Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper

[westwall]

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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And the science is settled only a few short years later

Wowzers

 

[Old Rocks]

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 W
m2, but peak CO2
520 ppm if further non-CO2 forcing is 0.5 W
m2. 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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[Leweman]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHozn0YXAeE]Hanson - MMMBop - YouTube[/ame]

 

[westwall]

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.

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

 

[westwall]

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.

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

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

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

Out of context bullshit, Bullshitter.

 

[Old Rocks]

No matter how you scream your idiocy, it is still idiocy.

 

[Trakar]

It seems that way back in the year 2000 (my how time flies) 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.

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

The global surface temperature has increased by about 0.5°C since 1975 (1, 2), a burst of warming that has taken the global temperature to its highest level in the past millennium (3). There is a growing consensus (4) that the warming is at least in part a consequence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs).
GHGs cause a global climate forcing, i.e., an imposed perturbation of the Earth’s energy balance with space (5). There are many competing natural and anthropogenic climate forcings, but increasing GHGs are estimated to be the largest forcing and to result in a net positive forcing, especially during the past few decades (4, 6). Evidence supporting this interpretation is provided by observed heat storage in the ocean (7), which is positive and of the magnitude of the energy imbalance estimated from climate forcings for recent decades (8)...

...Climate forcing by CO2 is the largest forcing, but it does not dwarf the others (Fig. 1). Forcing by CH4 (0.7 Wym2) is half as large as that of CO2, and the total forcing by non-CO2 GHGs (1.4Wym2) equals that of CO2. Moreover, in comparing forcings
(...)

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sad fact is that the "alarmists" have been shown to be way to optimistic. We are far past prevention now, the best we can do is preparation for consequences.

 

[Trakar]

Sad fact is that the "alarmists" have been shown to be way to optimistic. We are far past prevention now, the best we can do is preparation for consequences.

Well, I still advocate that we try to limit the high-end range, no sense in having to get really good at genetic modifcation\engineering just to survive as a species; personally, I'm still hoping we don't have to rely upon our infantile geo-engineering skills as well.

 

[Old Rocks]

You have that right. Unintended consequences are a bitch.

 

[Trakar]

You have that right. Unintended consequences are a bitch.

Just look at the consequences of a plentiful, energy dense, fuel supply!

 

[westwall]

It seems that way back in the year 2000 (my how time flies) 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.

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

The global surface temperature has increased by about 0.5°C since 1975 (1, 2), a burst of warming that has taken the global temperature to its highest level in the past millennium (3). There is a growing consensus (4) that the warming is at least in part a consequence of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs).
GHGs cause a global climate forcing, i.e., an imposed perturbation of the Earth’s energy balance with space (5). There are many competing natural and anthropogenic climate forcings, but increasing GHGs are estimated to be the largest forcing and to result in a net positive forcing, especially during the past few decades (4, 6). Evidence supporting this interpretation is provided by observed heat storage in the ocean (7), which is positive and of the magnitude of the energy imbalance estimated from climate forcings for recent decades (8)...

...Climate forcing by CO2 is the largest forcing, but it does not dwarf the others (Fig. 1). Forcing by CH4 (0.7 Wym2) is half as large as that of CO2, and the total forcing by non-CO2 GHGs (1.4Wym2) equals that of CO2. Moreover, in comparing forcings
(...)

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.

He wrote the paper 12 years after his now famous testimony before Congress where he laid out his famous three graphs showing what would happen with ever increasing CO2 levels. Remember? Scenario's A, B, and of course C. Even with the CO2 levels increasing FAR above even his worst guestimate the temps havn't come even close to his worst case scenario...in fact they havn't even come close to his BEST case scenario.

I think he realised he was wrong and was actually doing some good science there. Then all of a sudden the TEAM got into positions of power and voila, climatology entered the realm of the psychics.

 

[westwall]

Sad fact is that the "alarmists" have been shown to be way to optimistic. We are far past prevention now, the best we can do is preparation for consequences.

Well, I still advocate that we try to limit the high-end range, no sense in having to get really good at genetic modifcation\engineering just to survive as a species; personally, I'm still hoping we don't have to rely upon our infantile geo-engineering skills as well.

The human body undergoes a 20 degree swing IN A SINGLE day from morning to night. You really think a one degree rise is going to be noticed? Really?

 

[flacaltenn]

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 W
m2, but peak CO2
520 ppm if further non-CO2 forcing is 0.5 W
m2. 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.

Am I daft and deranged (don't answer that) or is the bolded a mistake. It SOUNDS like nonsense. CO2 is "mitigated" at 440ppm if the non-CO2 forcing is 0.5, but it's "mitigated" at 520ppm if the non-CO2 is the SAME????? WTF?

Hope that Trakar is lurking because I tried to tell him 48 hours ago that CO2 alone WITHOUT FEEDBACK is not capable of accelerated warming and this paper (last sentence above) seems to minimize the effects of any"natural emissions" feedback.

Holy Cow Winged One !! Where did you find this?

 

[Old Rocks]

Sad fact is that the "alarmists" have been shown to be way to optimistic. We are far past prevention now, the best we can do is preparation for consequences.

Well, I still advocate that we try to limit the high-end range, no sense in having to get really good at genetic modifcation\engineering just to survive as a species; personally, I'm still hoping we don't have to rely upon our infantile geo-engineering skills as well.

The human body undergoes a 20 degree swing IN A SINGLE day from morning to night. You really think a one degree rise is going to be noticed? Really?

Speaking of someone daft and deranged.

Human body temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In healthy adults, body temperature fluctuates about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) throughout the day, with lower temperatures in the morning and higher temperatures in the late afternoon and evening, as the body's needs and activities change.[1] The time of day and other circumstances also affects the body's temperature. The core body temperature of an individual tends to have the lowest value in the second half of the sleep cycle; the lowest point, called the nadir, is one of the primary markers for circadian rhythms. The body temperature also changes when a person is hungry, sleepy, or cold.


Hyperthermia

Main article: Hyperthermia

Hyperthermia occurs when the body produces or absorbs more heat than it can dissipate. It is usually caused by prolonged exposure to high temperatures. The heat-regulating mechanisms of the body eventually become overwhelmed and unable to deal effectively with the heat, causing the body temperature to climb uncontrollably. Hyperthermia at or above about 40 °C (104 °F) is a life-threatening medical emergency that requires immediate treatment. Common symptoms include headache, confusion, and fatigue. If sweating has resulted in dehydration, then the affected person may have dry, red skin.

In a medical setting, mild hyperthermia is commonly called heat exhaustion or heat prostration; severe hyperthermia is called heat stroke. Heat stroke may come on suddenly, but it usually follows the untreated milder stages. Treatment involves cooling and rehydrating the body; fever-reducing drugs are useless for this condition. This may be done through moving out of direct sunlight to a cooler and shaded environment, drinking water, removing clothing that might keep heat close to the body, or sitting in front of a fan. Bathing in tepid or cool water, or even just washing the face and other exposed areas of the skin, can be helpful.

With fever, the body's core temperature rises to a higher temperature through the action of the part of the brain that controls the body temperature; with hyperthermia, the body temperature is raised without the consent of the heat control centers.

[edit] Hypothermia

Main article: Hypothermia

In hypothermia, body temperature drops below that required for normal metabolism and bodily functions. In humans, this is usually due to excessive exposure to cold air or water, but it can be deliberately induced as a medical treatment. Symptoms usually appear when the body's core temperature drops by 1-2 °C (1.8-3.6 °F) below normal temperature.

 

[flacaltenn]

You have that right. Unintended consequences are a bitch.

Just look at the consequences of a plentiful, energy dense, fuel supply!

There you have it in a nutshell folks. We want energy to be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL. They want energy to be RARE and EXPENSIVE. It's really sad that Disney stilll has the Electric Light Parade ain't it??? Have Cinderella get there early and start swapping in those CFLs..

 

[Old Rocks]

You have that right. Unintended consequences are a bitch.

Just look at the consequences of a plentiful, energy dense, fuel supply!

There you have it in a nutshell folks. We want energy to be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL. They want energy to be RARE and EXPENSIVE. It's really sad that Disney stilll has the Electric Light Parade ain't it??? Have Cinderella get there early and start swapping in those CFLs..

Lordy, lordy. Ol' Flats really has a comprehension problem.