Researchers set out path for global warming reversal

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.iop.org/news/13/jul/page_60512.html

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Researchers set out path for global warming reversal[/font]

11 July 2013 | Source: [link:http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/3/034004/article|Environmental Research Letters
]
[font size=4]Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) can reverse the global warming trend and push temperatures back below the global target of 2°C above pre-industrial levels, even if current policies fail and we initially overshoot this target.[/font]

[font size=3]This is according to a new study, published today, 11 July, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters, which shows that ambitious temperature targets can be exceeded then reclaimed by implementing BECCS around mid-century.

The researchers, from Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden, show that if BECCS is implemented on a large-scale along with other renewable energy sources, temperature increases can be as low as 1.5°C by 2150.

Co-author of the study, Professor Christian Azar, said: “What we demonstrate in our paper is that even if we fail to keep temperature increases below 2°C, then we can reverse the warming trend and push temperatures back below the 2°C target by 2150.

“To do so requires both large-scale use of BECCS and reducing other emissions to near-zero levels using other renewables – mainly solar energy – or nuclear power.”

…[/font][/font]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034004

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Meeting global temperature targets—the role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage[/font]

…

[font size=4]Abstract[/font]

[font size=3]In order to meet stringent temperature targets, active removal of CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] from the atmosphere may be required in the long run. Such negative emissions can be materialized when well-performing bioenergy systems are combined with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Here, we develop an integrated global energy system and climate model to evaluate the role of BECCS in reaching ambitious temperature targets. We present emission, concentration and temperature pathways towards 1.5 and 2 ° C targets. Our model results demonstrate that BECCS makes it feasible to reach temperature targets that are otherwise out of reach, provided that a temporary overshoot of the target is accepted. Additionally, stringent temperature targets can be met at considerably lower cost if BECCS is available. However, the economic benefit of BECCS nearly vanishes if an overshoot of the temperature target is not allowed. Finally, the least-cost emission pathway over the next 50 years towards a 1.5 ° C overshoot target with BECCS is almost identical to a pathway leading to a 2 ° C ceiling target.

…[/font][/font]

[NickB79]

1. I wonder if they take the Arctic feedback loop into account

Because once the permafrost REALLY starts thawing at the end of this decade, that's a LOT of carbon we're gonna have to sequester, even if we somehow figure out a way to stop burning coal, gas and oil.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Better start sequestering now then…

…rather than later.

(Their paper is open access, follow the link in the OP. However, I don’t see that they address that specific feedback mechanism.)

… All major greenhouse gases as well as aerosols are included in the model. Our carbon cycle representation takes into account climate feedback and nonlinearities of the carbonate chemistry in the ocean and CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] fertilization in the terrestrial biosphere.

[Jessy169]

2. Technically feasible perhaps, but politically impossible

With end-of-world'ers in Congress and armies of low-intellect right-wingers giving them power, don't expect ANY logical or beneficial programs to be implemented.

[tinrobot]

7. We are not the only government in the world.

Perhaps some other, more enlightened nation can capture our carbon for us.

(Yes, it is optimistic...)

[pscot]

4. Is that before or after we burn 162 billion tons

of Powder River coal?

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. Yes

They look at a range of scenarios…

[cprise]

6. Didn't the US fossil industry just give up on CCS?

Remember "clean coal"? Where did it go?