Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #508880 > unrolled thread

Climate researcher blasts global warming target as 'highly dangerous'

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Climate researcher blasts global warming target as 'highly dangerous' Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 08:10 -0600
    Re: Climate researcher blasts global warming target as 'highly dangerous' jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-23 17:45 +0000
      Re: Climate researcher blasts global warming target as 'highly dangerous' Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 15:23 -0600
        Re: Climate researcher blasts global warming target as 'highly dangerous' jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-07-23 22:07 +0000

#508880 — Climate researcher blasts global warming target as 'highly dangerous'

Climate researcher blasts global warming target as 'highly dangerous'
> http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/07/climate-researcher-blasts-global-warming-target-highly-dangerous

> Climate scientist James Hansen has fired a new salvo in the climate
> wars. In a new paper, Hansen and colleagues warn that the current
> international plan to limit global warming isn’t going to be nearly
> enough to avert disasters like runaway ice-sheet melting and
> consequent sea-level rise. Hansen told reporters at a press
> conference yesterday that he hoped the paper—to be published online
> this week—would influence global climate talks this December in Paris
> and encourage negotiators to reconsider their goal of keeping warming
> to less than 2°C above preindustrial levels, a laudable but
> insufficient target, some scientists say. But how influential this
> paper will be is unclear, given its flaws.
>
> The new study, which includes nearly 300 references and is 66 pages
> long, argues that the 2°C target—hard-won as it might be
> politically—isn’t good enough, and is in fact “highly dangerous.” At
> that temperature, the study says, enough ice-sheet melting causes a
> positive feedback loop that leads to more melting and rising seas.
> Instead, Hansen and his co-authors say, a far better target would be
> to return to an atmosphere with 350 parts per million CO2. That
> number currently stands at about 400 parts per million.
>
> The researchers make their case in part by describing paleoclimate
> data from the Eemian, an interglacial (warm) period that lasted from
> about 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. During that time, temperatures
> were less than 1°C warmer than they are today, but sea level stood
> about 5 to 9 meters higher due to large-scale ice sheet melt. The end
> of the period experienced powerful storms as well, according to
> sedimentary evidence the researchers cite.
>
> The paper also describes an atmosphere-ocean modeling study of
> feedback loops caused by ice sheet melting under 2°C conditions. What
> they found, Hansen says, is that melting ice sheets in Greenland and
> Antarctica could inject enough fresh water into the seas to slow the
> formation of two key water masses: the North Atlantic Deepwater and
> the Antarctic Bottom Water formations. Both are part of the so-called
> Great Ocean Conveyor Belt of ocean circulation. The injection of so
> much cold water, they say, could lead to a stratification of the
> water column, with warm water buried underneath cold surface water.
> “Instead of emerging at the surface, much of that heat is melting the
> ice shelves,” Hansen says, producing more fresh water and amplifying
> the feedback. That is particularly striking, he added, because it’s
> what we’re observing right now: an increase in cold surface waters
> around Antarctica and Greenland, as well as increases in sea ice
> around some parts of Antarctica.


> On that, many scientists do agree. Mann says that although he is
> skeptical about the details of the study, by putting forth these
> ideas the authors, “have initiated an absolutely critical discussion”
> about the 2°C target. “The stakes couldn’t be any higher. If we make
> the wrong choices, there is no planet B for us to turn to.”
>
> *Updated, 22 July, 10:00 a.m.: This story has been updated to clarify
> that the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics is
> peer-reviewed. However, peer review of the Hansen paper is ongoing.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#508925

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Climate researcher blasts global warming target as 'highly dangerous'

Loud mouthed failed model maker wants more funding.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#508974

On 7/23/15 11:45 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> Loud mouthed failed model maker wants more funding.
>

   No -- The desired outcome is to reduce the area that will go
   underwater.

   Climate researcher blasts global warming target as 'highly dangerous'
> http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/07/climate-researcher-blasts-global-warming-target-highly-dangerous


 > Climate scientist James Hansen has fired a new salvo in the climate
 > wars. In a new paper, Hansen and colleagues warn that the current
 > international plan to limit global warming isn’t going to be nearly
 > enough to avert disasters like runaway ice-sheet melting and
 > consequent sea-level rise. Hansen told reporters at a press
 > conference yesterday that he hoped the paper—to be published online
 > this week—would influence global climate talks this December in Paris
 > and encourage negotiators to reconsider their goal of keeping warming
 > to less than 2°C above preindustrial levels, a laudable but
 > insufficient target, some scientists say. But how influential this
 > paper will be is unclear, given its flaws.
 >
 > The new study, which includes nearly 300 references and is 66 pages
 > long, argues that the 2°C target—hard-won as it might be
 > politically—isn’t good enough, and is in fact “highly dangerous.” At
 > that temperature, the study says, enough ice-sheet melting causes a
 > positive feedback loop that leads to more melting and rising seas.
 > Instead, Hansen and his co-authors say, a far better target would be
 > to return to an atmosphere with 350 parts per million CO2. That
 > number currently stands at about 400 parts per million.
 >
 > The researchers make their case in part by describing paleoclimate
 > data from the Eemian, an interglacial (warm) period that lasted from
 > about 130,000 to 115,000 years ago. During that time, temperatures
 > were less than 1°C warmer than they are today, but sea level stood
 > about 5 to 9 meters higher due to large-scale ice sheet melt. The end
 > of the period experienced powerful storms as well, according to
 > sedimentary evidence the researchers cite.
 >
 > The paper also describes an atmosphere-ocean modeling study of
 > feedback loops caused by ice sheet melting under 2°C conditions. What
 > they found, Hansen says, is that melting ice sheets in Greenland and
 > Antarctica could inject enough fresh water into the seas to slow the
 > formation of two key water masses: the North Atlantic Deepwater and
 > the Antarctic Bottom Water formations. Both are part of the so-called
 > Great Ocean Conveyor Belt of ocean circulation. The injection of so
 > much cold water, they say, could lead to a stratification of the
 > water column, with warm water buried underneath cold surface water.
 > “Instead of emerging at the surface, much of that heat is melting the
 > ice shelves,” Hansen says, producing more fresh water and amplifying
 > the feedback. That is particularly striking, he added, because it’s
 > what we’re observing right now: an increase in cold surface waters
 > around Antarctica and Greenland, as well as increases in sea ice
 > around some parts of Antarctica.


 > On that, many scientists do agree. Mann says that although he is
 > skeptical about the details of the study, by putting forth these
 > ideas the authors, “have initiated an absolutely critical discussion”
 > about the 2°C target. “The stakes couldn’t be any higher. If we make
 > the wrong choices, there is no planet B for us to turn to.”
 >
 > *Updated, 22 July, 10:00 a.m.: This story has been updated to clarify
 > that the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics is
 > peer-reviewed. However, peer review of the Hansen paper is ongoing.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#508994

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/23/15 11:45 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>> Loud mouthed failed model maker wants more funding.
>>
> 
>   No -- The desired outcome is to reduce the area that will go
>   underwater.

Assumes something not in evidence ass hole.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web