Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: We had all better hope these scientists are wrong about the planet’s future [View all]OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)38. This is not a radical departure from his earlier work
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610115
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002/fulltext/
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Dangerous human-made interference with climate: A GISS modelE study[/font]
[font size=1]Draft of 13 October 2006.[/font]
[font size=4]We investigate the issue of dangerous human-made interference with climate using simulations with GISS modelE driven by measured or estimated forcings for 1880-2003 and extended to 2100 for IPCC greenhouse gas scenarios as well as the alternative scenario of Hansen and Sato |2004|. Identification of dangerous effects is partly subjective, but we find evidence that added global warming of more than 1°C above the level in 2000 has effects that may be highly disruptive. The alternative scenario, with peak added forcing ~1.5 W/m2 in 2100, keeps further global warming under 1°C if climate sensitivity is ~3°C or less for doubled CO₂. The alternative scenario keeps mean regional seasonal warming within 2? (standard deviations) of 20th century variability, but other scenarios yield regional changes of 5-10?, i.e., mean conditions outside the range of local experience. We discuss three specific sub-global topics: Arctic climate change, tropical storm intensification, and ice sheet stability. We suggest that Arctic climate change has been driven as much by pollutants (O₃, its precursor CH₄, and soot) as by CO₂, offering hope that dual efforts to reduce pollutants and slow CO₂ growth could minimize Arctic change. Simulated recent ocean warming in the region of Atlantic hurricane formation is comparable to observations, suggesting that greenhouse gases (GHGs) may have contributed to a trend toward greater hurricane intensities. Increasing GHGs cause significant warming in our model in submarine regions of ice shelves and shallow methane hydrates, raising concern about the potential for accelerating sea level rise and future positive feedback from methane release. Growth of non-CO₂ forcings has slowed in recent years, but CO₂ emissions are now surging well above the alternative scenario. Prompt actions to slow CO₂ emissions and decrease non-CO₂ forcings are needed to achieve the low forcing of the alternative scenario.[/font]
[font size=3] [/font][/font]
[font size=1]Draft of 13 October 2006.[/font]
[font size=4]We investigate the issue of dangerous human-made interference with climate using simulations with GISS modelE driven by measured or estimated forcings for 1880-2003 and extended to 2100 for IPCC greenhouse gas scenarios as well as the alternative scenario of Hansen and Sato |2004|. Identification of dangerous effects is partly subjective, but we find evidence that added global warming of more than 1°C above the level in 2000 has effects that may be highly disruptive. The alternative scenario, with peak added forcing ~1.5 W/m2 in 2100, keeps further global warming under 1°C if climate sensitivity is ~3°C or less for doubled CO₂. The alternative scenario keeps mean regional seasonal warming within 2? (standard deviations) of 20th century variability, but other scenarios yield regional changes of 5-10?, i.e., mean conditions outside the range of local experience. We discuss three specific sub-global topics: Arctic climate change, tropical storm intensification, and ice sheet stability. We suggest that Arctic climate change has been driven as much by pollutants (O₃, its precursor CH₄, and soot) as by CO₂, offering hope that dual efforts to reduce pollutants and slow CO₂ growth could minimize Arctic change. Simulated recent ocean warming in the region of Atlantic hurricane formation is comparable to observations, suggesting that greenhouse gases (GHGs) may have contributed to a trend toward greater hurricane intensities. Increasing GHGs cause significant warming in our model in submarine regions of ice shelves and shallow methane hydrates, raising concern about the potential for accelerating sea level rise and future positive feedback from methane release. Growth of non-CO₂ forcings has slowed in recent years, but CO₂ emissions are now surging well above the alternative scenario. Prompt actions to slow CO₂ emissions and decrease non-CO₂ forcings are needed to achieve the low forcing of the alternative scenario.[/font]
[font size=3] [/font][/font]
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002/fulltext/
[font face=Serif]Environ. Res. Lett. 2 (April-June 2007) 024002
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002
[font size=5]Scientific reticence and sea level rise[/font]
[font size=4]Abstract. I suggest that a `scientific reticence' is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.[/font]
[font size=3] [/font][/font]
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/2/024002
[font size=5]Scientific reticence and sea level rise[/font]
[font size=4]Abstract. I suggest that a `scientific reticence' is inhibiting the communication of a threat of a potentially large sea level rise. Delay is dangerous because of system inertias that could create a situation with future sea level changes out of our control. I argue for calling together a panel of scientific leaders to hear evidence and issue a prompt plain-written report on current understanding of the sea level change issue.[/font]
[font size=3] [/font][/font]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
57 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
We had all better hope these scientists are wrong about the planet’s future [View all]
Binkie The Clown
Mar 2016
OP
I didn't want to raise that in a group that may wish to limit discussion to the environment/energy.
merrily
Mar 2016
#5
how fucking insane is it that the GOP is actually endangering the survival of humanity with their
Fast Walker 52
Mar 2016
#11
Senator Sanders completely and totally rejects the preferred route of addressing climate change...
NNadir
Mar 2016
#21
I am not kidding. The environment and climate change trump all other issues with me.
NNadir
Mar 2016
#39
I would also ask, since you claim that there is "conflicting science" on this subject...
NNadir
Mar 2016
#40
I don't read the primary scientific literature on nuclear energy/power, no.
Fast Walker 52
Mar 2016
#41
And the evidence for his "belief" is what? Since you are neither an engineer nor an energy...
NNadir
Mar 2016
#42
Bernie says he listens to the scientists on climate change... so why aren't they telling him
Fast Walker 52
Mar 2016
#43
Joe Romm is not really a primary research scientist. He's a "scientist" dragged out by...
NNadir
Apr 2016
#50
I think I made it pretty clear that I regard climate change as the issue that trumps all others.
NNadir
Mar 2016
#48
thanks-- I'm glad I'm not the only one who was having an issue with what NNadir said
Fast Walker 52
Apr 2016
#57
I'm sure he knows... but if he questioned capitalism more than he has already
Fast Walker 52
Mar 2016
#13
Capitalism is not the cause. It is a symptom of much that is defective in human nature
Binkie The Clown
Mar 2016
#20
Problem is, all those predictions have proven not as fast and not as bad as reality is showing us.
dixiegrrrrl
Mar 2016
#18
Granted, our imagination and abillity to invent appears nearly limitless. But...
Binkie The Clown
Mar 2016
#34
Climate change and the sixth global mass-extinction event is happening now
SoLeftIAmRight
Mar 2016
#46