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.
” mikael pihlström says:
[…]
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.”
If significant land surface warming happens it will happen in the regions that are cold now, and during the times that are cold now (nighttime, winter). Why? Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The least impact is expected in Africa. What is your example “most populated, naturally arid and low income” region? Arid places are usually not heavily populated (for they are arid).
Religion for centuries used to explain the world and its origins or at least religious documents gave us humans the comforting belief we understood the world, the world must make sense, we cannot live in a world that does not. Then science took over for a while, uncomforting proving old certainties wrong and fundamentally questioning new certainties. Along with it came the understanding that complex systems may be beyond man’s capacities to understand and predict. And now we are back to religion, “AGW”, to help us make the world make sense: “many scientists believe”. What any scientist believes is hardly relevant, what is relevant, is that we have still not much of an idea of the climate system and its cycles and that any consideration of potential harmfull consequences on a global scale is likely to be meaningless. Meanwhile, if you want the attention of the crowds, make sure you create suspense- “tipping point” -is an oldy but a goody. And make sure you write policy reports in a PR style: focus on the message do not worry about the facts. The bottom line is that we all will need to be patient, deal with uncertainty, endure our ignorance and wait and see what this planet has in mind.
“…have identified three avenues by which those countries can avoid reaching the warming threshold…”
Wow. I thought it was global warming not country warming. The tropics are supposed to warm much less than polar regions. I guess those countries that are closer to the equator are out of luck. No need to send money to them.
John M Reynolds
Their heads are in the clouds, like many warmist scientists who just hand-wave over the immense costs of CO2 mitigation with phrases like “take action”, “do something,” “take steps,” “phase out,” etc. Very unworldly.
Ten Years ago, Michaels and Balling wrote a compelling overview of the “evidence” to that point in time of AGW. In a very elegant and scientific manner they debunked the Warmist falsities of the 90’s. What we are seeing now is the cycle beginning again with the same falsities being peddled slightly harder. It’s as if we will believe if the repetition is maintained.
This is despite none of the alarmist predictions being fulfilled.
Botanists have shown that a doubling of CO2 greatly benefits agriculture and crop yields thereby assisting the very people who stand to lose the most from the the Carbon Reductionist’s suicide plan.
Could I recommend that we all buy copies of “The Satanic Gases” by Michaels & Belling and pass them on to our MP’s Senators Congressmen…with the offer to read them the hard parts!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Satanic-Gases-Clearing-Global-Warming/dp/1882577922/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1272972309&sr=8-1-fkmr0
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
May 4, 2010 at 1:33 am
“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.”
BBC question – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
P. Jones – Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
The basic problem is best explained by a non-existent social pilosopher in a book never written.
How can hierarchical society be maintained when (due to technology) strict hierarhy is no longer needed for a reasonable standard of living?
IN: The Theory and Ppractice of Oligarchical Collectivism by Emmanuel Goldstein
Goldstein’s, Orwells’s & Bush Jr’s answer is permanent warfare (although only one of them took it seriously enough to actually implement it). An alternative, conceivaby less dangerous solution is to make energy supply so outrageously expensive that all of it should be saved for defense purposes and for perpetuation of hierarhy.
The rest can perish in miserable in poverty.
Which one do you choose? You can vote for it. Democracy was invented for promoting freedom of choice.
mikael pihlström says: [ … ]
May 4, 2010 at 4:40 am,
Jones calculated the trend, did he? Let’s see the raw data he used.
…oh, that’s right. He lost the data.
Smokey says:
May 4, 2010 at 4:58 am
mikael pihlström says: [ … ]
May 4, 2010 at 4:40 am,
Jones calculated the trend, did he? Let’s see the raw data he used.
…oh, that’s right. He lost the data.
———–
The data are SO available. And you know it.
This is a joke, right? They can,t be serious. Replacing dung as fuel is low hanging fruit? Replace it with what? How (and who) to pay? Is there anything worth saying in this article?
I see the Warmenistas are up to their usual trick of conflating real pollution with “carbon pollution”. The best way to clean up real pollution, of course is to raise the living standards, i.e. wealth of individual countries. Unfortunately, by attacking “carbon pollution”, and forcing energy costs up they will be doing the exact opposite.
Pseudo-science and lies imposed worldwide raise the spectre of planetary fascism. Vaclav Klaus
is right, we are in danger of becoming a “Blue Planet in Green Shackles”.
Mikael Philstrom,
“This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.”
The problem is, if the “trend” is not statistically significant, you cannot ascribe it to either a causation or to chance.
But even if the “trend” passes a statistical test, it still has no predictive power. Lubos Motl has written an elegant article examining CET temp trends since around 1750 at time scales from months to decades randomly selected. All graphs were self similar at all time scales. This is very interesting, since what looks like a “trend” on a decadal scales always reversed -up down, up down. In other words, these “trends” may not be random events, statistically speaking, but their causations remain as yet, unknown.
Ref – R Shearer says:
May 3, 2010 at 8:51 pm
“If dinosaurs were intelligent, did they too think about saving the planet?”
________________________________
Indeed! And I believe they came to the only intelligent decision and, as they say, “bit the bullet” to save the planet. A ‘decision’ that we will no doubt arrive at sooner rather than later. The three objectives that the author’s would have us achieve, are only going to be met with the mass extinction of all mammalian life forms on this poor, dying, overly infested little planet. Fat Albert knows this. George Sorenose knows this. O.B.Yauna, the current British PM, and The Raiders of the Treasury & The Lost Arctic Ice (Congress/Parliament/etc) know this. Every Environmentalist, Climatologist, Sociologist, Anarchist, Biologist, Archaeologist, and New York City Sanitationologist knows this. It’s the stupid, worthless, uneducated lemmings among us (you, I, and a few others) that are holding our fingers in the little dike holes and keeping the inevitable at bay. But, sadly, its only a matter of time before we go the way of all flesh and they are permitted to divert a comet (or two) into the planet so as to cool things down a little and wipe out all the pollution causing pests. (Well, except for a few; you know there’s always an exception or two –where do you think birds came from?)
Let’s consider the urgent plight of the tens of thousands of pro-Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates in academe, main-stream-media, green-jobs, and government. What on Earth will these workers do if their taxpayer-based funding dries up? What will happen to media outlets if predictions of catastrophic global warming no longer sell newspapers or attract TV viewers? How will university professors pay their million dollar mortgages if pro-CAGW research funding ends? Please, we implore you to send money now to your local university, main stream media outlet, green company, and government agency. Suggested beneficiaries include:
Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California. Real estate in La Jolla and Del Mar is expensive; check out the videos of jimtherealtor on Youtube. The crusading “professors” at Scripps enjoy ocean views from their offices. Please help these professors pay their mortgages. The federal research grant monies just aren’t enough;
University of California, Berkeley, c/o Regent Richard C. Blum, multi-millionaire investment banker, former Chairman of the Board of Regents, and husband to Senator Dianne Feinstein (no conflict there, nothing to see, move on please.) The Blum-Feinsteins live in a Pacific Heights mansion with a view of the Golden Gate Bridge and belong to a tony private lunch club in Frisco, the Villa Taverna. In 2009, Regent Blum authored a mailed plea for donations to the University of California, which was facing a financial shortfall. Apparently the results were not enough, as the University subsequently raised student fees. Gotta pay all those pro-CAGW professors, who are doing their very best to bring in the Federal grant monies;
University of California, San Diego, c/o Dr. Nancy Oreskes who famously documented the consensus of scientists in favor of CAGW; for her work, she was promoted;
California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, which boldly displays a pro-CAGW exhibit;
San Francisco Chronicle, whose writers are pro-CAGW and have produced hit pieces against Joe-The-Plumber and other truth-to-power types;
New York Times: the declining-readership money-losing pro-CAGW NYT paid its CEO some $10 million in 2009, about the same amount sacrificed by the Boston Globe workers in an agreement to keep their jobs. The NYT urgently needs your donation;
Pennsylvania State University, c/o Dr. Michael Mann. Dr. Mann may be facing charges of fraud from the Attorney General of Virginia, over Dr. Mann’s state-funded research at the Univ. of Va. Please help fund Dr. Mann’s defense;
United States National Academy of Sciences;
Hadley Meteorological Centre;
Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia;
NASA GISS, New York City, c/o Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Gavin Schmidt. In an interview available on Youtube, Rep. Lindner (R-Ga) stated that Dr. Hansen has refused to turn over his temperature data to Lindner even though ALL OF
HANSEN’S WORK HAS BEEN DONE ON THE GOVERNMENT DIME. Lindner added that if a cancer researcher so behaved, he/she would be arrested;
California State Teachers Retirement System, generously benefitting all those pro-CAGW science teachers for life;
CalPers, the State of California pension fund, which has lost $billions due to poor investment choices, has fired its chief real estate investment advisor, and closes the monthly gap between cash on hand and generous pension payments by borrowing from the “general fund”, i.e., the taxpayers. Baby boomer civil servants are retiring in larger numbers every year at 70% of their final annual salary with medical benefits for life. Please donate to their pension fund;
Environmental Protection Agency, c/o Administrator Lisa Jackson;
The Senate, c/o Senators John Kerry, Joseph Liebermann, and Lindsey Graham. The senators are working hard to pass Cap & Trade. Please donate now, so they can retire with generous pensions and Cadillac health plans for life;
Wikipedia, San Francisco;
Dr. William M. Connolley;
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was elected to govern center/right. After losing some battles to a tsunami of Democrat voters, a corrupt main-stream-media, and wealthy and powerful public employee unions, Arnold turned both left and pro-CAGW. At least he’s smart enough not to stand in front of an oncoming train;
And last but not least, the long-suffering green investor and debater-in-hiding Vice President AL GORE.
A minimum donation of $300.00 U.S. is suggested.
mikael pihlström says:
“The data are SO available. And you know it.”
OK, where do I find it?
$46 trillion points out the absurdity of AGW.
Here is a quick financial seminar on big money negotiating that comes to mind:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmXHvGZiSY&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Hurry, hurry, quick, quick. Our models work so well that they are off by a factor of N where N is large. So lets spend trillions of dollars on the basis of these models before the public comes to their senses. Woops, the public already came to their senses: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/voters_give_mixed_reviews_to_global_warming_legislation_but_56_don_t_want_to_pay_for_it
Scripps has been taken over by eco-fanatics who have both front feet in the public trough. It’s a shame that this once great institution has become so infested from the top down with CAGW propagandists. For proof of this, read Richard Somerville’s 6 point diatribe in the Scripps link in this post, and the interesting comments from WUWT readers that respond to it.
In Paul Brunton´s “Secret India”, Brunton was telling his Indian Guru, around 1917, how he could make to change the world, to avoid wars, etc. The Indian guru answered him: “Want to change the world?…Well, then change yourself and the world will change”
If we are unable to change a single trait of our character how do we dare to even imagine to “change the world”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is why WE SHOULD SEE, once again, the following George Carlin´s Video on: “Saving the Planet”:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1]
This is yet another plea for money and attention. After all, these poor researchers have to labor under such adverse conditions in….Cancun!!
http://www.cop16.mx/en/recinto.htm
Viva climate change
vacationsconferences!My favorite word was ‘unmanageable’, as in “…unmanageable negative consequences for society.” Whenever you see a word like that in a paper, you can toss it out as propaganda. It is a ‘scare’ word, used to provoke fear. It has no quantifiable meaning.
Distinguished Professor of Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Veerabhadran Ramanathan says:
Ok chaps, here’s the plan: we have £n billion to do the job. If we leave enough dust in the air, we can stick 20% of the wonga in investment.
With the interest off that each year, we meet any shortfall to our commitment, then after 25-30 years, we still have the 20% left.
“…..a point beyond which many scientists believe climate change will present unmanageable negative consequences for society.”
Hey!! Progress!! Now they are claiming only that “many” scientists are screaming about future disaster. It used to be “scientists” with no indication that it was not 100% of them.
Incidentally, I am finding that often clicking on a hotlink and then returning to the main text does not return me to where I exited, but at the beginning of the posting. Can anything be done about this glitch? Am I the only one experiencing it?
IanM
Distinguished Professor of Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Veerabhadran Ramanathan says, “oh yes we can reduce outgoings by leaving some dust in the air, but not in my backyard thanks.”
rbateman says:
May 3, 2010 at 9:15 pm
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 3, 2010 at 9:34 pm
I completely agree with you but would also include Methane (CH4).
From the 2010 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report
• Landfills accounted for approximately 22 percent of total U.S. anthropogenic methane (CH4) emissions in 2008
• Wastewater treatment accounted for approximately 4 percent U.S. anthropogenic methane (CH4) emissions
• The incineration of waste in the United States in 2008 resulted in 13.1 Tg CO2 Eq. emissions, nearly half of which is attributable to the combustion of plastics.
• Between 1990 and 2008, (CH4) emissions from agricultural activities increased by 14.4 percent, while N2O emissions fluctuated from year to year, but overall increased by 7.0 percent.
• Energy-related activities accounted for approximately 37 percent of total U.S. anthropogenic methane (CH4) and 13% of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions in 2008
The majority of VOCs come from flora so getting rid of smog isn’t likely but limiting the SO2, (N2O), and (CH4) would at least make it taste better?