A Trillion Tons: Stabilization of Carbon Dioxide (5)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 11:21 PM GMT on December 17, 2010

A Trillion Tons: Stabilization of Carbon Dioxide (5)

I have gotten off of my planned series on open communities because of meetings and the end of the semester. I am at the American Geophysical Union Meeting in San Francisco. This is one of the biggest regular collections of geophysicists – perhaps even a meeting of ritual. I have been told that there are more than 19,000 registered this year. I’ve had a couple of talks (uncertainty, heat waves), and I have had students making presentations. In terms of presentations of ongoing research about the Earth, about climate, this meeting is overwhelming. You could take a bunch of reporters and send them to a 1000 talks and poster presentations and not cover it all. And, of course, it is hard to pick out what will prove to be important. The sessions I attended have focused on improving the evaluation of climate models, better use of climate data by practitioners, and linking global and local information.

There was a talk by Ray Pierrehumbert that has changed the way I think about carbon dioxide and managing the future heating of the planet’s surface. This is one of those interesting results that come from putting together basic information that has, honestly, been around a while. It’s a result that demonstrates the importance of synthesis in scientific investigation.

Some background (here is a longish list from this blog): Stabilization is the idea of controlling, stabilizing, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at some concentration. Some commonly used numbers are that prior to the industrial revolution in parts per million (ppm) there were about 280 ppm. We are currently at about 390 ppm. Jim Hansen has argued we need to get back to 350 ppm. A number, more or less accepted as the lowest, reasonable target, is 450 ppm. And a number that has been used in many evaluations of the impact of global warming is doubled CO2, say, 560 ppm. Currently CO2 emissions are increasing at about 3% a year.

Pierrehumbert was giving his interpretation of a pre-publication report from the National Academy of Sciences, Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia. These reports are written by expert panels, and Pierrehumbert was on the panel, which was chaired by Susan Solomon. (with an innocuous registration you can download a .pdf for free.) A take away message from the report is that stabilization of the climate requires us to consider the total accumulated amount of carbon dioxide that we have released. That is, CO2 does not really go away, and that to think about simply controlling emissions is not enough. It just keeps building up, and in the end, carbon dioxide wins.

In January of 2009 Susan Solomon and colleagues published a paper called Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. The article appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This paper focused specifically on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and made the argument that the effects of man-made carbon dioxide on the climate would last more than 1000 years – their definition of irreversibility.

The lifetime of carbon dioxide in the climate system, specifically in the atmosphere is more difficult to calculate than for many greenhouse gases. This is because of the role of the oceans and the terrestrial ecosystems. A balance develops between the terrestrial carbon dioxide, the carbon dioxide in the ocean and in the atmosphere. While one can find citations that the lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is on the order of 100 years, Solomon and her co-authors point out that when one considers how long today’s “excess” carbon dioxide from industry influences the climate, it is in excess of 1000 years. It for this reason that if we stopped burning fossil fuels immediately, that the Earth’s surface would continue to warm and remain warm.

Thinking about this, at least for any amount of time relevant to humans, this suggests that the carbon dioxide that we put in the atmosphere will just build up over time. Pierrehumbert’s exposition of this issue comes to the conclusion that given our stated desire to limit surface warming to only 2 degrees on average, we are allowed to put one trillion tons of carbon in the atmosphere (I have revised this to take care of the difference between unit of carbon dioxide or carbon equivalent. A ton of carbon equivalent is 3.667 tons of carbon dioxide, see EPA definitions). On time scales of 1000 to 10,000 years, it does not matter a whole lot if we put that trillion tons in over 20 years or over 100 years. From the point of view of an inhabitant for the next few years, I would take issue with it not mattering how fast it comes in – it would affect the peak amount and the amount of warming in the short term. But, as Pierrehumbert presented the argument, it makes sense, and the time scales are all close enough to be relevant and have important implications. Again, long-term effects are determined by carbon dioxide, and it matters what we do in the short term to limit these effects.

Pierrehumbert takes issue with Ramanathan’s proposal that we can manage the composition of black carbon and methane to buy time. The point being that it does not really buy time if we don’t actually control the amount of CO2 emission – because in the end what matters is the total amount of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes, the management of black carbon and methane makes a difference to temperature, but it is a relatively short blip even on a time scale of 100 years. It temporarily reduces the warming but does not exactly buy time, as CO2 continues to accumulate. Such a warming management tactic could be implemented at any time. (see Pierrehumbert on RealClimate, see also Hot the Brakes Hard).

This rethinking of the role of carbon dioxide challenges the standard stabilization curves that I and many others have used to discuss carbon dioxide balance. Here is that curve:

Figure 1: Stabilization of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide as a Function of Emissions (from IPCC).

This curve suggests that if we start to reduce emissions at a certain rate in, for example, about 2040 and then follow a reduced emissions curve that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will decrease to some value. If you study the curve you will see the carbon dioxide decreasing significantly over 100 years. Pierrehumbert is essentially stating that this curve is not appropriate to reality, because CO2 is not leaving the atmosphere; it does NOT decrease significantly over 100 years. It, therefore, accumulates.

So I am going to try to read some graphs. According to this graph from Pierrehumbert’s blog on Realclimate, a total emission of one trillion tons of carbon would keep warming just below the two degree global average.

Figure 2: Warming based on accumulated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (from RealClimate.org)

Then, according to Table 1 in Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia this trillion tons corresponds to about 430 ppm of carbon dioxide. This suggests that emissions reductions alone, no matter how drastic, will not get us back to 350 ppm. If this is the needed target, then we will have to learn how to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

So a question arises – over the past 150 years what is the accumulated carbon dioxide due to burning fossil fuels and how much do we have left? As I understand the emissions, we have used about half of our trillion tons, and we will get to our 1 trillion tons in 2040 with our current rate of emissions. Current reality suggests that we are increasing, not decreasing our emissions. It would be, therefore, an ambitious goal to limit our emissions to one trillion tons, and shift to non-carbon energy sources. We might buy some time by managing and reducing our carbon emissions, meaning to reduce the rate of emissions increase.

In a statement of what has been becoming more and more evident, the National Academy report "concludes that the world is entering a new geologic epoch, sometimes called the Anthropocene, in which human activities will largely control the evolution of Earth’s environment.” It will be ours to manage and engineer, either with knowledge and responsibility or without.


Pakistani Flood Relief Links

Doctors Without Borders

The International Red Cross

MERLIN medical relief charity

U.S. State Department Recommended Charities

The mobile giving service mGive allows one to text the word "SWAT" to 50555. The text will result in a $10 donation to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) Pakistan Flood Relief Effort.

Portlight Disaster Relief at Wunderground.com

An impressive list of organizations

Figure 3: A ton of carbon dioxide in Copenhagen.

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Log In or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 148 - 98

Page: 1 | 2 | 3Blog Index

148. EnergyMoron
5:16 AM GMT on December 27, 2010
While the point about unknown persistance of CO2 is well taken...

I don't understand figure 1. All the numbers I have seen are about 30 gigatonnes (billion metric tonnes) per year.

Member Since: December 8, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
145. sirmaelstrom
2:48 PM GMT on December 25, 2010
Merry Christmas to everyone!
Member Since: February 19, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 580
142. ConnecticutWXGuy
2:06 AM GMT on December 25, 2010
I think man-made is 25% truthful, and 75% exaggerated. A lot of it is about money and power. We have seen much larger CO2 levels in the Earth's Atmosphere in several periods of Earth's history... and I simply can not see how the current pollution humans create can possibly cause anywhere near the effects of say... a super volcano erupting. So I think we should spend SOME money on lowering CO2 emissions, but all the talk about the world being in danger if that's all we do is BULL. We need to make modest adjustments and I really believe the long term effects will be more than satisfactory - that's assuming "global warming" is not simply being caused by natural influences. Maybe if it was natural it would be a bit more scary because we can't control it, and that's why people are so resistant to fight the political greed and anti-science known as "Man-made Global Warming." Getting rid of pollution is always good, taking drastic steps to reduce it at an unrealistic rate simply to transfer money into the hands of the greedy well... that's not good at all.
Member Since: November 17, 2010 Posts: 11 Comments: 527
139. idontknowforsure
1:07 AM GMT on December 25, 2010

More like 60 and a net dimming over the last half century but other than having those details wrong, and your premise, you are 100% correct.

Remember we are discussing reasons for warming now. Unexpected increases in solar energy will make things worse.

Solar radiation travels to the earth in about 8 minutes and 19 seconds and its warming results are rather immediate. Its a direct source into the temperature energy budget.

There are no hidden sunlight sinks.

If after 60 years with a net dimming and rapid warming you are pretty much dead in the water claiming "cycles" or delayed action.

Energy does not magically appear and vanish.

Actually, even an amateurwould know how foolish your post is. Do you really expect anyone here to believe that the effect of the suns energy is instantly converted into changes in the climate? How ridiculous an idea that is. how deep the oceans, how high the atmosphere, how big the world is and how silly your post is.
Member Since: January 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
134. idontknowforsure
7:17 PM GMT on December 24, 2010
Quoting cyclonebuster:

Nope the SUN is beaten like Kobyashi. Sorry but the deniers are wrong about this also so says NOAA.

Energy from the Sun has not increased

The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.


Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.

No, Mr. Buster. You're wrong. I posted a link that referenced a peer reviewed paper that says your information is incorrect. The energy from the sun is higher over the last 400 years. 30 years does not science make. Got it?
Member Since: January 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
127. idontknowforsure
4:42 PM GMT on December 24, 2010
Quoting cyclonebuster:
img src="">

Mr. Buster, the bear vs Kobyashi is similar to this debate about the sun vs CO2. It certainly would have been a surprise if the bear, who eats about 60 lbs per day, couldn't have beat Kobyashi. Likewise, what a surprise it would be if the sun, a body that blows off mucho hydrogen bombs a day, couldn't beat CO2.
Member Since: January 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
126. idontknowforsure
4:00 PM GMT on December 24, 2010
Peer reviewed

I wonder how much time elapse from sun change to climate change. A day, a month a year, a decade...?
Or do you guys believe the sun really doesn't matter?
Member Since: January 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 291
111. Dr. Ricky Rood , Professor
4:44 AM GMT on December 23, 2010
Have any of you noticed that there was a record high in Grand Junction, CO and about 6 feet of snow just to the east?
Member Since: January 31, 2007 Posts: 374 Comments: 391

Viewing: 148 - 98

Page: 1 | 2 | 3Blog Index

Top of Page
Ad Blocker Enabled

Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Partly Cloudy
41 °F
Partly Cloudy

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.