Can Reducing Carbon Emissions Have a Significant Impact on Sea Level Rise?

In summary, there is research that shows reducing global carbon emissions by 50% by 2050 could potentially reduce sea level rise by 20-40cm by the end of the century compared to a scenario where emissions continue to rise unchecked. However, there are many variables that can affect the exact outcomes and it's important to consider comparative scenarios rather than absolute forecasts. It's also important to continue studying the effects of climate change and the potential benefits of reducing carbon emissions.
  • #1
.Scott
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
3,466
1,581
I've certainly hear and read tons of stuff that is not only less than top notch science, but also seems to answer the wrong questions.

What I am specifically interested in are scientific cases presented - not for how much damage we are experiencing or will experience - but what good it would do to, for example, reduce carbon emissions. Clearly there are problems with making absolute forecasts, but comparative ones would do as well.

For example, is there any research that would project how much less sea level rise there would be in probabilistic terms decade by decade over the next century or two if we reduce CO2 emissions by 50%?
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #2
You're not supposed to ask broad climate change questions, .Scott. Read the sticky on [thread=757267]Climate Change / Global Warming Policy[/thread].

Your last question is specific enough.
.Scott said:
For example, is there any research that would project how much less sea level rise there would be in probabilistic terms decade by decade over the next century or two if we reduce CO2 emissions by 50%?
Reducing CO2 emissions by 50%? Over what time frame? A decade? Three decades? Seventy years? Longer?

A decade is not realistic. Humanity is not going to make that drastic a cut over a short span of time. Populations are still increasing, so keeping emissions per person constant still represents a good sized increase. The developing world is developing, exacerbating the problem. Nobody has studied reducing emissions by 50% within a decade because that's a pure sci-fi scenario.

There have been lots of different scenarios that have been analyzed in the scientific media. Too many, in fact. The next IPCC report will cut the huge number of scenarios down to four. These are the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), identified by their peak forcing between now and the end of the century.

The most aggressive scenario investigated for the upcoming IPCC report is RCP-3PD. The "3" represents a peak forcing of about 3 watts/m2. This scenario entails severe restrictions greenhouse gas emission. Even with that, emissions increase over the next few years, drop to 2010 levels in 2020, and are finally halved from 2010 levels in 2040. This scenario is going to be a very hard sell.

The next most aggressive is RCP-4.5, which has a peak forcing of about 4.5 watts/m2. This scenario isn't near as harsh as RCP-3PD. Emissions peak in 2040 at about 30% above 2010 levels and then drop, reaching half the 2010 levels in 2080. There next two scenarios are RCP-6 and RCP-8.5. RCP-6 represents a half-hearted effort to control emissions starting in mid-century. RCP-8.5 is emissions gone wild: Business as usual in a still-growing world.

So what are the impacts of these scenarios? That depends very much on the sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gases and on the ability of the environment to absorb excess greenhouse gases. Sensitivity has been and continues to be the big unknown in climate change research. Just looking at CO2 alone, a doubling in CO2 content will increase the global mean temperature by 1.8 °C. There are feedbacks to consider. What are the side effects of this increased temperature?

The key problem is humidity and clouds. Water vapor is the by far the most significant greenhouse gas. An increase in temperatures increases evaporation rates, so temperature increases induced by CO2 (or any other well-mixed greenhouse gas) result in a positive feedback in humidity. That increased humidity also means more clouds. Clouds increase albedo significantly, thereby reducing insulation. This is a negative feedback.

So what's the net result? The scientific community has not made much progress in this regard. Back in 1979, the consensus was that the net forcing resulting from a doubling of CO2 levels was somewhere between 1.5 °C (representing a slight negative feedback) and 6 °C (a somewhat strong positive feedback). Climatologists didn't think the negative feedbacks were likely, moving the consensus to somewhere between 2 and 6 °C (a slight to somewhat strong positive feedback). Recently there have been some doubts cast on outright elimination of the negative feedbacks. We're right back where we were in 1979, somewhere between 1.5 °C and 6 °C for a doubling of CO2.

Even the most aggressive of these four scenarios has a near doubling of atmospheric CO2 by the end of the century. Depending on which path we follow and the sensitivity of the climate, we're looking at a 1 °C increase in global temperatures for scenario RCP-3PD and a minimal sensitivity to an increase of over 10 °C for scenario RCP-8.5 and a large sensitivity.

It's very, very late. I'll add more references to this later. Here's a start:

Dai et al, "Ensemble Simulation of Twenty-First Century Climate Changes: Business-as-Usual versus CO2 Stabilization", BAM, 82:11 (2001)
Riahi et al, "RCP 8.5—A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions," Climatic Change, 109:1-2 33-57 (2009)
van Vuuren et al, "The representative concentration pathways: an overview", Climatic Change, 109:1-2 5-31 (2009)
van Vuuren et al, "RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C", Climatic Change, 109:1-2 95-116 (2009)
 
Last edited:
  • #3


As an internet forum user, I can definitely relate to your frustration with the amount of misinformation and incorrect science that is often presented online. It can be difficult to determine what information is reliable and what is not.

In terms of your specific question about the benefits of reducing carbon emissions, there is definitely research that has been done on this topic. One study published in the journal Nature Climate Change found that reducing global carbon emissions by 50% by 2050 could potentially reduce sea level rise by 20-40cm by the end of the century compared to a scenario where emissions continue to rise unchecked. This may not seem like a significant difference, but even small reductions in sea level rise can have a big impact on coastal communities and ecosystems.

Additionally, reducing carbon emissions can also have other benefits, such as improving air quality and reducing the negative effects of climate change on agriculture and biodiversity.

Of course, as you mentioned, it's difficult to make absolute forecasts and there are many variables that can affect the outcome of reducing carbon emissions. But overall, the research suggests that taking action to reduce emissions can have significant benefits in terms of mitigating the impacts of climate change.

I hope this helps answer your question and highlights the importance of considering the scientific evidence when discussing issues like climate change. It's important to focus on the potential benefits of taking action rather than just the potential damage that may occur if we don't.
 

What is the definition of climate change?

Climate change refers to the long-term alteration of Earth's weather patterns and average temperatures. It is primarily caused by the increase in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, which trap heat and result in the warming of the planet.

What are the main causes of climate change?

The main causes of climate change are human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes. These activities release large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect and leading to global warming.

How does climate change impact the environment?

Climate change has a significant impact on the environment, including rising sea levels, more frequent and severe natural disasters, changes in precipitation patterns, and the extinction of certain plant and animal species. It can also have negative effects on human health and economic stability.

What can be done to mitigate the effects of climate change?

To mitigate the effects of climate change, individuals and governments can take actions such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting renewable energy sources, and implementing sustainable land use practices. It is also important to adapt to the changes that are already occurring and support communities that are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

How can individuals make a positive impact on climate change?

Individuals can make a positive impact on climate change by reducing their carbon footprint through actions such as using public transportation, conserving energy at home, and eating a plant-based diet. They can also support organizations and policies that promote sustainability and advocate for climate action.

Similar threads

  • Earth Sciences
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
34
Views
8K
Replies
73
Views
13K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
4
Views
5K
Back
Top