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 are these climate scientists still obsessing on CO2?! Haven’t they realized the fact recently that CO2 keeps rising but the temperatures have declined over the past decade? Are they that dumb or just plain obstinent?
Interesting, this approach which includes references to concerns about human health. I just read the following piece and got a chuckle out of the first paragraph:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=147617&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
♪ Money, ♪
♪ We need money, ♪
♪ We need lots and lots of money! ♪
The source of all this concern is highlighted in the recently released report (April 22) from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences:
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/climatereport2010.pdf
At first I thought the above quoted para overstated the findings in the report, but after quickly reading over the 80 page report I see that it’s really a fancy pitch for more funding to study the health dangers of climate change. If we can’t get ’em excited about the cute polar bears, perhaps we’ll scare ’em with tales of sex not working out. Wonder what Indur M. Goklany would say to all that.
If I recall correctly, the Late Holocene climate optimum was about 2°C above where we are now. So, with the target limit of less than 2°C, the fix is in. Within the limits of the apparent normal maximum, these guys can claim success for limiting the rise to less than 2°C! Ain’t that great!?
But if the trend towards cooler continues, will they suggest they over did it? Will they try to warm it back to the 20th Century average? Twenty years forward, will it matter?
It seems to me that the aerosols we get as described in both Lindzen’s and Svensmark’s adaptive iris theories seem to work just fine.
These aerosols. I note that they have recently made an appearance in Warmist modelling discourse. Are they tiny particles suspended in the air that reflect sunlight?
What are they made of? Would that include water droplets, and ice?
Do these particles form clouds? ARE they clouds? I think we should be told.
“A massive decarbonization of the energy sector is necessary to accomplish this Herculean task,” the authors write.
Accessible, storable, transportable and cost effective energy from hydrocarbons has directly and indirectly lifted the western world into our modern age, with all of its attendant benefits including long life, low infant mortality, incredible wealth & productivity, readily attainable individual rights & freedoms, and ironically the luxury to feel guilty about our high standard of living. Hydrocarbons have helped to elevate mankind to this unprecedented level in our predominantly brutal history, and given us the ability (if not the willingness) to support all of us on this blue marble. Only nuclear comes close in potential.
So of course lets decarbonize and stop it all. Sure, makes perfect sense. Bleh…
He we go again, another bunch of ideological, propaganda dressed up as science. This is only a press release and we know how misleading they are. It must be grant renewal time at Scripts again. It seem to me I read another press release some months back that said all the clean air efforts of the past 30 years, and there have been many and successful ones too, have not produced significant health (lung and breathing) improvements. Oh well I guess these guys are entitled to their opinions. I don’t think we know enough about aerosols to even make any recommendations that would be meaningful.
I find using these temperature thresholds which are bogus to begin with as a reason to identify atmospheric CO2 as pollutant political dogma not science. I’m disappointed. But to be fair, will withhold final judgment until I can read the entire paper.
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.
Now we know why we got such a cold winter in the northern hemisphere , despite the merrily rising CO2 🙂
Maybe they can also tell us how to stop the world from cooling 2 C by the end of the century.
Joe d’Aleo last week: “Based on the theory originally proposed by Friis-Christensen and Lassen, this implies that cooling of up to 2.20 C may occur during Cycle 24 (compared with temperatures during Cycle 23) for the mid-latitude grain-growing areas of the northern hemisphere”
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/the_transition_between_solar_sunspot_cycles_23_and_24_sun_back_in_mini_slum/
Scripps plans for saving the planet. You bet.
I wasn’t aware that Copenhagen actually produced an accord.
Still, it’s good to know that learned scholars are coming up with innovative and far-reaching solutions to imaginary problems.
“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.”
That’s a funny description for the “catastrophic” in AGW. Wait. Does it say that a changing climate is unmanageable? So, say, Ecuador with its near-constant climate good, Germany with cold winters and hot summers bad? Because it always changes?
This is all so silly, these people i think, they never read again what they wrote.
… but they refuse to “acknowledge that there are uncertainties about the nature of [CO2] and the sensitivity of climate”, which is an obvious problem to start with.
Some projects “clarify and reduce the uncertainties” regarding the ability of CO2 to cause us any problems at all would be a good idea first and foremost. Those I would support.
So we must be taxed and constrained for 20 years before we can demonstrate that nothing made any difference at all. Of course, if it makes no difference, it will be lauded as a success, as the ‘projected’ warming never occured. We can’t win!
If it did, I think we should consider looking at the issue. It has occurred in the past, and no problems ensued. It looks very much like it is not happening, so we can all relax.
These never happened in the past even when the temperatures rose faster and higher. There is no evidence whatsoever that anything at all has changed in this area. Pure speculation.
Sorry, I call BS. That was to prevent the spreading of ‘Ozone Holes’ (and that is still dubious at best), and there was absolutely no concern about warming, because there was none. funny, that.
(The blog format has gone all wonky (‘flippy/floppy’? ‘rotten’?) for some reason)
One thing I still don’t get.
Apparently, mere mortals, or academics from disciplines like geology, or even meteorologists are not allowed to comment on [dah dah dah daaahhh] “climate science”.
But apparently “climate scientists” [a paradoxically fungible term] are allowd to comment on all many of social or economic issues or policies as they see fit.
I just don’t get it.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 3, 2010 at 9:34 pm
“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.”
Steel mills closing down in US was part of the global restructuring of
the steel sector, it was about e.g. subsidies, competition, wage levels and
productivity.
The costs of air pollution control were not a problem for otherwise viable
production in the 80’s.
James Sexton says:
May 3, 2010 at 9:00 pm
“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….
—–
Again and again: it is GLOBAL warming and the GLOBAL impacts.
Some regions might enjoy the benefits, but the most populated,
naturally arid and low-income regions are already sensitive to
climate. But, it concerns the South West of USA also.
Slightly OT here, but following this blog, I read over, and over again, that C02 increase follows rising temperatures with a 600-1000 year lag. Say, 800 yrs. Could the current (unalarming) increase in carbon dioxide levels be simply the, presumably anticipated, bounce from the MWP? If not, why not?
Also, it seems to me that, besides the 60-70 year cycle of climate recently posted here, there is a, perhaps too obvious, a 1000 year cycle. A thousand years ago, there was Lief the Lucky probing the coast of Labrador, finding both grapes and hostile Skraelings; a thousand years earlier, the Roman Optimum ruled the Mediterranean, and Tunisia and Libya were breadbaskets, and a thousand years (plus or minus) earlier, the Minoan Warming was happening, until Thera blew…
Come on, folks, I can’t be the only one to have noticed this; how about some more detail on this from the experts here? Until proved wrong, I will maintain that the climate fluctuates (due to natural causes) on an about a thousand year cycle, and it is also likely that a larger cycle, say 10,000 years is also in place. Move it up an order of magnitude to 100k yrs and, viola, the ice returns. Someone must have done research in this area, no?
So this would be imposed on us by a wise, beneficent, class of philosopher kings ” For our own good” and more in sorrow than in anger. That excuse has had awful results all through human history but is very popular,
“The tyrant of the Chersonese
Was freedom’s best and bravest friend;
That tyrant was Miltiades!
O that the present hour would lend
Another despot of the kind!
Looks like the Scripps Institute is interested in a little despotism.
“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”
All that to reduce the probability of of reaching the temperature threshold to less than 10% before the year 2050. Reduce the probability from say oh,maybe…possibly …1% if we tell these wankers to take a hike.
How about a few really painless and positive steps with real impact on global CO2 levels like…
1] A complete moratorium on climate change conferences with casts of thousands in various garden spots across the globe
2] For any celebrity or politician who has or will make public statements hectoring the rest of us about our “carbon footprint”, immediate confiscation and destruction of all mansions, automobiles, aircraft, or other luxury items not enjoyed by the bottom quintile of income earners.
3] Immediate cancellation of public subsidies for alternative energy systems that aren’t economically viable without them and usually generate more environmental damage than they prevent
4] Extend the moratorium from 1] to cover smaller conferences not conducted by conference call
Well you get the idea. Feel free to contribute your own suggestions.
Have you seen this video?
If not, you should.
These are intelligent, educated people saying really stupid things. I guess they are paid to do that.
By Hansen’s work, “…black soot may be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming in the last century.”
CFCs (with cosmic rays) can account for just about all the warming from 1950 onward.
As mentioned in this Scripps press release, certain aerosols (pollutants, like sulfurous emissions) have a cooling effect. Thus in the great fight against acid rain when we put scrubbers on the smokestacks and reformulated the liquid fuels to low-sulfur versions, we actually allowed there to be more warming than otherwise.
Add up these and any other man-made sources of warming like land use changes while excluding (theoretical) CO2-based warming, and more than 100% of the warming can be accounted for without invoking CO2.
Phil Jones agreed there has been no statistically significant warming from 1995 to the present. The global average has flatlined, looks like there might be cooling. And the CO2 concentration keeps heading up.
Going by just all of that, putting it all together… I’m starting to wonder if CO2 has a cooling effect. At least according to those numbers, that is. (Lies, damned lies, and statistics).
Could someone please chart that? Showing that statistically CO2 can be having a cooling effect, that could be worth a Nobel Prize. Or a free beer. Maybe more than one.
I like the Script very much! It’s beautiful. They are as stupidly rigid as communist used to be working hard with their intrusive propaganda, regardless its washiness, on their own commitment. I was afraid they would come down to a “perestroika” to be palatable for public again. But their exhilarate me. They are more stupid then communist used to be. They are not capable for any kind of “perestroika” to keep at least little bit of credibility. The Carbon Berlin Wall is about to collapse.
“Supporters of the so-called Copenhagen Accord agreed that the 2-degree C threshold must not be crossed,”
Hasn’t it been crossed before? Have we not had higher co2 levels in the atmosphere before? Has the Arctic ice not completely melted in summer before? Why are we still here?
Word of caution before embarking on massive sacrifices:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-parallels-in-our-time-the-killing-of-of-cattle-vs-carbon/
Wasn’t there a post here on WUWT, or possibly a link by a commentator explaining that the “magical” 2 degree C number was never an absolute proposed by the contributing authors to IPPC 4, but somehow got the elevated exact number when the political and policy hacks got hold of it. I seem to recall reading something along those lines??? This is always a problem when a number takes on its own importance regardless of its origins and even more problematic, its accuracy.
Feel like monkeys jumping through hoops? Imaginary number 441 CO2 threshold. You better bring this CO2 down before you reach that number and increase my funding for this research.
First of all CO2 controlled experiments in a lab with no actual mechanical interference by actual forces is bogus science. Hence, create your own outcome science for funding purposes.
Climate is a mechanical process. From evaporation to precipitation, wind, currents,etc. any movement is a mechanical process. Iteracting gases, chemical processes, all use some movement which is a mechanical process.
Sunlight is a mechanical process and so is electromagnetics.
So why is science so hooked on gases? Oh ya, stupid me. Scientists and physicists are not mechanics. And since they have a degree, a god complex.
Sorry to offend anyone here with a degree. At least people here are seeking answers and not one given to them.