Peak fossil fuels means global warming less than projected

This Science article states we could emit CO2 at the same rate we are now for another 50 years before going over the 2 degrees Celsius level we need to avoid a runaway greenhouse.  Since we are at peak world fossil fuels now (oil since 2005, coal right now energy-content-wise) or within the 10-20 years (coal, natural gas) — the decline of which will likely create enough war and social unrest to prevent extraction of most other fossil fuels, there’s an excellent chance we are on the cusp of a permanent decline in fossil fuel emissions, as well as a reduction of damage in the 9 planetary boundaries, since fossil fuels are the master resource that make the damage we’re doing to the planet possible.

H. Damon Matthews Science 26 April 2013: Vol. 340 no. 6131 pp. 438-439   DOI: 10.1126/science.1236372

Irreversible Does Not Mean Unavoidable

Understanding how decreases in CO2 emissions would affect global temperatures has been hampered in recent years by confusion regarding issues of committed warming and irreversibility. The notion that there will be additional future warming or “warming in the pipeline” if the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide were to remain fixed at current levels has been misinterpreted to mean that the rate of increase in Earth’s global temperature is inevitable, regardless of how much or how quickly emissions decrease. Further misunderstanding may stem from recent studies showing that the warming that has already occurred as a result of past anthropogenic carbon dioxide increases is irreversible on a time scale of at least 1000 years. But irreversibility of past changes does not mean that further warming is unavoidable.

The climate responds to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations by warming, but this warming is slowed by the long time scale of heat storage in the ocean, which represents the physical climate inertia. There would indeed be unrealized warming associated with current CO2 concentrations, but only if they were held fixed at current levels.

If emissions decrease enough, the CO2 level in the atmosphere can also decrease.

My comment: The CO2 level in the atmosphere will go down from now on because we’re at peak oil, coal, and natural gas production — or will be soon.

This potential for atmospheric CO2 to decrease over time results from inertia in the carbon cycle associated with the slow uptake of anthropogenic CO2 by the ocean. This carbon cycle inertia affects temperature in the opposite direction from the physical climate inertia and is of approximately the same magnitude.

Because of these equal and opposing effects of physical climate inertia and carbon cycle inertia, there is almost no delayed warming from past CO2 emissions. If emissions were to cease abruptly, global average temperatures would remain roughly constant for many centuries, but they would not increase very much, if at all. Similarly, if emissions were to decrease, temperatures would increase less than they otherwise would have.

Thus, although the CO2-induced warming already present on our planet—the cumulative result of past emissions—is irreversible, any further increase in CO2-induced warming is entirely the result of current CO2 emissions. Warming at the end of this century and beyond will depend on the cumulative emissions we emit between now and then. But future warming is not unavoidable: CO2 emissions reductions would lead to an immediate decrease in the rate of global warming.

Why, then, are many different near-term projections of CO2-induced warming very similar? These modeled estimates are similar because even socioeconomic scenarios that produce very different cumulative emissions by the end of this century are not very different over the next two decades (figs. S1 and S2). The climate system physics implies that further increases in warming could in principle be stopped immediately, but human systems have longer time scales. Carbon-emitting infrastructure is designed to benefit human-kind for many decades; each year’s additional infrastructure implies added stock intended to last and emit CO2 for many decades. It is this dependence on CO2-emitting technology that generates a commitment to current and near-future emissions.

The strong dependence of future warming on future cumulative carbon emissions implies that there is a quantifiable cumulative amount of CO2 emissions that we must not exceed if we wish to keep global temperature below 2°C above preindustrial temperatures. Several recent analyses have suggested that total CO2 emissions of ∼1000 Pg C (∼3700 Pg CO2; 1 Pg = 1015 g) would give us about even odds of meeting the 2°C target (912). To meet such a target given historical emissions would mean that the world has roughly half of the allowable emissions budget remaining. This is equivalent to 50 years of emissions at current levels and carries the implication that the longer we delay before beginning to decrease emissions, the faster the rate of decrease must be to stay within this total allowable budget.

Given the irreversibility of CO2-induced warming, every increment of avoided temperature increase represents less warming that would otherwise persist for many centuries. Although emissions reductions cannot return global temperatures to pre-industrial levels, they do have the power to avert additional warming on the same time scale as the emissions reductions themselves. Climate warming tomorrow, this year, this decade, or this century is not predetermined by past CO2 emissions; it is yet to be determined by future emissions. The climate benefits of emissions reductions would thus occur on the same time scale as the political decisions that lead to the reductions.

Please follow and like us:
This entry was posted in CO2 and Methane, Coal, Global Warming, Oil. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.