Analysis: Extreme steps needed to meet climate target

LONDON Tue Sep 20, 2011 10:51am EDT

Related Topics

LONDON (Reuters) - New research, to be published in the journal Climatic Change in November, suggests humankind may have to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere on a vast scale if emissions keep rising after 2020.

The series of articles provide scenarios which will form the basis of the next report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013 and 2014.

At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full, meaning every extra tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted would have to be removed to stay within safer climate limits, one lead author says.

That so-called "negative emissions" approach, where excess carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere, is a less radical step than direct manipulation of the climate, called geo-engineering, which includes blocking sunlight using artificial clouds or mirrors in space.

Both approaches are getting more serious consideration, reflecting concern at rising emissions and a target held by world governments to keep average warming below 2 degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial levels.

Some scientists say that the 2 degrees limit is too arbitrary and not proven to link to dangerous weather events.

It was calculated partly as a threshold beyond which Greenland ice sheets may melt irreversibly, adding seven meters to world sea levels over centuries.

"If we want to stay below 2 degrees and possibly achieve 1.5 in the 22nd century then we're not going to get around these negative emissions," said one lead author, Malte Meinshausen, of Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

"This is a crucial change in perception, that there is a point and it is very close at which time if we put CO2 into the atmosphere future generations will have to take it out again."

Sharp emissions cuts now could avoid or would delay that moment to later this century.


In its next report, the IPCC will for the first time estimate what the world must do to have a likely chance of keeping long-term warming below 2 degrees Celsius. Temperatures have already risen about 0.8 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times.

Meinshausen's study calculates that the world would have to halt rises in global greenhouse gas emissions within five years.

By 2070, humans should have a net output of minus 3.5 billion tonnes CO2 annually to reduce temperature rises further below 2 degrees in the long-term and so slow sea level rise.

Researchers say that allowing emissions to continue to rise after 2020 would involve passing 2 degrees as early as mid-century.

After that, the only way back would be CO2 removal from the atmosphere on a massive scale -- a net output of minus 18 billion tonnes of CO2 annually during the next century and for about 100 years, they calculated in the new series of studies.

That compares with actual emissions of 33 billion tonnes CO2 last year from burning fossil fuels. Emissions have risen 2-3 percent per year over the last several decades.

The view that extreme steps are needed is therefore becoming more accepted.

"If we really are going to avoid more than 2 degrees of warming, we're either looking at geo-engineering in the sense of sun shields in space, or negative emissions type of geo-engineering in the second half of this century," said Oxford University climate scientist Myles Allen.

"That's increasingly where the thinking is."

Technologies which drive negative CO2 emissions include burning plant matter called biomass and trapping the resulting carbon emissions and burying these underground.

That achieves net negative emissions because the plants themselves absorbed CO2 from the air. But the idea only exists in the lab and pilot projects.

Other techniques could include crushing limestone, which absorbs CO2, but appears improbable because of the vast quantities of rock to be quarried. Engineers have also suggested using artificial photosynthesis to mimic plants.

Instead of mopping up CO2, an alternative geo-engineering approach is to screen out sunlight, for example, by spraying sulphur into the upper atmosphere. This causes water droplets to form and create hazy clouds and is to be trialed by British engineers next month.

The problem is a threat of unforeseen consequences.

"It's not the same as just rewinding things back to where we were in terms of greenhouse gases. You're doing another change which will potentially bring the temperature back but could lead to less rainfall," said Reading University's Peter Stott.


Some climate scientists are alarmed by how far predictions have been borne out or exceeded since the last IPCC report.

Other experts say it isn't clear how far specific changes are the result of emissions or simply natural effects.

"There's no final decision," said the Potsdam Institute's Vladimir Petoukhov.

For example, last week it emerged that Arctic sea ice this summer melted to a record low extent, or a close second. Natural weather effects partly explained the previous record in 2007, scientists say, and may help explain this year's, said Petoukhov.

In other climate changes, a study last week found rapidly rising temperatures in the northeast Atlantic Ocean driving major shifts in fish stocks.

And scientists say they can now detect a human fingerprint on trends in global rainfall.

"What's clear is that the changes do seem to be happening and consistent with the projections," said Reading's Stott.

"That's indicating that the climate is already changing, not just the global temperatures but the rainfall patterns. Then we're getting to things that actually affect people."

(Reporting by Gerard Wynn; editing by Jason Neely)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (6)
JDoddsGW wrote:
You must be kidding.
That other greenhouse gas water vapor goes up to 100% humidity, and there is absolutely no change in the temperature BECAUSE the amount of incoming energy photons is what limits the greenhouse effect. Now just why doesn’t the number of photons ALSO limit the greenhouse effect for CO2. In fact if you look at the 1896 Arrhenius paper which identified that “more GHG CO2 means more warming” you will find that Mother Nature contradicts that CO2 finding every single night, when she reduces the energy coming in, & thus releases more CO2 and water vapor to be available for more greenhouse effect warming BUT the temperature GOES DOWN. Mother Nature shows that the Arrhenius/IPCC conclusion that more GHGs means more warming is just plain WRONG. The Arrhenius conclusion is a fraud. And since the entire IPCC model analysis depends on more GHGs meaning more warming then the entire IPCC analysis is a fraud. AS PROVEN DAILY by Mother Nature.
Common Sense dictates that the change in the amount of incoming energy is what changes the temperature, NOT the amount of GHGs or CO2. which may or may not be involved in a greenhouse effect photon absorption and almost immediate release. The availability of more GHG Water Vapor does NOT dictate that more greenhouse effect warming will occur. YOu have to get the energy from somewhere since Man is not yet capable of creating more energy. The idea that more CO2 guarantees more warming is so downright stupid it defies reality AND these Journals & reporters keep insisting on writing that it does.
If you want another explanation of climate change or warming see the Paper “Gravity causes Climate Change” in where it is shown that the change in distance of the Earth from the Sun Moon and Planets results in a change in the force and energy felt (mostly as angular momentum and friction on Earth It is the same as the change in the distance to the moon causes tides and tidal energy. Apparently the IPCC does not believe that, because they ignore all gravity effects in determinng the amount of incoming energy and think it all comes from sunlight. Can”t even do basic science properly.

Sep 20, 2011 11:15pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
robert2222 wrote:
Or we could just ignore the global warming scam, do nothing, and save trillions of dollars. We will end up with the same climate.

Sep 21, 2011 7:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
CraigG4C wrote:
This is utterly idiotic. There is not now, after two decades and $100 billion in research, any evidence whatever either that the warming period 1975-1998 was unusual or that carbon dioxide levels had any effect on it.

Sensationalist nonsense based on computerized fantasy.

Sep 21, 2011 8:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.


California's historic drought

With reservoirs at record lows, California is in the midst of the worst drought in decades.  Slideshow