English

Controlling the Global Mean Temperature by Decarbonization

• Dautzenberg Frits Mathias ^{1, ,} ,
• Lu Yong ^2, ,
• Xu Bin ^3,

• 1.

  Serenix Corporation, 5632 Coppervein Street, Fort Collins, CO 80528, USA

• 2.

  Shanghai Key Laboratory of Green Chemistry and Chemical Processes, School of Chemistry and Molecular Engineering, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China

• 3.

  ECO Zhuo Xin Energy-Saving Technology (Shanghai) Company Limited, Shanghai 201109, China

Corresponding author: Dautzenberg Frits Mathias, fritsd@serenixcorp.com

• Received Date: 23 August 2020
  Accepted Date: 18 September 2020
  Revised Date: 16 September 2020
  Available Online: 15 May 2021

Abstract: Establishing a reliable method to predict the global mean temperature (T_e) is of great importance because CO₂ reduction activities require political and global cooperation and significant financial resources. The current climate models all seem to predict that the earth's temperature will continue to increase, mainly based on the assumption that CO₂ emissions cannot be lowered significantly in the foreseeable future. Given the earth's multifactor climate system, attributing atmospheric CO₂ as the only cause for the observed temperature anomaly is most likely an oversimplification; the presence of water (H₂O) in the atmosphere should at least be considered. As such, T_e is determined by atmospheric water content controlled by solar activity, along with anthropogenic CO₂ activities. It is possible that the anthropogenic CO₂ activities can be reduced in the future. Based on temperature measurements and thermodynamic data, a new model for predicting T_e has been developed. Using this model, past, current, and future CO₂ and H₂O data can be analyzed and the associated T_e calculated. This new, esoteric approach is more accurate than various other models, but has not been reported in the open literature. According to this model, by 2050, T_e may increase to 15.5 ℃ under "business-as-usual" emissions. By applying a reasonable green technology activity scenario, T_e may be reduced to approximately 14.2 ℃. To achieve CO₂ reductions, the scenario described herein predicts a CO₂ reduction potential of 513 gigatons in 30 years. This proposed scenario includes various CO₂ reduction activities, carbon capturing technology, mineralization, and bio-char production; the most important CO₂ reductions by 2050 are expected to be achieved mainly in the electricity, agriculture, and transportation sectors. Other more aggressive and plausible drawdown scenarios have been analyzed as well, yielding CO₂ reduction potentials of 1051 and 1747 gigatons, respectively, in 30 years, but they may reduce global food production. It is emphasized that the causes and predictions of the global warming trend should be regarded as open scientific questions because several details concerning the physical processes associated with global warming remain uncertain. For example, the role of solar activities coupled with Milankovitch cycles are not yet fully understood. In addition, other factors, such as ocean CO₂ uptake and volcanic activity, may not be negligible.

Key words:
• Calculation method for global mean temperature
•  /  CO₂ in the atmosphere
•  /  Water in the atmosphere
•  /  Global warming
•  /  CO₂ reduction

• 1. [1]

     Hausfather, Z.; Drake, H. F.; Abott, T.; Schmidt, G. A. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2020, 47 (1), e2019GL085378. doi: 10.1029/2019GL085378

  2. [2]

     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports, 1990-2019. https://www.ipcc.ch (accessed on Sep. 18, 2020).

  3. [3]

     GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP v4), version 4, 2019. https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp (accessed on Sep. 18 2020).

  4. [4]

     Buis, A. Study conforms climate models are getting future warming projections right. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/ (accessed on Sep. 18 2020).

  5. [5]

     Moore, P. A. Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout; Beatty Street Publishing Inc.: Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2013.

  6. [6]

     Spencer, R. W. The Greatest Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists; Encounter Books: New York, NY, USA, 2010.

  7. [7]

     Petit, J. R.; Jouzel, J.; Raynaud, D.; Barkov, N. I.; Barnola, J. -M.; Basile, I.; Bender, M.; Chappellaz, J.; Davis, M.; Delaygue, G.; et al. Nature 1999, 399 (6735), 429. doi: 10.1038/20859

  8. [8]

     Bohren, C. F.; Clothiaux, E. E. Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation: An Introduction with 400 Problems; Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, Germany, 2006.

  9. [9]

     www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387H/Lectures/chap2.pdf (accessed on Sep. 18 2020).

  10. [10]

      https://www.nist.gov/publications/web-thermo-tables-line-version-trc-thermodynamics-table (accessed on Sep. 18, 2020).

  11. [11]

      Yaws, C. L. Chemical Properties Handbook; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1999; p. 291 and p. 310.

  12. [12]

      Cox, P. M.; Huntingford, C.; Williamson, M. S. Nature 2018, 533 (7688), 319. doi: 10.1038/nature25450

  13. [13]

      Deser, C. Making Sense of Climate Projections. Lecture at the University of Washington, Department of Atmospheric Sciences: Seattle, WA, USA, 2019.

  14. [14]

      http://www.scotese.com/earth.htm. (accessed on Sep. 18 2020)

  15. [15]

      Ruddiman, W. F. Earth's Climate: Past and Future, 3rd ed.; W.H. Freeman & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2013.

  16. [16]

      Pagani, M.; Zachos, J. C.; Freeman, K. H.; Tipple, B.; Bohaty, S. Science 2005, 309 (5734), 600. doi: 10.1126/science.1110063

  17. [17]

      https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/500-million-year-survey-earths-climate-reveals-dire-warning-humanity (accessed on Sep. 18 2020).

  18. [18]

      Moore, P. A. Climate Realism. Presentation at the Climate Realism seminar, Toronto, Canada, October, 2019.

  19. [19]

      https://ourworldindata.org/CO₂-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed on Sep. 18, 2020).

  20. [20]

      Abbot, J.; Marohasy, J. Geo. Res. J. 2017, 14, 36. doi: 10.1016/j.grj.2017.08.001

  21. [21]

      https://www.therightinsight.org/Patrick-Moore-Should-We-Celebrate-CO₂ (accessed on Sep. 18, 2020).

  22. [22]

      Hawken, P. Drawdown-The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming; Penguin Books, New York, NY, USA, 2017.

  23. [23]

      Henson, R. The Thinking Person's Guide to Climate Change, 2nd ed.; The American Meteorological Society: Boston, MA, USA, 2019.

  24. [24]

      Vertes, A.; Qureshi, N.; Yukawa, H.; Blaschek, H. Biomass to Biofuels: Strategies for Global Industries. John Wiley & Sons LTD.: Chicher, West Sussex, UK, 2010.

  25. [25]

      Anastassiadis, S. G. World J. Bio. Biotechnol. 2016, 1 (1), 1. doi: 10.33865/wjb.001.01.0002

  26. [26]

      Han, L.; Ro, K. S; Sun, K.; Sun, H.; Wang, Z.; Libra, J. A.; Xing, B. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50 (24), 13274. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b02401

  27. [27]

      Doucet, F. J. Scoping Study on CO₂ Mineralization Technologies. Report No. CGS-2011-007-Prepared for South African Centre for Carbon Capture and Storage, 2011.

  28. [28]

      Xie, H.; Yue, H.; Zhu, J.; Liang, B.; Li, C.; Wang, Y.; Xie, L.; Zhou, X. Engineering 2015, 1 (1), 150. doi: 10.15302/J-ENG-2015017

  29. [29]

      https://www.theleadsouthaustria.com.au, Willis, B. Global carbon capture potential for rare nanoparticles, 2020, March 24 (accessed on Sep. 18, 2020).

  30. [30]

      Dean, C. Expert Discuss Engineering Feats, Like Space Mirrors to Slow Climate Change; The New York Times: New York, NY, USA, Nov. 10, 2007.

  31. [31]

      Gramling, C. In a Climate Crisis, Is Geoengineering Worth the Risks? Science News; Society for Science & the Public: Washington DC, USA, Oct. 6, 2019.

  32. [32]

      www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/the-energy-future/scenarios/shell-scenario-sky.html (accessed on Sep. 18, 2020).

•