A new measure of global warming from carbon emissions

Jun 10, 2009

Damon Matthews, a professor in Concordia University's Department of Geography, Planning and the Environment has found a direct relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Matthews, together with colleagues from Victoria and the U.K., used a combination of global climate models and historical climate data to show that there is a simple linear relationship between total cumulative emissions and global temperature change.

Until now, it has been difficult to estimate how much climate will warm in response to a given carbon scenario because of the complex interactions between human emissions, carbon sinks, atmospheric concentrations and temperature change. Matthews and colleagues show that despite these uncertainties, each emission of carbon dioxide results in the same global temperature increase, regardless of when or over what period of time the emission occurs.

These findings mean that we can now say: if you emit that tonne of carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change. If we want to restrict global warming to no more than 2 degrees, we must restrict total carbon emissions - from now until forever - to little more than half a trillion tonnes of carbon, or about as much again as we have emitted since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

"Most people understand that carbon dioxide emissions lead to global warming," says Matthews, "but it is much harder to grasp the complexities of what goes on in between these two end points. Our findings allow people to make a robust estimate of their contribution to based simply on total carbon dioxide emissions."

In light of this study and other recent research, Matthews and a group of international climate scientists have written an open letter calling on participants of December's Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change to acknowledge the need to limit cumulative emissions of so as to avoid dangerous climate change.

Source: Concordia University

Explore further: New York state bans fracking

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

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 ...

Stabilizing climate change more daunting than thought

Nov 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 ...

Save 'trillionth tonne' warn Oxford scientists

Apr 30, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Emitting carbon dioxide slower will not prevent dangerous climate change unless it involves phasing out carbon dioxide emissions altogether, before we reach an upper limit of one trillion ...

China to surpass U.S. emissions levels

Nov 07, 2006

The International Energy Agency says China will surpass the United States in carbon dioxide emissions by 2009, about a decade ahead of previous predictions.

Recommended for you

UN sends team to clean up Bangladesh oil spill

13 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?

13 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

13 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

17 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 : 13

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Velanarris
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2009
This finding is contrary to physics, spectrometry, and common sense. It further fails to account for solar variability, regional geography, and albedo.

I suspect this is just a way to enable any sort of carbon tax to be constitutionally legal in the US as it adds an apportioning mechanism to an otherwise unapportioned taxation.

Unfortunately the abstract does very little to explain anything past the simple word problem posted before us.
DoktorSerendipitous
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2009
So where is the beef, or is the modeling of the beef the beef? Oh, how euphemistically elegant sounding this word modeling is compared to that of speculation! Haven't those modelers been predicting the end of the world since the biblical times? The only difference is that nowadays they call themselves scientists, not prophets. After all, it sounds so euphemistically modern.
NotParker
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2009
The earth has been cooling since 2003. CO2 has been going up. The "study" should have fiction stamped on the front.
Azpod
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2009
If I emit 2% of the total carbon ever released until now, I can expect a corresponding rise in global temperature? Bunk! Even on the face of it, bunk! Carbon is exhaled by animals and consumed by plants. The more C02, the more plants are able to turn the Sun's energy into sugar (a usable energy source) and grow. More CO2 = MORE PLANTS (mostly single celled, but still...!) More plants = LESS CO2!!!

Someone who flunked 9th grade Intro to Science knows more about science than this idiot. CO2 levels will eventually level off and the global climate will eventually stabilize. The CO2 emitted back in the Roman Empire isn't around any more, nor is the bulk of the CO2 from World War II and even a good amount from 1980. 100 years from now, the bulk of the CO2 from my tailpipe today will be a distant memory. Saying that the CO2 produced today will affect the climate FOR ALL TIME is absurd in the extreme!

Is research grant money really worth burning what little credibility you have left? After writing this heap of filth, Damon Matthews's degree should be worth less than toilet paper and he should be laughed out of any scientific conference.

Sadly, politics seems to matter more in science these days than does... science!

Yeah, global climate change is real. Yeah, there is a man-made component of it. But don't prostitute yourself for political dollars and still call it science. For once, I'd like to see a study on actual climate change that incorporates the decadal climate cycles, the current data that clearly shows a cooling trend since the start of the decade and lets us make our own mind about what it says!

After all, any trend (even a modest one) extrapolated out 100 years will show naught but UTTER CATASTROPHE! Why should global climate change be any different?
Arkaleus
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 10, 2009
These are the first tender shoots of a very nasty, invasive ideology. Press releases like this test the reactions of the public to see if the are ripe and ready for the coup d'etat.

Phrases like "we must restrict total carbon emissions - from now until forever " should snap even the most ardent eco-revolutionary out of their media-induced hyponosis long enough to realize the framework behind the statement.

This ideology presents a more dangerous incursion into Western civilization than communism, fascism, or religious fundamentalism. It has spent 10 years on the blitz to shock the public into fear, while carefully positioning solutions that provide an entirely novel, incredibly clever path to a scientific, yet totalitarian system of human control.

This ideology has nothing to do with climate, ecology, or even conservation. None of its claims or promises even try to represent reality, instead they have everything to do with infiltrating governments, economies, and populations with the single-minded goal of creating a world where human life subsists in perpetual bondage to a supranational oligarchy, whose iron rule is established by an emergency that can never end.

In a world ruled by these viciously intelligent plutocrats only their cronies would have the means of production and wealth, while all others would be subject to oppressive regulations, smothering all free economic activity and concentrating the people into managed systems of artificial scarcity. Rights and constitutions would be canceled by false "emergencies" presented by ecological propaganda, and those few nations that resisted and asserted liberty and reason would be isolated and sanctioned, perhaps even to the point of war and invasion.

It will pose as a democracy, but a vote in such a system would be a meaningless placebo as power would be concentrated and brokered far away from the people. Tear out this invader by the roots and throw it into the fire.
ArtflDgr
3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2009
i can see the future 40 years from now..

global warming is proved false and ALL these researchers careers are over just as if they put: 20 years at the lysenko institute of genetics...
denijane
2.8 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2009
What about other greenhouse gases? Were they included in the model? Because the CO2 is like the most harmless one, even if the one the most emitted.
Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2009
What about other greenhouse gases? Were they included in the model? Because the CO2 is like the most harmless one, even if the one the most emitted.
I agree, but I'd question whether CO2 is the one most often emitted. I'd say human activities produce far more water vapor than anything.
phlipper
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2009
More BS, different day. As PC "climate scientists" go about kissing the rear ends of their funders, real scientists get ignored and ridiculed. Data is routinely hidden from those whose ability it is to fact check, statistically, a study's meaningfulness. Just ask Steve McIntyre at climateaudit.org.
toyo
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 14, 2009
If this guy is so good that his model can predict global warming based on CO2 increase alone? Then he must have eliminated all the other variables that affect climate change. A superb achievement!
Therefore his model should be able to predict the weather too... WOW!!
But wait, as far as I know, no-one can predict the weather more than a few days in advance using any kind of model, and that is for a very small potion of the Earth.
This guy is either a genius extraordinaire, or, like most of his kind before him, another so-called scientist with an ego far bigger that his propensity for common sense.
A bit of humility would go a long way in promoting REAL science...
Noein
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2009
My religious faith in global warming denialism is not shaken by this article whatsoever. My religious faith is so deep that I deny that CO2 even exists. Big oil loves me, yes I know, for Pope Rex Tillerson tells me so.
dachpyarvile
5 / 5 (2) Jun 14, 2009
I would say that the underlying source of his models is a collection of corked and thermometered jars filled with various levels of CO2 and surrounded by an array of heat lamps.

A lab does not the planet make. :)
CWFlink
5 / 5 (1) Jun 14, 2009
So I guess green plants do not turn CO2 into O2 and biomass. Gee... I guess my 8th grade teacher was wrong. Otherwise we could emit all the CO2 we want so long as we increase the number of green plants to compensate.

Conclusion: this is an idiotic article about good research or a good article on idiotic research, I'm not sure which. I'll leave that up to the reader.

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.