Slowing climate change by targeting gases other than carbon dioxide

August 3, 2011

Carbon dioxide remains the undisputed king of recent climate change, but other greenhouse gases measurably contribute to the problem. A new study, conducted by NOAA scientists and published online today in Nature, shows that cutting emissions of those other gases could slow changes in climate that are expected in the future.

Discussions with colleagues around the time of the 2009 United Nations' climate conference in Copenhagen inspired three NOAA scientists – Stephen Montzka, Ed Dlugokencky and James Butler of NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. – to review the sources of non-carbon dioxide (CO2) and explore the potential climate benefits of cutting their emissions.

Like CO2, other greenhouse gases trap heat in Earth's atmosphere. Some of these chemicals have shorter lifetimes than CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore cutting emissions would quickly reduce their direct radiative forcing – a measure of warming influence.

"We know that recent is primarily driven by carbon dioxide emitted during fossil-fuel combustion, and we know that this problem is going to be with us a long-time because carbon dioxide is so persistent in the atmosphere," Montzka said. "But lowering emissions of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide could lead to some rapid changes for the better."

Scientists know that stabilizing the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere would require a decrease of about 80 percent in human-caused CO2 emissions – in part because some of the carbon dioxide emitted today will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years. In contrast, cutting all long-lived non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent could diminish their climate warming effect substantially within a couple of decades. Cutting both CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions to this extent could result in a decrease in the total warming effect from these greenhouse gases this century, the new paper shows.

For the new analysis, the researchers considered methane; nitrous oxide; a group of chemicals regulated by an international treaty to protect Earth's ozone layer; and a few other extremely long-lived greenhouse gases currently present at very low concentrations.

The new review paper describes the major human activities responsible for these emissions, and notes that steep cuts (such as 80 percent) would be difficult. Without substantial changes to human behavior, emissions of the non-CO2 greenhouse gases are expected to continue to increase.

The climate-related benefits of reductions in non-CO2 greenhouse gases have limits, Montzka and his colleagues showed. Even if all human-related, non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions could be eliminated today, it would not be enough to stabilize the warming influence from all greenhouse gases over the next 40 years – unless CO2 emissions were also cut significantly.

The scientists also noted in the paper the complicated connections between climate and greenhouse gases, some of which are not yet fully understood. The non-CO2 gases studied have natural sources as well as human emissions, and climate change could amplify or dampen some of those natural processes, Dlugokencky said. Increasingly warm and dry conditions in the Arctic, for example, could thaw permafrost and increase the frequency of wildfires, both of which would send more methane and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

"The long-term necessity of cutting emissions shouldn't diminish the effectiveness of short-term action. This paper shows there are other opportunities to influence the trajectory of climate change," Butler said. "Managing emissions of non-carbon dioxide gases is clearly an opportunity to make additional contributions."

Provided by NOAA Headquarters search and more info website

4.8 /5 (4 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

JDoddsGW
Aug 03, 2011

Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
So the basis for Greenhouse gases contributing to global warming is supposedly the 1896 Arrhenius paper, where he concluded that "if the quantity of carbonic acid (CO2) increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression." which has led to the IPCC mantra thet "more GHGs means more warming."
BUT how is it that when you look at Arrhenius's conclusion you find that whenever the amount of energy photons decreases (as in every night), that the temperature goes down IN SPITE of Arrhenius' conclusion, while CO2 goes up completely contradicting his conclusion. Could it really be that his conclusion should read that "More energy photons means more warming"? So that when we add more energy every morning it warms, when Mother Nature takes away the energy every night it cools.

Could it be that the assumption that CO2 "Traps" the photon energy & with its long life in the air we get a wrong conclusion that CO2 results in warming
Arkaleus
Aug 05, 2011

Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
These press releases have nothing to do with climate change, temperature or ecology. I'd like to see Physorg stop publishing this unsubstantiated ideological garbage.

The whole concept of a carbon "cap" is a phantom entity created by governments influenced by financial factions and their institutional policy organs.

The only thing a carbon "cap" does is allow the monetazation of carbon emissions, which are ubiquitous in human industry. It grants them the power to skim the fruit of all human activity into the bowls of the rulers and their financial masters.

Resist these attempts to corrupt scientific integrity and dismantle the remaining nation-states whose traditions of rational liberty threaten these parasites.

These ridiculously exaggerated claims are published to generate confusion and panic and to promote their creators as authorities and saviors. Reject them and demand calm, rational detachment as we consider the future with fairness for all.
GSwift7
Aug 08, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Carbon dioxide remains the undisputed king of recent climate change


"Undisputed"?

When I can't get past the fifth word of the article without spotting opinion presented as fact, is there any point in reading further?

but other greenhouse gases measurably contribute to the problem


I guess it was foolish to keep reading. I've never seen anyone credible make the claim that statistically significant measurement of climate change and subsequent attribution to any one source is possible at this point. I would like to see a peer reviewed source that quantifies the climate change effect of other GHG's over the past century. I think they're making a bogus claim here.

It would be accurate to say that other GHG's theoretically should have contributed significantly to climate change in the past century, but to say that's it's measurable isn't supported by mainstream litterature.
Rank 4.8 /5 (4 votes)
Relevant PhysicsForums posts

More news stories

Sophisticated simulations predict future warming

The chances of our planet being hit by a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as likely as it being hit by an increase of 1.4 degrees, new research shows. Presented in the journal Nature Geoscience, the British study ...

Space & Earth / Earth Sciences

created May 22, 2012 | popularity 4.4 / 5 (9) | comments 51

Kyoto Protocol architect 'frustrated' by climate dialogue

UN climate talks are going nowhere, as politicians dither or bicker while the pace of warming dangerously speeds up, one of the architects of the Kyoto Protocol told AFP.

Space & Earth / Environment

created May 23, 2012 | popularity 3.7 / 5 (7) | comments 39

Aliens don't want to eat us, says former SETI director

Alien life probably isn’t interested in having us for dinner, enslaving us or laying eggs in our bellies, according to a recent statement by former SETI director Jill Tarter.

Space & Earth / Space Exploration

created May 25, 2012 | popularity 4.4 / 5 (13) | comments 38

Dragon arrives at space station in historic 1st (Update 2)

The privately bankrolled Dragon capsule made a historic arrival at the International Space Station on Friday, triumphantly captured by astronauts wielding a giant robot arm.

Space & Earth / Space Exploration

created May 25, 2012 | popularity 5 / 5 (10) | comments 19

What's the big deal about private space launches?

(AP) -- The first private spaceship is headed to the International Space Station. Some questions and answers about the cargo mission by Space Exploration Technologies, known as SpaceX:

Space & Earth / Space Exploration

created May 22, 2012 | popularity 5 / 5 (6) | comments 35


Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012

(Phys.org) -- Nvidia’s competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...

Browser wars flare in mobile space

The browser wars are heating up again, but this time the fight is for dominance of the mobile Internet.

Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

(AP) -- Richard Leakey predicts skepticism over evolution will soon be history. Not that the avowed atheist has any doubts himself.

Dell tablet leak: 10.1-inch display, two-battery choice

(Phys.org) -- Headline after headline talks about vendors’ tablets in the wings as likely number-one contenders for the iPad. Such claims have justifiably been taken with a grain of salt, considering ...

Keep food safety in mind this memorial day weekend

(HealthDay) -- Picnics, parades and cookouts are as much a part of Memorial Day weekend as tributes to the United States' war veterans.

Social welfare cuts ultimately come with heavy price, researchers say

(Phys.org) -- Slashing government funding for Medicaid, food stamps and other programs that serve the poor – while politically popular with some lawmakers and many conservatives – may do more harm ...