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.
“”” David Middleton says:
May 4, 2010 at 2:23 pm
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’.
The USA no longer leads the way as top carbon emitter… USA v Red China “””
Well the USA never was the world’s top carbon emitter; in fact the USA has always been the largest land based Carbon Sink; in fact just about the only land based carbon sink; apart ffrom some fringe places too small to amount to a hill of beans.
Canada would also be a net carbon sink; except it is so far north that its growing season is severely curtailed. If the earth warms up a bit; then Canada too would becoem a net carbon sink; just like the USA is.
So get off our backs; we ain’t the problem.
It would be less expensive to just give China and India everything of value and let them do with it whatever they want. That’s were all this is heading anyway. The tribes with the highest birthrates always stomped those with low birthrates. This little piece of wisdom is in the first chapter of Adam & Eve’s “History of the World, Part I – The Rise of Modern Man”. Its a little dated, but worth the read.
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…..”
__________________________________________________________________
You just proved you are a troll spreading disinformantion.
“If China’s carbon usage keeps pace with its economic growth, the country’s carbon dioxide emissions will reach 8 gigatons a year by 2030, which is equal to the entire world’s CO2 production today. That’s just the most stunning in a series of datapoints about the Chinese economy reported in a policy brief in the latest issue of the journal Science.
Coal power has been driving the stunning, seven plus percent a year growth in China’s economy. It’s long been said said that China was adding one new coal power plant per week to its grid. But the real news is worse: China is completing two new coal plants per week.
That power is being used to drive an enormous manufacturing expansion. China has increased steel production from 140 million tons in 2000 to 419 million tons in 2006, the authors report…..” China’s 2030 CO2 Emissions Could Equal the Entire World’s Today
That is why the Chinese gave Obama the cold shoulder at Copenhagen. Al Gore’s pal Maurice Strong promised at Kyoto that American tax payers would foot the bill for China’s economic expansion. Oh I am sure the Chinese are investing in “green technology” but that is so they can SELL it to the idiots in the West, not use it.
Oh, and Mikael, Climate Science: Follow the Money So that argument on how little money is spent on CAGW doesn’t fly here either.
L says:
May 4, 2010 at 12:39 am
“Slightly OT here, ….
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…
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?”
__________________________________________________________________________
Since no one has addressed this I will. Yes there are cycles that have been identified.
The 100,000 yr Milankovitch cycle
: http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-15-ice-ages-confirmed.html
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ∼12,000years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002JA009390.shtml
2001: the Second Solar Cycle and Space Weather Euroconference: Gleissberg cycle of solar activity http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ESASP.477..151M
Implications of Gleissberg cycle Ap 02 2001 Department of Astronomy, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/COSPAR02/01487/COSPAR02-A-01487.pdf
UK http://www.jstor.org/pss/53604
The short term ocean cycles (about 60 years)
One person’s analysis of the 60 yr cycle: http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/60yearCycles.htm
Louis Hissink on Climate Modeling: Ocean Oscillations + Solar Activity R²=.96 SEE: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5686
And if you REALLY want to talk cycles: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm
Another site to look at is: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
This site documents cycles and presents a theory that the planetary alignment influences the sun (It comes in for a lot of attacks) However the Layman’s Sunspot count is worth following at this site.
From this start just use the search window here and phrases to get lots of additional information. There have been some really great posts on many of these cycles especially concerning the ocean.
Oh and I forgot. The solar system also ocillates through the galactic plane.
oscillation of Sun about the mid-galactic plane: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993BASI…21..125D
The SMOG photograft, when was it taken and what city is it? To me, it looks like Denver, Co back in the mid 70’s.
I have a rather different Plan:
1. Survive this year by injecting SO2 AND cloud-more & more-reflective Seawater, plus route as many Planes over the Pole. This (mostly Natural) problem of the Arctic Melting = 300 mph winds = 6 BILLION dead IF it occurs in the MOST PERFECT PRECISE WAY — unfortunately it is doing this NOW !
The Pacific Oscillation produces low Ice every 60 years (plus is likely half the General Global Warming — of course it is produced by the Sun/C-ray, etc.) — to melt OFF from a nearly full Arctic Basin the previous year takes
a. Thin Ice (courtesy of the 30 More+Stronger El Nino-than-La Nina years that just ended), resulting in 5800 cubic Km last year.
b. It has to recover to fill the basin (2 La Nina=cool years since 2007)
c. A SUPER EL NINO — courtesy of Volcanic Activity off Tonga, this year, tripling what should have been a Weak El Nino to a 1.8 — there was only 1 such in the 1950-77 time-frame so we are seeing a 1 in 2000 bad Luck Event.
d. 2007’s El Nino was a 1.1 = 4000 less cubic Km than 2006’s minimum.
Thus this year’s Ice should be 5800 – 4000 x 1.8/1.1 = WE ALL DIE. Well, currently, I give this about 25%.
Reasoning: IF we get an EARLY melt-off & the 24-a-day Polar Sunshine hits deep-blue-Sea not bright white ICE, quadrupling Solar Energy Absorbtion, for Long enough — I expect 150 degree air-temps & SOME Ocean Currents to reverse — BUT though the currents STOPPED after the Ice Age End-event (the +17 degerees F in 1 year) they are not EXACTLY as they were then — thus one 50-50. The other is all those IF’s for melting off early: IF we do not get a Volcano OR Quick Reversal to La Nina OR do not have 16% less Clouds, like 2007 OR the Wind direction does NOT flush out the ice, like 2007 OR the Nares Ice Dam does not break like 2007 — OOPS ! it already blew, & worse than 2007 !
This is why you see so many ARCTIC ICE POSTS.
And not only is it REALLY Serious BUT the normal Global Warming in the 1977-07 period was QUADRUPLED in the Arctic due to (a) 0.67 degrees C (Drew Shidell’s figures) SOOT from Carbon Cap & Trade “forgiving ” Diesels their Soot if they reduce CO2 & forgiving 3rd World Industry its’ “Dirty Dirty Coal with NO Scrubbers” policies, as Part of … Cap & Trade Again. Meanwhile Sulfur Cap & Trade added 0.42 degrees more because the USA cut SO2 from 31 million tons in 1970 to near 5 million/year Today. We need at least 1/1000th of that back up & at least 3 miles high & over the Arctic SPECIFICALLY, RIGHT NOW. Long term Plans such as Lovelock & Holdens’ would be 20 miles high & every year but right Now, I want it to not to last into the Winter so let it be 3 miles. (Cost = 6 CENTS per American, plus $1 if we add the Seawater idea).
In the Long Term, to prevent Recurrance, we must:
>2. Declare a LACK of Sulfur, high up where it Cools, as Pollution — In fact, I suggest the DEATH Penalty for failing to add 1/1000th of any Sulfur Cut.
>3. War on SOOT: do NOT forgive Diesels IF they cut CO2. CO2 is minor In Comparison but the USA’s 93% cleaner Diesels since 1995 show the way.
We have to realize ANYTHING we do can have bad Effects & not Cover them up. The Demonizing of CO2 by the “PPG’s = Political Phony Greens, is actually funded by the REAL PPG: the Particulated & Poisons Group — that is why they want to FORCE us to use Mercury, etc.
>4. Add Natural Gas to All Coal Plants, halving Soot at a Stroke
(once China realizes this actually SAVES money, they’ll do it, in line with the Abrupt Climate Change Task Force’s General Call for “No-Regrets” measures.
>4b– Get that Gas from Alaska DIRECT by ICEBREAKING TANKER. The new backwards-sailing ones are a third the cost of Pipes & would have 4 times the Sales because they’d access the Whole Coast — in fact I’d NOT wreck the Prudhoe Oil by taking the Gas that pressurizes it. This way, we can Pay Back China.
>5. Cut CO2 & get more Fish with No-fish Zones (as both “residence times” for CO2: 5.4 years & 100 years, are eminently confirmed & due to the confirming Effect of the 1500 A.D. 1-km Stewart Island Asteroid — which cut CO2 20 & 40 years later — I figure BOTH must be correct. The only way to reconcile is this: “Smokestack Carbon” is an INPUT –it is 5.4% of the rise, but the FAVORING OF BONELESS FISHlike Squid & Rays, Octopus, etc, reduces the OTHER side of CO2 because Fish BONES ARE THE MAJOR SEQUESTERING OF CO2. As they are mostly Tropical fish, the Boneless EXPAND when the temp rises, and ALSO when we fish as we tend to take the Bony ones. Whilst a Tidal Wave killing Fishermen over a third of the Oceans REVERSES the effect. Apparently the IPCC misinterpreted Geology to mean Bone is dissolved in Water — any Geologist will tell you it IS, But it TAKES 250 MILLION years ! Bones form layers of Limestone & Chalk & a LOOONG time later, rise up as Monutains, THEN they erode. So the “100 years” refers to INPUT Minus OUTPUT. … There is always this kind of Mess in problems that bridge more than 1 Specialty — that is why Systhesists were Proposed.
Unfortunately I seem to be the only 1.
>6. Ban Ethanol INCREASES — and Spread out the existing Eth. amongs ALL cars for, at 3% or less, it’s Engine-cleaning Doubles its’ value (whereas recent R&D has shown at 10% it is a Net Loss.
>7. MORE RESEARCH. Golly. How can we pay off ALL THIS STUFF in the Government with a Growth Rate cripled by by a third the %-of-GDP in publicly-available R&D that we did in the 1950’s. We may even do it the Way it was done then — with no NEAR TERM Challenge, Military R&D can be made PUBLIC — before Ike made it all Secret, he carefully added Civil Research to equal the Military. But after the late-1960s Research Massacre, GDP Growth dropped by 2% per year (per person– note we encouraged immigrants to appear to keep a similar Growth but we do not Feel Richer, do we? ) EXCEPT after Bush the Elder tripled Nasa Space Science. I know: the Growth, & the High Tech Revolution, was mostly under Clinton, but it was NOT his VOODOO LUCK — especially as it began before he took Office & ended in 1998, before he Left. In other Words: Bush Startted it & Clinton Killed it.
Remember, DOUBLING the Economy means + 14,000 Billion PER YEAR — OK, there is a Time Lag — but NOT in the Way Investors VALUE OUR DEBT. They would lose their fear of us not repaying them in 2040, and that would reduce the interest on our Debt … NOW.
PS. the Time-lag of CO2 of 800 years is from the rise of temp in the ANTARCTIC, which is very small, gradual & precedes the North Polar SUDDEN Warmings — and coolings. It became famous because of Al Gore’s Chart, which scales at 1000 years per inch but the REAL inciter of CO2 — and Methane changes is the NORTH — indeed the last time-lag was 300 years from the South change — because it is 20 years after whenever the North Changes — CO2 & CH4 always mirror that AND cause a further Warming/Cooling on the order of half a degree–just like now. But not the 19 degrees in 3 years. That happens BEFORE.
“Low-hanging fruit”…from the CAGW species of tree…is almost always rotten and has NO nutritional value whatsoever.
Save your ecosystem now…and cut down this opportunistic, invasive, useless species!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
The argument is if global dimming caused by aerosols is greater than “we thought” then global warming must be also greater than “we thought”, it could be though that neither effect is significant, in that case how are we going to peg temperature rise by 2050.This dimming effect we were told in about the year 2000 was getting less so that global warming would accelerate but in 2010 I am still waiting for this acceleration to start,waiting for any catastrophic climate change to start in fact, could this not be an argument for the idea that co2 is affecting climate less than we thought then. Is it wrong for us to be sceptical when we see the predictions made by computer models go so badly wrong,when we see appeal to authority and consensus replace facts and when we see no catastrophic climate change at the moment only the threat of this produced by computer models in order to extract higher taxes from us all now.
old construction worker says:
May 4, 2010 at 6:16 pm
The SMOG photograft, when was it taken and what city is it? To me, it looks like Denver, Co back in the mid 70′s.
Looks like it’s a photo of L.A. from 2007. They are notorious for it, being in a basin, with millions of vehicles, and little rain to wash it from the air.
Gail Combs
Oh, and Mikael, Climate Science: Follow the Money So that argument on how little money is spent on CAGW doesn’t fly here either.
——
According to the source you provided the spending on climate
research would be under 4 billion /year, against total spending 380
billion/year, that is about 1% of the federal research budget
(+ some of CR money would come from foundations etc).
Clearly, the money grabber scientists should go for defense and
health research.
Gail Combs says:
May 4, 2010 at 5:13 pm
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…..”
George E. Smith says:
May 4, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Bruce Cobb says:
May 4, 2010 at 2:38 pm
David Middleton says:
May 4, 2010 at 2:23 pm
davidmhoffer says:
May 4, 2010 at 2:31 pm
—————–
I am well aware that China is/about to become the largest
carbon emitter. But, who says the high Chinese growth rate will
be sustained for decades? I am also aware that China & India will
continue heavily with fossils for many decades. But, the quotation
above is meant to show that they also look for other ways, because
of competition for coal and oil, because of severe urban air pollution,
because they are rational…
The point is we need a global policy and that necessitates the
western countries to lead the way, because we are mainly responsible
for the existent atmospheric rise in CO2…
George, your figures are totally wrong. For the 20th century USA
was clearly the biggest emitter. If you sum up the EU countries we
are a good second. But per capita: you are the champions.
And your US carbon sink calculation is ‘sceptical’, no way could
USA sink offset more than 15-20% of the emissions, probably less.
If you believe all the sink estimates provided by different groups
and countries, there would be no build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere
– but there is.
Then the comments on China’s investement in green technology:
“they want to sell it”. Partly , yes – what’s wrong with that? Through
a market mechanism is would be correctly priced. The surprising
thing is that California does not want this business.
mikael pihlström says:
May 5, 2010 at 11:05 am
The point is we need a global policy and that necessitates the
western countries to lead the way, because we are mainly responsible
for the existent atmospheric rise in CO2…
Actually, no, there is no need for a global policy on C02, as C02 is an entirely beneficial gas, and further amounts of it in the atmosphere will have little effect on climate. It makes absolutely no difference who is responsible for any added C02, (actually, we humans are only responsible for a very small portion, contributing roughly 3%) and as a matter of fact, plants love it. If you want to control the earth’s climate you need to think of ways to control the sun as well as ocean oscillations, the two largest drivers of climate. Good luck with that.