Stabilizing climate change more daunting than thought

November 24, 2005

If the world is serious about halting global warming then it will have to reduce carbon emissions over the next century by as much as 230 billion tonnes more than previously thought, according to new research from the University of Calgary.

This means that industrialized nations will have to cut back even further their use of fossil fuels, which are the main sources for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

“We know that we have to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide dramatically, in order to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere,” says Dr. Damon Matthews, a post-doctoral fellow in the University of Calgary’s Department of Geography. “The question is, by how much? And what information do we need in order to set appropriate emissions targets?”

Matthews’ research shows how much future emissions need to be reduced so as to allow for the possibility of adverse effects of climate changes on natural carbon sinks. His paper, ‘Decrease of emissions required to stabilize atmospheric CO2 due to positive carbon cycle-climate feedbacks,’ appears in a forthcoming issue of Geophysical Research Letters, a leading journal for short communications in the field of climate science.

His research comes out on the eve of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal, Nov. 28-Dec. 9, which close to 10,000 people are expected to attend. It is the largest intergovernmental climate conference since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997.

Matthews’ research paper is one of the first to look at how carbon cycle feedback loops could affect efforts to stabilize CO2. “It frames the scientific questions in a policy relevant way,” he says. “If we want stabilization, what do we have to do?”

A carbon cycle feedback to climate works like this: increasing CO2 emissions contribute to climate change; climate change reduces the effectiveness of naturally occurring carbon sinks, such as oceans and forests, which remove significant amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere; weakened carbon sinks are unable to remove as much CO2, meaning more remains in the atmosphere; atmospheric CO2 growth and consequent climate changes are amplified.

This positive carbon cycle feedback to climate will require lower emissions to meet the same stabilization goal. “If we want to achieve stabilization at all, we need to move our economic decisions in that direction and reduce carbon emissions substantially. We’ll have to reduce emissions even more to account for carbon cycle feedbacks.”

Matthews says that policy discussions in North America quickly need to move beyond the question of whether or not climate change is real. “There are certain things in climate science that are very well established. One of them is that climate change is happening and that it’s because of human intervention in the climate system. That’s not a subject for debate anymore.”

What is up for discussion are questions such as, How much will climate change over the next century? Is there a “safe” amount of climate change? How much do we need to limit emissions so as to avoid dangerous climate impacts?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted an average global rise in temperature of 1.4°C to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100. Some current estimates indicate that even if successfully and completely implemented, the Kyoto Protocol will reduce that increase by somewhere between only 0.02°C and 0.28°C by the year 2050.

“Kyoto was never intended to be the final say on emissions control. This is a first step, and clearly much more is needed,” Matthews says. Kyoto requires industrialized countries to reduce emissions to (on average) 5.5% below 1990 levels by 2012. According to Matthews’ research, a comparable reduction in emissions will be required simply to keep pace with changes in the carbon cycle, with much lower emissions required to actually reduce future climate changes.

Source: University of Calgary

Explore further: Climate change will bring greater biodiversity to world seas

Related Stories

UN climate talks: the sticking points

August 29, 2015

The 195-nation UN climate talks resume Monday when rank-and-file diplomats gather in Bonn to lay the foundation for a global climate pact to be inked in December.

China, US seek 'clean coal' agreement as industry struggles

August 25, 2015

U.S. and China officials took a major step Tuesday toward an agreement to advance "clean coal" technologies that purport to reduce the fuel's contribution to climate change—and could offer a potential lifeline for an industry ...

Saving Louisiana's coast

August 27, 2015

It was Day Nine after Katrina struck in 2005 when Sarah Mack's bosses at the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans called her back to work.

Recommended for you

For 2-D boron, it's all about that base

September 2, 2015

Rice University scientists have theoretically determined that the properties of atom-thick sheets of boron depend on where those atoms land.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Arkaleus
not rated yet Jul 07, 2009
Mr. Matthews needs to be reminded that there is no "North American" policy because there is no North American Union, except in the fantasies of globalist provocateurs.

For this agent of ideology to deny the independent reality of the United States is to confirm the obvious feature of greens worldwide: Their agenda is a planned social and economic system where the delusional worker's paradise of Marx is replaced by the arbitrary plutocracy of a scientific dictatorship. Social engineering has reached a point of refinement where mass control of a modern democracy is possible, managed through a consolidated media and enforced by paramilitary surveillance and law enforcement.

Debate is far from over Mr. Matthews, and your arrogant boasts of certainty are laughable. We in the United States owe no allegiance to Canada, Europe, the IPCC, the UN, or any other ideological saboteur that appears on our boarder.

Greenism functions as a theocratic movement, and would interface with society in the same capacity as a religion. It evangelizes, prophecies, and raises a fervor for "salvation" among the uneducated with the nebulous threats of a great doom unless its tenants are obeyed. It gains proceeds by the issuance of indulgences, defines moral standards and condemns behaviors by shame and legal conventions, and subsists in the fringes of the unproven and speculative.

Nation-States infiltrated by Greenism will find themselves in the same tangle as Europe and the Roman church. Dissent from Green dogma would not be tolerated because it would be an apparatus of state authority.

Greenism is a subversive ideology which threatens to overthrow the entire progress of the Rational Revolution. It seeks to destroy human liberty from the Earth except for the rich and ruling few, dismantle free states and individual prerogative, and replace it with statist authoritarianism.

Greenism is a threat to the United States of America - it is a Trojan horse of hostile foreign ideologies. Foolish and naive persons are seduced by it, but the wise and prosperous will understand it and repulse it from our shores.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.