Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper

Discussion in 'Environment' started by westwall, Jun 5, 2012.

  1. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,683
    It seems that way back in the year 2000 (my how time fly's) Dr. Hansen co-authored a paper that attributed the warming to pollution and not CO2. Shocker of shockers. And it was published in olfrauds fav PNAS.




    Abstract

    A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessment of ongoing and future climate change requires composition-specific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.


    As Arte johnson would say on Laugh In...."veeeeerrrryy interesting".


    http://www.webcitation.org/mainframe.php
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012
  2. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,152
    Thanks Received:
    14,897
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,866
    And the science is settled only a few short years later

    Wowzers
     
  3. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,281
    http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16109.full.pdf

    Contributed by James Hansen, September 29, 2004

    We posit that feasible reversal of the growth of atmospheric CH4 and other trace gases would provide a vital contribution toward averting dangerous anthropogenic interference with global climate. Such trace gas reductions may allow stabilization of atmospheric CO2 at an achievable level of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, even if the added global warming constituting dangerous anthropogenic interference is as small as 1°C. A 1°C limit on global warming, with canonical climate sensitivity, requires peak CO2 
    440 ppm if further non-CO2 forcing is 0.5 Wm2, but peak CO2  520 ppm if further non-CO2 forcing is 0.5 Wm2. The practical result is that a decline of non-CO2 forcings allows climate forcing to be stabilized with a significantly higher transient level of CO2 emissions. Increased ‘‘natural’’ emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4 are expected in response to global warming. These emissions, an indirect effect of all climate forcings, are small compared with human-made climate forcing and occur on a time scale of a few centuries, but they tend to aggravate the task of stabilizing atmospheric composition.
     
  4. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,281
    http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Hansen.pdf

    Contributed by James Hansen, June 16, 2000

    A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases
    (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change. Such a focus on air pollution has practical benefits that unite the
    interests of developed and developing countries. However, assessmentof ongoing and future climate change requires compositionspecific long-term global monitoring of aerosol properties.

    In other words, we can slow or even bring to a halt, the acceleration of the warming by reducing the amount of GHGs such as methane, ozone, and industrial GHGs. But that still leaves the rate of increase where it is today, and the danger of a 4C+ increase in temps by the end of the century.

    However, the rate of increase of CH4 is now increasing, and looks to increase dramactically in the coming years as the Arctic Ocean clathrates outgas.
     
  5. Leweman
    Offline

    Leweman Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,009
    Thanks Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +737
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHozn0YXAeE]Hanson - MMMBop - YouTube[/ame]
     
  6. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,683








    "not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting"
     
  7. westwall
    Offline

    westwall USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    40,948
    Thanks Received:
    7,964
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +19,683








    "not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting."
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,281
    Out of context bullshit, Bullshitter.
     
  9. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    46,419
    Thanks Received:
    5,406
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +10,281
    No matter how you scream your idiocy, it is still idiocy.
     
  10. Trakar
    Offline

    Trakar VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,699
    Thanks Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +73
    Rather than attempting to improperly parse the abstract, why not look at the contextual understandings provided by the actual text of the research paper?

    "Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario" - http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2000/2000_Hansen_etal_2.pdf

    of course it is important to realize that Dr Hansen's considerations took place back pre-2000 in an era when our planetary CO2 emissions were significantly lower than they currently are. If we had been prepared to act decisively and aggressively to tackle climate change back 12+ years ago, the more gradualist approach suggested by Hansen in this post, might well have had a shot at producing some good results, after a decade where the rate of emission increase has more than doubled it seems much more a case of wishful thinking on the part of Dr Hansen.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2012

Share This Page