Climate change: Fast out of the gate, slow to the finish the gate

Sep 30, 2013
Carnegie's Ken Caldeira and Nathan Myhrvold of Intellectual Ventures say that climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions is fast out of the starting gate but then slows down, and takes a long time to approach the finish line. Credit: Marina Shemesh,

A great deal of research has focused on the amount of global warming resulting from increased greenhouse gas concentrations. But there has been relatively little study of the pace of the change following these increases. A new study by Carnegie's Ken Caldeira and Nathan Myhrvold of Intellectual Ventures concludes that about half of the warming occurs within the first 10 years after an instantaneous step increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, but about one-quarter of the warming occurs more than a century after the step increase. Their work is published in Environmental Research Letters.

The study was the result of an unusual collaboration of a climate scientist, Ken Caldeira, who contributed to the recently published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, and Nathan Myhrvold, the founder and CEO of a technology corporation, Intellectual Ventures LLC. It is the third paper on which they have collaborated

The study brings together results from the majority of the world's leading climate models. Caldeira and Myhrvold analyzed more than 50 climate simulations, which were performed using 20 different climate models for the Climate Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 5 (CMIP5).

They found a fairly high degree of consensus on the general character of the pace of climate change. In response to an instantaneous increase in , is fast out of the starting gate but then slows down, and takes a long time to approach the finish line.

There is substantial quantitative disagreement among , however. For example, one model reaches 38 percent of the maximum warming in the first decade after a step increase in CO2 concentration, while another model reaches 61 percent of the maximum warming in this time period. Similarly, one model reaches only 60 percent of maximum warming in the first century after the step increase, while another achieves 86 percent of maximum warming during this interval.

There is also substantial uncertainty in the ultimate amount of warming that would result from any given increase in atmospheric CO2 content. The most sensitive model predicts more than twice as much warming as the least-sensitive model.

Uncertainty in the amount of warming combines with uncertainty in the pace of warming. From an instantaneous doubling of atmospheric CO2 content from the pre-industrial base level, some models would project 2°C (3.6°F) of in less than a decade while others would project that it would take more than a century to achieve that much warming.

"While there is substantial uncertainty in both the pace of change and the ultimate amounts of following an increase in concentration," Caldeira said, "there is little uncertainty in the basic outlook. If we continue increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations with emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas, the Earth will continue to get hotter. If we want the Earth to stop getting hotter, we have to stop building things with smokestacks and tailpipes that emit CO2 into the atmosphere."

Explore further: EU reaches deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions

Related Stories

Ocean acidification amplifies global warming (Update)

Aug 25, 2013

Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M), Dr. Katharina Six, Dr. Silvia Kloster, Dr. Tatiana Ilyina, the late Dr. Ernst Maier-Reimer and two co-authors from the US, demonstrate that ...

Recommended for you

Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

1 hour ago

New research from a world-renowned soil and water expert at the University of Alberta reveals that there's no atmospheric lead pollution in Alberta's oilsands region—a finding that contradicts current scientific ...

User comments : 30

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (31) Sep 30, 2013
Climatologist Judith Curry skewers policy wonk Caldeira's IPCC report this week:
http://judithcurr...ralysis/

MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen has a good chuckle too: "I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."
NikFromNYC
1.8 / 5 (29) Sep 30, 2013
Even Caldeira himself jumped ship this round, actually: "(As an aside, I recently resigned as a lead author of an IPCC AR5 chapter simply because I felt I had more effective ways of using the limited amount of time that I have to engage in scientific activities. My resignation was made possible because I believe that the chapter team that I was part of was on the right track and doing an excellent job without my contribution. Had I had a scientific criticism of my chapter team, you can be assured that I would have stayed involved. So, my resignation was a vote of confidence in my scientific peers, not a critique. It is just not clear to me that, at this point, working on IPCC chapters is the most effective use of my time."
VENDItardE
1.8 / 5 (31) Sep 30, 2013
TOTAL and ABSOLUTE BULLSHlT
Kiweenie
2 / 5 (23) Sep 30, 2013
^Total and absolute idiots
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (22) Sep 30, 2013
Now that the older, false prophecies are dicredited, they appear to be looking for new false prophets.
The melting and formation of the poles predicts the future of climate change. As it has done in the past.
NikFromNYC
2 / 5 (27) Sep 30, 2013
Highlights from WUWT entry on this press release:

"Theo Goodwin says:
September 30, 2013 at 5:40 pm
The article provides so little information that nothing can be made of it. Are they modeling the effect of CO2 alone? Have the done the "forcings and feedbacks" calculations involving clouds, water vapor, and other possible negative feedbacks? How does the logarithmic curve for CO2 affect matters? And on and on.

I really find this sort of thing offensive. All they are doing is playing with models. They should say that. But, No, they claim that they have learned something about CO2 and global warming. Nonsense."

"jrwakefield says:
September 30, 2013 at 5:48 pm
"If we want the Earth to stop getting hotter, we have to stop building things with smokestacks and tailpipes that emit CO2 into the atmosphere.""

And kill hundreds of millions in the process. Nice they wish for that, or is that their desire?"

http://wattsupwit...ure-too/
jyro
2 / 5 (21) Sep 30, 2013
All I read is, "All climate models are wrong and don't predict climate change correctly".
LarryD
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2013
Oh boy, here we go again. Even the title sucks. Bet A. G. is laughing...all the way to the bank!
Humpty
1.7 / 5 (22) Oct 01, 2013
Climate change, smimate change - even if it's ALL, mostly or partly bullshit - the world is a pretty polluted place, agricultural practices are unsustainable and things REALLY must change...

All over the world - the ground water has either dried up, is heavily polluted and even the aquifers are gone.

Glacier are receding, the northern sea ice has thinned...

Plants are growing in places they have never grown before....

Air pollution isn't in China - that just blows around the world and settles on the land and in the seas...

One ought to NOT eat more than 2 small meals of fish per week because the uptake of mercury, pesticides etc., exceeds the daily limit etc...

What the fuck is going on there?

Huge dead zones of oxygen deficient water in the ocean.????

There is a lot of room for improvement here..... clean air, water and land, healthy food...

GuruShabu
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 01, 2013
Even when after decades wrong they cannot sustain neither the conclusions nor the name -Global Warming!- Still they try to dodge the data and try to impinge some fear and concerns to get more funds for their endless hungry!
100% BS!
LarryD
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2013
There is only one solution...we, that is Joe Public, will have to give everything up! Going on holiday by Jet; don't buy anymore for your home; buy food from the farm and cook it on open file in a field (along with thousands of others);stop eating fast foods;eat only what you need;throw your computer(s) away;stop...
Right! It isn't going to happen is it?!
We are all, me included, just as much to blame, we 'demand X' and someone makes it happen because it's $$$$$$$$$$$$$ all the way. We see something advertised and we buy it.This is the price we pay for progress.
So in the end there is no solution and we're on a slippery slope; one country might impose controls, another won't.
Many climate models, I understand, give reasonable results for small areas (divided into 'cells') but because of the drastic change from one place to another it seems obvious to me that there cannot be a single model.
Time to put the kettle on...wait...why don't I drink instead, my daily dose of fluorid!
EnricM
2.6 / 5 (22) Oct 01, 2013
Mate, I don't know what youyr are doing wasting your time here.
Buy a big gun and go fighting the bad guys from the Illuminaty Power Consortium Club.
With your intelligence you can surely outpower the Global Conspiracy of Climate Scientists and send them back to Planet X where they belong!!!

Agomemnon
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 01, 2013
Climate change, smimate change - even if it's ALL, mostly or partly bullshit - the world is a pretty polluted place, agricultural practices are unsustainable and things REALLY must change...

you have a valid point. There are real issues that are being ignored while they focus on CO2 which is stupid.
The government is allowing radical increasing in pesticides and herbicides in the water supply? That is real pollution supported by this administration.
Life threatening childhood allergies have risen 100's of percents but don't worry, keep the GMO's, and pesticides coming.
HPV vaccines maime and kill and don't actaully work but don't worry, our government says to take them.
Roderick
3.9 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2013
You guys are a bunch of wackos. Who pays you to dish well established science?
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 01, 2013
Rod. Models are not science. Pretending they are is the problem.
VendicarE
3.6 / 5 (12) Oct 02, 2013
"Rod. Models are not science." - GregorTard

Then medical science, high energy physics, and astronomy and cosmology are not sience.

Can you explain to us how they are science without you sticking your head up your backside in an attempt to vanish into thin air?

thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (10) Oct 02, 2013
Climate change, smimate change - even if it's ALL, mostly or partly bullshit - the world is a pretty polluted place, agricultural practices are unsustainable and things REALLY must change...

you have a valid point. There are real issues that are being ignored while they focus on CO2 which is stupid.
The government is allowing radical increasing in pesticides and herbicides in the water supply? That is real pollution supported by this administration.
Life threatening childhood allergies have risen 100's of percents but don't worry, keep the GMO's, and pesticides coming.
HPV vaccines maime and kill and don't actaully work but don't worry, our government says to take them.


Agomem: Thank you for showing us your anti-science conspiracy side. GMOs and Pesticides? Please show your references.

HPV vaccines!! You would condemn children to dread diseases because of fraudulent pseudo science. You are a real piece of work.
Agomemnon
1 / 5 (19) Oct 03, 2013
HPV vaccines are pseudo science. Japan just halted HPV shots over safety issues. Pay attention to the news and don't take the propoganda you get at face value. Also, the HPV Vaccine supposably protects against 4 of the over 20 strains of the virus. Even if all Gardisal says is true its still effectively useless. Its called Math.

Next up: http://naturalsoc...-supply/ EPA has increased the allowable pesticide/herbicide into the water supply
This is all due to GMO corn and soy which are resistant to Roundup(Glysophate). The EPA rules benefit Mansanto and Biotechs (as well as their kept man Obama) and not the American people.
Since the FDA, Biotechs (but I repeat myself) REFUSE to do safety testing on GMO products you cannot claim they are safe. There is NO DATA to confirm or determine that they are safe.
Anti-Science are people like you unwilling to question your assumptions and with your head in the sand.
LarryD
2.7 / 5 (11) Oct 03, 2013
EnricM, nice! Obviously taken from one of David Icke's books
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (10) Oct 03, 2013
EnricM, nice! Obviously taken from one of David Icke's books


The only difference being that Icke actually believes what he says. However, I do see the resemblance of some of the Deniers to the reptilians.
VendicarE
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2013
"HPV vaccines are pseudo science." - AgoTard

Retards say the dumbest things.

HPV vaccination is opposed by Conservative groups because they can't believe that little girls, and now little boys, have sex organs that can be infected by Viral diseases.

Odd given that most child molesters are Conservatives.

LarryD
3.2 / 5 (11) Oct 04, 2013
thermodynamics, yes, think you're right. It's a pity that others don't persue this perticular topic with the same zeal and honesty.
I'm not sure how this article got twisted into a HPV debate but I have some experience with the skin wart type,.fortunately mostly face and arm. No treatment has ever eliminated the persistence of this virus and I have been reduced to just using 'wart remover' (Phenol +) when they appear. Some of them have been painful and if other people get this type in delicate areas of the body (where 'wart remover' cannot be used) they have my sympathy. Pity there isn't a 'vaccine' for this site to keep the 'retards away!
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2013
Agomemnon - "HPV vaccines are pseudo science." " the HPV Vaccine supposably protects against 4 of the over 20 strains of the virus."

Talk about ignorant. Talk about an anti-science asshole who has no concern about spreading foul antiscience - that could be responsible for the deaths of women through cervical cancer. You are truly ignorant.

Look at this from the cdc - and see how wrong you are. Notice the sections I put in [ ]

"[The vaccines target the HPV types that most commonly cause cervical cancer]. One of the vaccines (Gardasil) also protects against the HPV types that cause most genital warts. [Both vaccines are highly effective] in preventing the targeted HPV types, as well as the most common health problems caused by them."

from - http://www.cdc.go...omen.htm

Sorry to be blunt - but some things need to be said - this is a science site - not a site for medieval religionists.
JinXer
1 / 5 (16) Oct 05, 2013
@djr

Agomemnon said "Vaccine supposedly protects against 4 of the over 20 strains of the virus."

djr said "One of the vaccines (Gardasil) also protects against the HPV types that cause most genital warts. [Both vaccines are highly effective] in preventing the targeted HPV types."

"TARGETED HPV TYPES"... you copy?
Water_Prophet
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 05, 2013
Why do you continue to look to models when the truth is apparent to the senses?
Does anyone fail to recognize that there are major changes to the wind and water, ice and sea?
Please use these to prophesize (OK-reverse engineer) and you will see the truth. It will be like a man picking up a feather to see the truth.
LarryD
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 05, 2013
Water_Prophet, such ideas are contained within my post above. I don't think there is anyone who doubts some form of climate change but that's not the argument. The argument concerns the interpretation of data and evidence.
Prophesy? why do you say that? Are you implying something biblical here? I hope not!
Some 4 or 5 years ago I was watching the O'reilly factor and if I remember correctly the 'weather man' made arguments for the case that the Earth was simply going through another 'phase' and would recover in time. But then there are the arguments of Al Gore.
So, Water_Prophet, it depends which 'camp' one decides to favour although I think there is some overlap and probably see myself as being there.
It's a very lively debated area and taken in the right way, can be 'enjoyed' by everyone.
Water_Prophet
1.3 / 5 (16) Oct 05, 2013
@LarryD-Nay, but both camps push their falsehoods.
The prophet O'Reilly weatherman's "phase" MUST be caused by something. That is LeChatlier's Principle. You may count him among the false.
And Al Gore measures from the summit of volcanoes of increasing activity. This to may be counted among the false.
So what is true? If you doubt these scripture, than how can the truth be known?

"If the truth is clear, what is the use of meditation?"
"And if the truth is hidden?"
"Then it is already clear."
LarryD
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 06, 2013
Water_Prophet, as you posted (and me too) the truth is that there IS climate change, it's the cause that's in debate: is it 'natural' or 'man made'? LeChatlier's Principle--->Newton---->....status quo, even human beings oppose change. But the point is: is there enough energy feeding the present evironmental change so that an equilibrium point wont be reached until it's too late (too late for us that is)? For example, if one believes that the Dinosaurs (majority of) suffered an 'impact' extinction event it would be clear that the Earth settled to another equilibrium point.
"If the truth is clear, what is the use of meditation?". You are obviously not a student of meditation for the Ego always presents the 'truth' as being 'clear'. Real truth comes only from enlightenment and as the science chaps know, that can mean a lot of damned hard work.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2013
@LarryD, with 3% of the Earth covered by man, and some 40% for agriculture, how could this be otherwise?
The broad strokes say man must be impacting the world.
The question is why is the truth hidden on both sides? Or are some confusining both sides? No matter-!
The truth is not hidden from those who would meditate upon it, and observe.
goracle
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 21, 2013
Oh boy, here we go again. Even the title sucks. Bet A. G. is laughing...all the way to the bank!

Hahahahaha... Hope the teller is a cute one... (Kidding, that was Bill.)