Download Global Carbon Cycle and Climate Change: The Effect of Human

Global Carbon Cycle and Climate Change:
The Effect of Human Activity
Ross J. Salawitch
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
University of Maryland, College Park (as of 1 Sept 2007)
[email protected] − or − [email protected]
CSU Bakersfield-NASA Summer Institute
26 June 2007
Modern CO2 Record
Δ (CO2) years 1958 to 2000 ≈ 53 ppm = 117 Gt C
Charles Keeling, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm
Carbon Emissions
CO2 emission, 1958 to 2000 = 201 Gt C
Δ (CO2), 1958 to 2000 ≈ 117 Gt C
~60% of carbon emitted remains in the atmosphere
Rest goes to either:
– oceans
– terrestrial biosphere (trees and plants)
– soils
Data from http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm
World Carbon Emissions
Human Release of Carbon
Current human activities release about 7 Gt (giga tons),
or 7,000,000,000 (7 × 109) tons of carbon per year.
How much is 7 Gt of carbon ?!?
Human Release of Carbon
Current human activities release about 7 Gt (giga tons),
or 7,000,000,000 (7 × 109) tons of carbon per year.
How much is 7 Gt of carbon ?!?
Mazda Miata weighs about 1 ton (2200 lbs)
7 Gigatons C ≈ 7 billion Miatas
Miata is about 13 feet long
Earth’s circumference is ~25,000 miles
⇒ 10 million Miatas placed end-to-end
7 Gigatons C is equivalent to a series of Miatas,
placed end-to-end, encircling the Earth 700 times !
Strong Correlation between CO2 and Surface Temperature,
last ~150 years
Why did CO2 start to rise ?
Carbon Production
Production Gt C per year
8
6
TOTAL
BIOSPHERE
(mainly agricultural
deforestation)
4
BURING OF
FOSSIL FUELS
2
0
Siegenthaler and Oescheger, 1987
1760
1800
1840
1880
YEAR
1920
1960
2000
Strong Correlation between CO2 and Surface Temperature,
last ~1000 years
Strong Correlation between CO2 and Surface Temperature,
last ~400,000 years
Greenhouse Effect
of CO
and H2and
O
Greenhouse
Effect
of 2CO2
H2O
Houghton, Global Warming, Cambridge Univ Press, 1997
Greenhouse Effect : Clouds
Greenhouse Effect: Clouds
Modeling Climate Change
Solar and Volcanic Forcing
All Forcings
IPCC 2001
Climate Change: Scientific Basis
GHGs, aerosols, and O3
No solar & volcanic Forcing
Modeling Climate Change
Solar & Volcanic Forcing
Are humans responsible?
All forcings
GHGs, aerosols, O3
No solar & volcanic
Modeling Climate Change
Solar & Volcanic Forcing
Are humans responsible?
Orbital variations: too slow
All forcings
GHGs, aerosols, O3
No solar & volcanic
Modeling Climate Change
Solar & Volcanic Forcing
Are humans responsible?
Orbital variations: too slow
Volcanoes: no sustained forcing
All forcings
GHGs, aerosols, O3
No solar & volcanic
Modeling Climate Change
Solar & Volcanic Forcing
Are humans responsible?
Orbital variations: too slow
Volcanoes: no sustained forcing
Solar variability:
Perhaps dominant forcing of Medieval Warming
and Little Ice Age
Small effect since ~1960
Reconstructed
Temperature
All forcings
GHGs, aerosols, O3
No solar & volcanic
Modeling Climate Change
Solar & Volcanic Forcing
GHGs, aerosols, O3
No solar & volcanic
Are humans responsible?
Orbital variations: too slow
Volcanoes: no sustained forcing
Solar variability:
Perhaps dominant forcing of Medieval warming
Small effect since ~1960
All forcings
Internal variability (eg, El Niño / La Niña) :
Climate record from 1000 to 1850 shows nothing like present rate of warming
Modeling Climate Change
Solar & Volcanic Forcing
GHGs, aerosols, O3
No solar & volcanic
Are humans responsible?
Orbital variations: too slow
Volcanoes: no sustained forcing
Solar variability:
Perhaps dominant forcing of Medieval warming
Small effect since ~1960
All forcings
Internal variability (eg, El Niño / La Niña) :
Climate record from 1000 to 1850 shows nothing like present rate of warming
IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis concludes:
Very high confidence* that the globally averaged net effect of human
activities since 1750 has been one of warming
* Very high confidence: at least a 9 out of 10 change of being correct
H2O and Cloud Feedback
JPL satellite data show that that convection enhances the greenhouse effect
by leading to increased H2O and cloud ice in the tropical upper troposphere
SST
MLS Cloud Ice
MLS UT H2O
Su et al., GRL, 2006
H2O and Cloud Feedback: Models and Measurements
● Climate models qualitatively capture obs. relations between H2O (UTWV), Cloud Ice (IWP), & SST
● Nearly all models produce a slope of Cloud Ice (IWP) vs SST that is less than observed
● Models simulate H2O better feedback (factor of 2 variations wrt data) better than Cloud Feedback
(factors of 4 to 10 variations wrt data)
Data
Cloud feedback under active investigation:
NASA CloudSat, CALIPSO instruments (launched 28 April 2006)
NASA TC4 (Tropical Composition, Cloud and Climate Coupling) mission
San Jose, Costa Rica, July and August 2007
http://www.espo.nasa.gov/tc4/
Su et al., GRL, 2006
Consequences of Climate Change
Projected adverse impacts include:
• General reduction in crop yields in most tropical and sub-tropical regions
• General reduction (some variation) in crop yields in most mid-latitude regions
• Decreased water availability in many water-scarce regions, particularly in the sub-tropics
• An increase in the number of people exposed to vector-borne (malaria) and water-borne
diseases (cholera), and an increase in heat stress mortality
• Widespread increased flooding risk (tens of millions of inhabitants in settlements studied)
from both increased heavy precipitation events and sea-level rise
Projected beneficial impacts based on models include:
• Increased potential crop yields in some mid-latitude regions
• Potential increase in global timber supply from appropriately managed forests
• Increased water availability in some water-scarce regions: e.g., parts of SE Asia
• Reduced winter mortality in mid and high-latitudes
Source: IPCC Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report
Sea Level Rise
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/index.html
Future Sea Level Rise
Note: collapse of Greenland Ice Sheet would cause ~7 meter rise in sea level
ICE EXTENT (million sq km)
Vast regions of Arctic sea ice getting younger and thinner
17
2006
14
1980
1990
2000
YEAR
JPL satellite measurements (QuikScat, GRACE)
as well as Canadian and European radar satellite missions
have all documented this dramatic change
Arctic most susceptible to change
● A female polar bear and her cub in Amundsen Gulf, Canada (Photo by Andre Rochon)
● About 15,000 polar bears live in the Canadian Arctic where they hunt, mainly for seals, off the ice floe edge
● Researchers are worried about the possible impact of shrinking ice cover on polar bear numbers
● The Canadian Wildlife Service has noticed that the ice is breaking up about two weeks earlier
than usual and bears are coming to shore with less body fat to sustain them through the summer months
● US Fish and Wildlife Service considering adding polar bears to their list of threatened & endangered species
http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm
West Antarctic Ice Sheet
Large regions of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are showing
the first signs of the impacts of global warming
as interpreted by this satellite analysis
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-058
Ocean Acidification
• As atmospheric CO2 ↑ the ocean becomes more acidic
• Eventually, the ocean may be too acidic for whole classes of organisms to form their shells
The Dangers of Ocean Acidification, S. Doney, Scientific American, March, 2006
Back to the Future: Predicting Climate Change
Uncertainties:
• Fossil fuel emissions
• Atmospheric CO2 response
• H2O & cloud feedback
Projected future CO2 and T
for multiple CO2 emission scenarios ⇒
Climate Change 2001 “Synthesis Report”, IPCC, page 160
Predicting Future Climate Change
Another uncertainty:
• Positive feedback between climate change
and shifts in CO2 among its biospheric
and oceanic reservoirs
Cox et al., Nature, 408, 184, 2000
1000
Projected future CO2 and T
for a single CO2 emission scenario ⇒
ppm
800
Climate-Land Feedback
Atmospheric CO2
No Feedback
600
400
200
1850
1900
1950
2000
2050
2100
20
Climate-Land Feedback
Global Mean Temperature
Celsius
18
No Feedback
16
14
1850
1900
1950
2000
2050
2100
“[Due to] omission of key positive feedbacks …. future will be hotter than we think (Torn & Harte, GRL, 2006)
Global Carbon Cycle
Where is the CO2 being sequestered?
Human release ~7 Gt C/yr
If 60% stays in the atmosphere, then 0.4 × 7 Gt C/yr ≈ 3 Gt C/yr must be going to land and oceans:
Ocean uptake for the late 1990s estimated to be:
• 0.9 GtC/yr based on inversions of in situ measurements of atmospheric CO2 from
46 surface sites [Peylin et al., 2002]
• 1.5 GtC/yr based on δ13C isotopic fractionation [Gruber and Keeling, 2001]
• 2.0 GtC/yr based on ship board measurements of the ΔpCO2 ratio across
the ocean-atmosphere interface [Takahashi et al., 1999]
• 2.3 GtC/yr based on measured changes in the atmospheric O2/N2 ratio [Bopp et al., 2002]
Global Carbon Cycle
Where is the CO2 being sequestered?
Human release ~7 Gt C/yr
If 60% stays in the atmosphere, then 0.4 × 7 Gt C/yr ≈ 3 Gt C/yr must be going to land and oceans:
Land uptake estimated to be:
• 1.7 ± 0.5 GtC/yr for North America and 0.1 ± 0.6 GtC/yr for Eurasia/North Africa, for 1988-92
[Fan et al., 1992]
• 0.7 ± 0.7 GtC/yr for North America, 0.5 ± 0.8 GtC/yr for Europe, and 1.2 ± 0.8 GtC/yr for
North Asia from 1985-1995 [Bousquet et al., 2000]
• 0.37 – 0.71 GtC/yr for continental United States, 1980 -1989 [Pacala et al., 2001]
CO2 Surface Measurement Network
Kyoto Protocol
Article 3
1. The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or
jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic
carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the
greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed
their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their
quantified emission limitation and reduction
commitments inscribed in Annex B and in accordance
with the provisions of this Article, with a view to
reducing their overall emissions of such gases by
at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the
commitment period 2008 to 2012.
KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE
UNITED NATIONS
FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON
CLIMATE CHANGE
2. Each Party included in Annex I shall, by 2005, have
made demonstrable progress in achieving its
commitments under this Protocol.
3. The net changes in greenhouse gas emissions by
sources and removals by sinks resulting from direct
human-induced land-use change and forestry
activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation and
deforestation since 1990, measured as verifiable
changes in carbon stocks in each commitment period,
shall be used to meet the commitments under this
Article of each Party included in Annex I. The
greenhouse gas emissions by sources and
removals by sinks associated with those activities
shall be reported in a transparent and verifiable
manner and reviewed in accordance with Articles 7
and 8.
Page 33
NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) Mission
• Three high resolution spectrometers will obtain global measurements of CO2
• Extensive calibration and validation program to detect and mitigate data bias
• Launch planned for September 2008
• OCO data will considerably reduce uncertainty in geographic distribution of C sinks
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov
How Much Fossil Fuel Reserve Does The World Really Have?
Hubbert’s Peak
•
M. King Hubbert: Shell geophysicist
•
1956 : presented a paper “Nuclear Energy and Fossil Fuels”
that predicted US oil production would peak in 1970
•
Paper was met with skepticism & ridicule
How Much Fossil Fuel Reserve Does The World Really Have?
Annual Crude-Oil Production, billions of barrels
.
Hubbert’s Peak
Hubbert’s Peak (1970)
Alaskan oil
3
2
1
Data from the DOE
Energy Information Administration (EIA)
0
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
Cumulative Future Fossil-Fuel Carbon Emissions, Gt.
How Much Fossil Fuel Reserve Does The World Really Have?
http://rutledge.caltech.edu
2,000
1,000
Economic Analysis
0
2000
2050
2100
• Two independent economic analyses of fossil fuel production indicate the world will run out of
fossil fuel much sooner than is commonly thought
• Coal production (US and China) is by far the largest source of uncertainty
• Atmospheric CO2 will peak at only ~470 ppm according to these analyses
• Dire climate change “doom and gloom” scenarios will be avoided, but the world will have to find
alternate source of energy to sustain its population and increased standards of living
• Analyses by Jean Laherrere (ASPO, France) and David Ruttledge (Caltech)
How Much Fossil Fuel Reserve Does The World Really Have?
• Nuclear Energy:
Alternate Energy
−Clean and efficient if done correctly
− Waste issue yet to be solved
− The US view of support for nuclear energy development changed on 9/11/2001
• Nuclear Energy:
Alternate Energy
−Clean and efficient if done correctly
− Waste issue yet to be solved
− The US view of support for nuclear energy development changed on 9/11/2001
• Solar Energy
− Classic photovoltaic: every US roof top could supply about 10% of primary
energy consumption
− Cost = 7×107 homes x $30,000 per home = 2.1 Trillion dollars (20% of GDP)
• Nuclear Energy:
Alternate Energy
−Clean and efficient if done correctly
− Waste issue yet to be solved
− The US view of support for nuclear energy development changed on 9/11/2001
• Solar Energy
− Classic photovoltaic: every US roof top could supply about 10% of primary
energy consumption
− Cost = 7×107 homes × $30,000 per home = 2.1 Trillion dollars (20% of GDP)
− Concentrated solar very promising:
Kramer Junction, Calif:
Operating costs: ~ 5 ¢ / kWh in 2000
US cost of electricity ≈ 10 ¢ / kWh
Nevada Solar One
Construction cost: ~50 ¢ / kWh
Output: 130 million kW/year (0.004% of total)
Could supply all US energy needs
if built over a 120 mile × 120 mile area
• Nuclear Energy:
Alternate Energy
−Clean and efficient if done correctly
− Waste issue yet to be solved
− The US view of support for nuclear energy development changed on 9/11/2001
• Solar Energy
− Classic photovoltaic: every US roof top could supply about 10% of primary
energy consumption
− Cost = 7×107 homes x $30,000 per home = 2.1 Trillion dollars (20% of GDP)
− Concentrated solar very promising
• Biomass
− Ethanol (C2H5OH):
▪ has promise, but more environmentally friendly if production is
based on sugar cane (Brazil) rather than corn (US Midwest Senators)
▪ true cost ~$5 to $6 to obtain energy equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline
− Methanol (CH3OH)
▪ can be formed from CO2 + 3H2 solar energy → CH3OH + H2O
▪ addresses “energy storage problem” of solar energy
▪ championed by USC Nobel Laureate George Olah
▪ more toxic than gasoline and ethanol
▪ source & handling of H2 feedstock crucial
• Nuclear Energy:
Alternate Energy
−Clean and efficient if done correctly
− Waste issue yet to be solved
− The US view of support for nuclear energy development changed on 9/11/2001
• Solar Energy
− Classic photovoltaic: every US roof top could supply about 10% of primary
energy consumption
− Cost = 7×107 homes x $30,000 per home = 2.1 Trillion dollars (20% of GDP)
− Concentrated solar very promising
• Biomass
− Ethanol (C2H6O):
▪ has promise, but more environmentally friendly if production is
based on sugar cane (Brazil) rather than corn (US Midwest Senators)
▪ true cost perhaps equivalent to $6 / gallon of gasoline
− Methanol (CH3OH)
▪ can be formed from CO2 + 3H2 solar energy → CH3OH + H2O
▪ addresses “energy storage problem” of solar energy
▪ championed by USC Nobel Laureate George Olah
▪ more toxic than gasoline and ethanol
▪ source & handling of H2 feedstock crucial
• Wind, Hydrothermal, Geothermal, H2
− Will contribute but likely will not dominate US or world energy needs
Ethanol Production Info
Personal Choices
• Legislation
− Get involved !
• Personal Transport
− Live close enough to work to “walk to work”
− Hybrids rock
• Home Energy
− Geothermal systems cost about $7,000 to install and pay for themselves in ~5 yrs
http://www.geoexchange.org
− Solar systems with 3 kWh output cost about $15,000 to install (after CA rebates) and
pay for themselves in ~10 to 15 yrs
− Geothermal + solar ≈ no energy bills for life of system
• Carbon footprint
http://www.carbonfootprint.com
• Carbon Management
http://www.treeflights.com
Email me with questions, comments, or for copies of this talk:
[email protected] or [email protected]
Extra Material
T vs CO2 : Paleo, Modern, and Future
How Much Fossil Fuel Reserve Does The World Really Have?
Hubbert’s Peak
• March 8, 2006 marked the fifty year anniversary of M. King Hubbert's seminal speech in which he
accurately forecasted the 1970 peaking of United States oil production.
• Few heeded Hubbert's warning and many, including the United States Geological Survey, actively
sought to discredit his work.
• The lack of preparation on the government's part set the United States up for the oil shocks of the
1970's and egregious dependence on foreign oil that we experience today.
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/specials/662
Further Reading
• Global Warming, The Complete Briefing, John Houghton, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004
• The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate,
Andy Dessler and Edward Parson, Cambridge University Press, 2006
• Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, George Olah, Alain Goeppert, and
Surya Prakash, Wiley, 2005
• Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Jared Diamond, Penguin Group, 2005.
• IPCC Climate Change 2007: http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html
• IPCC Climate Change Synthesis Report, 2001: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar
• Hubbert’s Peak and Future Oil Production (Prof. David Rutledge) : http://rutledge.caltech.edu
• Solar Energy & Other Alternate Energies (Prof Nate Lewis): http://nsl.caltech.edu/files/energy.ppt
• A well taken, contrarian view: http://www.co2science.org
Email me with questions, comments, or for copies of this talk:
[email protected] or [email protected]
California Executive Order S-3-05
GHG Emissions Reduction
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLDSCHWARZENEGGER,
Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the
power invested in me by the Constitution and statutes
of the State of California, do hereby order effective
immediately:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EXECUTIVE ORDER S-3-05
by the
Governor of the State of California
WHEREAS, California is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change; and
That the following greenhouse gas emission reduction
targets are hereby established for California:
– by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
– by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels;
– by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent
– below 1990 levels
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/energy/ExecOrderS-3-05.htm
WHEREAS, increased temperatures threaten to greatly reduce the Sierra snowpack, one of the State's primary sources of
water; and
WHEREAS, increased temperatures also threaten to further exacerbate California's air quality problems and adversely
impact human health by increasing heat stress and related deaths, the incidence of infectious disease, and the risk of
asthma, respiratory and other health problems; and
WHEREAS, rising sea levels threaten California's 1,100 miles of valuable coastal real estate and natural habitats; and
WHEREAS, the combined effects of an increase in temperatures and diminished water supply and quality threaten to alter
micro-climates within the state, affect the abundance and distribution of pests and pathogens, and result in variations in
crop quality and yield; and
WHEREAS, mitigation efforts will be necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation efforts will be
necessary to prepare Californians for the consequences of global warming; and
WHEREAS, California has taken a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by: implementing the California
Air Resources Board motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission reduction regulations; implementing the Renewable
Portfolio Standard that the Governor accelerated; and implementing the most effective building and appliance efficiency
standards in the world; and
WHEREAS, California-based companies and companies with significant activities in California have taken leadership
roles by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and
hydrofluorocarbons, related to their operations and developing products that will reduce GHG emissions; and
WHEREAS, companies that have reduced GHG emissions by 25 percent to 70 percent have lowered operating costs and
increased profits by billions of dollars; and
WHEREAS, technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions are increasingly in demand in the worldwide
marketplace, and California companies investing in these technologies are well-positioned to profit from this demand,
thereby boosting California's economy, creating more jobs and providing increased tax revenue; and
WHEREAS, many of the technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions also generate operating cost savings to
consumers who spend a portion of the savings across a variety of sectors of the economy; this increased spending
creates jobs and an overall benefit to the statewide economy.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the power
invested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the State of California, do hereby order effective immediately:
Page 50
Temperature Changes in California
LaDochy et al., Climate Research, 2007
Higher T, changes in precipitation, more extreme events
Source:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/index.htm
CO2 and Temperature: Geologic Time Scales
Mesozoic ~245 to 65 million YBP:
Present Day CO2 ~350 ppm ⇒ 0.03 %
• Equable climate
• NH and SH poles were ~20 ºC warmer than present
• No polar ice, year round !!!
High latitude ferns abundant during Mesozoic.
From http://earth.usc.edu/~stott/Catalina/Mesozoic.html
R. Dudley, J. Exper. Biol., 201, 1043, 1998.
Extra Material
US Energy Sources, 2004
US Energy Information Administration
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/renewableenergy.html
External Climate Forcing
CO2 Capture
Cost of CO2 capture estimated at ~$150 / ton of CO2
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/capture/
http://web.mit.edu/coal/
Cost of capture: $150 / ton CO2 × 7 × 109 tons C / yr = $ 1000 billion
Present cost of fossil fuel: $70 / barrel ≈ $600 / ton
US GDP, 2004
: $ 11,750 billion
World GDP, 2004 : $ 55,500 billion
CO2 capture = 8.5 % of US GDP
CO2 capture = 1.7 % of World GDP
But: where to place the captured CO2 ?
Deep sea ⇒ but: how to get it there ?
cost of getting it there ?
ecological consequences ?
Electricity Costs
How Much Fossil Fuel Reserve Does The World Really Have?
• Two independent economic analyses of fossil fuel production indicate the world will run out of
fossil fuel much sooner than is commonly thought
Sea Level Rise
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/index.html
Note: collapse of Greenland Ice Sheet would cause ~7 meter rise in sea level
Kyoto Protocol
Article 3
1.The Parties included in Annex I
shall, individually or jointly, ensure
that their aggregate anthropogenic
carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
of the greenhouse gases listed in
Annex A do not exceed their
assigned amounts, calculated
pursuant to their quantified
emission limitation and reduction
commitments inscribed in Annex B
and in accordance with the
provisions of this Article, with a
view to reducing their overall
emissions of such gases by at least 5
per cent below 1990 levels in the
commitment period 2008 to 2012.
2. Each Party included in Annex I
shall, by 2005, have made
demonstrable progress in
achieving its commitments under
this Protocol.
3 The net changes in greenhouse gas
KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE
UNITED NATIONS
FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON
CLIMATE CHANGE
Global Carbon Cycle and Climate Change:
The Effect of Human Activity
Ross J. Salawitch
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
University of Maryland, College Park (as of 1 Sept 2007)
[email protected] − or − [email protected]
CSU Bakersfield-NASA Summer Institute
26 June 2007