A team of researchers from the Universities of Southampton, Bristol and Liverpool in the United Kingdom derived a theoretical equation that illustrates the direct relationship between warming and the accumulation of carbon emissions since the end of the 19th century, the period when massive carbon emissions began as a result of human activity. The researchers ran the model on past data and showed that it predicts it well.
The connection between human activity resulting in the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations and the warming we have experienced in recent years is clear from the physics of the gas, which is a greenhouse gas, but it was not clear how the process actually occurs. Now researchers have identified for the first time how global warming relates to the amount of carbon emitted.
A team of researchers from the Universities of Southampton, Bristol and Liverpool in the United Kingdom derived a theoretical equation that illustrates the direct relationship between warming and the accumulation of carbon emissions since the end of the 19th century, the period when massive carbon emissions began as a result of human activity. The researchers ran the model on past data and showed that it predicts it well.
The theoretical equation reveals the complex relationship between carbon dioxide levels and the oceans. Burning fossil fuels increases the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This leads to warming and the greenhouse effect, which is partially offset by the absorption of some of the heat and carbon by the oceans.
According to the study, every million million tons (10 to the 12th power) of carbon emitted causes a warming of one degree Celsius. The model also shows that the accumulation of carbon emitted in the last 200 years will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and possibly even over a thousand, even if new carbon emissions stop.
The findings also reveal that land surface warming is related to the total amount of carbon emitted from fossil fuels, with little change over time as carbon uptake and heat as carbon uptake and changes in carbon uptake by the oceans cancel each other out.
Dr Phil Goodwin from the Institute of Oceanography and Earth Sciences at the University of Southampton says: "Our analysis highlights the almost irreversible nature of carbon emissions and global warming. Once the carbon is released into the atmosphere, the warming effect will last for hundreds of years even when most of the carbon is absorbed by the oceans."
"We cannot wait until we determine the effects of anthropogenic (man-made) warming and then just reduce emissions and hope that the climate will return to normal on its own. he is not."
Prof. Rick Williams, Chair of the Department of Ocean Sciences at the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of Liverpool added: "Given the complexity of climate systems, it was a surprise to find how simple the relationship between global warming and the amount of carbon emissions is."
These findings are consistent with most of the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from last year, which showed how global warming warms according to the amount of carbon we emit."
"In terms of broader policy implications, our theory repeats a simple message: the more carbon we emit, the higher the surface temperature will increase."
"The consequences of this policy reinforce the need to develop technologies for carbon capture to limit warming in future generations" concluded Prof. Williams.
The research was published in Nature Geoscience.
To the announcement of the researchers on the website of the University of Southampton
For research
14 תגובות
Another debate that at the end of time had its say...
He means until the senators feel. The rest of the world has felt this for a long time.
Can you please explain to me the sentence "We cannot wait until we determine the effects of anthropogenic (man-made) warming and then just reduce emissions and hope that the climate will return to normal on its own."?
Because I understand from him that in the meantime the effects of anthropogenic warming are not felt. And this tells me that the connection between human carbon dioxide emissions and global warming has not been proven beyond any doubt (proven beyond any doubt, this is not a scientific claim, by the way).
I don't "bury" the opposite theory. There is no theory but a collection of confused arguments, taking data out of context and a lot of 'eat me drink me' and conspiracy theories.
ארי
I don't follow.
You mentioned what Al Gore said, but that's not what he said….. Gore said there is one study that says the ice (what snow in your head??) at the Pole may be gone as early as 2014. That's not what you (and the liar site you linked to) said !!
And regarding the probability - you will give a simple illustration of your mistake. What is the validity of throwing a fair coin? 0.5, right? After 100 tosses we expect to get a value very close to 0.5. And what is the standard deviation of a coin toss? About 0.7...
Again - you don't know what probability is, and you don't check what you quote. A phenomenon known to the frogs who do not see that the water is going to boil…….
Sorry for the blunt language...
Nissim sorry if I was blunt sometimes a written comment sounds much more dramatic than the writer intended...so I take it back
My intention was that there is no point in getting down to a person's body and engaging in comparisons of who has a more respectable scientific background and who flocks to Internet sites - it is unnecessary.
With you, forgiveness is a miracle
excellent night
The movie on YouTube with a little effort you can find it
And if that is also difficult, then here is an exact quote from Al Gore himself
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1DrX8wzB8QE
So who is wrong, me or you?
But the fact that you are wrong (misleading) or lying does not make me right. All I said is that scientific symposia do not bring the second opinion...as was the case at the beginning of the last century between the mechanistic Newtonian physicists and the quantum physicists.
I've been reading this site for several years and I haven't seen a single article that presents the second opinion (it's also not true as it were, it exists and must be expressed)
A scientist with intellectual honesty is not interested in this or that theory but the scientific truth, and the only way to reach it is to challenge the theory with other theories. In the given situation, this does not happen - the opposite...the editor of the website buries the opposite theory.
Niels Bohr wrote about this last century and claimed that "we are entering a dark age in science"
Nissim, you are a bully known to other commenters, so the rest of your comment has no point in addressing...
ארי
Your comment is full of nonsense. You probably don't understand - your inference from the standard deviation to the validity of the measured value is simply embarrassing. If you want, I will explain.
Al Gore never said what you said. You're just quoting a bunch of liars, and you haven't checked the source.
If you want - I will translate for you what he really said.
Learn, research and then respond. OK?
There was also a warming since 1997, you took a record year (and there can always be records) it is difficult to rise against it but you also managed to make it happen.
No one denies that an excessive release of greenhouse gases causes warming. What needs proof is that the warming exists (even though Al Gore lied and over ten thousand correspondences between the great scientists were leaked that there was no warming since XNUMX.
Even statements like the world is warming by 0.73 degrees every year are not true when the standard deviation of the measuring stations is five degrees (last year records were recorded in low temperatures, and two weeks ago eight people died from an unprecedented snow bank in New York)
Al Gore said that "the best modelers predict that by September XNUMX all the snow in the North Pole will melt" (can be seen in "The Inconvenient Truth") and received a Nobel Peace Prize for it.
In conclusion, there are more holes than cheese in this theory. And the proof is on the claimant.
What's more, as on this site in every "scientific" symposium, the other side is never brought up... and not that there are hundreds of scientists who "disbelieve" in this dogmatic indoctrination.
I live in Europe, here my child was forced to watch an Al Gore movie in elementary school. I understand the economic interests behind the move, it still does not justify forcing a child in the fourth grade and instilling in him fears about the end of the world
I'm not sure what's new in the article,
After all, news already appeared on the website that the connection between man-made emissions and global warming is unequivocal.
It is not clear to me what the innovation of those researchers is...
We need to build a factory in Israel to create hydrogen. Perhaps the state should oblige Bezan to do this. And gradually move to hydrogen-powered transportation.
In the USA, money and God go together - in the Republican party. A normal person who knows the scientific truth of evolution and evolution has no chance of passing the primary barrier, there was one a few years ago, he barely got 2%.
First, I propose to replace the concept of "global warming" with the concept of "global insanity" (Thomas Friedman) - it is true that temperatures are rising on the global average, but with a different effect in each region. It is easier to explain that the biggest impact from the point of view of the citizen is the phenomena of the extremism of the local weather. However, I have no doubt that the various creationists and the deniers of man-made changes will find a suitable answer under the auspices of money and God.