Print 89 comment(s) - last by JediJeb.. on Aug 11 at 5:57 PM

  (Source: All American Patriots)
Goal of study is to constrain temperature change to 2 degrees Fahrenheit

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg have calculated the amount of carbon dioxide humans can safely emit before effecting the heating of the Earth.

Scientist Erich Roeckner and his team have created a model that determines the highest volumes of carbon dioxide that humans are allowed to emit in order to ensure that Earth does not heat up by more than two degrees Celsius, which is the gate to climate warming. They've used the methodology proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in order to reconstruct historical emission pathways "on the basis of already-calculated carbon dioxide concentrations." 

In order for this to occur, carbon cycle data, such as the volume of carbon dioxide absorbed by forests and oceans, is added to the model. The model then simulates the evolution of carbon dioxide emissions in order to understand what the future holds and how it should be changed to prevent warming. 

The model is based on a low-resolution spatial grid with 400 kilometer grid spacing. With this kind of model, the land surface, ocean, sea ice, atmosphere and terrestrial and marine carbon cycle are all included in the study.

According to the model, carbon dioxide caused by fossil fuels must be reduced to almost zero by the end of the century to achieve long-term goals of carbon concentration stabilization in the atmosphere. The model calculated that, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, fossil carbon dioxide has increased by 35 percent.

Other figures the model has calculated is that carbon emissions will increase from seven billion tonnes in 2000 to 10 billion tonnes in 2015. Then, emissions will have to be decreased by 56 percent by 2050, and reach zero by the end of the century for long-term stabilization to be achieved. But even if these goals are met, global warming would only stay below two degrees Celsius until 2100, and further measures will need to be taken to control warming. 

Roeckner noted that it will take centuries to stabilize the global climate system, and that their data is being studied and evaluated at other climate centers in Europe. 

"As soon as all of the results are available, we can evaluate the spread between the models," said Roeckner. "The more significant the data we have, the more accurate our forecast will be."

In other news, a University of Georgia marine chemist, Wei-Jun Cai, just disproved that melting ice at the poles will allow open water to catch carbon dioxide from the the air. According to a survey of waters in the Canada Basin, the potential carbon dioxide "sink" would be a very short period of time with minor effects due to the amount of rising emissions. 

The study was published in the July 2010 edition of Science

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Cute
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2010 5:29:45 PM , Rating: 0
The CO2 you exhale comes from the food you eat.

LOL WOW!!! You know, I'm not a doctor or anything, but I'm pretty sure it comes from the LUNGS! You know, those two oxygen scrubbers in your chest??

You are an idiot.

mmhmm, too easy.

RE: Cute
By HotFoot on 8/3/2010 5:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
Um... no, really, it does come from the food we eat. His point being that it's part of a cycle. Not that it was entirely important a point to start with.

Burning fossil fuels is also part of a cycle, but the timeline is very, very long. The carbon stored in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere. It was stored slowly over eons. We are releasing it relatively quickly, and that has some people worried (perhaps overly worried) about what the impact will be on the environment.

Getting back to the article, I really look at these modelling techniques with a great deal of scepticism. The feedbacks can hardly be properly calibrated. I recall reading an article a couple years ago where the surprise result was that the Earth was getting greener over time: even with all the deforestation that's occurred the biomass has been increasing. Higher CO2 levels and perhaps changing precipitation patterns are the likely cause.

So, my question is still whether the CO2 being released is at a significant enough rate to really disturb the natural balance of things. Compared to the natural CO2 cycle, burning fossil fuels is relatively a small portion. How well is the increased plant activity accounted for in the global warming models?


Anyways, Reclaimer, this post I've replied to is one of your least sensible. Sheesh.

RE: Cute
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2010 5:59:28 PM , Rating: 1
He gave no indication that his statement was part of a "cycle". He said, flat out, CO2 you exhale is from the food you eat.

At worst you can accuse me of taking him too literal. But I prefer to judge people by what they said, not speculate as to what they meant.

But I have no desire to get drawn into a "chicken or egg" argument. Of course I understand that without food, we wouldn't be able to breath. And that everything we are and do is part of a cycle. But he really did a bad job of wrapping that into his statement.

RE: Cute
By BigDH01 on 8/3/2010 6:40:05 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't that difficult to interpret. At least the C part of the CO2 we exhale is from the food we eat. This is not a result of a macro carbon cycle, but the Krebs cycle. Actually, looking back on it (and it's been awhile since I've taken Biochem), atmospheric oxygen appears to only be needed as the final electron acceptors in the ETC. This means that the CO2 produced by your body originated from atoms coming from glucose, not atmospheric sources. So yes, the CO2 you exhale is from the food you eat.

RE: Cute
By Spuke on 8/3/2010 6:10:55 PM , Rating: 1
Um... no, really, it does come from the food we eat.
You are perpetuating misleading information by oversimplifying the process. See BigDH01's post.

RE: Cute
By walk2k on 8/3/2010 5:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
Talk about opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

RE: Cute
By BigDH01 on 8/3/2010 5:54:40 PM , Rating: 3

You derive your energy from a redox reaction whereby glucose is oxidized and oxygen is reduced. This reaction results in CO2.

RE: Cute
By Spuke on 8/3/2010 6:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
You derive your energy from a redox reaction whereby glucose is oxidized and oxygen is reduced. This reaction results in CO2.
The reaction also results in water (H2O), not just CO2.

"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki