Scientists Argue For Rate-Based GHG Target In Addition to Cumulative Budget: Cap and Rate
23 November 2009
In a new paper in Nature Reports Climate Change, Steffen Kallbekken, Nathan Rive, Glen P. Peters and Jan S. Fuglestvedt from CICERO Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo argue for the addition of a rate-based greenhouse gas emissions target in addition to a cumulative emissions target.
A warming rate of more than 0.2 °C per decade is intolerable if the earth’s ecosystems are to adapt, according to The German Advisory Council on Global Change. CICERO scientists adopted this rate and calculated that in order not to exceed it, cumulative emissions in the period 2010–2030 must not exceed approximately 190 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC).
(Although other studies suggest that ecosystems cannot adapt to a rate of change faster than 0.05–0.1 °C per decade, the globe is already committed to warming of around 0.2 °C per decade even with constant (year 2005) emissions. Given that, the authors decided, a more stringent target “would likely be unfeasible.”).
The cumulative target of 190 GtC for the period 2010–2030 is equal to an average of 9.5 GtC per year, compared to global emissions of 9.9 GtC in 2008. Taking the 190 GtC budget for 2010–2030 within the context of an overall one-trillion-tonne budget suggests that only about 300 GtC are available for post-2030 emissions, given that humans have already released around 500 GtC into the atmosphere in the past quarter century.
An alternative policy approach to limiting the rate of warming would be to focus on reducing short-lived atmospheric components. This may have a limited effect on long-term temperature change, however, since these components have atmospheric lifetimes in the order of days, in the case of black carbon, or a decade, in the case of methane. By focusing on CO2, which has an impact over centuries or longer, our proposed mitigation strategy has the benefit of limiting the rate of warming in the short term, as well as addressing long-term temperature change.
—Kallbekken et al.
The implications are that global emissions must peak around 2015 and be cut by roughly half between the peak and the year 2030. Focusing climate policy on a long-term target, such as the EU 2-degree target, provides limited guidance for mitigation over the next few decades, and gives the impression that there is time to delay, says Steffen Kallbekken.
The researchers propose that, in addition to a long-term cumulative emissions budget, a maximum limit on the rate of warming should also be considered as an element in the design of climate policies. Required mitigation rates are 4-8% per year, which far exceeds anything achieved in history.
A short-term target provides clearer guidance on mitigation in the near term, limits potentially dangerous rates of warming, and allows easier inclusion of potent and toxic short-lived climate components. A short-term cumulative emissions target, for example 190 GtC for the period 2010-2030, is a useful approach to limit the rate of warming, while at the same time keeping the focus on what matters in the long term: reducing CO2 emissions.
—Steffen Kallbekken
Resources
Steffen Kallbekken, Nathan Rive, Glen P. Peters & Jan S. Fuglestvedt (2009) Curbing emissions: cap and rate. Nature Reports Climate Change doi: 10.1038/climate.2009.121
And we thought they might be going to tell us this AGW is a hoax??
Posted by: arnold | 23 November 2009 at 01:07 PM
Replace link with.
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0912/full/climate.2009.121.html
Posted by: arnold | 23 November 2009 at 01:12 PM
These kind of articles now can only cause one to LOL. The entire premise of "climate science" is collapsing with each passing hour. The likelihood of major culprits like Dr. Phil at CRU wearing ankle bracelets is great.
But it is sad to see a kind of people so willing to act criminally for personal gain damage the good scientists trying to genuinely do science.
There are 100Mb of unreleased CRU/Hadley AGW revelations waiting in the wings. Maybe it's time for the crooks to pack up and head back to the bleak dimension they crept out from under. Good riddance.
Posted by: sulleny | 23 November 2009 at 01:26 PM
These kind of articles now can only cause one to LOL. The entire premise of "climate science" is collapsing with each passing hour. The likelihood of major culprits like Dr. Phil at CRU wearing ankle bracelets is great.
But it is sad to see a kind of people so willing to act criminally for personal gain damage the good scientists trying to genuinely do science.
There are 100Mb of unreleased CRU/Hadley AGW revelations waiting in the wings. Maybe it's time for the crooks to pack up and head back to the bleak dimension they crept out from under. Good riddance.
Posted by: sulleny | 23 November 2009 at 01:26 PM
I suppose now with every article regarding global warming we'll have to endure critics claiming that the hacked emails have completely destroyed the science behind it.
I am guess that those people never understood the science behind global warming in the first place.
Global warming ignored, there are plenty of other reasons to cut down on our fossil fuel consumption, but the critics will never acknowledge that.
Posted by: Dave R | 23 November 2009 at 02:49 PM
.
I suppose now with every article regarding global warming we'll have to endure critics claiming that the hacked emails have completely destroyed the science behind it.
Nah... the emails, and data, that they illegally refused to make public (we now see what they were hiding!!!) due to the Freedom of Information Act brought to light the great hoax known as Global Warming®, since rebranded Climate Change®, since rebranded CO2 Pollution®.
I am guess that those people...
Please use proper English when deriding people's intelligence and/or ability to understand subject matter.
"The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind." - Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.
Priceless!
.
Posted by: The Goracle | 24 November 2009 at 11:56 AM