Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002 Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission Katharine L Ricke and Ken Caldeira Published 2 December 2014 • © 2014 IOP Publishing Ltd Environmental Research Letters, Volume 9, Number 12 DownloadArticle PDF 47855 Total downloads 927 Video abstract views 4848 total citations on Dimensions.Article has an altmetric score of 461 Turn on MathJax Share this article Share this content via email Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Mendeley A perspective for this article has been published in 2015 Environ. Res. Lett. 10 031001 Article information Abstract Play Video Download video It is known that carbon dioxide emissions cause the Earth to warm, but no previous study has focused on examining how long it takes to reach maximum warming following a particular CO2 emission. Using conjoined results of carbon-cycle and physical-climate model intercomparison projects (Taylor et al 2012, Joos et al 2013), we find the median time between an emission and maximum warming is 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years. We evaluate uncertainties in timing and amount of warming, partitioning them into three contributing factors: carbon cycle, climate sensitivity and ocean thermal inertia. If uncertainty in any one factor is reduced to zero without reducing uncertainty in the other factors, the majority of overall uncertainty remains. Thus, narrowing uncertainty in century-scale warming depends on narrowing uncertainty in all contributing factors. Our results indicate that benefit from avoided climate damage from avoided CO2 emissions will be manifested within the lifetimes of people who acted to avoid that emission. While such avoidance could be expected to benefit future generations, there is potential for emissions avoidance to provide substantial benefit to current generations. On Sat, 14 Sep 2019, 18:45 Aaron Franklin, wrote: > And no one's even mentioning the accelerating enhanced "natural" emissions > feedback from geological and biological stores in frozen, buried, and > living biomass in mainstream science, because it's an unknown of unknown > magnitude. Science is not equipped for that sort of language. It gets them > bullied in peer review, so they just don't mention it. > Engineer s a little better. > > Arawyn. > > On Sat, 14 Sep 2019, 10:15 PM Klaus Lackner, > wrote: > >> For climate change the integral over the emissions matter. If the >> integral is to remain constant, we have to drive the emissions to zero, >> i.e., they have to come down. For that we need a negative time derivative >> of emissions, but so far we have kept even derivative positive as well. We >> are still on the accelerator not on the brake. >> >> >> >> If we want to have the integral to come down, we need negative emission. >> (And yes the ocean helps a little, but the ocean is good at it, because the >> rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere maintain a gradient. If the CO2 does >> not go up anymore, the gradient into the ocean will gradually go away and >> with it the rate at which the ocean picks up CO2. >> >> >> >> Uptake will slow down right away and not wait until the entire ocean >> filled up. >> >> >> >> Klaus >> >> >> >> *From: *"Hawkins, David" >> *Date: *Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:03 PM >> *To: *Klaus Lackner >> *Cc: *Andrew Revkin , "durb...@gmail.com" < >> durb...@gmail.com>, "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" < >> geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >> *Subject: *Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon” >> >> >> >> And, we are not stopping emissions yet. Even under the most ambitious >> scenario (the LED scenario by Grübler, et al), cumulative additional CO2 >> emissions to 2100 from fossil energy use are over 630 Gt. Coupled with >> about 250 Gt of enhanced “nature-based” removals, the result is more than a >> 40% increase in the temperature anomaly we are suffering today—an increase >> that persists into the 22nd century. >> >> When one considers the pain that is being inflicted today from extreme >> events (to which climate disruption is already adding), that is a lot of >> additional suffering. >> >> We have crossed into the realm of dangerous anthropogenic interference >> with the climate system. We must not trespass further but we will. The job >> is to move back toward the climate we enjoyed earlier as fast as we can. >> >> David >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> On Sep 14, 2019, at 10:45 AM, Klaus Lackner >> wrote: >> >&
Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”
And no one's even mentioning the accelerating enhanced "natural" emissions feedback from geological and biological stores in frozen, buried, and living biomass in mainstream science, because it's an unknown of unknown magnitude. Science is not equipped for that sort of language. It gets them bullied in peer review, so they just don't mention it. Engineer s a little better. Arawyn. On Sat, 14 Sep 2019, 10:15 PM Klaus Lackner, wrote: > For climate change the integral over the emissions matter. If the > integral is to remain constant, we have to drive the emissions to zero, > i.e., they have to come down. For that we need a negative time derivative > of emissions, but so far we have kept even derivative positive as well. We > are still on the accelerator not on the brake. > > > > If we want to have the integral to come down, we need negative emission. > (And yes the ocean helps a little, but the ocean is good at it, because the > rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere maintain a gradient. If the CO2 does > not go up anymore, the gradient into the ocean will gradually go away and > with it the rate at which the ocean picks up CO2. > > > > Uptake will slow down right away and not wait until the entire ocean > filled up. > > > > Klaus > > > > *From: *"Hawkins, David" > *Date: *Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:03 PM > *To: *Klaus Lackner > *Cc: *Andrew Revkin , "durb...@gmail.com" < > durb...@gmail.com>, "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Subject: *Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon” > > > > And, we are not stopping emissions yet. Even under the most ambitious > scenario (the LED scenario by Grübler, et al), cumulative additional CO2 > emissions to 2100 from fossil energy use are over 630 Gt. Coupled with > about 250 Gt of enhanced “nature-based” removals, the result is more than a > 40% increase in the temperature anomaly we are suffering today—an increase > that persists into the 22nd century. > > When one considers the pain that is being inflicted today from extreme > events (to which climate disruption is already adding), that is a lot of > additional suffering. > > We have crossed into the realm of dangerous anthropogenic interference > with the climate system. We must not trespass further but we will. The job > is to move back toward the climate we enjoyed earlier as fast as we can. > > David > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Sep 14, 2019, at 10:45 AM, Klaus Lackner wrote: > > Yes, the oceans are taking on heat. But the energy imbalance remains > until the CO2 is gone. The oceans will take up both the CO2 and the heat, > but it is a slow (and slowing) process. > > > > *From: *Andrew Revkin > *Date: *Friday, September 13, 2019 at 7:42 PM > *To: *Klaus Lackner > *Cc: *"durb...@gmail.com" , " > geoengineering@googlegroups.com" > *Subject: *Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon” > > > > If we stop the energy imbalance, oceans can also go a long way toward > spreading that existing heat burden over time, as per this Rosenthal, > Linsley, Oppo work: > > > > https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__science.sciencemag.org_content_342_6158_617=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=c5WkKQm80oGtr-ik0DfPBRt8G9lGzOp9Rc3aUa_j94M=GysUrJWxBv1OzAzhlNJZ5RtjBqxRsmk9ibIxV3U2Ik4=> > > > > > https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/1-year-study-finds-oceans-warming-fast-but-from-a-cool-baseline/ > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com_2013_10_31_1-2Dyear-2Dstudy-2Dfinds-2Doceans-2Dwarming-2Dfast-2Dbut-2Dfrom-2Da-2Dcool-2Dbaseline_=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=c5WkKQm80oGtr-ik0DfPBRt8G9lGzOp9Rc3aUa_j94M=v9pklsd2w8YcGIIivLMYXTHahJdT_7PyynBwqc7wvAE=> > > > > On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:16 AM Klaus Lackner > wrote: > > If by warming you mean an increase in the temperature, then warming will > stop soon. If by warming you mean that it is warmer than without excess > Greenhouse gases, then this excess temperature will be with us a long > time. Solomon et al claimed it is 1000 years. > > Klaus > > > > > > *From: * on behalf of E Durbrow < > durb...@gmail.com> > *Reply-To: *"durb...@gmail.com" > *Date: *Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:09 PM > *To: *"geoengineering@googlegroups.com" > *Subject: *[geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon” > > > &g
Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”
Right, which is why I am talking a lot these days about the need to supplement emission reduction with carbon removals. Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. On Sep 14, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Klaus Lackner mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>> wrote: For climate change the integral over the emissions matter. If the integral is to remain constant, we have to drive the emissions to zero, i.e., they have to come down. For that we need a negative time derivative of emissions, but so far we have kept even derivative positive as well. We are still on the accelerator not on the brake. If we want to have the integral to come down, we need negative emission. (And yes the ocean helps a little, but the ocean is good at it, because the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere maintain a gradient. If the CO2 does not go up anymore, the gradient into the ocean will gradually go away and with it the rate at which the ocean picks up CO2. Uptake will slow down right away and not wait until the entire ocean filled up. Klaus From: "Hawkins, David" mailto:dhawk...@nrdc.org>> Date: Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:03 PM To: Klaus Lackner mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>> Cc: Andrew Revkin mailto:rev...@gmail.com>>, "durb...@gmail.com<mailto:durb...@gmail.com>" mailto:durb...@gmail.com>>, "geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>" mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> Subject: Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon” And, we are not stopping emissions yet. Even under the most ambitious scenario (the LED scenario by Grübler, et al), cumulative additional CO2 emissions to 2100 from fossil energy use are over 630 Gt. Coupled with about 250 Gt of enhanced “nature-based” removals, the result is more than a 40% increase in the temperature anomaly we are suffering today—an increase that persists into the 22nd century. When one considers the pain that is being inflicted today from extreme events (to which climate disruption is already adding), that is a lot of additional suffering. We have crossed into the realm of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. We must not trespass further but we will. The job is to move back toward the climate we enjoyed earlier as fast as we can. David Sent from my iPad On Sep 14, 2019, at 10:45 AM, Klaus Lackner mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>> wrote: Yes, the oceans are taking on heat. But the energy imbalance remains until the CO2 is gone. The oceans will take up both the CO2 and the heat, but it is a slow (and slowing) process. From: Andrew Revkin mailto:rev...@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, September 13, 2019 at 7:42 PM To: Klaus Lackner mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>> Cc: "durb...@gmail.com<mailto:durb...@gmail.com>" mailto:durb...@gmail.com>>, "geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>" mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> Subject: Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon” If we stop the energy imbalance, oceans can also go a long way toward spreading that existing heat burden over time, as per this Rosenthal, Linsley, Oppo work: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__science.sciencemag.org_content_342_6158_617=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=c5WkKQm80oGtr-ik0DfPBRt8G9lGzOp9Rc3aUa_j94M=GysUrJWxBv1OzAzhlNJZ5RtjBqxRsmk9ibIxV3U2Ik4=> https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/1-year-study-finds-oceans-warming-fast-but-from-a-cool-baseline/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com_2013_10_31_1-2Dyear-2Dstudy-2Dfinds-2Doceans-2Dwarming-2Dfast-2Dbut-2Dfrom-2Da-2Dcool-2Dbaseline_=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=c5WkKQm80oGtr-ik0DfPBRt8G9lGzOp9Rc3aUa_j94M=v9pklsd2w8YcGIIivLMYXTHahJdT_7PyynBwqc7wvAE=> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:16 AM Klaus Lackner mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>> wrote: If by warming you mean an increase in the temperature, then warming will stop soon. If by warming you mean that it is warmer than without excess Greenhouse gases, then this excess temperature will be with us a long time. Solomon et al claimed it is 1000 years. Klaus From: mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of E Durbrow mailto:durb...@gmail.com>> Reply-To: "durb...@gmail.com<mailto:durb...@gmail.com>" mailto:durb...@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:09 PM To: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>" mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> Subject: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon” Alan Robock wrote: "Certainly if we stop burning fo
Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”
The simple model was not applied to geoengineering at that time, however
mentioned negative emissions already in 2008. Of course, like all
physical equations fitting a complex system, it depends on the model
parameters (here B, beta, sigma, mu, alpha, C_1). These can be treated
as approximately constant only within a certain range.
If this range is left (as you suggest with the various geoengineering
measures), these parameters need to be adjusted accordingly as a
function of the variables G, F, C and T (and other variables), taking
higher orders into consideration. Nonetheless, the principle logic of
the first-order model and the solutions still remain.
This also applies to more complex climate models that use some
"constants" which are not really constant for large system
modifications. Here we have the limits of modelling for problems for
which have no experience and data.
Jürgen Scheffran
On 14.09.2019 13:05, Aaron Franklin wrote:
Yes, but does this paper include margins of error wide enough to
include the [conservatively speaking] permafrost and clathrate C of
polar and deep ocean regions of over 100 thousand gigatons C not to
mention burning tropical and Boreal forests, peat, CO2/methane/black
carbon soot, nitrous oxides, water vapor feedbacks...
Which could inject CO2e of some 500 thousand gigatons + into our
planetary greenhouse budget in the next 50-1000 years? 類樂勞
Arawyn Lloyd Tudor Franklin
On Sat, 14 Sep 2019, 10:47 PM Juergen Scheffran,
<mailto:juergen.scheff...@uni-hamburg.de>> wrote:
The fundamental relationships discussed here were analysed in an
early paper, using equations of a basic climate model often
applied in integrated assessment of climate change. It determines
mathematical conditions for zero and negative emissions (shown in
Figure 3 as a function of climate sensitivity and climate
targets). The integral mentioned by Klaus Lackner is used on page
266. The paper also determines economic conditions for energy
transitions to meet climate targets but can also be used to
determine conditions for climate engineering (which 2008 was a
rather new topic):
Scheffran J (2008) Adaptive management of energy transitions in
long-term climate change. Computational Management Science 5(3):
259-286. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10287-007-0044-1
Access:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24053927_Adaptive_management_of_energy_transitions_in_long-term_climate_change
On 14.09.2019 12:15, Klaus Lackner wrote:
For climate change the integral over the emissions matter. If
the integral is to remain constant, we have to drive the
emissions to zero, i.e., they have to come down. For that we
need a negative time derivative of emissions, but so far we have
kept even derivative positive as well. We are still on the
accelerator not on the brake.
If we want to have the integral to come down, we need negative
emission. (And yes the ocean helps a little, but the ocean is
good at it, because the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere
maintain a gradient. If the CO2 does not go up anymore, the
gradient into the ocean will gradually go away and with it the
rate at which the ocean picks up CO2.
Uptake will slow down right away and not wait until the entire
ocean filled up.
Klaus
*From: *"Hawkins, David"
<mailto:dhawk...@nrdc.org>
*Date: *Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:03 PM
*To: *Klaus Lackner
<mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>
*Cc: *Andrew Revkin <mailto:rev...@gmail.com>,
"durb...@gmail.com" <mailto:durb...@gmail.com>
<mailto:durb...@gmail.com>,
"geoengineering@googlegroups.com"
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
*Subject: *Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”
And, we are not stopping emissions yet. Even under the most
ambitious scenario (the LED scenario by Grübler, et al),
cumulative additional CO2 emissions to 2100 from fossil energy
use are over 630 Gt. Coupled with about 250 Gt of enhanced
“nature-based” removals, the result is more than a 40% increase
in the temperature anomaly we are suffering today—an increase
that persists into the 22nd century.
When one considers the pain that is being inflicted today from
extreme events (to which climate disruption is already adding),
that is a lot of additional suffering.
We have crossed into the realm of dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system. We must not trespass
further but we will. The job is to move back toward the climate
we enjoyed earlier as fast as we can.
David
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 14, 2019, at 10:45 AM, Klaus Lackner
mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>> wro
Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”
The fundamental relationships discussed here were analysed in an early paper, using equations of a basic climate model often applied in integrated assessment of climate change. It determines mathematical conditions for zero and negative emissions (shown in Figure 3 as a function of climate sensitivity and climate targets). The integral mentioned by Klaus Lackner is used on page 266. The paper also determines economic conditions for energy transitions to meet climate targets but can also be used to determine conditions for climate engineering (which 2008 was a rather new topic): Scheffran J (2008) Adaptive management of energy transitions in long-term climate change. Computational Management Science 5(3): 259-286. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10287-007-0044-1 Access: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24053927_Adaptive_management_of_energy_transitions_in_long-term_climate_change On 14.09.2019 12:15, Klaus Lackner wrote: For climate change the integral over the emissions matter. If the integral is to remain constant, we have to drive the emissions to zero, i.e., they have to come down. For that we need a negative time derivative of emissions, but so far we have kept even derivative positive as well. We are still on the accelerator not on the brake. If we want to have the integral to come down, we need negative emission. (And yes the ocean helps a little, but the ocean is good at it, because the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere maintain a gradient. If the CO2 does not go up anymore, the gradient into the ocean will gradually go away and with it the rate at which the ocean picks up CO2. Uptake will slow down right away and not wait until the entire ocean filled up. Klaus *From: *"Hawkins, David" *Date: *Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:03 PM *To: *Klaus Lackner *Cc: *Andrew Revkin , "durb...@gmail.com" , "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" *Subject: *Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon” And, we are not stopping emissions yet. Even under the most ambitious scenario (the LED scenario by Grübler, et al), cumulative additional CO2 emissions to 2100 from fossil energy use are over 630 Gt. Coupled with about 250 Gt of enhanced “nature-based” removals, the result is more than a 40% increase in the temperature anomaly we are suffering today—an increase that persists into the 22nd century. When one considers the pain that is being inflicted today from extreme events (to which climate disruption is already adding), that is a lot of additional suffering. We have crossed into the realm of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. We must not trespass further but we will. The job is to move back toward the climate we enjoyed earlier as fast as we can. David Sent from my iPad On Sep 14, 2019, at 10:45 AM, Klaus Lackner <mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>> wrote: Yes, the oceans are taking on heat. But the energy imbalance remains until the CO2 is gone. The oceans will take up both the CO2 and the heat, but it is a slow (and slowing) process. *From: *Andrew Revkin mailto:rev...@gmail.com>> *Date: *Friday, September 13, 2019 at 7:42 PM *To: *Klaus Lackner mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>> *Cc: *"durb...@gmail.com <mailto:durb...@gmail.com>" mailto:durb...@gmail.com>>, "geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>" mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> *Subject: *Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon” If we stop the energy imbalance, oceans can also go a long way toward spreading that existing heat burden over time, as per this Rosenthal, Linsley, Oppo work: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__science.sciencemag.org_content_342_6158_617=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=c5WkKQm80oGtr-ik0DfPBRt8G9lGzOp9Rc3aUa_j94M=GysUrJWxBv1OzAzhlNJZ5RtjBqxRsmk9ibIxV3U2Ik4=> https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/1-year-study-finds-oceans-warming-fast-but-from-a-cool-baseline/ <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com_2013_10_31_1-2Dyear-2Dstudy-2Dfinds-2Doceans-2Dwarming-2Dfast-2Dbut-2Dfrom-2Da-2Dcool-2Dbaseline_=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=c5WkKQm80oGtr-ik0DfPBRt8G9lGzOp9Rc3aUa_j94M=v9pklsd2w8YcGIIivLMYXTHahJdT_7PyynBwqc7wvAE=> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:16 AM Klaus Lackner mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>> wrote: If by warming you mean an increase in the temperature, then warming will stop soon. If by warming you mean that it is warmer than without excess Greenhouse gases, then this exces
Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”
For climate change the integral over the emissions matter. If the integral is to remain constant, we have to drive the emissions to zero, i.e., they have to come down. For that we need a negative time derivative of emissions, but so far we have kept even derivative positive as well. We are still on the accelerator not on the brake. If we want to have the integral to come down, we need negative emission. (And yes the ocean helps a little, but the ocean is good at it, because the rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere maintain a gradient. If the CO2 does not go up anymore, the gradient into the ocean will gradually go away and with it the rate at which the ocean picks up CO2. Uptake will slow down right away and not wait until the entire ocean filled up. Klaus From: "Hawkins, David" Date: Saturday, September 14, 2019 at 12:03 PM To: Klaus Lackner Cc: Andrew Revkin , "durb...@gmail.com" , "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" Subject: Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon” And, we are not stopping emissions yet. Even under the most ambitious scenario (the LED scenario by Grübler, et al), cumulative additional CO2 emissions to 2100 from fossil energy use are over 630 Gt. Coupled with about 250 Gt of enhanced “nature-based” removals, the result is more than a 40% increase in the temperature anomaly we are suffering today—an increase that persists into the 22nd century. When one considers the pain that is being inflicted today from extreme events (to which climate disruption is already adding), that is a lot of additional suffering. We have crossed into the realm of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. We must not trespass further but we will. The job is to move back toward the climate we enjoyed earlier as fast as we can. David Sent from my iPad On Sep 14, 2019, at 10:45 AM, Klaus Lackner mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>> wrote: Yes, the oceans are taking on heat. But the energy imbalance remains until the CO2 is gone. The oceans will take up both the CO2 and the heat, but it is a slow (and slowing) process. From: Andrew Revkin mailto:rev...@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, September 13, 2019 at 7:42 PM To: Klaus Lackner mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>> Cc: "durb...@gmail.com<mailto:durb...@gmail.com>" mailto:durb...@gmail.com>>, "geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>" mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> Subject: Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon” If we stop the energy imbalance, oceans can also go a long way toward spreading that existing heat burden over time, as per this Rosenthal, Linsley, Oppo work: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__science.sciencemag.org_content_342_6158_617=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=c5WkKQm80oGtr-ik0DfPBRt8G9lGzOp9Rc3aUa_j94M=GysUrJWxBv1OzAzhlNJZ5RtjBqxRsmk9ibIxV3U2Ik4=> https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/1-year-study-finds-oceans-warming-fast-but-from-a-cool-baseline/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com_2013_10_31_1-2Dyear-2Dstudy-2Dfinds-2Doceans-2Dwarming-2Dfast-2Dbut-2Dfrom-2Da-2Dcool-2Dbaseline_=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=c5WkKQm80oGtr-ik0DfPBRt8G9lGzOp9Rc3aUa_j94M=v9pklsd2w8YcGIIivLMYXTHahJdT_7PyynBwqc7wvAE=> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:16 AM Klaus Lackner mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>> wrote: If by warming you mean an increase in the temperature, then warming will stop soon. If by warming you mean that it is warmer than without excess Greenhouse gases, then this excess temperature will be with us a long time. Solomon et al claimed it is 1000 years. Klaus From: mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of E Durbrow mailto:durb...@gmail.com>> Reply-To: "durb...@gmail.com<mailto:durb...@gmail.com>" mailto:durb...@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:09 PM To: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>" mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> Subject: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon” Alan Robock wrote: "Certainly if we stop burning fossil fuels, global warming will not stop immediately, but it will stop soon. “ As a layperson, my understanding is that even if fossil fuels burning stops tomorrow, warming and acidification will continue for decades rather than years. This is because of 2 centuries of greenhouse gas build-up (and greenhouse contributions from agriculture). Would some kind soul tell me that I’m wrong here? Thanks! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoeng
Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”
And, we are not stopping emissions yet. Even under the most ambitious scenario (the LED scenario by Grübler, et al), cumulative additional CO2 emissions to 2100 from fossil energy use are over 630 Gt. Coupled with about 250 Gt of enhanced “nature-based” removals, the result is more than a 40% increase in the temperature anomaly we are suffering today—an increase that persists into the 22nd century. When one considers the pain that is being inflicted today from extreme events (to which climate disruption is already adding), that is a lot of additional suffering. We have crossed into the realm of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. We must not trespass further but we will. The job is to move back toward the climate we enjoyed earlier as fast as we can. David Sent from my iPad On Sep 14, 2019, at 10:45 AM, Klaus Lackner mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>> wrote: Yes, the oceans are taking on heat. But the energy imbalance remains until the CO2 is gone. The oceans will take up both the CO2 and the heat, but it is a slow (and slowing) process. From: Andrew Revkin mailto:rev...@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, September 13, 2019 at 7:42 PM To: Klaus Lackner mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>> Cc: "durb...@gmail.com<mailto:durb...@gmail.com>" mailto:durb...@gmail.com>>, "geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>" mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> Subject: Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon” If we stop the energy imbalance, oceans can also go a long way toward spreading that existing heat burden over time, as per this Rosenthal, Linsley, Oppo work: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__science.sciencemag.org_content_342_6158_617=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=c5WkKQm80oGtr-ik0DfPBRt8G9lGzOp9Rc3aUa_j94M=GysUrJWxBv1OzAzhlNJZ5RtjBqxRsmk9ibIxV3U2Ik4=> https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/1-year-study-finds-oceans-warming-fast-but-from-a-cool-baseline/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com_2013_10_31_1-2Dyear-2Dstudy-2Dfinds-2Doceans-2Dwarming-2Dfast-2Dbut-2Dfrom-2Da-2Dcool-2Dbaseline_=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=c5WkKQm80oGtr-ik0DfPBRt8G9lGzOp9Rc3aUa_j94M=v9pklsd2w8YcGIIivLMYXTHahJdT_7PyynBwqc7wvAE=> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:16 AM Klaus Lackner mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu>> wrote: If by warming you mean an increase in the temperature, then warming will stop soon. If by warming you mean that it is warmer than without excess Greenhouse gases, then this excess temperature will be with us a long time. Solomon et al claimed it is 1000 years. Klaus From: mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> on behalf of E Durbrow mailto:durb...@gmail.com>> Reply-To: "durb...@gmail.com<mailto:durb...@gmail.com>" mailto:durb...@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:09 PM To: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>" mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> Subject: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon” Alan Robock wrote: "Certainly if we stop burning fossil fuels, global warming will not stop immediately, but it will stop soon. “ As a layperson, my understanding is that even if fossil fuels burning stops tomorrow, warming and acidification will continue for decades rather than years. This is because of 2 centuries of greenhouse gas build-up (and greenhouse contributions from agriculture). Would some kind soul tell me that I’m wrong here? Thanks! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAFxkD2qeQ%2BvxJBMNkqqS7heO-8EjaH8OvPaJZC532K8TCw12qw%40mail.gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_geoengineering_CAFxkD2qeQ-252BvxJBMNkqqS7heO-2D8EjaH8OvPaJZC532K8TCw12qw-2540mail.gmail.com-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dfooter=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=283VuYyS0Fv76OSFAT5br_V5oo3ALL3bD_tuP2IH0d0=JbtWshirTPWzP32RWMjN8dIXKtEyHwnQU7kzaIzFI88=>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubsc
Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”
If we stop the energy imbalance, oceans can also go a long way toward spreading that existing heat burden over time, as per this Rosenthal, Linsley, Oppo work: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617 https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/1-year-study-finds-oceans-warming-fast-but-from-a-cool-baseline/ On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 8:16 AM Klaus Lackner wrote: > If by warming you mean an increase in the temperature, then warming will > stop soon. If by warming you mean that it is warmer than without excess > Greenhouse gases, then this excess temperature will be with us a long > time. Solomon et al claimed it is 1000 years. > > Klaus > > > > > > *From: * on behalf of E Durbrow < > durb...@gmail.com> > *Reply-To: *"durb...@gmail.com" > *Date: *Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:09 PM > *To: *"geoengineering@googlegroups.com" > *Subject: *[geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon” > > > > Alan Robock wrote: "Certainly if we stop burning fossil fuels, global > warming will not stop immediately, but it will stop soon. “ > > > > As a layperson, my understanding is that even if fossil fuels burning > stops tomorrow, warming and acidification will continue for decades rather > than years. This is because of 2 centuries of greenhouse gas build-up (and > greenhouse contributions from agriculture). > > > > Would some kind soul tell me that I’m wrong here? > > > > Thanks! > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAFxkD2qeQ%2BvxJBMNkqqS7heO-8EjaH8OvPaJZC532K8TCw12qw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_geoengineering_CAFxkD2qeQ-252BvxJBMNkqqS7heO-2D8EjaH8OvPaJZC532K8TCw12qw-2540mail.gmail.com-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dfooter=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=283VuYyS0Fv76OSFAT5br_V5oo3ALL3bD_tuP2IH0d0=JbtWshirTPWzP32RWMjN8dIXKtEyHwnQU7kzaIzFI88=> > . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/3A79B8CB-E38D-422D-957A-F1A4D5527854%40exchange.asu.edu > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/3A79B8CB-E38D-422D-957A-F1A4D5527854%40exchange.asu.edu?utm_medium=email_source=footer> > . > -- *ANDREW REVKIN* *Founding Director, Initiative on Communication & Sustainability* *The Earth Institute, Columbia University* *+1 914.441.5556 phone/whatsapp, @revkin Twitter* *@revkin <http://twitter.com/revkin>, Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revkin.5>, Music <http://j.mp/revkinmusic>, Books <https://www.amazon.com/Andrew-Revkin/e/B001IXNSRK/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1390325965=1-2-ent>* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2BakwtZCs8_OUOKdQV694nXYQJrdcNjSMRweRXhRXahyt37ktA%40mail.gmail.com.
Re: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”
If by warming you mean an increase in the temperature, then warming will stop soon. If by warming you mean that it is warmer than without excess Greenhouse gases, then this excess temperature will be with us a long time. Solomon et al claimed it is 1000 years. Klaus From: on behalf of E Durbrow Reply-To: "durb...@gmail.com" Date: Friday, September 13, 2019 at 5:09 PM To: "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" Subject: [geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon” Alan Robock wrote: "Certainly if we stop burning fossil fuels, global warming will not stop immediately, but it will stop soon. “ As a layperson, my understanding is that even if fossil fuels burning stops tomorrow, warming and acidification will continue for decades rather than years. This is because of 2 centuries of greenhouse gas build-up (and greenhouse contributions from agriculture). Would some kind soul tell me that I’m wrong here? Thanks! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAFxkD2qeQ%2BvxJBMNkqqS7heO-8EjaH8OvPaJZC532K8TCw12qw%40mail.gmail.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__groups.google.com_d_msgid_geoengineering_CAFxkD2qeQ-252BvxJBMNkqqS7heO-2D8EjaH8OvPaJZC532K8TCw12qw-2540mail.gmail.com-3Futm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fsource-3Dfooter=DwMFaQ=l45AxH-kUV29SRQusp9vYR0n1GycN4_2jInuKy6zbqQ=hFjA8A8KwwhQx5qilpfIleTL0XYVr_fckT8DnwIEWlQ=283VuYyS0Fv76OSFAT5br_V5oo3ALL3bD_tuP2IH0d0=JbtWshirTPWzP32RWMjN8dIXKtEyHwnQU7kzaIzFI88=>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/3A79B8CB-E38D-422D-957A-F1A4D5527854%40exchange.asu.edu.
[geo] No fossil fuels = global warming stops “soon”
Alan Robock wrote: "Certainly if we stop burning fossil fuels, global warming will not stop immediately, but it will stop soon. “ As a layperson, my understanding is that even if fossil fuels burning stops tomorrow, warming and acidification will continue for decades rather than years. This is because of 2 centuries of greenhouse gas build-up (and greenhouse contributions from agriculture). Would some kind soul tell me that I’m wrong here? Thanks! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAFxkD2qeQ%2BvxJBMNkqqS7heO-8EjaH8OvPaJZC532K8TCw12qw%40mail.gmail.com.
