Greenhouse Gases Will Heat Up Planet 'Forever'
New study shows the effects of CO2 pollution will be felt for hundreds of thousands of years
Their findings - which contradict a widespread belief that the atmosphere would recover quickly once humanity stopped polluting it - come at the beginning of the most crucial week for the climate this year. Tomorrow Britain's powerful Climate Change Committee will lay out a road map to put the country on track to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. At the same time, the world's governments will meet in Poznan, in Poland, to try to set the world on the path to agreeing a new international treaty next year, billed as the last chance to keep global warming to tolerable levels.
The new research will add to the pressure on ministers at home and abroad to take radical steps. And it will add urgency to attempts to find ways of removing excess carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, as well as trying to prevent further emissions.
It comes as a shock because most governments, and even many scientists, have assumed that carbon dioxide emissions would work their way out of the atmosphere in about a century, enabling it to clean itself fairly rapidly once the world switched to clean sources of energy.
But one of the main researchers - Professor David Archer of Chicago University - warns that "the climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge, longer than time capsules, far longer than the age of human civilisation so far. Ultimate recovery takes place on timescales of hundreds of thousands of years, a geologic longevity typically associated in public perceptions with nuclear waste."
Carbon dioxide mainly leaves the atmosphere by being soaked up by the oceans, but Professor Archer says that "the pervasive notion in the climate science community and in the public at large" that this happens relatively quickly is no longer valid. He and other leading scientists spell out why in a paper to be published in the journal Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences.
"The ocean is getting fed up with absorbing our CO2," he says. The surface waters, about 100 metres deep, which used to sop up the gas quite fast, are now getting saturated with it - turning acid in the process - and so decreasing their uptake. They need to be replaced with fresh water from deep down, but this overturning circulation "takes centuries or a millennium". And global warming is expected to slow this down: the hotter the surface layer becomes, the longer the replenishment takes.
Indeed, the forthcoming paper will add, research shows that even this renewing process will not be enough to remove all the vast amounts of carbon dioxide that humanity is now adding to the atmosphere. Much of it will have to wait hundreds of thousands of years before being removed by another, infinitely slower, process: the natural weathering of rocks, which incorporates the gas into other substances. And the more pollution that is emitted now, the worse this will become.
Research by another of the paper's authors, Professor Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institute for Science, in Stanford, California, adds another alarming twist to the story. He was surprised to find that even after the pollution stops, the Earth's temperature will not start to fall but will settle at a new, higher level.
Professor James Hansen, director of Nasa's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, and perhaps the world's most revered climate scientist, warns that the "long lifetime of carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuel burning" means that just slowing down emissions is no solution. Instead, he says, some of the fuels must "be left in the ground" for ever, and that the gas must actually be removed from the air.
He proposes removing carbon dioxide by growing trees, which soak it up as they grow, and then burning them to produce electricity and capturing the gas before it is emitted. He also proposes that no more coal-fired power stations be built.
Tomorrow's report by the Climate Change Committee - chaired by Lord Turner, who also heads the Financial Services Authority - is expected to discourage the construction of new coal-fired stations, such as the one proposed for Kingsnorth in Kent.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
14 Comments so far
Show AllYou know, as humans we seem driven to invent MORE technologies to try to handle the problems that OUR TECHNOLOGIES have created. Our record is not good in the endeavor.
We are populating our planet at an astonishing rate and we have sold the American middle class way of life to a good part of that burgeoning population. The bottom line on the whole thing is that a population this big can't live that way on this planet.
They're gonna be annoyed when we tell them they can't really HAVE what we've been selling them for decades.
We went from giant firecrackers on the pad to Saturn V and Apollo on the moon in less than ten years. This is not an issue of lack of ability. It is an issue of lack of initiative. Jimmy Carter, now maligned as he is, started solar programs in his administration and there were incentives and money for people to start up solar businesses, and they did. Where might we be now if those programs had been continued through these years instead of scrapped?
Our government is not likely to come up with an answer, as in the thrall of fossil fuel lobbies as it is. It MIGHT, however, set initiatives and programs and incentives for the ingenuity and inventiveness of Americans to solve the problem. I doubt if it will come as some Rube Goldberg scheme. It will probably come as a series of breakthroughs in the areas of conservation and clean energy production and population control.
Hundred of thousands of years sounds like a loooooong time to us. It is a blink of the eye in geological time and the Earth will, indeed, clear itself and restabilize itself just that quickly. We just won't be here to see it. In fact, if we don't get moving we may be just another fascinating set of archeological finds for whatever the next sentient fauna might be.
Someone need to genetically engineer an algae that likes acidic salty water, and has a habit of photosynthesizing more carbohydrate than it needs and dropping the excess to sink to the bottom.
For some reason, this article isn't mentioning the thawing of the permafrost, which stores far more than enough methane to heat up the planet forever...and much of it is already leaking into the atmosphere.
I agree that the actions of us humans have severe effects on global climate.
But I am a bit skeptical about the "timeframe" of such announcements. As far as I remember, it is still more likely that earth will "freeze" up "sooner" or "later".
We are kinda in the midst of an ice age; _luckily_ we are within one of the "very nice and warm" phases right now.
Maybe Prof Archer is right; but maybe maybe there will be 1000 feet of ice on top of Northern Europe within 500K years. I find it ridiculous to make such predictions. Scientists are not sure what will happen within the next 100 years; but we are asked to believe in predictions that go beyond anything our brain can grasp?
The US emits something like 5-6 billion tons CO2/year.
One acre of hybrid poplar will trees will soak up about 18 tons of CO2 in 7 years and can be cut and replanted. About 2.5 tons/year. We could dump the trees down coal mines or out in the deserts... Some could replace coal or be used as other biofuel. Anyone got 2 trillion acres? Someone better check my math. Anyway, fast growing tree plantations could help remove CO2 from the air if the wood is harvested and not allowed to decay.
That would be 2 Billion acres, or over 3 million square miles.
Put another way, it would take 88% of the land area of the US !!
(counting Alaska, the land area of US is 3,539,341 sq. mi.)
Discouraging. So are solar and wind.
Discouraging. So are solar and wind.
Gonna have to find a way to pull CO2 out of the oceans, as well as the atmosphere, and an effective way to sequester it "for ever".
Hansen's tree-burning scheme sounds like a total non-starter.
It is possible to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere. Unfortunately this uses up energy, which generally produces more CO2.
The tree burning scheme makes sense, but it is hard to imagine it on a big enough scale to make a difference. And hauling trees around and cutting them into burnable chunks uses up gasoline, so it might not work. But I must say I haven't any better ideas.
It is like gasahol. They found out that growing the corn used almost as much gasoline as the ethanol replaced, so it didn't work.
--
Windmills look like the best bet. Many windmills.
Please Google "soil carbon" or "terra preta" and start reading. It would be nice if you had some foundation to comment on other than a WAG. Any plant material, leaves, roots, branches, stems, stalks, whatever can by fed into a non-polluting pyrolisis retort and the resulting stabilized carbon, biochar if you will can be returned to the soil as well as yielding hydrogen and methane gases as well as heat.
This carbon is effectively sequestered forever on human terms. It will also support a network of soil organisms that will turn infertile hardpan into rich, black, topsoil. Crop or plant growth takes off as the improved soil retains water and nutrients better than mineral soils commonly found in much of the world.
But it's easier to call it a "tree-burning scheme" than to pay attention isn't it?
Fighting the forces of rather dim lighting wherever they may be found!!
Read the article. This is not what Hansen is proposing.
He is going after the CO2 as a gas byproduct of electricity generation.
Maybe by then we will have been raptured up into heaven where they have AC.
'Forever' is a long, long time.
It's looking like the Korporate 'right to lifers' have aborted the unborn for all eternity.