Scripps plans for saving the planet

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…

Click here for more information.

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.

Click here for more information.

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.

###
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

137 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Benjamin
May 4, 2010 6:27 am

Is it me, or does the message here say: “This looks like a job for…!”
And what is all this “we saved the world before” crap? No tin foil hatless person ever saved the world!

mikael pihlström
May 4, 2010 6:32 am

DirkH says:
May 4, 2010 at 3:59 am
“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).”
OK, say areas with Mediterranean climate type (like California). They
will warm less than the Arctic, but still considerably. Spain, Greece will
cope better, but how about Tunisia? Tunisia has through tremendous
Water management efforts (small reservoirs, rain-harvesting) achieved
a 100% yearly use/replenishment level. Precipitation might be reduced
50% … And a lot of other Meda countries use 140-160% (that is live
on diminishing deep reservoir water). Sahara and Kalahari will warm,
not very populated, but so will Central Asia, parts of China and India.

Douglas DC
May 4, 2010 6:35 am

Ok. decarbonziation. Castle, moat, carriage for lord and lady. Then: Serf’s Up!!
Except this time the Carrage house also holds the Gulfstream hangar….

mikael pihlström
May 4, 2010 6:36 am

Vincent says:
May 4, 2010 at 5:38 am
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.”
So we wait until 2011 and that segment will most probably have a
significant trend. Then comes a sceptic and says; ‘well, now 2003-2011
has no significant trend. My point is, could you sceptics just discard
some old issue, so we could possibly discuss the point you brought up,
that is causation.

mikael pihlström
May 4, 2010 6:52 am

TomTurner in SF says:
May 4, 2010 at 5:39 am
“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? ”
Not much sense in that, I would say. The IPCC scientists are established
frequently publishing guys; no trouble to find projects and grants under
any scenario. The responsible media covering Climate likewise; they could
write about any other issues (How about ‘your journalists’, Daily Express
etc – they don’t get paid?). Government is rather stable career-wise.
So, please stop trying to find motives, which are not plausible and certainly
unprovable.
Additionally, where do you get your ideas that these are huge amounts of
money? If we talk about research money: the US federal yearly research
budget is some 380 billion – most of it defense and health research.
Energy research is a tiny stream and climate research even less.

johnnythelowery
May 4, 2010 6:56 am

Nupty of Nashville, Patchy Morals, Mann, I-pee cc:
Rule # 1: Ban all private jets except for heads of state!
Once you’ve got over that low hurdle…come and see me! To be the conscience of the planet you first have to have one.

David Ball
May 4, 2010 7:03 am

When I was reading the article, I swear I could hear a Pied Piper compelling me away from my village, ….. and what would my village do without its idiot? Now there is some self-deprecating humor. Speaking of speculativebs, ……..

Alerodriguez69
May 4, 2010 7:18 am

How much CO2 do idiots produce when they say nonsense?

Henry chance
May 4, 2010 7:19 am

If the big issue is aerosols, the Indians and the Chinese mostly use coal, wood, charcoal and trash to heat and cook. How is that my problem?

Doug in Seattle
May 4, 2010 7:20 am

Two things.
1. What is the origin and significance of the 2 degree threshold?
2. Where is the evidence that CO2 has any effect on temperature?
Beyond that, the Scripts prescription looks like an exercise in mental gymnastics.

May 4, 2010 7:26 am

It is good to publicize these silly researches because they are directed to give support to the november ¨climate change¨ Cancun´s jamboree. It seems that these jamborees are joyful gatherings, to say the least, as there are a lot of “post-normal (and sub-normal too) scientists¨ anxious to participate in them. We must propose their wifes/husbands should be invited too. Ah!, and russian hackers too -but these a month before the event-☺
We will be waiting for a nice “Cancun Gate”

Jeremy
May 4, 2010 7:31 am

OT but interesting
Underwater Asphalt Volcanoes Remained Hidden for 40,000 Years
http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news-DS-Underwater-Asphalt-Volcanoes-Remained-Hidden-for-40000-Years-050310.aspx
REPLY: Thanks but we covered that last week here. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/26/who-says-asphalt-isnt-natural/

Graham Dick
May 4, 2010 7:35 am

If global temperature tracked CO2 levels, these scammers might just have half a leg to stand on. It doesn’t, so they don’t.
http://www.osta.com/gw/GWanalysis.htm

May 4, 2010 7:43 am

Their most ridiculous statement was actually this one:
———
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.
————-
They are at once admitting that they don’t actually know what the effects of the various strategies will actually be, and that 20 years of experiments (read 20 years of funding) are required with the thermometer being used to verify effect being… Ocean Heat Content? Duh say WHAT? Convenient to use a proxy for global warming that is already declining and has been for 4 years! Now they’re cherry picking the data IN ADVANCE! Yes we’re worried about surface temps increasing over the next few decades so we will run some experiments (read 20 years funding) and use the OCEAN which has cycles in the CENTURIES to see how we’re doing?
I propose instead the Precautionay Principle. There are three possibilities of roughly equal probability:
1. Earth isnt warming.
2. Earth is warming, but it is natural
3. Earth is warming, human caused.
Since there is no point doing anything about 1. and we can’t do anything about 2. consider that we have three roughly equal possibilities for 3.
1. Warming makes no real difference
2. Warming makes things better
3. Warming is a disaster
No point in worrying about 1. or 2. so, three possibilities for 3
1. We take action which accomplishes nothing
2. We take action which makes things worse
3. We solve the problem by cutting CO2 emissions by 50% or more.
Analysis:
Getting to “solve the problem by cutting CO2 by 50%” being beneficial represents 1 of 27 chance of being true.
Result of cutting CO2 by 50% has an 80% chance of causing 3 billion people or more to starve to death.
Based on the Precautionary Principle….do nothing.

AnonyMoose
May 4, 2010 7:44 am

Well, there is one action which scientists can take quickly.
Stop citing Scripps products.

Mike Davis
May 4, 2010 8:14 am

As one of the parents of modern day Global Warming fear promotion. The best way to counter act the effects of global warming is to eliminate those organizations who are responsible for the Chicken Little promotion. Without them there would be nthing because little or nothing exists in the real world to support their fantasies.

David Ball
May 4, 2010 8:15 am

Henry chance says:
May 4, 2010 at 7:19 am: Response:Literally, it is not your problem. Figuratively, it is all our problem. The idea of restricting economies and infrastructure will debilitate these countries, and prevent them from advancing. The myth of the noble savage. None of these poor people want to live that way. The false notion that they pollute less because they have less is not based on reality. I have worked hard to buy a newer vehicle that is far more efficient and cleaner running than my old ’70 Chevy half-ton (God , I miss that truck/tank). There is no longer any “killer smog” in London and those who can recall Lake Erie in the ’70s will tell you it is a whole lot cleaner today than back then (just a couple of examples, there are a lot more). With strong economic foundations, it is much easier to tackle the problems of footprint. Who has the right to decide for these people that they have to stay impoverished = higher infant mortality, shorter lifespans, etc? Henry, it is our problem to stop the wrong thinking of the ” earthsavers”.

RHS
May 4, 2010 8:15 am

So, if they know/predict what the increase of radiant energy increase will be, do they have any historical evidence of what it has been?

May 4, 2010 8:22 am

Wouldn’t it be a whole lot better to prove the hotspot predicted by all the models actually exists? According to the old scientific method — Proof lies with the ones offering the theory.
I wonder, has anybody seem this site: http://firefly.geog.umd.edu/firemap/
If not, I wonder why the hoaxers don’t make it more available, like show it on TV? It really is a decent site run by diligent researchers. It catalogs all the fires on earth, using satellites. The majority of the fires are controlled burn agricultural fires …

Lonnie Schubert
May 4, 2010 8:29 am

In the US, air quality has improved every year since 1970. It is cleaner now than it has been since before WWII. (I believe most of Europe can say the same.) When do we admit diminishing returns and notice that the funding could be used more wisely? When do we notice that the regulations cause more harm in lost opportunity than benefit in marginal, unquantifiable health or environmental gains? ALARA is a bad principle after initial gains.
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/images/comparison70.jpg

kwik
May 4, 2010 8:36 am

mikael pihlström says:
May 4, 2010 at 6:52 am
Well, there are a few dollars going into this;
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
Here is where the original idea came from;
http://www.wikeroy.com/DonaldDuck1.aspx
Then this guy picked up the wonderful idea;
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/09/global_warmer_h.html
When they saw the reactions from this, I’m sure they learned something…..?;
Like for eksample;
-Models can predict scary outcomes. (of course)
-Scary outcomes can be documented as a peer reviewed paper.
-These peer reviewed papers can be called Science
-These papers can be fed to the media and can produce scary news.
-Scary news can get you more Grants.
After that the gravy train has been rolling ever faster…..
hehe

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
May 4, 2010 8:40 am

“Skip says:
May 3, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Have to disagree with Hologram. 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. ”
I’m afraid asthma and cardio-vascular disease have been around much longer than modern urban pollution and occur just as much under any conditions. I grew up with a chain smoking father who drove me around all the time in the days when air pollution was higher. I had no breathing problems. My brother was born many years later when my father had quit smoking and we moved to a cleaner, greener part of the world. My brother contracted asthma at 4 years old. My brother no longer has asthma years later. It cleared up after he moved to one of the dirtiest cities on the planet, Mumbai.
The sometimes rather random behaviour of genes are simply the strongest factor when it comes to a person’s health. This is something chemophobes have failed to understand for years.

Rocket Science
May 4, 2010 8:54 am

DANGER do not trust this man:
Veerabhadran Ramanathan, University of California – San Diego
Next thing he might well be climbing up Sir David King`s backside on a geo-engineering crusade based on CO2 SNAFU spin and the completely undetermined magnitude of volcanic forcing. So what if we find out there was another reason for 1816 summer being so cool?

Frank K.
May 4, 2010 8:54 am

Mike Davis says:
May 4, 2010 at 8:14 am
“As one of the parents of modern day Global Warming fear promotion. The best way to counter act the effects of global warming is to eliminate those organizations who are responsible for the Chicken Little promotion. Without them there would be nothing because little or nothing exists in the real world to support their fantasies.”
I’m sorry Mike, but there’s WAY too much money in the global warming industry now. For proof, here is Exhibit A:
http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-hotprop-gore-20100428,0,4103538.story

Ed Caryl
May 4, 2010 8:59 am

I love davidmhoffer’s “Precautionary Principle” analysis! Can we get that published in the New York Times? Front page?
But these people aren’t going to stop trying to peddle AGW until Manhattan and the UN are crushed under a kilometer of ice. Mankind is doomed. The alarmists are going to kill us one way or another. (Must – take – more – Prozac!!!)