Hi Jan, I am interested. I have expertise in forestry, sustainability measures, petrochemical business, and renewable energy.

I completely agree with you Kenneth, the history of stratospheric ozone is important, It could act both as an hopeful example on how fast we can act, and a cautionary tale on how little we know as CFCs were originally considered as harmless. Would you have the expertise on this issue and would you like to join in that case? http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2053019617725538

Jan, an interesting project. Sounds ambitious in that the task of limiting global warming to 1,5 C is difficult to compare with anything attempted or accomplished in the past. It is really a special case.

From Kenneth I would like to ask is the global average ozone in any way relevant with the ozone depletion problem which mainly materialized at the poles and especially over Antarctica. Not to my knowledge.

Pasi: History does not repeat - but it rhymes. All environmental problems and their solutions have been a special case, but we might still finds some common threads. I am for example convinced that just like in the solving of earlier problems, the world will not make simultaneous steps. Someone must go first - showing example.

Jan, since Kenneth's comments sounded my alarm bells, I did some quick research and noted that he appears to actively promote climate skepticism, for instance, here at Research Gate. Just as I thought. I really do have a sensitive radar for these guys. ;)

Dear Kenneth, your answer above is exactly what I expected it to be. I have debated with climate skeptics for 30 years now (29 to be accurate) and I know all the talking points. I have, however, found that engaging in such a debate is mainly useless as it only revolves in circles without really accomplishing anything. So, I am not going to continue this discussion any further. All the best.

Jan, about history rhyming. I agree. My point was more in the direction that even the calculations about the goal in question - 1,5 C - render the issue most challenging. Is 1,5 C even attainable any more? Of course, perhaps the study does not have to problematize this goal in itself.

Exactly so, Kenneth. I have heard all that before, too. Fortunately science advances quite despite such fringe disputes as ours. (And unfortunately the skeptic lobby has been able to sow climate doubt for 30 years now which has critically delayed the response urgently needed.)

All the best.

Kenneth, since we have only just 'met', I guess I can sacrifice a few more minutes to add one more response.

Above, you claim that I only "present insults". I, however, cannot fathom which of my comments you might have taken as such. Perhaps you refer to my comment that, according to my observations, you appear "to actively promote climate skepticism, for instance, here at Research Gate". Well, you can easily deny the assertion, should you wish to do so. Instead, you have overtly confirmed my inference.

Or, perhaps you refer to my comment that engaging in debates with climate denialists "is mainly useless as it only revolves in circles without really accomplishing anything". That notion, as I already mentioned, is based on my decades-long experience on such debates. In fact, some years ago even the Finnish Meteorological Institute decided not to participate in any such discussions anymore, because they saw them as fruitless and depreciating science.

In fact, your view that "climate change 'alarmists' are ... slow to accept facts that put them in 'denial'" contains a most similar idea. I understand that from your viewpoint this must really seem to be so. There is nothing I can add to that.

Further, since the concern has already been raised of someone breaking the rules of argumentation, I cannot help but note that your comment about me being merely "an historian with not one publication to his name" is a most evident ad hominem. Merits are not what count. And, as it happens, I do have publications and all sorts of merits to my name. You, apparently, are just not aware of them.

You also write that I "clearly don't know where we are today" and that the science "has advanced past" me. I have no idea on what you could have based such a notion. Since you specifically supplemented the comment with a news article about geoengineering and about spraying sulfur into the atmosphere, I guess you believe these ideas to be news to me. Well, they are not. Crutzen first presented his idea more than a decade ago. Furthermore, the fact that the notion of geoengineering has since been gaining more attention is only testament to the alarming state of climate change.

Indeed, in my view, the most important point in the article is this: "Achieving ... 2°C ... will require rapid, substantial greenhouse gas emission reductions together with large-scale use of 'negative emission' strategies for capturing carbon dioxide from the air. It remains unclear, however, how or indeed whether large net-negative emissions can be achieved, and neither technology nor sufficient storage capacity for captures carbon are available." (All of these, by the way, being ideas that I have extensively discussed in my works, too.)

Finally, you are amazed of my comment that "the skeptic lobby has been able to sow climate doubt for 30 years now which has critically delayed the response urgently needed". "Sow doubt? About what? Delayed response? Where?", you ask. Do you really not know that the main goal of the skeptic lobby has been to sow doubt. If so, it might be worthwhile to study its history. In this respect, this publication, 'Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air', is a classic: (http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf).

And where has the delayed response occured? In the real, physical world, of course. Already in 1988, at The Changing Atmosphere conference, held in Toronto, the scientific community demanded that CO2 emissions ought to be halved by the year 2015 (that is two years ago). Instead, much due to the efforts of the skeptics, the emissions have since, not decreased by 50%, but increased by 50%.

But that does it for me. This discussion thread initiated by Jan is not about whether AGW is real (and serious) or not. It is, however, good to know something about the people one is conversing with.

Hi, I am so interesting in this topic and thank you so much for invitation.

Emad

Oh, boy. Yes, I am fifty and a PhD candidate (I have been at Aalto ARTS for some two years now). But how does that lead you to think that I am not familiar with the global temperature variations? I know them very well, as I do global change as a whole.

I have only recently joined RG and I will add more info about me as I find the time to do so. And again, past merits are not what decide an argument.

When you are attacking someones credentials instead of his arguments, you have lost the battle. Knowing Pasi´s large contribution to the debate on climate change in Finland, I am very honored that he takes time answering my question, acknowledging his knowledge on the issue.

Attached is a graph of the yearly mean temperature in Helsinki 1844-2009 (solid line: measurements; dashed line: urban heat island effect adjusted). Source: Finnish Meteorological Institution.

The above is relative to 1971-2000.

For additional information contact the FMI. Their web, English version, is: http://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi.

If you suspect some discrepancy or foul play, do contact FMI. I am sure they can provide you with the information needed.

In order to return to the original question, here is my eletter published in Science that could also work as a potential outline for the suggested article:

Historical perspective on a “carbon law”

The lessons from history inspire hope that halving gross anthropogenic carbon-dioxide emissions every decade as suggested by Rockström et al. can be achieved. One inspiring example of humankind solving a problem threatening our very existence is the story of ozone-depleting chemicals, where the United States took the lead without waiting for other countries. Regarding climate change, acid rain is probably a better source for learning, as it is also due to energy production. This time Sweden showed example for others to follow. Accordingly, Finland introduced active measures to decrease sulphur dioxide emissions resulting in an 87 percent emission drop in just two decades 1980—2001. In other words, much more than the suggested carbon law. In both cases a few countries first made unilateral cuts. Their example together with active lobbying eventually led to successful international treaties. In the end the actual costs for dealing with the emissions were much lower than at first anticipated, which made it easier for less eager countries to follow.

History can be repeated, if we so decide. As countries follow the example of first movers, the development of global GHG gases can be a combination of falling curves stacked upon each other, leading to the necessary and fast emission decline worldwide. Someone must, however, show the example for others to follow, be that a large or a small country, or even an individual. Finally, what might seem like an impassable difficult task when we are still struggling towards the turning point might with hindsight have been much easier to achieve than anticipated.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6331/1269/tab-e-letters

I have just been reading about Wilberforce, the Englishman who led the campaign to abolish slavery. It began with a speech to the House of Commons which lasted four hours, but was very persuasive, and was printed as a book, which achieved many editions.

We really need a new Wilberforce to take up the challenge of describing the horrors that global warming is going to bring. Al Gore tried, but like Wilberforce, he was opposed by commercial interests. There is a brief description of Wilberforce here: http://abolition.e2bn.org/people_24.html which ends with a link to the text of his four hour speech.

To continue on the lessons from history. History shows that even gigantic problems look smaller once they have been solved. History also shows that the development can be very fast once we stop discussing whether the problem exists or not and we start looking for solutions. From my own research on SO2 emissions and acid rain I know that this was the case here, and now I am looking for other similar cases. I am not trying to dismiss the gigantic venture ahead, but trying to find at least some hope, as we need that as well. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091000100X,

This proposal can also be enlarged to include other Sustainable Development Goals: https://climatecolab.org/contests/2017/exploring-synergistic-solutions-for-sustainable-development/c/proposal/1334230

LOL. I prefer this one: https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

It covers all the basics.

Kenneth, I have done research on the acid rain myself, and I can say that without active measures the emissions would have eventually reached a level in which the forests would have been seriously damaged. This again would have created serious damage to the Swedish (and Finnish) economy. So the acid rain "scare" saved the economy of the countries. Article Anxiety and technological change -- Explaining the inverted ...

Pasi, the "book" looks interesting, but unfortunately joins the company of books that sidelines Gilbert Plass, who warned about climate change one year before Revelle.https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6bf2k0dz

Jan, Weart mentions Plass quite a few times (see attached pic).

Also, the print versions of the ’book’ have been published by Harvard University Press: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674031890 .

My interpretation of the question requires one to say either 'yes, I am interested' or 'no, I am not interested'. I do not believe a debate about people's credentials or their ideologies is warranted. If you answered yes then it seems logical that you would also indicate your availability and area(s) of expertise.

I am interested and I can provide insight into the development of climate change theory.

This is an interesting project to be involved in! I can not say I am an expert but I am very much interested in being part of this, to contribute and to learn.

I wish you success in solving this problem in the near future.

Dear Kenneth,

Mitigation and adaptation are not alternatives to each other. Both are needed as without large scale mitigation climate change will proceed to levels beyond adaptation.

It is also a question of responsibility, as those facing the worst effects of climate change are not the ones emitting most. Chapter An Outline for Funding Adaptation and Disaster Management Schemes

as I have tried to explain the numbers for effective mitigation, as currently planned are hopelessly large....Yes, Kenneth effective mitigation to prevent human extinction is likewise....... hopelessly large.....And all those in positions of authority are culpable.

It could be interesting to consider the opinion of the prof. Alan Sokal from the Physics Department of the New York University and mathematician. I agree with him that climate change is a reality that does not allow doubts

The ResearchGate Score: a good example of a bad metric?http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2015/12/09/the-researchgate-score-a-good-example-of-a-bad-metric/

Peters is not real scientist because he is a bibliometric oriented one and behaves like an Instagram member and thinks to his fans. The origin of "question and answer" is dynamic scientic capability and Peter does not have any questions and finally he does not know to cooperate not compete. RG cannot reflect the whole scientific career and we have big scientists that are working hard but never write cock and bull story.

Dear Karimi,

Please don´t you as well join the thread were we discuss a person instead of his arguments.