than we have seen in the past, and this does not correlate > with the increasing rate of carbon injection into the dynamic cycle. The > "consensus" does not account for this hard data. > > Indeed, I'm not sure what "consensus" means anymore. Clearly, it ought to > reflect the best data we have, and the modeling of the cycle does not seem to > match the data, hence my disquiet. > > David. > > On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Ken Caldeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> That lack of confidence is unjustified. There is general consensus among >> those who have studied the carbon cycle. >> >> The problem is confusion and not lack of knowledge. >> >> The main confusion comes from the fact that we can be talking about two very >> different things, for example: >> >> (1) What is the residence time of a particular CO2 molecule in the >> atmosphere? The answer to this question is in the range mentioned by David >> Schnare. >> >> (2) How long does it take for a perturbation in concentration to return to >> steady-state? The answer to this question is the one addressed by Mason Inman >> and the articles he discusses. >> >> At steady-state, CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanging CO2 with the ocean >> surface and the living biosphere. The large fluxes into these two reservoirs >> are compensated by large fluxes in the opposite direction. At steady state, >> molecules are still exchanging but there is no concentration perturbation >> that is decaying away. >> >> The other main source of confusion is that CO2 concentration perturbations do >> not decay away according to a simple exponentially decreasing function, so >> there is no single lifetime that can be referred to without reference to a >> specific definition of how lifetime is being used in that context. >> >> The last main source of confusion is that the decay of a CO2 concentration >> perturbation depends in part on the assumed background scenario. CO2 >> disappeared more rapidly from the atmosphere 200 years ago than it does >> today. >> >> On top of all of this, there is basic process uncertainty. However, this >> process uncertainty is not so large as to place the general shape of the >> curve in significant doubt. Scientists are arguing about the details and not >> the basic picture, so David Schnare's lack of confidence is misplaced. I note >> that even though the Matthews and Caldeira paper appeared in Geophysical >> Research Letters early this year, there has been no scientific criticism of >> the conclusions in the literature -- indicating that there is a general >> consensus among informed scientists. >> >> The largest carbon cycle uncertain remains the fate of the biosphere (will it >> gain or lose carbon, how much, when?). However, the biosphere contains much >> less carbon than are contained in fossil fuel resources, so the biosphere >> [absent engineering of the biosphere] cannot play a first order role if we do >> end up transferring all of this CO2 to the atmosphere. >> >> Best, >> >> Ken >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 6:31 AM, David Schnare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Ken, John, et al: >>> >>> My confidence in our understanding of the carbon cycle has reached what I >>> hope is a nadir. Attached is a chart of Mona Loa CO2 data and actual CO2 >>> emissions data. They do not reflect a 100 year dwell time in the >>> atmosphere. The literature on CO2 half-life suggests a 7.5 year half-life >>> with the range from about 5 to 15 years. That range is a better explanation >>> of the actual CO2 data than the modeled estimates (by a wide margin). >>> >>> Thus, one wonders, what are the GCM modelers assuming, and how close to >>> reality is that? >>> >>> David Schnare >>> Center for Environmental Stewardship >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 6:03 AM, John Nissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ken, >>>> >>>> You are forgiven for breaking the rules, because you are not. What you >>>> have posted is extremely relevent - and is what started me off on taking >>>> geoengineering seriously - not the carbon capture but the aerosol cooling >>>> geoengineering. We need to understand the carbon cycle in order to >>>> appreciate the imperative for geoengineered cooling. >>>> >>>> There is no alternative to geoengineered cooling in the short term, the >>>> awsome problem of saving the Arctic sea ice - which is ignored in this >>>> article. I know you appreciate this [1]. >>>> >>>> When I read the IPCC report in 2007 about stabilisation at 2 degrees, I >>>> could not understand how they arrived at the "climate sensitivity", on >>>> which all their calculations seemed to be based. When I looked into it, >>>> their calculations seemed to use 140 years as the lifetime for CO2 - the >>>> half life for the 50% of CO2 which is not immediately absorbed. >>>> Your article does not explain that, as CO2 concentration increases in the >>>> atmosphere, the equilibrium concentration in the ocean and biomass >>>> increases. This explains the almost exactly 50% of CO2 which is >>>> immediately absorbed. >>>> >>>> It is the lifetime of the remaining 50% which is of concern. If we halted >>>> all CO2 emissions overnight, what would the effect be? IPCC gave a mean >>>> estimate of around 140 years. Yet I found papers saying that this lifetime >>>> was thousands of years - one gave 32,000 years as an estimate. Who was >>>> right? I suspected the longer time could be correct, and your research >>>> confirms that. So emissions reduction, however severe, would not halt >>>> global warming. >>>> >>>> Your article suggests the answer is geoengineering to remove carbon. But >>>> we do not have the time. We have to apply cooling techniques, of which >>>> only the stratospheric aerosols and marine cloud brightening techniques >>>> offer high feasibility of sufficient scaleability over the few seasons to >>>> save the Arctic sea ice from disappearing over the next few years. >>>> >>>> Thus your article is highly relevent to geoengineering. >>>> >>>> Cheers from Chiswick, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] You gave a telling postscript to a recent posting of yours (re >>>> Worldwatch Book): >>>> >>>> PS. By the way, given that changes in CO2 emissions will not significantly >>>> affect temperatures over the next decade or two in any plausible scenario, >>>> it is hard to image how anything other than climate engineering can >>>> significantly reduce climate risk over this time period (perhaps there are >>>> adaptive strategies that could reduce this risk, but it is hard to see how >>>> those would apply to sea ice, ice sheets, arctic ecosystems, and >>>> permafrost). >>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Ken Caldeira <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> To: geoengineering <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 3:08 AM >>>>> Subject: [geo] Carbon is forever (Nature online news story) >>>>> >>>>> NOTE: I AM BREAKING THE RULE ABOUT POSTING GENERAL CLIMATE/CARBON POSTS TO >>>>> THIS GROUP. (BAD, BAD, BAD) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> News Feature >>>>> Nature Reports Climate Change >>>>> Published online: 20 November 2008 | doi:10.1038/climate.2008.122 >>>>> Carbon is forever >>>>> Carbon dioxide emissions and their associated warming could linger for >>>>> millennia, according to some climate scientists. Mason Inman looks at why >>>>> the fallout from burning fossil fuels could last far longer than expected. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Distant future: our continued use of fossil fuels could leave a CO2legacy >>>>> that lasts millennia, says climatologist David Archer >>>>> >>>>> 123RF.COM/PAUL <http://123rf.com/PAUL> MOORE >>>>> >>>>> After our fossil fuel blow-out, how long will the CO2 hangover last? And >>>>> what about the global fever that comes along with it? These sound like >>>>> simple questions, but the answers are complex ‹ and not well understood or >>>>> appreciated outside a small group of climate scientists. Popular books on >>>>> climate change ‹ even those written by scientists ‹ if they mention the >>>>> lifetime of CO2 at all, typically say it lasts "a century or more"1 >>>>> <http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html#B1> >>>>> or "more than a hundred years". >>>>> >>>>> "That's complete nonsense," says Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution >>>>> for Science in Stanford, California. It doesn't help that the summaries in >>>>> the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports have confused >>>>> the issue, allege Caldeira and colleagues in an upcoming paper in Annual >>>>> Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences2 >>>>> <http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html#B2> . >>>>> Now he and a few other climate scientists are trying to spread the word >>>>> that human-generated CO2, and the warming it brings, will linger far into >>>>> the future ‹ unless we take heroic measures to pull the gas out of the >>>>> air. >>>>> >>>>> University of Chicago oceanographer David Archer, who led the study with >>>>> Caldeira and others, is credited with doing more than anyone to show how >>>>> long CO2 from fossil fuels will last in the atmosphere. As he puts it in >>>>> his new book The Long Thaw, "The lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 in the >>>>> atmosphere is a few centuries, plus 25 percent that lasts essentially >>>>> forever. The next time you fill your tank, reflect upon this"3 >>>>> <http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html#B3> . >>>>> >>>>> "The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will >>>>> last longer than Stonehenge," Archer writes. "Longer than time capsules, >>>>> longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization >>>>> so far." >>>>> >>>>> The effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere drop off so slowly that >>>>> unless we kick our "fossil fuel addiction", to use George W. Bush's >>>>> phrase, we could force Earth out of its regular pattern of freezes and >>>>> thaws that has lasted for more than a million years. "If the entire coal >>>>> reserves were used," Archer writes, "then glaciation could be delayed for >>>>> half a million years." >>>>> Cloudy reports >>>>> "The longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere is probably the least well >>>>> understood part of the global warming issue," says paleoclimatologist >>>>> Peter Fawcett of the University of New Mexico. "And it's not because it >>>>> isn't well documented in the IPCC report. It is, but it is buried under a >>>>> lot of other material." >>>>> >>>>> It doesn't help, though, that past reports from the UN panel of climate >>>>> experts have made misleading statements about the lifetime of CO2, argue >>>>> Archer, Caldeira and colleagues. The first assessment report, in 1990, >>>>> said that CO2's lifetime is 50 to 200 years. The reports in 1995 and 2001 >>>>> revised this down to 5 to 200 years. Because the oceans suck up huge >>>>> amounts of the gas each year, the average CO2 molecule does spend about 5 >>>>> years in the atmosphere. But the oceans also release much of that CO2 back >>>>> to the air, such that man-made emissions keep the atmosphere's CO2 levels >>>>> elevated for millennia. Even as CO2 levels drop, temperatures take longer >>>>> to fall, according to recent studies. >>>>> >>>>> "The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will >>>>> last longer than Stonehenge, longer than time capsules, longer than >>>>> nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far." >>>>> >>>>> David Archer >>>>> >>>>> Earlier reports from the panel did include caveats such as "No single >>>>> lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake >>>>> by different removal processes." The IPCC's latest assessment, however, >>>>> avoids the problems of earlier reports by including similar caveats while >>>>> simply refusing to give a numeric estimate of the lifetime for carbon >>>>> dioxide. Contributing author Richard Betts of the UK Met Office Hadley >>>>> Centre says the panel made this change in recognition of the fact that >>>>> "the lifetime estimates cited in previous reports had been potentially >>>>> misleading, or at least open to misinterpretation." >>>>> >>>>> Instead of pinning an absolute value on the atmospheric lifetime of CO2, >>>>> the 2007 report describes its gradual dissipation over time, saying, >>>>> "About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 >>>>> years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The >>>>> remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years." But >>>>> if cumulative emissions are high, the portion remaining in the atmosphere >>>>> could be higher than this, models suggest. Overall, Caldeira argues, "the >>>>> whole issue of our long-term commitment to climate change has not really >>>>> ever been adequately addressed by the IPCC." >>>>> >>>>> The lasting effects of CO2 also have big implications for energy policies, >>>>> argues James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space >>>>> Studies. "Because of this long CO2 lifetime, we cannot solve the climate >>>>> problem by slowing down emissions by 20% or 50% or even 80%. It does not >>>>> matter much whether the CO2 is emitted this year, next year, or several >>>>> years from now," he wrote in a letter this August. "Instead ... we must >>>>> identify a portion of the fossil fuels that will be left in the ground, or >>>>> captured upon emission and put back into the ground." >>>>> Slow on the uptake >>>>> Unlike other human-generated greenhouse gases, CO2 gets taken up by a >>>>> variety of different processes, some fast and some slow. This is what >>>>> makes it so hard to pin a single number, or even a range, on CO2's >>>>> lifetime. The majority of the CO2 we emit will be soaked up by the ocean >>>>> over a few hundred years, first being absorbed into the surface waters, >>>>> and eventually into deeper waters, according to a long-term climate model >>>>> run by Archer. Though the ocean is vast, the surface waters can absorb >>>>> only so much CO2, and currents have to bring up fresh water from the deep >>>>> before the ocean can swallow more. Then, on a much longer timescale of >>>>> several thousand years, most of the remaining CO2 gets taken up as the gas >>>>> dissolves into the ocean and reacts with chalk in ocean sediments. But >>>>> this process would never soak up enough CO2 to return atmospheric levels >>>>> to what they were before industrialization, shows oceanographer Toby >>>>> Tyrrell of the UK's National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, in a recent >>>>> paper4 >>>>> <http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html#B4> . >>>>> >>>>> Finally, the slowest process of all is rock weathering, during which >>>>> atmospheric CO2 reacts with water to form a weak acid that dissolves >>>>> rocks. It's thought that this creates minerals such as magnesium carbonate >>>>> that lock away the greenhouse gas. But according to simulations by Archer >>>>> and others, it would take hundreds of thousands of years for these >>>>> processes to bring CO2 levels back to pre-industrial values (Fig. 1 >>>>> <http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html#f1> ). >>>>> Figure 1: Long lifetime. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Model simulation of atmospheric CO2 concentration for 40,000 years >>>>> following after a large CO2 release from combustion of fossil fuels. >>>>> Different fractions of the released gas recover on different timescales. >>>>> Reproduced from The Long Thaw3 >>>>> <http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html#B3> . >>>>> >>>>> Full figure and legend (18 KB) >>>>> <http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/fig_tab/climate.2008.122_F1.html> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Several long-term climate models, though their details differ, all agree >>>>> that anthropogenic CO2 takes an enormously long time to dissipate. If all >>>>> recoverable fossil fuels were burnt up using today's technologies, after >>>>> 1,000 years the air would still hold around a third to a half of the CO2 >>>>> emissions. "For practical purposes, 500 to 1000 years is 'forever,'" as >>>>> Hansen and colleagues put it. In this time, civilizations can rise and >>>>> fall, and the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could melt >>>>> substantially, raising sea levels enough to transform the face of the >>>>> planet. >>>>> New stable state >>>>> The warming from our CO2 emissions would last effectively forever, too. A >>>>> recent study by Caldeira and Damon Matthews of Concordia University in >>>>> Montreal found that regardless of how much fossil fuel we burn, once we >>>>> stop, within a few decades the planet will settle at a new, higher >>>>> temperature5 >>>>> <http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html#B5> . >>>>> As Caldeira explains, "It just increases for a few decades and then stays >>>>> there" for at least 500 years ‹ the length of time they ran their model. >>>>> "That was not at all the result I was expecting," he says. >>>>> >>>>> But this was not some peculiarity of their model, as the same behaviour >>>>> shows up in an extremely simplified model of the climate6 >>>>> <http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html#B6> ‹ >>>>> the only difference between the models being the final temperature of the >>>>> planet. Archer and Victor Brovkin of the Potsdam Institute for Climate >>>>> Impact Research in Germany found much the same result from much >>>>> longer-term simulations6 >>>>> <http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html#B6> . >>>>> Their model shows that whether we emit a lot or a little bit of CO2, >>>>> temperatures will quickly rise and plateau, dropping by only about 1 °C >>>>> over 12,000 years. >>>>> >>>>> "The longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere is probably the least well >>>>> understood part of the global warming issue." >>>>> >>>>> Peter Fawcett >>>>> >>>>> Because of changes in the Earth's orbit, ice sheets might start to grow >>>>> from the poles in a few thousand years ‹ but there's a good chance our >>>>> greenhouse gas emissions already may prevent that, Archer argues. Even >>>>> with the amount of CO2 emitted so far, another ice age will almost >>>>> certainly start in about 50,000 years. But if we burn all remaining fossil >>>>> fuels, it could be more than half a million years before the Earth has >>>>> another ice age, Archer says. >>>>> >>>>> The long-term effects of our emissions might seem far removed. But as >>>>> Tyrrell says, "It is a little bit scary, if you think about all the >>>>> concerns we have about radioactive wastes produced by nuclear power. The >>>>> potential impacts from emitting CO2 to the atmosphere are even longer than >>>>> that." But there's still hope for avoiding these long-term effects if >>>>> technologies that are now on the drawing board can be scaled up >>>>> affordably. "If civilization was able to develop ways of scrubbing CO2 out >>>>> of the atmosphere," Tyrrell says, "it's possible you could reverse this >>>>> CO2 hangover." >>>>> >>>>> Top of page >>>>> <http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html#top> >>>>> References >>>>> 1. Flannery, T. The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of >>>>> Climate Change 162 (Atlantic Monthly Press, New York, 2005). >>>>> 2. Archer, D. et al. Ann. Rev. Earth Pl. Sc. (in the press). >>>>> 3. Archer, D. The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 >>>>> Years of Earth's Climate (Princeton Univ. Press, 2008). >>>>> 4. Tyrrell, T., Shepherd, J. G. & Castle, S. Tellus 59, 664672, >>>>> doi:10.1111/j.1600-0889.2007.00290.x (2007). >>>>> 5. Matthews, H. D. & Caldeira, K. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L04705, >>>>> doi:10.1029/2007GL032388 (2008). >>>>> 6. Archer, D. & Brovkin, V. Climatic Change 90, 283297 (2008). >>>>> Mason Inman is a freelance science writer currently based in Pakistan. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ken Caldeira >>>>> Department of Global Ecology >>>>> Carnegie Institution >>>>> 260 Panama Street >>>>> Stanford, CA 94305 USA >>>>> +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 >>>>> >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> >>>>> http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Center for Environmental Stewardship >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
