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.
![]() |
||||
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.”
![]() |
||||
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.


Actions that can be taken immediately include replacement of biomass-fueled stoves with cleaner alternatives in developing countries
They have counted the particulates and the Co2 molecules of the cooking fires of the poor in developing countries, and determined that it isn’t the right kind of fire: it needs to be “cleaner alternative” fire, and that their grand ecocolonialist services are needed to stop it. And quickly, too.
The decarbonization of society should start with institutions such as Scripps. And quickly. Then it should stop.
AGW AND HUMAN STUPIDITY – THERE IS A CONNECTION
There is an inexplicable correlation between human stupidity and warm temperatures (see link below). I so wish some Ivy League genius would pick this up and run with it. But, alas, it is warm and kids today aren’t as smart as they were a few score and seven years ago. I just know I’m on the right (or left, if you prefer) track, and that this would be a tremendous area of very productive (and money making) research. There’s just tons and tons of material too. I dare to even predict, on the pittance that I have already discovered on this subject, that the Greatest Depression and WW3 are gonna’ be lulus. And they aren’t far away neither. Don’t you get the impression we’re going through the period 1912-2012 all over again? Must be solar.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a69cab61970b-pi
L says:
May 4, 2010 at 12:39 am
About 1150yrs, one quarter of the time between Heinrich Events.
3 Heinrich`s back from the LIA is the Older Dryas. 3 Heinrich`s forward from the Younger Dryas is around AD3600, when it will be seriously cold at times.
One has to say it quite a few times before it sinks in!
mikael pihlström says:
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.
———–
REPLY: I agree somewhat with your first point, the US mills were obsolete compared to the modernized facilities in Japan (which we helped build), Korea (ditto) and a few other places. Our plants were labor intensive, energy inefficient and pretty dirty places.
Good bit of history here: http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/653.html
However, I worked in the public health sector back then, met with the president of one of the companies (father of a good friend of mine) and have a lot of “skinny” on what really happened. Air quality in Chicago wasn’t too great back then, and the target was big steel. Regulators succeeded, at the cost of much of the Chicagoland industrial base.
If regulators had worked with steel, they could have saved much of this industry. Vast tracts of land along Lake Michigan sit eerily vacant, resembling the surface of Mars (red-tinted soil), all the Bessemer furnaces, coking ovens, rolling mills etc. dismantled and gone.
Mission accomplished, marginally clean air at the cost of destroying thousands of jobs and decimating the tax base of IL and IN. With success stories like these, the US can’t survive many more.
BTW, tobacco use is still the number one cause of preventable death in the USA. I don’t buy the PH arguments of the AGW crowd, all BS.
Re: mikael pihlström onMay 4, 2010 at 4:40 am
I carefully dug up the Phil Jones line, made certain the “agreed” and “statistically significant” parts were in there. I supplied the actual reference where it can be easily checked for correctness, said supplying rarely done in this site’s normally relaxed style of commentary. That line was used with my own lines of commentary, in a frequently-used acceptable manner found in all manners of media besides the internet.
What reason can you have, sir, for copying that full section as found in the reference I supplied? What possible reason can there be other than to imply, to say without outright saying, that I tried to put words in Dr. Jones’ mouth? You supplied no extra commentary as to why you supplied that entire bit. What am I expected to think other than that you, without the forthright honor to explicitly say so, are stating that I have lied about what Dr. Jones said?
At this point I should start laying out the terms of the code duello for such a grievous insult. However, I have instead decided to say
Now why don’t you go off and do some more of such sterling online work. With a wireless broadband connection. In traffic.
They propose demonstration projects to clarify and reduce the uncertainties and verify the efficacies of the various mitigation avenues proposed in the study.
This is their definition of modeling.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
May 4, 2010 at 1:33 am
“What reason can you have, sir, for copying that full section as found in the reference I supplied? What possible reason can there be other than to imply, to say without outright saying, that I tried to put words in Dr. Jones’ mouth?”
Very unclear your paragraph; where does PJ end, where does kadaka
begin? And why not let PJ say the whole phrase YES – BUT. You only
gave us the YES.
“avoid wars” . . . best way to do that is to make sure that the population is “fat and happy” It is exceedingly difficult to arouse a reasonably well fed and reasonably well housed people to go to war . . . or to goad them into bloody revolution. Oppressive government and general poverty is the historical setting for war and bloody revolution.
These extreme (and useless) measures being proposed will without question impoverish people in general in countries of western civilization, and those who make a living exporting to countries of western civilization. Continue on this absurd course and strife and discord will increase to the point that world war and bloody revolutions will become inevitable.
A bit of warming if (and a big if at that) it is even happening will be far easier to survive than will be world war and bloody revolutions.
These “catastrophic warmists”and western civilization politicians had best read a good bit of history before making more of the dreadful decisions they have been making as of late, and completely reverse the dreadful and absurd decisions they have already made. There is indeed a “tipping point”, for world war and bloody revolution, that is, and on the course we are on, is close and getting closer rapidly.
mikael pihlström said on May 4, 2010 at 10:34 am:
I used a widely-circulated frequently-mentioned line about Dr. Jones, easily recognizable as such, making sure it was accurate, and supplied the reference. Anyone with a passing familiarity of Dr. Jones work and that line can distinguish what came from him and what came from me, and one can readily check with the link I provided if they are unsure. And THIS is your great all-explaining CYA rebuttal?
C-YA later!
I thought that I had heard that the replacement for CFC was a more potent GHG than the CFC’s? Does anyone have any links to debunk or substantiate that?
You want dust Mr Ramanathan, we`ll get you dust no problemo. Take a whole side of PV cells to the Sahara, plug `em into some wind turbines, and hey presto, a dust storm.
Crap, I almost over looked the massive carbon footprint of the concrete foundations for the turbines. Shucks, looks like we will have to wait for a change in the weather, we`ll be sure to get some dust storms after a cold snap, maybe a couple of volcanoes too.
Well I have a suggestion for Ram and Xu;
Why not take the bull by the horns and go to some place where your programs could really have some benefit. Like India and China; and convince those people to stop burning fossil fuels.
Now that’s a program I could support.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 4, 2010 at 9:54 am
“If regulators had worked with steel, they could have saved much of this industry. Vast tracts of land along Lake Michigan sit eerily vacant, resembling the surface of Mars (red-tinted soil), all the Bessemer furnaces, coking ovens, rolling mills etc. dismantled and gone. ”
You mean taking into consideration the precarious situation of the
industry regulators could have been more flexible? Maybe, but once
emission guidelines have been written down, if you back of , the most
sensitive groups (asthmatics, children) have cause for grievance. At
about that time it was also essential to stop acidification of lakes
downwind.
It i sad to visit these places (in Europe), mostly on account of the
workforce stripped of their professional dignity, doing one of the
thoughest,most dangerous jobs ever. Ironically, before the bank
crisis, China was buying all the steel they could get.
Would Greenpeace and other ecoterrorist groups accept taking an 80% chance of killing 3 billion people in exchange for eliminating a 4% chance of upsetting the habitat of some obscure critter?
I think the answer is yes.
Anthropogenic carbon emissions are causing global warming – TRUE or FALSE? Should we do something about it – Yes or No?
Here’s the answer matrix
The only path to avoiding a 100% man-made catastrophe is “business as usual.”
Mike McMillan says:
May 4, 2010 at 12:02 am
> I wasn’t aware that Copenhagen actually produced an accord.
It did, but barely.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/18/guardian-headline-low-targets-goals-dropped-copenhagen-ends-in-failure/
The so-called Copenhagen accord “recognises” the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but did not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal.
Re: “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. ”
The elimination of this and other warming agents and pollution (e.g., Sulfur Dioxide) has been acheived by converting them into a non-toxic trace gas that is essential to life on earth — Carbon Dioxide — as byproduct of the fossil fueled energy diverted from economic use, to pollution reduction of the energy generation process (e.g., fly ash removal, sulfur dioxide scrubbing, etc…).
So their analogy doesn’t hold.
George E. Smith says:
May 4, 2010 at 11:32 am
“Well I have a suggestion for Ram and Xu;
Why not take the bull by the horns and go to some place where your programs could really have some benefit. Like India and China; and convince those people to stop burning fossil fuels.
Now that’s a program I could support.”
————–
India is going for nuclear. China does a lot of wind energy and
BTW invests 3% of its GDP in green technology. Ergo, they are
not stupid. Ergo, they will say something like: ‘since most of
the anthropogenic CO2 up there is courtesy of USA, Europe,
the Soviet Union, you lead the way’.
mikael pihlström says:
May 4, 2010 at 1:06 pm
“Third world countries like those, with thousand of years of history, carry in their blood, in their genes, how to deal with silly “greengoes”:
1.They greet them cheerfully
2.They joyfully receive their money.
3.They respectfully bow before them.
4.When they turn around to leave, they fart at them.
5.They joyfully continue their unchanged joyful existence.
Skip says:
May 3, 2010 at 10:53 pm
“….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.”
_________________________________________________________________________
Most skeptic have no problem with the “clean up after ourselves” but it is expensive and the passage of the World Trade Organization treaty (no tariffs & open borders) exported the problem to countries with cheap labor and no pollution control. This of course was intentional. It gets rid of high priced unions and obsolete factories and puts the blame on the EPA so you do not get boycotts. A win win situation all around.
invests 3% of its GDP in green technology
But NOT FOR THEM, to sell it to the only ones who could buy it: YOU.
The USA no longer leads the way as top carbon emitter… USA v Red China
The Red Chinese have achieved an asymptotic carbon emissions growth rate.
mikael pihlström says:
India is going for nuclear. China does a lot of wind energy and
BTW invests 3% of its GDP in green technology. Ergo, they are
not stupid. Ergo, they will say something like: ‘since most of
the anthropogenic CO2 up there is courtesy of USA, Europe,
the Soviet Union, you lead the way’.>>
I would think China would say something more like “Cut what ever you want, just don’t forget you have to make enough money to pay back those loans we gave you…”
Leon Brozyna says:
May 3, 2010 at 11:10 pm
♪ Money, ♪
♪ We need money, ♪
♪ We need lots and lots of money! ♪
…. 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.
______________________________________________________________________
I guess no one told them the USDA funded research for developing spermicidal corn
“…… Astonishing to learn was that Epicyte had developed its spermicidal GMO corn with research funds from the US Department of Agriculture, …..”
Not to mention the fact that corn is wind pollinated and although Mexico had banned GMO corn to keep their native corn pure, testing showed native corn is contaminated with Starlink, a corn that is not approved for human use.
mikael pihlström says:
May 4, 2010 at 1:06 pm
India is going for nuclear. China does a lot of wind energy and
BTW invests 3% of its GDP in green technology. Ergo, they are
not stupid. Ergo, they will say something like: ‘since most of
the anthropogenic CO2 up there is courtesy of USA, Europe,
the Soviet Union, you lead the way’.
Wind is still 20 to 40 percent more expensive than coal power, and Solar power is still at least twice as expensive as coal, so tell us again how “smart” investing in “green” technology is.
Yes, India hopes to increase its nuclear energy capacity from its current 4.2% to 9% within 25 years. Yawn. Meanwhile, here in the U.S., where nuclear energy has foundered since the 70’s, it still represents close to 20% of our electric power generation.
Funny how no country, including the U.S. wants to tie an anchor onto its economy and throw it overboard. The really great news, which the climate bed wetters hate to hear is that there is absolutely no need to.
Pat Moffitt (09:01):
Amen to your take on John Isaacs! Wish he were still around to counter the impractical “solutions” to admittedly poorly understood problems now emanating from SIO. He never brooked any academic nonsense. Nor did Roger Revelle ever take the alarmist stance that eco-crusaders posthumously attribute to him.