Researchers set out path for global warming reversal

Jul 10, 2013

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) can reverse the global warming trend and push temperatures back below the global target of 2°C above pre-industrial levels, even if current policies fail and we initially overshoot this target.

This is according to a new study, published today, 11 July, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters, which shows that ambitious temperature targets can be exceeded then reclaimed by implementing BECCS around mid-century.

The researchers, from Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, show that if BECCS is implemented on a large-scale along with other , temperature increases can be as low as 1.5°C by 2150.

Co-author of the study, Professor Christian Azar, said: "What we demonstrate in our paper is that even if we fail to keep temperature increases below 2°C, then we can reverse the and push temperatures back below the 2°C target by 2150.

"To do so requires both large-scale use of BECCS and reducing other emissions to near-zero levels using other renewables – mainly solar energy – or nuclear power."

BECCS is a greenhouse gas mitigation technology based on that produces fuel for or transportation while simultaneously removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Trees and crops give off carbon dioxide when they are burnt as fuel, but also act as a carbon sink as they grow beforehand, absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. These two processes cancel each other out, resulting in net of carbon dioxide.

When combined with carbon capture and storage – techniques that aim to pull out of the from power plants and redirect it into geological storage locations – the overall are negative. If applied on a global scale, this could help to reverse .

In their study, the researchers developed an integrated global energy system and climate model that enabled them to assess the most cost-effective way forward for a given energy demand scenario and temperature target.

They find that stringent temperature targets can be met at significantly lower costs if BECCS is implemented 30 to 50 years from now, although this may cause a temporary overshoot of the 2°C target.

"The most policy relevant implication of our study is that even if current political gridlock causes global warming in excess of 2°C, we can reverse the temperature trend and reach targets later. This means that 2°C targets or even more ambitious targets can remain on the table in international climate negotiations," Azar continues.

However, the authors caution against interpreting their study as an argument for delaying emission reductions in the near-term.

Azar says: "BECCS can only reverse global warming if we have net negative emissions from the entire global energy system. This means that all other CO2 emissions need to be reduced to nearly zero.

"Also, temperatures can only be reduced by about 0.6°C per century, which is too slow to act as an 'emergency brake' if climate damages turn out to be too high. The more we reduce emissions now, the more ambitious targets we can achieve in the long term – even with BECCS."

Explore further: New York state bans fracking

More information: 'Meeting global temperature targets – the role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage' Christian Azar, Daniel J A Johansson and Niclas Mattsson 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 034004 iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/3/034004/article

Related Stories

Reaching ambitious greenhouse gas concentration goals

Mar 18, 2013

Researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory found that even though it is technically possible to reach ambitious goals to limit greenhouse gas concentrations by the end of the 21st century, the combin ...

CO2 removal can lower costs of climate protection

Apr 12, 2013

Directly removing CO2 from the air has the potential to alter the costs of climate change mitigation. It could allow prolonging greenhouse-gas emissions from sectors like transport that are difficult, thus expensive, to turn ...

Recommended for you

UN sends team to clean up Bangladesh oil spill

5 hours ago

The United Nations said Thursday it has sent a team of international experts to Bangladesh to help clean up the world's largest mangrove forest, more than a week after it was hit by a huge oil spill.

How will climate change transform agriculture?

5 hours ago

Climate change impacts will require major but very uncertain transformations of global agriculture systems by mid-century, according to new research from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Report: Radiation leak at nuclear dump was small

5 hours ago

A final report by independent researchers shows the radiation leak from the federal government's underground nuclear waste repository in southern New Mexico was small and localized.

Confucian thought and China's environmental dilemmas

9 hours ago

Conventional wisdom holds that China - the world's most populous country - is an inveterate polluter, that it puts economic goals above conservation in every instance. So China's recent moves toward an apparent ...

User comments : 41

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 10, 2013
They should make anything they do reversible just in case they are wrong. Macht Sinn?
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (29) Jul 10, 2013
There will be no reversal of climate change until the real cause of climate change is dealt with, namely, chemtrails, the government project of adulterating the atmosphere with weather control chemicals from high flying jets. In fat, as carbon dioxide levels drop, leaving more effective space in the atmosphere for chemicals, if chemtrailing is not ended, the effects of climate change will become more and more pronounced. But it is all a swindle. No "science" devotee will discuss it because the fossil fuel scam is being used to sell wind farms and solar energy stations, both of which will wreak environmental damage. But the fact is "science" has not definitively associated any change like a glacier disappearing or any of the 1000 more tornadoes per year now than in 1950 or the opening of the Northwest Passage to fossil fuels simply because they haven't considered the alternative of chemtrails! They just assume there is only one influence, and "conclude" it's fossil fuels.
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 10, 2013
"There will be no reversal of climate change until the real cause of climate change is dealt with, namely, chemtrails",,,

Wow. I just don't understand why they just don't make chemtrails with a sophisticated CO2 binding aldehyde molecule and just use the CO2 as part of the chemtrail. Things are a lot more sophisticated now compared to what they salvaged and reverse engineered from the Roswell crash site back in late 1840's early 50s.

You know the real fun chemtrails are the new designer drug ones which give plants mind altering properties. Originally the idea was to create mood altering chemtrails so that behaviors of people in an area could be controlled by the government. But then they decided they could effect the food supply easier with better long term results of turning people into brainless zombie republicans. Fortunately a few states recognized this problem and legalized marijuana, which is a good counter antidote.
(GRIN) (SARCASM).

VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (15) Jul 10, 2013
You mean the bright clouds produced by the exhaust of jet aircraft and which reflect sunlight into space are causing the earth to warm, rather than cool.

Why is your claim of warming the exact opposite of what was observed when flights in the U.S. were cancelled after 911?

"There will be no reversal of climate change until the real cause of climate change is dealt with, namely, chemtrails" - JuleanTard
dav_daddy
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 11, 2013
"
You know the real fun chemtrails are the new designer drug ones which give plants mind altering properties. Originally the idea was to create mood altering chemtrails so that behaviors of people in an area could be controlled by the government. But then they decided they could effect the food supply easier with better long term results of turning people into brainless zombie republicans. Fortunately a few states recognized this problem and legalized marijuana, which is a good counter antidote.
(GRIN) (SARCASM).



I can't decide if I want to figure a way to get a jet to fly around in my bong, or maybe hang it out the back of a jet with a drogue shoot and long ass tubing?
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (25) Jul 11, 2013
The big lie is this alone: the alarmism of "Global Warming" is all based upon highly speculative 3X water vapor amplification of warming but this bizarre computer model fantasy has been wrapped up via a multibillion dollar PR campaign to be actually the norm of the old school greenhouse gas effect, as *if* critics of hothouse predictions "deny" what by now is everyday physics. That's a lie and certainly it's a big one indeed.

Climatology is murder to the extent that adoption of smug certainty as a policy impossibly takes billions of dollars of R&D funding away from basic scientific research and funnels it into crony capitalistic applied research. Cancer biochemisry confusion and the real terror of hospitals rendered invisibly toxic due to antibiotic resistance of bacteria are what the evident pleasure of wanting to be duped naturally leads to.

Even Al Gore jumped ship on ethanol subsidies. If you really could cheaply capture higly valuable CO2 you wouldn't then just bury it!
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (23) Jul 11, 2013
Contemporary climatology is just as oddball as chemtrail claims, complete with big oil money conspiracy theory, minus the reality that Arab oil money supports their Earth goddess doomsday cult instead of its foes.
Howhot
3.6 / 5 (19) Jul 11, 2013
Well @Nik, you must simply not understand what "Global Warming" is, or how dangerous it is, or how critical it is to stop simply for the survival of mankind. Yeah a computer model is a computer model, and it all looks pretty in a class room. What these guys are doing is building a high fidelity physics model that can be run backwards 2.8 billion years ago and say these where the conditions at that time. That is extraordinary and has many applications to in models for other alien planets.

If you want to be the smartest beast on the planet, you need science like this. Why would anyone object to knowing the answer to a long held question about the early earth?
vlaaing peerd
4.2 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2013
The big lie is this alone: the alarmism of "Global Warming" is all based upon highly speculative 3X water vapor amplification of warming but this bizarre computer model fantasy has been wrapped up via a multibillion dollar PR campaign to be actually the norm of the old school greenhouse gas effect, as *if* critics of hothouse predictions "deny" what by now is everyday physics.


Let's assume this would be true. Who or what would benefit from this multibillion dollar campaign?
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (23) Jul 11, 2013
Who or what would benefit from this multibillion dollar campaign?


Ask any kid who gets laid in high school by singing in a garage band that gets a few bar gigs. The head of the IPCC himself wrote a very steamy novel about the sexual conquests of a climate scientist turned activist. The quest to become not just famous but heroically famous is quite alluring to lots of otherwise awkward introverts especially since saving humanity is a lot more meaningful to the psyche than the obscure study of tree rings.

The simple list of taxpayer money given to Enron, er, I mean Solyndra and related green movement companies is jaw dropping, seen in a single pie chart here:

http://mercatus.o...al_0.png

Now you add in not just tax money but Glenn Beck worthy leftist extremism and the whole left wing self-organizes into a big zombie empire suddenly supported by a doomsday scenario that didn't exist prior to the corruption of climate science.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (22) Jul 11, 2013
"Afterwards she held him close. 'Sandy, I've learned something for the first time today. You are absolutely superb after meditation. Why don't we make love every time immediately after you have meditated?'." - Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC
Egleton
3 / 5 (20) Jul 11, 2013
I know how you feel Nick. I felt that way too. That is why I started taking my meds. I feel much better now.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (24) Jul 11, 2013
When facts fail you, call 'em crazy. I actually started using my Ph.D. in organic chemistry as a background to delve into climate science because I was saddened by, you know, the predicted collapse of the biosphere (!), and figured I might help get the word out. What I found was a ridiculous level of simple fraud that was alien to the discipline I had drilled into me in grad school at Columbia University proper, not some parasitic institute. But then a funny thing happened, whole armies of online activists screamed at myself and other budding skeptics so loudly that a sort of fraternal sense of unjust oppression became extremely motivating to us, and still is. Bullying your smartest citizens is a losing game, and now tens of thousands of us are organized, online, calling your bluff and ridiculing your bluster, successfully.
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (21) Jul 11, 2013
Say it to their faces, bully:

http://a2.img.mob...arge.jpg
Sinister1811
2.5 / 5 (19) Jul 11, 2013
Say it to their faces, bully:

http://a2.img.mob...arge.jpg


Buzz Aldrin also claimed in interviews that NASA were hiding proof of UFOs and that there is an alien base on Phobos (Mars's moon).
http://www.youtub...XvpjnRws

Skeptical science writer for Bad Astronomy, Phil Plait would beg to differ. NASA also disagrees with that stance.
http://climate.nasa.gov/
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (21) Jul 11, 2013
Thanks, Mr. Sinister, let's indeed have a look at how government web sites present Global Warming science, shall we?

(1) The NOAA uses chartsmanship to suggest a recent trend change, quite dishonestly:

http://k.min.us/ibtB8G.gif

(2) NASA cuts off tide gauge data, dishonestly implying that satellite era sea level rise represents a sudden jump in trend:

http://i4.minus.com/idFxzI.jpg
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 11, 2013
............. ..using my Ph.D. in organic chemistry as a background to delve into climate science because I was saddened by, you know, the predicted collapse of the biosphere (!),............... But then a funny thing happened, whole armies of online activists screamed at myself and other budding skeptics so loudly that a sort of fraternal sense of unjust oppression became extremely motivating to us, and still is.................


Yes, merely by being argued against, people put up the shutters. It is human nature to entrench opinion in opposition.The "bullying", as you perceive it, is because the argument against you comes with ( scientific) authority ( like it or not ), as exasperation in the denialism shows through. We on this side of the fence are staggered by the rabid political stance that (many) come at the science - as though that invalidates it, and constant regurgitation of myth - that some biased blog pushes as fact. You are a chemist - so what? I am a meteorologist.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (21) Jul 11, 2013
Science is the single human endeavor which rejects calls to authority as its defining principle. Go argue with Aristotle, I'm just a data plotter. Putting up shutters, am I? You say that to a guy who fondly quotes Timothy Leary in the above plot? You guys are fighting but airy images, dehumanized misrepresentations of skeptics, and for the first time ever it's all being archived, every word of it, permanently. You even use the non-word "denialist" to make bigger fools of yourselves, but never offer us any facts to deny, just fuzzy claims of falsely manufactured consensus that are profoundly unscientific.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 11, 2013
Science is the single human endeavor which rejects calls to authority as its defining principle. Go argue with Aristotle, I'm just a data plotter. Putting up shutters, am I? You say that to a guy who fondly quotes Timothy Leary in the above plot? You guys are fighting but airy images, dehumanized misrepresentations of skeptics, and for the first time ever it's all being archived, every word of it, permanently. You even use the non-word "denialist" to make bigger fools of yourselves, but never offer us any facts to deny, just fuzzy claims of falsely manufactured consensus that are profoundly unscientific.


Again you read into criticism, that that is not there. I made no accusation against you. Just the phenomenon of denialism ( there's no getting away from the word ). Some do it merely because of contrarian psychology. As I see there are facts in abundance. As there must be to you in your field that would escape me. If you see that as appeal to authority - deal with it.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2013
Who or what would benefit from this multibillion dollar campaign?


Ask any kid who gets laid *..cut...* corruption of climate science.


thanks for the reply, I think I know quite enough to draw my conclusions here.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (23) Jul 11, 2013
EVER NOTICE THAT ALL THESE MISERABLE PEOPLE EVER OFFER IS SNIDE INNUENDO?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (16) Jul 11, 2013
There will be no reversal of climate change until the real cause of climate change is dealt with, namely, chemtrails, the government project of adulterating the atmosphere with weather control chemicals from high flying jets
So julian. Just how many megatons of anything do you think they would have to inject into the atmosphere to make any impact at all, and how many million tanker flights would they have to perform in order to do this?

Would this be the same gross misperception of scale as for instance one volcano under the ice in antarctica being able to melt a whole shelf?

I just reread your post and it occurred to me that perhaps you were being tongue in cheek instead of incredibly stupid. If so then my apologies.
djr
4.4 / 5 (14) Jul 11, 2013
NIK - " Science is the single human endeavour which rejects calls to authority." That seems very inconsistent with the need to repeatedly advertise your Phd - which also seems like an attempt to bully -by someone who then calls others bullies.

"but never offer us any facts to deny" This is the most absurd allegation. There is mountains of evidence presented on physorg every week. There are numerous posters on the comments section who are always interested in offering facts. I wrote quite a long summary of the theory of AGW recently in response to a post from Claudius. The problem of course is that each time arguments are made - the global conspiracy nonsense comes out - and the arguments go round and round in circles. What do u suggest - when for each fact presented - there is a counter fact - and when that fact is countered - the global conspiracy argument is pulled out?
djr
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 11, 2013
NIK - " Science is the single human endeavour which rejects calls to authority." That seems very inconsistent with the need to repeatedly advertise your Phd - which also seems like an attempt to bully -by someone who then calls others bullies.

"but never offer us any facts to deny" This is the most absurd allegation. There is mountains of evidence presented on physorg every week. There are numerous posters on the comments section who are always interested in offering facts. I wrote quite a long summary of the theory of AGW recently in response to a post from Claudius. The problem of course is that each time arguments are made - the global conspiracy nonsense comes out - and the arguments go round and round in circles. What do u suggest - when for each fact presented - there is a counter fact - and when that fact is countered - the global conspiracy argument is pulled out?
Claudius
1 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2013
"I believe that the essence of science is the collection and analysis of data."

djr: 29 Mar 13

djr can't even give a valid definition of what science is, yet lectures us on what is scientific.
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 13, 2013


djr can't even give a valid definition of what science is, yet lectures us on what is scientific.

How is science not the collection and analysis of data?

Perhaps you would grace us with your definition of science. Perhaps you would like to explain how stating that science is an endeavour that rejects calls to authority - and then repeatedly informing us that you have a Phd (as Nik repeatedly does) is not contradictory.
Claudius
1 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2013


Perhaps you would grace us with your definition of science.


Science is the method by which reliable knowledge about the world is obtained.

explain how stating that science is an endeavour that rejects calls to authority


Arguments that rely on appeals to authority are fallacious. Fallacious argument is antithetical to science, as it does not result in reliable knowledge.

This should be understood by any first year science student.

How is science not the collection and analysis of data?


Because the collection and analysis of data, by itself, does not result in reliable knowledge.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2013
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 13, 2013


explain how stating that science is an endeavour that rejects calls to authority


Arguments that rely on appeals to authority are fallacious. Fallacious argument is antithetical to science, as it does not result in reliable knowledge.

You left off the second half of the sentence. I was not questioning the rejection of call to authority, i was criticising someone who does that, and then needs to bring their Phd. to our attention. Cutting sentences in half to misrepresent what people are saying makes the comments section of Physorg very discouraging. We want to be able to point out your anti science agenda - but when you tie everything up with dishonesty like you have just done - it is understandable that the coversation often devolves.

Sinister1811
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2013
Science is the method by which reliable knowledge about the world is obtained.


Yes, and that is done through the collection and analysis of data. So djr's definition is right.

Arguments that rely on appeals to authority are fallacious. Fallacious argument is antithetical to science, as it does not result in reliable knowledge.

This should be understood by any first year science student.


Yeah, we should be referring to those quack journals, with anonymous authors. Believing in 9-11 or the moon landings is also appealing to authority. Tighten your tinfoil hats, folks.

Because the collection and analysis of data, by itself, does not result in reliable knowledge.


What does it result in then? And who decides what is "reliable knowledge"? You?
Sinister1811
2.7 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2013
The point is, this is still science, and it is being done by scientists. After all, people have a choice to read these articles. It's not like they're forcing anyone to believe anything. There'll always be skeptics.
Claudius
1 / 5 (17) Jul 14, 2013
Science is the method by which reliable knowledge about the world is obtained.


Yes, and that is done through the collection and analysis of data. So djr's definition is right.



Well, since astrology is done through the collection and analysis of data, it is science, according to djr's definition, isn't it?
Claudius
1 / 5 (17) Jul 14, 2013


Because the collection and analysis of data, by itself, does not result in reliable knowledge.


What does it result in then? And who decides what is "reliable knowledge"? You?


Without development of hypothesis, theory and testing, collection and analysis of data is not science. Not by itself. Under your definition, astrology is science.
djr
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2013



Well, since astrology is done through the collection and analysis of data, it is science, according to djr's definition, isn't it?

Really? What data is used to support the idea that the position of the planets will in any way affect my life? It is the collection and analysis of data that discounts astrology as science. Their conclusions do not stand the test of science. However Claudius - this is all a big distraction. You pull up a quote of something I said 4 months ago - I have no context - and it is unreasonable of you to just drop that quote out of nowhere. I am quite comfortable with defining science as the collectio/analysis of data. I accept that your definition is more fleshed out - but so what? Is your goal to strut around discrediting people, or might it be better to discuss the science? Nick and others constantly argue against the science being presented here - and have no problem using lies and conspiracy theories in their zeal.
Sinister1811
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2013


Because the collection and analysis of data, by itself, does not result in reliable knowledge.


What does it result in then? And who decides what is "reliable knowledge"? You?


Without development of hypothesis, theory and testing, collection and analysis of data is not science. Not by itself. Under your definition, astrology is science.


Well, agree to disagree then. By that argument, you could say the same thing about astrobiology and astrophysics. But as for astrology there's no data to link star signs or the movement of planets to life events.
djr
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2013
Cont. You took something l said earlier, cut off the second half of the sentence - and misrepresented what I said. Of course the supporters of science get frustrated when we are trying to stand up for the process of science - and are constantly confronted with obfuscation and dishonesty.
Claudius
1 / 5 (17) Jul 14, 2013
I am quite comfortable with defining science as the collection/analysis of data.


My point about astrology is that it has always been about the collection and analysis of data. The reason it was/is not science is that it does not formulate theories and then test them against observations and experiment. Science did not begin until that step was incorporated. To say that the essence of science is the collection and analysis of data seems to miss that point. Astrology cannot develop reliable knowledge about the world because it does not go the extra step involving hypotheses and testing. It does not include the skeptical step, without which science cannot function.

Perhaps this seems like a minor difference in opinion, but to me it makes all the difference. Skepticism is an integral part of science, without which it cannot function.
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (16) Jul 16, 2013
EVER NOTICE THAT ALL THESE MISERABLE PEOPLE EVER OFFER IS SNIDE INNUENDO?

You reap what you sow.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 16, 2013
Perhaps this seems like a minor difference in opinion, but to me it makes all the difference. Skepticism is an integral part of science, without which it cannot function.

I am not disagreeing with you. You could look at the term 'analysis' in a more complex way - meaning to not only collect data - but also to compare that data against other data, and your hypothesis. I am not disagreeing with you. I don't think that astrology would hold up to the collection and analysis of data. There is no data to support the idea that the alignment of the planets affect my life here on earth. What data do you see that could be collected - that would then be analyzed - and after this analysis would support such an idea?

djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 16, 2013
Claudius - I am curious about something. You are making a big deal about this definition of science thing. You pulled a quote of mine from 4 months ago - and introduced it to this thread. I have no context - and no interest in going back and revisiting something written back then. You are making a big deal of it. At the same time - on another current thread - http://phys.org/n...ate.html

You are ignoring questions about the data that supports the question of current climate warming. It seems that you are very sporadic about what issues you address - and happy to just move on to a new thread - if someone calls your bluff.
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2013
EVER NOTICE THAT ALL THESE MISERABLE PEOPLE EVER OFFER IS SNIDE INNUENDO?


Yea sorry for that. Wasn't too sure if you were trolling or you're just a real idiot. The "getting laid for the environment theory" + this semi-paranoid outcry in capitals combined do slightly imply the latter.

I'll refrain myself from making innuendo and call you an idiot straight way if it makes you feel better.

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.