What it will take to cut global warming in half

ResearchBlogging.orgA new paper to be published next week in Geophysical Research Letters (which really needs a better name) lays out what kind of effort would be required to reduce the impacts of climate change by half. Actually, what it does is conclude that if we reign in our fossil-fuel emissions by 70%, temperature rise and a few other consequences will be roughly half of what they'd be in the absence of any mitigating effort. But since both targets are arbitrary, it doesn't really matter which way you approach the subject.

Either way, the news ain't good.

In "How much climate change can be avoided by mitigation?" (subs req'd) Warren Washington of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and seven of his colleagues in Boulder, the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Switzerland, and Climate Central of New Jersey and California, run a bunch of computer models to compare a non-mitigation (business-as-usual) scenario with "a low emission mitigation" alternative. That alternative sees civilization managing to cut oil, gas and coal emissions by 70% by 2100, by which time CO2 levels would be stabilized at 450 ppm.

They use those numbers because the IPCC frequently talks about them, even though the standard timeframe being bandied about these days involves even more aggressive cuts by as soon as 2050. There are those who fear that if we don't manage the earlier schedule, we're pretty much SOL. So keep that in mind when evaluating the author's conclusions. Which are that :

Compared to a nonintervention reference scenario, emission reductions of about 70% by 2100 are required to prevent roughly half the change in temperature and precipitation that would otherwise occur. By 2100, the resulting stabilized global climate would ensure preservation of considerable Arctic sea ice and permafrost areas. Future heat waves would be 55% less intense, and sea level rise from thermal expansion would be about 57% lower than if a non-mitigation scenario was followed.

The authors don't pretend to know whether or not these kind of reductions will be sufficient to avoid what most people would consider "catastrophic" consequences. That's a policy question, right? It is quite possible that even this much mitigation won't be enough to stop us triggering a tipping point that makes the rest of their calculations irrelevant. No one knows, for example, just how much permafrost can melt before the methane released by that melt kicks off a runaway greenhouse effect.

Instead, their take-home message is "the impacts of climate change with a mitigation scenario are substantially less than with a non-intervention emission strategy, and the amount of climate change that can be averted with mitigation is considerable." (One could observe that we knew as much already, but it is always helpful to have a group of scientists back up common sense.)

When I look at the results graphically, however, a different message occurs to me. Here are a couple of maps illustrating the difference between a do-nothing approach (top) and the 70% mitigation scenario:

To my eyes, the bottom map doesn't look too inviting. Not when you consider an increase of 2°C is widely regarded as "not good." Perhaps this explains why the most common targets being pushed by the more aggressive climate science advisers involve a cut of between 80 and 90% by 2050. James Hansen would have us reduce CO2 levels to significantly below today's 387 ppm by the end of the century, because he says 450 is too dangerous.

Is it important exactly what targets we choose at this point? Some argue that what we really need are non-numerical policy targets, such as Hansen's immediate moratorium on new coal-fired plants and the subsequent total phaseout by 2030. I tend to agree that setting national or even international emissions targets but leaving the details to the market, whether through a cap-and-trade approach or a flat carbon tax, makes me more than a little nervous.

In any event, we need regular and frequent reminders of the cost of doing nothing. And Washingon et al. 2009 is just such a reminder. I would like to see the 70% mitigation scenario compared with 80, 90 and 100% mitigation scenarios, but that's just a quibble.
--
Warren Washington, et al. (209). How much climate change can be avoided by mitigation Geophysical Research Letters

More like this

On the advent of this 40th Earth Day, nine climatologists from Germany take a look at the range of likely scenarios if we do nothing more to reduce the causes of global warming than is called for by what the world agreed to at Copenhagen last year. The bottom line: "it is equivalent to racing…
See that black box over on the left-hand side of this blog? The one with the numbers counting down? That's a little widget I assembled by rejigging one from trillionthtonne.org. The basic idea is that, if our climate can be expected to suffer severe disruption at a certain amount of global warming…
Well, that headline's a little unfair. I wrote it to lure in those who jump on every opportunity to prove that climatologists are frauds. What I really mean to say is: "Where the most recent assessment by the IPCC has been superceded by more recent findings. It's all in a new report, The Copenhagen…
After Doonesbury, my morning reading begins with a peek at the RSS feed from Real Climate. Most mornings it's worth a repeat look at posts I've already reviewed as the comments left there offer one of the highest signal-to-noise ratios in the blogosphere. Today I came across this noteworthy note…

As long as we're talking policy, bear in mind that the farther we go with mitigation the greater the short-term rewards for backsliding will become. In political systems that change governments more than once a generation, the question then becomes how to make reversal of policy expensive enough to reduce temptation.

By D. C. Sessions (not verified) on 14 Apr 2009 #permalink

"We" should blog even harder.

It is obvious that we skeptics are starting to have 2nd thoughts.

James: there is no journal entitled "Geophysical Review Letters". American Geophysical Union publishes short research papers in Geophysical Research Letters, and longer review articles (as you might expect) in Reviews in Geophysics.

Regarding the actual reduction scenarios: unless there is truly an embrace of NPG, despite the downsides, the world is on a very risky path. More on that later. Meanwhile, energy source mix is the only strategy with a chance.

70%...oh dear...

Living on a hill, i look forward to seeing the ocean getting a lot closer...

By Richard Eis (not verified) on 15 Apr 2009 #permalink

Thinking outside the box and not thinking anything through. Here we go.

Cover the artic in tinfoil during the summer
Genetically engineer a really fast growing shelled creature that uses carbon from the atmosphere at a tremendous rate.
Paint the roofs white
Stop eating so much meat, or emphasise less energy intensive meat.
Seed the upper atmosphere with dust or something to dim the light. Possibly by inducing volcanic eruptions

By Marc Abian (not verified) on 15 Apr 2009 #permalink

"Genetically engineer a really fast growing shelled creature that uses carbon from the atmosphere at a tremendous rate."

Nature did it already. Meet Ehux: http://www.soes.soton.ac.uk/staff/tt/

By Jim Bob Cooter (not verified) on 15 Apr 2009 #permalink

Genetically engineer a really fast growing shelled creature that uses carbon from the atmosphere at a tremendous rate.

I'm going to have to think about that one for awhile. Thanks to Jim Bob Cooter for reminding us about Emiliania huxleyi.