* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Global Carbon Cycle and Climate Change: The Effect of Human
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference wikipedia , lookup
Energiewende in Germany wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Economics of climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Climate Change conference wikipedia , lookup
Views on the Kyoto Protocol wikipedia , lookup
Carbon governance in England wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change mitigation wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change wikipedia , lookup
Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Canada wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Low-carbon economy wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Mitigation of global warming in Australia wikipedia , lookup
Global Carbon Cycle and Climate Change: The Effect of Human Activity Ross J. Salawitch Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology University of Maryland, College Park (as of 1 Sept 2007) [email protected] − or − [email protected] CSU Bakersfield-NASA Summer Institute 26 June 2007 Modern CO2 Record Δ (CO2) years 1958 to 2000 ≈ 53 ppm = 117 Gt C Charles Keeling, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, CA http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm Carbon Emissions CO2 emission, 1958 to 2000 = 201 Gt C Δ (CO2), 1958 to 2000 ≈ 117 Gt C ~60% of carbon emitted remains in the atmosphere Rest goes to either: – oceans – terrestrial biosphere (trees and plants) – soils Data from http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm World Carbon Emissions Human Release of Carbon Current human activities release about 7 Gt (giga tons), or 7,000,000,000 (7 × 109) tons of carbon per year. How much is 7 Gt of carbon ?!? Human Release of Carbon Current human activities release about 7 Gt (giga tons), or 7,000,000,000 (7 × 109) tons of carbon per year. How much is 7 Gt of carbon ?!? Mazda Miata weighs about 1 ton (2200 lbs) 7 Gigatons C ≈ 7 billion Miatas Miata is about 13 feet long Earth’s circumference is ~25,000 miles ⇒ 10 million Miatas placed end-to-end 7 Gigatons C is equivalent to a series of Miatas, placed end-to-end, encircling the Earth 700 times ! Strong Correlation between CO2 and Surface Temperature, last ~150 years Why did CO2 start to rise ? Carbon Production Production Gt C per year 8 6 TOTAL BIOSPHERE (mainly agricultural deforestation) 4 BURING OF FOSSIL FUELS 2 0 Siegenthaler and Oescheger, 1987 1760 1800 1840 1880 YEAR 1920 1960 2000 Strong Correlation between CO2 and Surface Temperature, last ~1000 years Strong Correlation between CO2 and Surface Temperature, last ~400,000 years Greenhouse Effect of CO and H2and O Greenhouse Effect of 2CO2 H2O Houghton, Global Warming, Cambridge Univ Press, 1997 Greenhouse Effect : Clouds Greenhouse Effect: Clouds Modeling Climate Change Solar and Volcanic Forcing All Forcings IPCC 2001 Climate Change: Scientific Basis GHGs, aerosols, and O3 No solar & volcanic Forcing Modeling Climate Change Solar & Volcanic Forcing Are humans responsible? All forcings GHGs, aerosols, O3 No solar & volcanic Modeling Climate Change Solar & Volcanic Forcing Are humans responsible? Orbital variations: too slow All forcings GHGs, aerosols, O3 No solar & volcanic Modeling Climate Change Solar & Volcanic Forcing Are humans responsible? Orbital variations: too slow Volcanoes: no sustained forcing All forcings GHGs, aerosols, O3 No solar & volcanic Modeling Climate Change Solar & Volcanic Forcing Are humans responsible? Orbital variations: too slow Volcanoes: no sustained forcing Solar variability: Perhaps dominant forcing of Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age Small effect since ~1960 Reconstructed Temperature All forcings GHGs, aerosols, O3 No solar & volcanic Modeling Climate Change Solar & Volcanic Forcing GHGs, aerosols, O3 No solar & volcanic Are humans responsible? Orbital variations: too slow Volcanoes: no sustained forcing Solar variability: Perhaps dominant forcing of Medieval warming Small effect since ~1960 All forcings Internal variability (eg, El Niño / La Niña) : Climate record from 1000 to 1850 shows nothing like present rate of warming Modeling Climate Change Solar & Volcanic Forcing GHGs, aerosols, O3 No solar & volcanic Are humans responsible? Orbital variations: too slow Volcanoes: no sustained forcing Solar variability: Perhaps dominant forcing of Medieval warming Small effect since ~1960 All forcings Internal variability (eg, El Niño / La Niña) : Climate record from 1000 to 1850 shows nothing like present rate of warming IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis concludes: Very high confidence* that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming * Very high confidence: at least a 9 out of 10 change of being correct H2O and Cloud Feedback JPL satellite data show that that convection enhances the greenhouse effect by leading to increased H2O and cloud ice in the tropical upper troposphere SST MLS Cloud Ice MLS UT H2O Su et al., GRL, 2006 H2O and Cloud Feedback: Models and Measurements ● Climate models qualitatively capture obs. relations between H2O (UTWV), Cloud Ice (IWP), & SST ● Nearly all models produce a slope of Cloud Ice (IWP) vs SST that is less than observed ● Models simulate H2O better feedback (factor of 2 variations wrt data) better than Cloud Feedback (factors of 4 to 10 variations wrt data) Data Cloud feedback under active investigation: NASA CloudSat, CALIPSO instruments (launched 28 April 2006) NASA TC4 (Tropical Composition, Cloud and Climate Coupling) mission San Jose, Costa Rica, July and August 2007 http://www.espo.nasa.gov/tc4/ Su et al., GRL, 2006 Consequences of Climate Change Projected adverse impacts include: • General reduction in crop yields in most tropical and sub-tropical regions • General reduction (some variation) in crop yields in most mid-latitude regions • Decreased water availability in many water-scarce regions, particularly in the sub-tropics • An increase in the number of people exposed to vector-borne (malaria) and water-borne diseases (cholera), and an increase in heat stress mortality • Widespread increased flooding risk (tens of millions of inhabitants in settlements studied) from both increased heavy precipitation events and sea-level rise Projected beneficial impacts based on models include: • Increased potential crop yields in some mid-latitude regions • Potential increase in global timber supply from appropriately managed forests • Increased water availability in some water-scarce regions: e.g., parts of SE Asia • Reduced winter mortality in mid and high-latitudes Source: IPCC Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report Sea Level Rise http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/index.html Future Sea Level Rise Note: collapse of Greenland Ice Sheet would cause ~7 meter rise in sea level ICE EXTENT (million sq km) Vast regions of Arctic sea ice getting younger and thinner 17 2006 14 1980 1990 2000 YEAR JPL satellite measurements (QuikScat, GRACE) as well as Canadian and European radar satellite missions have all documented this dramatic change Arctic most susceptible to change ● A female polar bear and her cub in Amundsen Gulf, Canada (Photo by Andre Rochon) ● About 15,000 polar bears live in the Canadian Arctic where they hunt, mainly for seals, off the ice floe edge ● Researchers are worried about the possible impact of shrinking ice cover on polar bear numbers ● The Canadian Wildlife Service has noticed that the ice is breaking up about two weeks earlier than usual and bears are coming to shore with less body fat to sustain them through the summer months ● US Fish and Wildlife Service considering adding polar bears to their list of threatened & endangered species http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/issues.htm West Antarctic Ice Sheet Large regions of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are showing the first signs of the impacts of global warming as interpreted by this satellite analysis http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-058 Ocean Acidification • As atmospheric CO2 ↑ the ocean becomes more acidic • Eventually, the ocean may be too acidic for whole classes of organisms to form their shells The Dangers of Ocean Acidification, S. Doney, Scientific American, March, 2006 Back to the Future: Predicting Climate Change Uncertainties: • Fossil fuel emissions • Atmospheric CO2 response • H2O & cloud feedback Projected future CO2 and T for multiple CO2 emission scenarios ⇒ Climate Change 2001 “Synthesis Report”, IPCC, page 160 Predicting Future Climate Change Another uncertainty: • Positive feedback between climate change and shifts in CO2 among its biospheric and oceanic reservoirs Cox et al., Nature, 408, 184, 2000 1000 Projected future CO2 and T for a single CO2 emission scenario ⇒ ppm 800 Climate-Land Feedback Atmospheric CO2 No Feedback 600 400 200 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 20 Climate-Land Feedback Global Mean Temperature Celsius 18 No Feedback 16 14 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 “[Due to] omission of key positive feedbacks …. future will be hotter than we think (Torn & Harte, GRL, 2006) Global Carbon Cycle Where is the CO2 being sequestered? Human release ~7 Gt C/yr If 60% stays in the atmosphere, then 0.4 × 7 Gt C/yr ≈ 3 Gt C/yr must be going to land and oceans: Ocean uptake for the late 1990s estimated to be: • 0.9 GtC/yr based on inversions of in situ measurements of atmospheric CO2 from 46 surface sites [Peylin et al., 2002] • 1.5 GtC/yr based on δ13C isotopic fractionation [Gruber and Keeling, 2001] • 2.0 GtC/yr based on ship board measurements of the ΔpCO2 ratio across the ocean-atmosphere interface [Takahashi et al., 1999] • 2.3 GtC/yr based on measured changes in the atmospheric O2/N2 ratio [Bopp et al., 2002] Global Carbon Cycle Where is the CO2 being sequestered? Human release ~7 Gt C/yr If 60% stays in the atmosphere, then 0.4 × 7 Gt C/yr ≈ 3 Gt C/yr must be going to land and oceans: Land uptake estimated to be: • 1.7 ± 0.5 GtC/yr for North America and 0.1 ± 0.6 GtC/yr for Eurasia/North Africa, for 1988-92 [Fan et al., 1992] • 0.7 ± 0.7 GtC/yr for North America, 0.5 ± 0.8 GtC/yr for Europe, and 1.2 ± 0.8 GtC/yr for North Asia from 1985-1995 [Bousquet et al., 2000] • 0.37 – 0.71 GtC/yr for continental United States, 1980 -1989 [Pacala et al., 2001] CO2 Surface Measurement Network Kyoto Protocol Article 3 1. The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in Annex B and in accordance with the provisions of this Article, with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012. KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE 2. Each Party included in Annex I shall, by 2005, have made demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments under this Protocol. 3. The net changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks resulting from direct human-induced land-use change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since 1990, measured as verifiable changes in carbon stocks in each commitment period, shall be used to meet the commitments under this Article of each Party included in Annex I. The greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks associated with those activities shall be reported in a transparent and verifiable manner and reviewed in accordance with Articles 7 and 8. Page 33 NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) Mission • Three high resolution spectrometers will obtain global measurements of CO2 • Extensive calibration and validation program to detect and mitigate data bias • Launch planned for September 2008 • OCO data will considerably reduce uncertainty in geographic distribution of C sinks http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov How Much Fossil Fuel Reserve Does The World Really Have? Hubbert’s Peak • M. King Hubbert: Shell geophysicist • 1956 : presented a paper “Nuclear Energy and Fossil Fuels” that predicted US oil production would peak in 1970 • Paper was met with skepticism & ridicule How Much Fossil Fuel Reserve Does The World Really Have? Annual Crude-Oil Production, billions of barrels . Hubbert’s Peak Hubbert’s Peak (1970) Alaskan oil 3 2 1 Data from the DOE Energy Information Administration (EIA) 0 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Cumulative Future Fossil-Fuel Carbon Emissions, Gt. How Much Fossil Fuel Reserve Does The World Really Have? http://rutledge.caltech.edu 2,000 1,000 Economic Analysis 0 2000 2050 2100 • Two independent economic analyses of fossil fuel production indicate the world will run out of fossil fuel much sooner than is commonly thought • Coal production (US and China) is by far the largest source of uncertainty • Atmospheric CO2 will peak at only ~470 ppm according to these analyses • Dire climate change “doom and gloom” scenarios will be avoided, but the world will have to find alternate source of energy to sustain its population and increased standards of living • Analyses by Jean Laherrere (ASPO, France) and David Ruttledge (Caltech) How Much Fossil Fuel Reserve Does The World Really Have? • Nuclear Energy: Alternate Energy −Clean and efficient if done correctly − Waste issue yet to be solved − The US view of support for nuclear energy development changed on 9/11/2001 • Nuclear Energy: Alternate Energy −Clean and efficient if done correctly − Waste issue yet to be solved − The US view of support for nuclear energy development changed on 9/11/2001 • Solar Energy − Classic photovoltaic: every US roof top could supply about 10% of primary energy consumption − Cost = 7×107 homes x $30,000 per home = 2.1 Trillion dollars (20% of GDP) • Nuclear Energy: Alternate Energy −Clean and efficient if done correctly − Waste issue yet to be solved − The US view of support for nuclear energy development changed on 9/11/2001 • Solar Energy − Classic photovoltaic: every US roof top could supply about 10% of primary energy consumption − Cost = 7×107 homes × $30,000 per home = 2.1 Trillion dollars (20% of GDP) − Concentrated solar very promising: Kramer Junction, Calif: Operating costs: ~ 5 ¢ / kWh in 2000 US cost of electricity ≈ 10 ¢ / kWh Nevada Solar One Construction cost: ~50 ¢ / kWh Output: 130 million kW/year (0.004% of total) Could supply all US energy needs if built over a 120 mile × 120 mile area • Nuclear Energy: Alternate Energy −Clean and efficient if done correctly − Waste issue yet to be solved − The US view of support for nuclear energy development changed on 9/11/2001 • Solar Energy − Classic photovoltaic: every US roof top could supply about 10% of primary energy consumption − Cost = 7×107 homes x $30,000 per home = 2.1 Trillion dollars (20% of GDP) − Concentrated solar very promising • Biomass − Ethanol (C2H5OH): ▪ has promise, but more environmentally friendly if production is based on sugar cane (Brazil) rather than corn (US Midwest Senators) ▪ true cost ~$5 to $6 to obtain energy equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline − Methanol (CH3OH) ▪ can be formed from CO2 + 3H2 solar energy → CH3OH + H2O ▪ addresses “energy storage problem” of solar energy ▪ championed by USC Nobel Laureate George Olah ▪ more toxic than gasoline and ethanol ▪ source & handling of H2 feedstock crucial • Nuclear Energy: Alternate Energy −Clean and efficient if done correctly − Waste issue yet to be solved − The US view of support for nuclear energy development changed on 9/11/2001 • Solar Energy − Classic photovoltaic: every US roof top could supply about 10% of primary energy consumption − Cost = 7×107 homes x $30,000 per home = 2.1 Trillion dollars (20% of GDP) − Concentrated solar very promising • Biomass − Ethanol (C2H6O): ▪ has promise, but more environmentally friendly if production is based on sugar cane (Brazil) rather than corn (US Midwest Senators) ▪ true cost perhaps equivalent to $6 / gallon of gasoline − Methanol (CH3OH) ▪ can be formed from CO2 + 3H2 solar energy → CH3OH + H2O ▪ addresses “energy storage problem” of solar energy ▪ championed by USC Nobel Laureate George Olah ▪ more toxic than gasoline and ethanol ▪ source & handling of H2 feedstock crucial • Wind, Hydrothermal, Geothermal, H2 − Will contribute but likely will not dominate US or world energy needs Ethanol Production Info Personal Choices • Legislation − Get involved ! • Personal Transport − Live close enough to work to “walk to work” − Hybrids rock • Home Energy − Geothermal systems cost about $7,000 to install and pay for themselves in ~5 yrs http://www.geoexchange.org − Solar systems with 3 kWh output cost about $15,000 to install (after CA rebates) and pay for themselves in ~10 to 15 yrs − Geothermal + solar ≈ no energy bills for life of system • Carbon footprint http://www.carbonfootprint.com • Carbon Management http://www.treeflights.com Email me with questions, comments, or for copies of this talk: [email protected] or [email protected] Extra Material T vs CO2 : Paleo, Modern, and Future How Much Fossil Fuel Reserve Does The World Really Have? Hubbert’s Peak • March 8, 2006 marked the fifty year anniversary of M. King Hubbert's seminal speech in which he accurately forecasted the 1970 peaking of United States oil production. • Few heeded Hubbert's warning and many, including the United States Geological Survey, actively sought to discredit his work. • The lack of preparation on the government's part set the United States up for the oil shocks of the 1970's and egregious dependence on foreign oil that we experience today. http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/specials/662 Further Reading • Global Warming, The Complete Briefing, John Houghton, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004 • The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate, Andy Dessler and Edward Parson, Cambridge University Press, 2006 • Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, George Olah, Alain Goeppert, and Surya Prakash, Wiley, 2005 • Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Jared Diamond, Penguin Group, 2005. • IPCC Climate Change 2007: http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html • IPCC Climate Change Synthesis Report, 2001: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar • Hubbert’s Peak and Future Oil Production (Prof. David Rutledge) : http://rutledge.caltech.edu • Solar Energy & Other Alternate Energies (Prof Nate Lewis): http://nsl.caltech.edu/files/energy.ppt • A well taken, contrarian view: http://www.co2science.org Email me with questions, comments, or for copies of this talk: [email protected] or [email protected] California Executive Order S-3-05 GHG Emissions Reduction EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLDSCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the power invested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the State of California, do hereby order effective immediately: STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXECUTIVE ORDER S-3-05 by the Governor of the State of California WHEREAS, California is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change; and That the following greenhouse gas emission reduction targets are hereby established for California: – by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; – by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; – by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent – below 1990 levels http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/energy/ExecOrderS-3-05.htm WHEREAS, increased temperatures threaten to greatly reduce the Sierra snowpack, one of the State's primary sources of water; and WHEREAS, increased temperatures also threaten to further exacerbate California's air quality problems and adversely impact human health by increasing heat stress and related deaths, the incidence of infectious disease, and the risk of asthma, respiratory and other health problems; and WHEREAS, rising sea levels threaten California's 1,100 miles of valuable coastal real estate and natural habitats; and WHEREAS, the combined effects of an increase in temperatures and diminished water supply and quality threaten to alter micro-climates within the state, affect the abundance and distribution of pests and pathogens, and result in variations in crop quality and yield; and WHEREAS, mitigation efforts will be necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation efforts will be necessary to prepare Californians for the consequences of global warming; and WHEREAS, California has taken a leadership role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by: implementing the California Air Resources Board motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission reduction regulations; implementing the Renewable Portfolio Standard that the Governor accelerated; and implementing the most effective building and appliance efficiency standards in the world; and WHEREAS, California-based companies and companies with significant activities in California have taken leadership roles by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons, related to their operations and developing products that will reduce GHG emissions; and WHEREAS, companies that have reduced GHG emissions by 25 percent to 70 percent have lowered operating costs and increased profits by billions of dollars; and WHEREAS, technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions are increasingly in demand in the worldwide marketplace, and California companies investing in these technologies are well-positioned to profit from this demand, thereby boosting California's economy, creating more jobs and providing increased tax revenue; and WHEREAS, many of the technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions also generate operating cost savings to consumers who spend a portion of the savings across a variety of sectors of the economy; this increased spending creates jobs and an overall benefit to the statewide economy. NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the power invested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the State of California, do hereby order effective immediately: Page 50 Temperature Changes in California LaDochy et al., Climate Research, 2007 Higher T, changes in precipitation, more extreme events Source: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/index.htm CO2 and Temperature: Geologic Time Scales Mesozoic ~245 to 65 million YBP: Present Day CO2 ~350 ppm ⇒ 0.03 % • Equable climate • NH and SH poles were ~20 ºC warmer than present • No polar ice, year round !!! High latitude ferns abundant during Mesozoic. From http://earth.usc.edu/~stott/Catalina/Mesozoic.html R. Dudley, J. Exper. Biol., 201, 1043, 1998. Extra Material US Energy Sources, 2004 US Energy Information Administration http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/renewableenergy.html External Climate Forcing CO2 Capture Cost of CO2 capture estimated at ~$150 / ton of CO2 http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/sequestration/capture/ http://web.mit.edu/coal/ Cost of capture: $150 / ton CO2 × 7 × 109 tons C / yr = $ 1000 billion Present cost of fossil fuel: $70 / barrel ≈ $600 / ton US GDP, 2004 : $ 11,750 billion World GDP, 2004 : $ 55,500 billion CO2 capture = 8.5 % of US GDP CO2 capture = 1.7 % of World GDP But: where to place the captured CO2 ? Deep sea ⇒ but: how to get it there ? cost of getting it there ? ecological consequences ? Electricity Costs How Much Fossil Fuel Reserve Does The World Really Have? • Two independent economic analyses of fossil fuel production indicate the world will run out of fossil fuel much sooner than is commonly thought Sea Level Rise http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/index.html Note: collapse of Greenland Ice Sheet would cause ~7 meter rise in sea level Kyoto Protocol Article 3 1.The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in Annex B and in accordance with the provisions of this Article, with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012. 2. Each Party included in Annex I shall, by 2005, have made demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments under this Protocol. 3 The net changes in greenhouse gas KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE Global Carbon Cycle and Climate Change: The Effect of Human Activity Ross J. Salawitch Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology University of Maryland, College Park (as of 1 Sept 2007) [email protected] − or − [email protected] CSU Bakersfield-NASA Summer Institute 26 June 2007