Pre-industrial emissions still causing temperatures to rise: study

Jul 03, 2012

A climate model accounting for the carbon dioxide (CO2) released into our atmosphere before the industrial revolution has been used to show the detrimental effect of carbon emissions on global temperature in the long-term.

In a study published today in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters, researchers from the Carnegie Institution for Science have shown that pre-industrial emissions from land use changes are responsible for about nine per cent of the increase in today's global mean temperature since that era.

"The relatively small amounts of emitted many centuries ago continue to affect concentrations and our climate today, though only to a relatively small extent," said co-author of the study Julia Pongratz.

"But looking into the past illustrates that the relatively large amount of carbon dioxide that we are emitting today will continue to have relatively large impacts on the and climate for many centuries into the future."

Having modelled pre-industrial emissions from around the world, the researchers calculated the effect on emissions of the five-fold population increase between 850 and 1850 AD.

This pre-industrial millennium of was dominated by South and : China and India alone account for half of the population growth which led to the world's first living billion by 1850.

The researchers' model suggests that between 20 and 40 per cent of China and India's entire history of CO2 emissions comprises pre-industrial emissions related to this population growth and demonstrates that these emissions are still having a detrimental effect on our climate today.

Land use changes – the change in vegetation cover due to agriculture and forestry – were the main causes of before the and still have an effect on today's temperature because the uptake of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere by the oceans and vegetation happens at a very slow pace.

On top of that, when land was cleared for farming, part of the carbon was released immediately into the atmosphere by being burned; however, the rest, including that from roots and wood products, decays over years and centuries, meaning it is still being emitted into the atmosphere today.

The consequences of pre-industrial emissions for today's climate may be relevant for political discussions on how to distribute the burden-sharing of greenhouse gas reduction commitments, which are based on attributing today's climate change to different countries.

Questions still remain over whether countries should be held responsible for past emissions at a time when their effect was not known, or if present generations should be held responsible for historical activity; however, the researchers' results show that accounting for pre-industrial shifts the attribution of increase from the industrialised to less-industrialised countries by two to three per cent.

The researchers note, however, that their work is not designed to blame people in the developing world for today's climate problems, particularly considering the much larger impact being made by modern industrialized nations on a daily basis.

Co-author of the study, Ken Caldeira, said: "Accounting systems are not natural facts, but human inventions. Once an accounting system is defined, it becomes a matter of scientific investigation to determine what numbers should go in the ledger, but broader questions of who is responsible for what and who owes what to whom are judgments that lie outside the scope of science."

Explore further: Agricultural research extends carbon capture depths 

More information: Attribution of atmospheric CO2 and temperature increases to regions: importance of preindustrial land use change, by Julia Pongratz and Ken Caldeira 2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 034001: iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034001/article

Related Stories

Stabilizing climate requires near-zero carbon emissions

Feb 15, 2008

Now that scientists have reached a consensus that carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are the major cause of global warming, the next question is: How can we stop it" Can we just cut back on carbon, or do we need ...

Combating climate change by helping poorer countries

Nov 12, 2010

The effects of global climate change could be minimised by transferring ‘best available’ low carbon technologies from the rich to the poor nations, say researchers at the University of Bath.

New carbon dioxide emissions model

Aug 02, 2010

Meteorologists have determined exactly how much carbon dioxide humans can emit into the atmosphere while ensuring that the Earth does not heat up by more than two degrees.

Recommended for you

US delays decision on Keystone pipeline project

Apr 18, 2014

The United States announced Friday a fresh delay on a final decision regarding a controversial Canada to US oil pipeline, saying more time was needed to carry out a review.

New research on Earth's carbon budget

Apr 18, 2014

(Phys.org) —Results from a research project involving scientists from the Desert Research Institute have generated new findings surrounding some of the unknowns of changes in climate and the degree to which ...

User comments : 22

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

EWH
2.8 / 5 (12) Jul 03, 2012
Their conclusions may be true, but unless all the source code, assumptions and input data are made public and subjected to pointed questioning by skeptical reviewers, this cannot be considered science.
unknownorgin
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 04, 2012
25 years ago I spit in the pacific ocean and raised its level and that caused an increase in flooding in japan. I do not think the people that did this study used a single valid number or even have any concept of proportion. They have no way of knowing exactly how much wood was burned or how much co2 was absorbed over that many years. Guessing is not science.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (12) Jul 04, 2012
The source code for all of the models that are used are freely available for you to look at and run if you like.

http://www.cesm.u...ccsm3.0/
http://www.nemo-ocean.eu/
http://www.mpimet...ion.html
http://data1.gfdl...art.html
http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/

"Their conclusions may be true, but unless all the source code, assumptions and input data are made public and subjected to pointed questioning by skeptical reviewers" - EWH

Get back to us with the results of your code analysis..

Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 04, 2012
Actually, Guessing is fundamental to science. Where do you think Newton got his laws of motion and gravitation?

He guessed them into existence.

"Guessing is not science." - Unknownorigin

It is apparent that you don't know the difference between a guess and an estimation.

Don't you have the capacity to educate yourself?
StarGazer2011
2 / 5 (16) Jul 04, 2012
Vendicar, observation and measurment are required.

Anyway this research is just silly, its the equivalent of Mormonism to the IPCC Catholicism.

The IPCC and mainstream CAGW Cult had to conclude that humans werent responsible for warming pre 1950.

The reason is that if the 30ppm 1900-1950 caused a 0.6C rise then the 80ppm 1950-200 should have caused more than the observed 0.8C rise.

They will revise it down again as the world fails to cut emission and fails to get warmer.

CAGW was just a bad theory, people should get over it.
Lurker2358
2.2 / 5 (14) Jul 04, 2012
Actually, Guessing is fundamental to science. Where do you think Newton got his laws of motion and gravitation?


Beat me to it.

Guessing is not science.


*Buzz* Wrong...

You are just so used to formal math or formal descriptions of a theory that has been well tested, that you do not realize that in many cases early theories are in fact little more than a ballpark guess.

Many real world problems are in fact still solved by little more than "guess and check".

Why? If it works, use it. Knowing the exact "why" or the exact formal definition or theory was never a requirement to gain benefits from fire, salt, or even early quarantine procedures.

Boiling to sterilize medical instruments?

That was discovered totally by accident, as horse hair was boiled, for a totally unrelated reason of physical properties, in order to use as stitches for the soldiers' injuries in the civil war, and later the doctors noticed that it decreased the rate of infection. viola! Sterilization...
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 04, 2012
Actually, Guessing is fundamental to science.


Wild Ass Crazy Insane Moronic Laughable Begging for Grants Guesses = AGW
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 04, 2012

Boiling to sterilize medical instruments?

That was discovered totally by accident, as horse hair was boiled, for a totally unrelated reason of physical properties


"In 1861 Louis Pasteur proved that microorganisms caused spoilage and could be transported via the air. He placed broth in flasks with long S-shaped necks, then boiled the broth and observed that no microorganisms grew in the flasks. These experiments were the basis for the development of aseptic techniques. Pasteur showed that heat could kill microorganisms; this process was later named pasteurization.



Using the knowledge gained from Louis Pasteur, a scientist named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis reduced the number of postpartum infections (puerperal sepsis) in the wards of Viennas lying-in hospitals by urging doctors to wash their hands between patients

http://jace.myweb...Hist.htm
Howhot
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 04, 2012
I see the petrol terrorist NoPark is trying to kick sand in the eyes of the ecoists and AGW scientist.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 04, 2012
I see the petrol terrorist NoPark is trying to kick sand in the eyes of the ecoists and AGW scientist.


"pre-industrial emissions from land use changes are responsible for about nine per cent of the increase in today's global mean temperature since that era."

if 1 billion = 9%

does 7 billion = 63%

Howhot
5 / 5 (6) Jul 05, 2012
From the article:
have an effect on today's temperature because the uptake of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere by the oceans and vegetation happens at a very slow pace.


This is what I've always called Linger time, lag time for atmospheric CO2. It's the time period from CO2's release into the atmosphere to re-absorption into the carbon sinks. I've understood it to be in the 1000's of years as the article suggests by it's time frame. What becomes very scary is the fact that our industrial CO2 emissions (that dwarfs that from 850AD..1950) from fossil fuels have yet to really "kick-in" with it's heat trapping effects. If we are feeling global temperature rise due in part to CO2 from 850AD, man I feel sorry for the mankind of 2400 or 3400.

NotParker
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 05, 2012
From the article:
have an effect on today's temperature because the uptake of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere by the oceans and vegetation happens at a very slow pace.


This is what I've always called Linger time, lag time for atmospheric CO2. It's the time period from CO2's release into the atmosphere to re-absorption into the carbon sinks. I've understood it to be in the 1000's of years as the article suggests by it's time frame. What becomes very scary is the fact that our industrial CO2 emissions (that dwarfs that from 850AD..1950) from fossil fuels have yet to really "kick-in" with it's heat trapping effects. If we are feeling global temperature rise due in part to CO2 from 850AD, man I feel sorry for the mankind of 2400 or 3400.



"Land use changes the change in vegetation cover due to agriculture and forestry"

If you read the article carefully, they are saying the CO2 from fossil fuels is trivial compared to agriculture and forestry.
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2012
BS
If you read the article carefully, they are saying the CO2 from fossil fuels is trivial compared to agriculture and forestry....

Total crap man. If you read the article it says
attribution of global temperature increase from the industrialised to less-industrialised countries by two to three per cent.
Were the less industrialized nations are those where agricultural development took place as the populations grew; Namely India and China. It doesn't say anything about it dwarfing CO2 from fossil fuels. How many gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere have come from burning of fossil fuels, including shale?
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2012

Total crap man. If you read the article it says ...


" ... pre-industrial emissions from land use changes are responsible for about nine per cent of the increase in today's global mean temperature since that era"

9% for the land-use changes from the era when population was less than 1,000,000.

The obvious conclusion for those with a brain, would suggest land use changes from the next 6 billion would be proportional = 63%.

Howhot
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 07, 2012
The obvious conclusion for those with a brain,


And you say,

"pre-industrial emissions from land use changes are responsible for about nine per cent of the increase in today's global mean temperature since that era"

So there has been a 2degreeC increase in Global Average Temperatures since 1950, and we can attribute 9% of that to CO2 from all prior 1950 human activity. So, 0.18C global average temperature is due to the expansion of the human population prior to 1950. That seems about right. So 91% of Anthropogenic Global Warming is due to modern industrial CO2 output from burning fossil fuels. That sound about right too.

NotParker
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 08, 2012
The obvious conclusion for those with a brain,


And you say,

"pre-industrial emissions from land use changes are responsible for about nine per cent of the increase in today's global mean temperature since that era"

So there has been a 2degreeC increase in Global Average Temperatures since 1950,



From 1944 it is about 0.2C

Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2012
ParkerTard's latest lie is easy to expose.

The following plot shows the global temperature from 1940 to the present. The line on the left which has a median value of roughly 0.0'C is the average global temperature over the first 8 years.

The line on the right represents the average of the data set over the last 8 years, and is rouhly 0.5'C

The rise since 1944 (the median value on the left) to the present is therefore 0.5 - 0.0 = 0.5

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

"From 1944 it is about 0.2C" - ParkerTard

Once again ParkerTard/UbvonTard/sunshinehours1, or whatever else he is calling himself today has been caught in yet another lie.

His goal seems to be to lie at least once in each of his posts.

A sure sign of mental disease.
discouragedinMI
1 / 5 (8) Jul 08, 2012
Well, this is the another stellar piece of science.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 08, 2012
The obvious conclusion for those with a brain,


And you say,

"pre-industrial emissions from land use changes are responsible for about nine per cent of the increase in today's global mean temperature since that era"

So there has been a 2degreeC increase in Global Average Temperatures since 1950,



From 1944 it is about 0.2C



According to HADCRUT3.

1944 0.121
2011 0.339

.218C difference

Easy to check.

http://www.cru.ue...t3gl.txt
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2012
ParkerTard seems fixated on an outdated data set that has been discontinued because it dramatically under-represents the polar regions.

"According to HADCRUT3." - ParkerTard

He will take any bias he can in order to assist in his cherry picking of dates, times and temperatures.

It is all part of his mental disease.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2012
Checked.

ParkerTard is lying yet again. Even after he uses a cherry picked, biased, and discontinued data set.

"Easy to check.
http://www.cru.ue...t3gl.txt" - ParkerTard

Using ParkerTards data set, the mean temperature around 1944 is minus 0.05'C and around plus 0.425 for he current value. A difference of 0.43'C. Not 0.218'C as he dishonestly claims.

Here is the data...

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Poor ParkerTard. Caught lying yet again.

He needs to get psychiatric help immediately.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2012
.218C difference
As VD pointed out, 0.5C is more or less correect. The 2.0C I was thinking of was the global land mean and it it's really about 1.6C not my top of the head recall 2C. Regardless, that's all slitting hairs. The point of the article that I find fascinating, is the linger time for CO2 could be 1000s of years so any damage we do now by the release of new CO2 (as in you shale gas) will be with us for a 1000 years or more until it is sequestered in some CO2 sink.

If you think this summer heat wave is bad, Just add a couple more degrees to it and that will be what its like 5 years ahead. Then add a couple more to that, and you have 10 years ahead... So on and So on.

More news stories