From press release:
Scripps researchers outline strategy to limit global warming
Fulfilling Copenhagen Accord will require variety of efforts ranging from ‘Herculean’ to the readily actionable, scientists say
Image: Fast-action climate change strategies advocated by Ramanathan and Xu that curb aerosol pollution will also produce other societal benefits including improvements to public health.
Click here for more information. 
Major greenhouse gas-emitting countries agreed in December climate talks held in Copenhagen that substantial action is required to limit the increase of global average temperature to less than 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F).
In a paper appearing May 3 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Veerabhadran Ramanathan and Yangyang Xu, climate researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, have identified three avenues by which those countries can avoid reaching the warming threshold, a point beyond which many scientists believe climate change will present unmanageable negative consequences for society.
“Without an integrated approach that combines CO2 emission reductions with reductions in other climate warmers and climate-neutral air-pollution laws, we are certain to pass the 2-degree C and likely reach a 4 degree C threshold during this century,” said Ramanathan. “Fortunately there is still time to avert unmanageable climate changes, but we must act now.”
Using a synthesis of National Science Foundation-funded research performed over the last 20 years, Ramanathan and Xu describe three steps that must be taken simultaneously to avoid the threshold, stressing that carbon dioxide control alone is not sufficient.
|
||||
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
  IMAGE: Scripps climate and atmospheric scientist Veerabhadran Ramanathan (gray shirt) looks on as Hafeez Rehman explains new clean-burning cookware and lanterns to rural villagers in India. Ramanathan and Rehman are co-principal investigators in Project…
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Recommended steps include stabilizing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and fashioning warming-neutral pollution laws that will balance the removal of aerosols that have an atmospheric cooling effect with the removal of warming agents such as soot and ozone. Finally, the authors advocate achieving reductions in methane, hydrofluorocarbons and other greenhouse gases that remain in the atmosphere for short periods of time. The authors write that aggressive simultaneous pursuit of these strategies could reduce the probability of reaching the temperature threshold to less than 10 percent before the year 2050.
“By taking a comprehensive look at human induced climate change, this paper clearly separates the global actions which must be undertaken simultaneously — and how quickly these actions must be taken,” said Larry Smarr, founding Director of the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology (Calit2) and a collaborator with Ramanathan on CO2 reduction strategies. “This paper should be required reading for all policy makers.”
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 IMAGE: This is Scripps Distinguished Professor of Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Veerabhadran Ramanathan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
The 2-degree C global temperature increase limit translates to a radiant energy increase of 2.5 watts per square meter. Ramanathan and Xu note that even if greenhouse gas emissions stop increasing in the next five years, human activities will probably create almost double that much radiant energy, which is compensated partially by the masking effect of certain kinds of aerosols that are produced in large part by pollution. Tiny particles of sulfates and other pollutants serve to cool the atmosphere by reflecting sunlight rather than absorbing it, directing heat away from the earth’s surface. Therefore, the authors argue, pollution control measures must take into account and counterbalance the warming that will happen when certain types of pollutants are removed from the skies.
Ramanathan and Xu acknowledge that there are uncertainties about the nature of aerosols and the sensitivity of climate to mitigation actions that make the effects of their suggested course of action hard to determine with precision. They propose demonstration projects to clarify and reduce the uncertainties and verify the efficacies of the various mitigation avenues proposed in the study. The authors add that trends in energy added to the oceans would respond to mitigation actions even before 2050, making them an important diagnostic tool that can gauge the success of mitigation within 20 years.
Supporters of the so-called Copenhagen Accord agreed that the 2-degree C threshold must not be crossed, but the United Nations-sponsored conference did not produce hoped-for binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Scientists have suggested that exceeding that temperature threshold would trigger irreversible phenomena such as widespread release of methane from melting permafrost and large-scale glacial melt, both of which scenarios would exacerbate climate change-related problems such as sea-level rise and acceleration of global warming.
Avoiding the threshold requires holding carbon dioxide levels to less than 441 parts per million, according to the authors, only slightly higher than today’s value of 389 ppm. This equates to a 50-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and an 80-percent reduction by 2100. Ramanathan and Xu acknowledge that such drastic reduction will require a “portfolio of actions in the energy, industrial, agricultural and forestry sections.” Some of these actions will require development of new technologies.
“A massive decarbonization of the energy sector is necessary to accomplish this Herculean task,” the authors write.
But the strategies not focused on CO2 reduction can largely take advantage of existing technologies and more aggressive enforcement of existing regulations. Actions that can be taken immediately include replacement of biomass-fueled stoves with cleaner alternatives in developing countries and retrofitting of diesel filters on vehicles throughout the world.
“The ‘low-hanging fruits’ approach to one of mankind’s great challenges is very appealing because it is a win-win approach,” said Jay Fein, program director in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funds much of Ramanathan’s research. “It cleans up the environment, protects human health and helps to sustain the 2-degree C threshold.”
The authors also point out that the world has already succeeded before in removing dangerous warming agents. The 1987 Montreal Protocol regulated the use of chlorofluorocarbons and the damaging effect of the chemicals on the planet’s ozone layer was diminished. Ramanathan and Xu note that were it not for the Montreal Protocol, the warming effect of chlorofluorocarbons would have added between 0.6 and 1.6 watts per square meter of extra heat energy by now.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why do the idiots get to ride the horses?
If dinosaurs were intelligent, did they too think about saving the planet?
A mythological cause worthy of a mythological hero such as Hercules.
Since swift action is necessary, perhaps we should also summon The Flash.
“Supporters of the so-called Copenhagen Accord agreed that the 2-degree C threshold must not be crossed,”……….. yeh, ’cause they’ve proven………..something? Even if all the bs about us getting warmer is correct(it’s not, none of it is provable other than CO2 is a GHG), if the warming is during the winter(and the indications are that it is), then we’re enjoying more a moderate climate. Isn’t that a good thing? Longer growing seasons…….less snow ins, better economic activity, LESS FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION!!!!…ect….
Scripp’s was the home of one of the great men and teachers of science- the late John Isaacs. Sadly, Scripps has forgotten Isaac’s wisdom:
“My point is, of course, that the intellectual qualities that we neither
teach nor know how to teach, and hence tend to suppress, are precisely
the ones essential to dealing with the complex systems of this planet, and
since these qualities are suppressed in our educational system, untutored
people often possess them in more highly developed form than do the
educated.
I have much greater faith in simple observations and untrammeled
thinking than I have in sophisticated observations and simplistic thinking!
And I have much greater confidence that man’s relationship to the sea and
its resources will be enhanced by thoughtful and observant people closely
involved and broadly acquainted with the sea—scientist and non-scientist
alike—than by frantic bureaucratic responses to public hysteria or by the
pontification of the scientific hierarchy. ”
May you rest in peace John Isaacs
Forget about CO2, and go back to the ‘other’ pollutants like SO2, NO and Mercury.
Control the particulates.
Stop dumping wastes into waterways, etc.
I’m not concerned about the hypothetical warming effects of a trace gas.
I am concerned about sequestering the element that 99.99% of life on Earth is based upon.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
These “scientists” actually believe that we can turn down the earth’s thermostat through laws and regulations. Then they bring up as “proof” the banning of freon, which is quite possibly, another fraud foisted on an uninformed public:
http://thedeadhand.com/portals/thedeadhand/argee/reflib/Climate%20Warming/Ozone%20Hoax.pdf
@ur momisugly Pat Moffitt …..That was a work of beauty, skill and knowledge. Thank God there were people like John Isaacs to state such things, and you to keep such things alive.
I have to laugh when I read stuff like this….”Fast-action climate change strategies advocated by Ramanathan and Xu that curb aerosol pollution will also produce other societal benefits including improvements to public health.”
OK, let’s see how well that worked…in the late 1970’s, the USEPA decided that the big US Steel plant and others like it along the south shore of Lake Michigan generated far too much fine particulates air pollution, and these exacerbated asthma, raised cancer rates a tiny bit etc. By instituting draconian air pollution control measures, these mills all closed down, laying off many thousands of workers.
This is why the South Side of Chicago is so notoriously violent….instead of dying of asthma or lung cancer, residents are now dying from gang warfare, drug use and other unintended benefits of this social engineering experiment. Had the EPA worked with industry to phase controls in and develop new technologies, much harm would have been avoided. It was a death sentence for an industry and all the neighborhoods dependent upon it.
I lived through it then, and I live with it today. Beware the academic social engineers with the cure for everything, and be especially cautious when they raise the “public health” banner!
BTW, RBateman’s comments are right on the money:
“Forget about CO2, and go back to the ‘other’ pollutants like SO2, NO and Mercury.
Control the particulates.
Stop dumping wastes into waterways, etc.”
Public health won’t improve with anymore clean air acts otherwise we’d already see that country folk live longer than city folk. This hasn’t been observed. The health and longevity of a person’s life is primarily genetic, then based on the amount of nutrition and physical activity one receives (which is already abundant for those who want it), and lastly the availability of vaccines and other medical treatments.
Cleaning up the air in modern western cities would make such a small difference it wouldn’t be quantifiable.
“CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 3, 2010 at 9:34 pm
I have to laugh when I read stuff like this….”Fast-action climate change strategies advocated by Ramanathan and Xu that curb aerosol pollution will also produce other societal benefits including improvements to public health.”
I tend to agree.
I find it rather laughable when we get some Greenie and Enviro Groups blaming the Clean Air Act of the 1970s for making Global Warming worse . 🙂
Waaaay OT, but CA appears to have dropped off the edge of the world. 404 error.
These scientists clearly have not followed the lessons of King Cnut too carefully.
(That famous apt-typo-like ancient king resorted to a practical demonstration to convince himself and followers that there were more mighty forces in nature than those afforded to the grandly titled).
“warming-neutral pollution laws” contradicts “other societal benefits including improvements to public health”. Let’s be real here. what they are saying is reduce black carbon, reduce warming, improve public health (Okay, I agree) but also stop declining emissions of sulfates and and other toxic particulates so they will slow warming instead of speeding it up, public health be damned! (Now, I don’t agree)
I say, yes, get Indian off of burning wood, grass, and cow crap. I say no to holding up levels of cooling air pollutants for the “benefits” on climate, and I say no to the idea of trying to do the impossible and supply the world’s energy needs without high emissions of CO2. In fact, India should stop burning crap and start burning Oil.
Whadda Wha?,….
Nothing wrong with:
a) Decreasing particulate pollution
b) Reducing Toxic industrial by products
c) Ensuring appropriate regulation checks blatant public endangerment.
Now,…can they get it into their heads, lumping C02 in with Hydrogen sulfide ain’t sensible.
How come every thing that comes out of a warmista’s face is, apart from actual C02, is,…we must reduce the C02.
Come on people!, deal with actual, kill you dead, wreck the earth, Toxic pollutants,….ah memories,…anyone recall when
WWF saved animals and Greenpeace stopped drums of formaldehyde being dumped in rivers?
Maybe we need a Greenpeace 2.0, the old version has reached its end of life, its buggy, often crashes, is open to all sorts of rear port attacks, and it can’t handle more than one day of memories. Plus theres almost no help desk support, and when you do get through, its been outsourced to Gen Y, where-ever that is. They don’t speak your language, tell you you’re out of warranty and then ask you for more money!
Everyone I know is moving from Greenpeace Version 1.0 to Skeptix 2010, its faster, has built in anti-moron and can handle One or more threads of logic at once.
Ramanathan and Xu are low-hanging fruits.
Speaking now in a rigorous and robust manner, Warmer Is Better.
Re climate change curbing strategies, let’s not and say we did. CO2 is our friend. I advocate doing nothing and enjoying the outcomes. You can thank me now, or thank me later. But you will thank me, of that I’m sure.
They acknowledge CFCs are a “dangerous warming agent.”
Previous research discussed here showed that CFCs (with cosmic rays) were the primary culprit of
global warmingclimate change.Yet here they are trying to fulfill the “so-called Copenhagen Accord” which is based on thinking CO2 (with positive feedback mechanisms) is the cause of climate change, represented by the blade of Mann’s hockey stick.
Huh? CFCs lead to warming, therefore they shall act as if the CO2 did the warming attributed to CFCs?
Also,
and
By plain math with the ratio, CFCs would have yielded 0.48 to 1.28 deg C by now. What was the “global average temperature rise” from 1950 to 2000 when the CFCs were going down? The linked piece already gave 0.1 deg C as the 1850 to 1950 increase.
I thought we already went past the so called ‘tipping point’? They just keep pushing it back and back until they get the laws they want. They’ve been saying “we must act now” for years.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 3, 2010 at 9:34 pm
in the late 1970′s, the USEPA decided
You hit a nail squarely yourself.
A government body decided…. and that’s when the dismantling of our industries really began.
Enter the post-industrial consumer society as the unintended consequence of those draconian measures.
Today, as then, the EPA imposes, an experiment at problem solving gone terribly wrong.
That simply moved the problem overseas to a place that marches to a different drum, and our jobs with it.
I’m not terribly thrilled at the idea of hoping that they get it right, as in ‘one-in-a-row’.
Funny how Mr. Ramanathan brings up the reduction in chlorofluorocarbons (freon) as a success story. Some may disagree. Those with COPD & asthma are quite familiar with albuterol. It’s a fast acting bronchodilator and, as such, is referred to as a rescue inhaler. Those with these medical conditions, when experiencing broncho constriction (which can make it difficult to pull air into the lungs) rely on albuterol. In the past the albuterol canisters were pressurized by freon and were available as generic drugs. But, now, noooo, these canisters (the size of a thumb) are going to destroy the planet. So, instead, the freon propellant has been replaced by an alcohol containing propellant. Not only have these (rescue) inhalers become unreliable they are also no longer available as generic drugs. Thus, the price has gone from about $20 to $40 per canister (or $240 year). No problem except it puts u closer to the Medicare drug ‘gap’. But then it keeps those research dollars flowing Mr. Ramanathan’s (I don’t know nuthin bout sociology, history, economy, human fashions and fads, religious impulse, etc.) way.
Have to disagree with Hologram. There is no need to control CO2 but definiately there is for other pollutants. While “dirty” air may have no impact on a healthy person, it is very dangerous to people who have breathing problems like asthma, people with cardio-vascular disease and seniors and young children.
So for those people at the margins of good health and for the sake of pure aesthetics, lets do what all our mothers told us to do and clean up after ourselves.
If we treat the problem aggressively, we may be ably to limit the projected temperature increase to 2 degrees C. over the next 30 years.
If we do nothing, the temperature will only fall .6 degree in the same period.
Seems like a good Idea to me. ;-q
“a point beyond which many scientists believe climate change will present unmanageable negative consequences for society”.
Who are these many scientists with their religious beliefs? They want us to decarbonise society and destroy civilisation as we know it because of the religious beliefs of anonymous scientists?
Karl says:
May 3, 2010 at 9:19 pm
That, amongst at least 25 other so-called “alarms” of mankind that were complete bunk, and turned out to be very expensive in terms of economy and/or loss of lives.
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/paperpdf/Structured_Analogies.pdf
Ramanathan and Xu “have identified three avenues by which those countries can avoid reaching the warming threshold”:
“Recommended steps include stabilizing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and fashioning warming-neutral pollution laws that will balance the removal of aerosols that have an atmospheric cooling effect with the removal of warming agents such as soot and ozone. Finally, the authors advocate achieving reductions in methane, hydrofluorocarbons and other greenhouse gases that remain in the atmosphere for short periods of time.”
Well, duh! Assuming for the sake of argument that AGW really is a problem that requires action, their “recommendations” do little more than state the obvious. That PNAS would even print such banal tripe says volumes about the sorry level or dogma and doggerel it has fallen to. It took these geniuses twenty years of public funding to come up with these platitudes? a “portfolio of actions in the energy, industrial, agricultural and forestry sections” some of which “will require development of new technologies.” Wow! Heavy. Future Nobel winners, no doubt.