Not only is Alan correct on Pielke, but what about Tierney - is methane not a fossil fuel? And for Pielke, what about conflicts between policies restricting carbon dioxide and those designed to best control radiative forcing? What about recent papers showing the effects of rapid loss of current US aerosol loading being summer temps of perhaps 4 degrees higher? Clearly, even in an ideal world, steep reductions of BC/CH4 should precede large CO2 source reductions by a little bit, as SO2 market forces which are assumed to stabilize SO2 levels for a while will not necessarily work well, and what with the economics of non-CO2 draw-down added into the aerosol story means that it's fundamentally better for RF to feature very strong high-GWP SLCF reductions a few years ahead of CO2......
Cheers, Nathan On Jan 26, 4:03 pm, Alan Robock <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> wrote: > Dear Tom, > > Thanks for the clarification. > > Alan > > [On sabbatical for current academic year. The best way to contact me > is by email, rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu, or at 732-881-1610 (cell).] > > Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) > Editor, Reviews of Geophysics > Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program > Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction > Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 > Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 > 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock > > On 1/26/2012 1:01 PM, Tom Wigley wrote: > > > > > Alan, > > > Just to clarify for everyone, what you are criticizing is not Greg, > > nor the Shindell paper, but the quote from Roger Pielke Jr. > > > Tom. > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > On 1/26/2012 11:06 AM, Alan Robock wrote: > >> Dear Greg, > > >> This is patently absurd. If it were true there would be no mileage > >> standards for cars, no efficiency standards for appliances, no Montreal > >> Protocol, no environmental regulation at all. I wouldn't have subsidized > >> solar panels on my roof in New Jersey and my electric company would not > >> have to buy renewal energy certificates from me. There would still be > >> lead in gasoline and DDT used in pest control. There are multiple > >> examples of science informing environmental policy. > > >> Alan > > >> [On sabbatical for current academic year. The best way to contact me > >> is by email, rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu, or at 732-881-1610 (cell).] > > >> Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) > >> Editor, Reviews of Geophysics > >> Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program > >> Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction > >> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 > >> Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 > >> 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu > >> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USAhttp://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock > > >> On 1/26/2012 9:56 AM, Rau, Greg wrote: > >>> "When there s a conflict between policies promoting economic growth > >>> and policies restricting carbon dioxide, economic growth wins every > >>> time." > > >>> Saddle up, GEers. - Greg > > >>> Climate Proposal Puts Practicality Ahead of Sacrifice > >>> By JOHN > >>> TIERNEY<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/john_tie...> > > >>> Published: January 16, 2012 > >>> The current issue of the journal Science contains a > >>> proposal<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6065/183> to slow > >>> global > >>> warming<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index...> > > >>> that is extraordinary for a couple of reasons: > > >>> 1. In theory, it would help people living in poor countries now, > >>> instead of mainly benefiting their descendants. > > >>> 2. In practice, it might actually work. > > >>> This proposal comes from an international team of researchers in > >>> climate modeling, atmospheric chemistry, economics, agriculture and > >>> public health who started off with a question that borders on heresy > >>> in some green circles: Could something be done about global warming > >>> besides forcing everyone around the world to use less fossil fuel? > > >>> Ever since the Kyoto > >>> Protocol<http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html> imposed > >>> restrictions in industrial countries, the first priority of > >>> environmentalists has been to further limit the emission of carbon > >>> dioxide. Burning fewer fossil fuels is the most obvious way to > >>> counteract the greenhouse effect, and the notion has always had a > >>> wonderfully virtuous political appeal as long as it s being done by > >>> someone else. > > >>> But as soon as people are asked to do it themselves, they follow a > >>> principle identified by Roger Pielke Jr. in his book The Climate > >>> Fix. <http://theclimatefix.com/> Dr. Pielke, a political scientist at > >>> the University of Colorado, calls it iron law of climate policy: When > >>> there s a conflict between policies promoting economic growth and > >>> policies restricting carbon dioxide, economic growth wins every time. > > >>> The law holds even in the most ecologically correct countries of > >>> Europe, as Dr. Pielke found by looking at carbon reductions from 1990 > >>> until 2010. > > >>> The Kyoto Protocol was supposed to put Europe on a new energy path, > >>> but it contained so many loopholes that the rate of decarbonization > >>> in Europe did not improve in the years after 1998, when the protocol > >>> was signed, or after 2002, when it was ratified. In fact, Europe s > >>> economy became more carbon-intensive in 2010, he says a trend that > >>> seems likely to continue as nuclear power plants are shut down in > >>> Germany and replaced by coal-burning ones. > > >>> People will make trade-offs, but the one thing that won t be traded > >>> off is keeping the lights on at reasonable cost, he says. Given the > >>> reluctance of affluent Europeans to make sacrifices, what are the odds > >>> of persuading billions of people in poorer countries to pay more for > >>> energy today in return for a cooler climate at the end of the century? > > >>> But suppose they were offered a deal with immediate benefits, like the > >>> one proposed in Science by researchers in the United States, Britain, > >>> Italy, Austria, Thailand and Kenya. The team looked at ways to slow > >>> global warming while also reducing the soot and smog that are damaging > >>> agriculture and health. > > >>> Black carbon, the technical term for the soot spewed from diesel > >>> engines and traditional cookstoves and kilns, has been blamed for a > >>> significant portion of the recent warming in the Arctic and for > >>> shrinking glaciers in the Himalayas. Snow ordinarily reflects the > >>> sun s rays, but when the white landscape is covered with soot, the > >>> darker surface absorbs heat instead. > > >>> Methane, which is released from farms, landfills, coal mines and > >>> petroleum operations, contributes to ground-level ozone associated > >>> with smog and poorer yields from crops. It s also a greenhouse gas > >>> that, pound for pound, is far more powerful than carbon dioxide at > >>> trapping the sun s heat. > > >>> After looking at hundreds of ways to control these pollutants, the > >>> researchers determined the 14 most effective measures for reducing > >>> climate change, like encouraging a switch to cleaner diesel engines > >>> and cookstoves, building more efficient kilns and coke ovens, > >>> capturing methane at landfills and > >>> oil<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/oil-pe...> > > >>> wells, and reducing methane emissions from rice paddies by draining > >>> them more often. > > >>> If these strategies became widespread, the researchers calculate, the > >>> amount of global warming in 2050 would be reduced by about one degree > >>> Fahrenheit, roughly a third of the warming projected if nothing is > >>> done. This impact on temperatures in 2050 would be significantly > >>> larger than the projected impact of the commonly proposed measures for > >>> reducing carbon dioxide emissions. > > >>> Not incidentally, the researchers calculate, these reductions in > >>> low-level ozone and black carbon would yield lots of benefits long > >>> before 2050. Because people would be breathing cleaner air, 700,000 to > >>> 4.7 million premature deaths would be avoided each year. Thanks to > >>> improved crop yields, farmers would produce at least 30 million more > >>> metric tons of food annually. > > >>> The beauty of these pollution-control measures is that over five to > >>> 10 years they pay for themselves in the developing world, says Drew > >>> Shindell, the lead author of the proposal, who is a climate scientist > >>> at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and at Columbia > >>> University. They slow global warming, but there are local benefits, > >>> too. If you make black carbon reductions in China or India, you get > >>> most of the benefits in China or India. > > >>> These ideas already have a few fans, including Ted Nordhaus, a founder > >>> of the Breakthrough Institute<http://thebreakthrough.org/>, which has > >>> endorsed similar measures in a report called Climate > >>> Pragmatism. > >>> <http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/07/climate_pragmatism_innovation...> > > >>> Mr. Nordhaus sees the Science paper as a model for the future. > > >>> This is what the post-Kyoto world will look like, he says. We ll > >>> increasingly be managing ecological problems like global warming, not > >>> solving them. We may make some headway in limiting our emissions, but > >>> if we do so it will be through innovating better energy technologies > >>> and implementing them at the national and regional level, not through > >>> top-down international limits. > > >>> These pollution-control policies aren t especially controversial > >>> even Republicans hostile to environmentalists have supported research > >>> into black carbon but neither have they have been especially > >>> popular. Mainstream environmental groups haven t put them on the > >>> agenda. One reason is the lack of glamour: Encouraging villagers to > >>> use diesel engine filters and drain their rice paddies is less > >>> newsworthy than negotiating a global treaty on carbon at a United > >>> Nations conference. > > >>> Another reason is the fear of distracting people from the campaign > >>> against carbon dioxide, the gas with the most long-term impact. > >>> Because it lingers in the atmosphere much longer than soot or methane, > >>> some scientists argue that limiting it must be the first step. Dr. > >>> Shindell says he agrees with the need to limit carbon dioxide and > >>> sympathizes with those who worry about losing focus. > > >>> But I also worry that carbon dioxide will go up > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
