Envirowatchers

[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]


  


17108


Date: June 23, 2020 at 14:32:34
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Global Warming and Cooling After CO2 Shutoff at +1.5°C

URL: https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/06/23/global-warming-and-cooling-after-co2-shutoff-at-1-5c/


see link for graphs...

June 23, 2020
Global Warming and Cooling After CO2 Shutoff at +1.5°C
by Manuel García, Jr.

I have done further analytical modeling of global warming, using the same general method described earlier.

The question addressed now is: what is the trend of temperature change after an abrupt shutoff of all CO2 emissions just as the net temperature rise (relative to year 1910) reaches +1.5°C, given the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere?

For this problem, it is assumed that when the temperature rise (relative to 1910) reaches ~+1.5°C, that:

– all greenhouse gas emissions cease;

– pollution grit (which scatters light) falls out of the atmosphere “instantly” (a few weeks);

– CO2 (greenhouse gas) concentration decays exponentially after emissions shutoff;

– for CO2 lifetimes [e^-1] in years: 20, 50, 100, 238.436, 500, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000;

– temperature sensitivities of cloud cover, ice cover and albedo are as in the previous model;

– all other fixed physical parameters are as in the previous model,

(https://manuelgarciajr.com/2020/06/13/living-with-global-warming/).

In general, for the 8 cases calculated, the temperature increases at a diminishing rate after the emissions shutoff, reaches a peak, then trends downward.

The longer the lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the later and higher is the temperature peak, and the longer it takes to cool back down to the baseline temperature of 1910, which is 1.5°C below the starting temperature for this problem.

The 4 figures below show the calculated results.
A close up of text on a white background Description automatically generated

Figure 1: °C change vs. years after shutoff, for lifetimes: 20, 50, 100, 238.436 years.
A close up of a map Description automatically generated

Figure 2: °C change vs. years after shutoff, for lifetimes: 20, 50, 100, 238.436, 500, 1,000 years.
A close up of text on a white background Description automatically generated

Figure 3: °C change vs. years after shutoff, for lifetimes: 238.436, 500, 1,000, 10,000 years.
A picture containing table Description automatically generated

Figure 4: °C change vs. years after shutoff, for lifetimes: 1,000, 10,000, 100,000 years.

It is evident from the figures that if the lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is greater than 500 years, that a temperature overshoot above +2.0°C (relative to 1910) will occur before cooling begins.

If the lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is greater than about 250 years, it will take over a century for the eventual cooling to reduce average global temperature to its baseline temperature (which is for 1910 in this model).

If the lifetime of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is greater than 10,000 years, the temperature overshoot will take global warming past +4.0°C (above our 1910 datum) for hundreds to thousands of years, and cooling back down to the temperature at our datum would take millennia.

The clearing of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is a slow process. The absorption of CO2 by the oceans, and the subsequent dissolution of seafloor sediments (acidifying the oceans) occur over decades to centuries. The uptake of carbon dioxide by weathering reactions in carbonate and silicate soils and rocks occurs over millennia to many tens of millennia.

It took about 200,000 years to clear away the CO2 that caused the +8°C to +12°C global warming spike that occurred 55.5 million years ago, which is known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM).

Beyond its intrinsic scientific interest, this study confirms what has long been known as the needed remedy: anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases must permanently cease as soon as possible in order to limit the ultimate extent and duration of unhealthy global warming.

My notes on the mathematical solution of this problem are available through the following link

Global Warming Model #2, CO2 Shutoff after +1.5°C


Responses:
[17112] [17134] [17135] [17137]


17112


Date: June 24, 2020 at 20:27:40
From: JTRIV, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Counterpunch history of Russian influence and biased site

URL: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/counterpunch/


Something happened to make my post disappear! Must
have been a technical issue as I'm sure Mr Bopp
wouldn't be so hypocritical as to delete a post
sharing the wisdom of the armchair douche bag at
mediabiasfactcheck.com.


Caution, Counterpunch has been noted for printing
writings of the Russian government and is known to
have a left bias. See link.

This will have to do until I find another armchair
media analyst.

Apparently Mr Bopp thinks we should point out sites
that have a bias and dealing with the Russians too!
I encourage everyone to fact check these things
carefully.

Cheers

Jim


Responses:
[17134] [17135] [17137]


17134


Date: June 27, 2020 at 19:45:56
From: Rodney Boulderfield, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Cowpunchers know that CO2 is the feed stock


Of photosynthesis in plants. Airborne fertilizer,
really. Basic carbon cycle concepts, maybe this expert
is so advanced that the fundamentals have been
forgotten? Better fact check with Greta.


Responses:
[17135] [17137]


17135


Date: June 27, 2020 at 20:09:33
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Cowpunchers know that CO2 is the feed stock


lol...that's rich rodney...unfortunately airborne fertilizer brings about runaway heating...


Responses:
[17137]


17137


Date: June 28, 2020 at 19:21:15
From: Rodney Boulderfield, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Cowpunchers know that CO2 is the feed stock


Read the article, this science guy is so far over the
top with the posturing about CO2 as the eternally
persistent substance, totally buries any concept of it
being plant food. CO2 is NOT STATIC, it's extremely
dynamic, the photosynthetic biomass responds with
increases in consumption due to stimulated metabolism
and increases in biomass. Unless something else is
killing the biomass of course.


Responses:
None


[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]

Generated by: TalkRec 1.17
    Last Updated: 30-Aug-2013 14:32:46, 80837 Bytes
    Author: Brian Steele