8 thoughts on ““There’s been no Progress.” James Hansen at COP 23.”
As usual, Hansen gets it, and delivers some inconvenient truths about “progress” (or lack thereof). Pay close attention to what Hansen says about “inertia”. A link to a piece with some good interactive graphics about how far behind we are.
Actually, he does NOT seem to get it. “It” being the latest research. First, Port et al 2010, Solomon et al 2009, Weaver and collaborators, and many others, show that temperatures do NOT go back down if you end all emissions. They only stay level. But ending ALL emissions, as those older climate models assumed, is much tougher than you think since you have to include the indirect CO2 and methane (CO2 equivalent) emissions from the much stronger temperature dependence of methane emissions in the tropics (missing from IPCC and all older models), and the rising emissions from the melting permafrost (MacDougall et al 2012 and later). He also says nothing about the fact that the evidence is that the pulse in CO2 we’ve seen now seems to be due to outgasing from tropical soils due to climate change. So exactly how are we supposed to sequester all that excess 130ppm (410-280) of CO2 back INTO soils that are actually now giving what they’ve got back OUT, and INTO the atmosphere?? We’ve got a hell of a job just trying to stop the crippling of soils, far from they’re being our willing friends in the CO2 sequestration fight. Worse, quite a number of papers in the past 2-3 years (Friedrich et al 2016, and summary paper by von der Heydt 2016) show ECS in the new regime is much stronger than the usually assumed 3C. All of these show that it’s much much harder to turn this around.
I’m not saying a carbon tax/div is a hopeless idea – we need it of course. But I’m amazed that he would be saying for the record that temperatures would go back down. That’s only true if we draw out CO2 even faster than the sum total that the ocean does + what the land did (or used to!) + what the permafrost is now giving, + all of the CO2 still being emitted by human kind. It’s not surprising that CO2 in the atmosphere is accelerating up, and a mere carbon tax will only slow that acceleration, not reverse it so steeply that temperatures themselves go back down. It’s just not in the science, Jim.
Hansen seems to be taking the tack of rosy’ing up the story to avoid paralyzing inaction and hopelessness. But if we have only two speeds – “hope” as long as it doesn’t cost us anything, or “hopeless” if it does…. well, then, we’re doomed. Let’s stop being Clark Griswold’s and pony up whatever it takes. Yes, tax/div is a good start. Say, $500/ton so we can actually pull it from the atmosphere? Such a tax would put the oil companies out of business of course.
If you put the excess 130 ppm back into the soil the temperature would drop to the little ice age low and at least 415 million alive from increased plant growth due to the excess CO2 would be in the grave. why not run modtran and see how much the increase was from to 400 ppm, about 1/3 degrees F.
Your idea of the tax would have a favorable result. People like you could not afford the computer energy costs, nor the house you live in, nor the job you do not have, nor the food to live etc. Soon we would have a lower population and the problem would be solved.
And one more thing… the new paper by Schurer et al (https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3345 ) with Michael Mann as co-author, argues persuasively that the usually assumed “pre-industrial” baseline of 1880-1910 average, should be further back in time, back to when temperatures were actually 0.2C colder. The NASA GISS (the preferred data set since it corrects for missing Arctic weather stations) temperature record, when put on this new baseline, drawing a straight line average through the last few years, gives a current temperature of +1.45C, not the “+1C” Hansen says in the video interview.
One thing he gets right – it is truly now necessary to actively pull CO2 out of the atmosphere beyond what Nature will do, to halt temperature rise at +2C or more, regardless of how fast we can realistically decarbonize our power.
How do you know that? What makes you believe in the doom and gloomier as the only people correct? there is plenty of NOAA and NASA data as well as other work which shows your world view is simply wrong and or grossly over stated. Mann and Hansen have as stake in doom and gloom. If they admitted fudging the numbers they would be out in the cold just like Mao.
Take the idea of going back in time for the average. How about moving back to the medieval warm period and forget all this little ice age stuff which is in our current and their proposed base lines. It was warmer back than yet the world did not end but if they did that than the doom and gloom would not sell.
As usual, Hansen gets it, and delivers some inconvenient truths about “progress” (or lack thereof). Pay close attention to what Hansen says about “inertia”. A link to a piece with some good interactive graphics about how far behind we are.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/climate/world-emissions-goals-far-off-course.html
Actually, he does NOT seem to get it. “It” being the latest research. First, Port et al 2010, Solomon et al 2009, Weaver and collaborators, and many others, show that temperatures do NOT go back down if you end all emissions. They only stay level. But ending ALL emissions, as those older climate models assumed, is much tougher than you think since you have to include the indirect CO2 and methane (CO2 equivalent) emissions from the much stronger temperature dependence of methane emissions in the tropics (missing from IPCC and all older models), and the rising emissions from the melting permafrost (MacDougall et al 2012 and later). He also says nothing about the fact that the evidence is that the pulse in CO2 we’ve seen now seems to be due to outgasing from tropical soils due to climate change. So exactly how are we supposed to sequester all that excess 130ppm (410-280) of CO2 back INTO soils that are actually now giving what they’ve got back OUT, and INTO the atmosphere?? We’ve got a hell of a job just trying to stop the crippling of soils, far from they’re being our willing friends in the CO2 sequestration fight. Worse, quite a number of papers in the past 2-3 years (Friedrich et al 2016, and summary paper by von der Heydt 2016) show ECS in the new regime is much stronger than the usually assumed 3C. All of these show that it’s much much harder to turn this around.
I’m not saying a carbon tax/div is a hopeless idea – we need it of course. But I’m amazed that he would be saying for the record that temperatures would go back down. That’s only true if we draw out CO2 even faster than the sum total that the ocean does + what the land did (or used to!) + what the permafrost is now giving, + all of the CO2 still being emitted by human kind. It’s not surprising that CO2 in the atmosphere is accelerating up, and a mere carbon tax will only slow that acceleration, not reverse it so steeply that temperatures themselves go back down. It’s just not in the science, Jim.
Hansen seems to be taking the tack of rosy’ing up the story to avoid paralyzing inaction and hopelessness. But if we have only two speeds – “hope” as long as it doesn’t cost us anything, or “hopeless” if it does…. well, then, we’re doomed. Let’s stop being Clark Griswold’s and pony up whatever it takes. Yes, tax/div is a good start. Say, $500/ton so we can actually pull it from the atmosphere? Such a tax would put the oil companies out of business of course.
If you put the excess 130 ppm back into the soil the temperature would drop to the little ice age low and at least 415 million alive from increased plant growth due to the excess CO2 would be in the grave. why not run modtran and see how much the increase was from to 400 ppm, about 1/3 degrees F.
Your idea of the tax would have a favorable result. People like you could not afford the computer energy costs, nor the house you live in, nor the job you do not have, nor the food to live etc. Soon we would have a lower population and the problem would be solved.
And one more thing… the new paper by Schurer et al (https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3345 ) with Michael Mann as co-author, argues persuasively that the usually assumed “pre-industrial” baseline of 1880-1910 average, should be further back in time, back to when temperatures were actually 0.2C colder. The NASA GISS (the preferred data set since it corrects for missing Arctic weather stations) temperature record, when put on this new baseline, drawing a straight line average through the last few years, gives a current temperature of +1.45C, not the “+1C” Hansen says in the video interview.
One thing he gets right – it is truly now necessary to actively pull CO2 out of the atmosphere beyond what Nature will do, to halt temperature rise at +2C or more, regardless of how fast we can realistically decarbonize our power.
Do you get all your information only from those you agree with?
The solution depends on people in power behaving radically different from how they’ve done for millenia.
We are so fucked.
How do you know that? What makes you believe in the doom and gloomier as the only people correct? there is plenty of NOAA and NASA data as well as other work which shows your world view is simply wrong and or grossly over stated. Mann and Hansen have as stake in doom and gloom. If they admitted fudging the numbers they would be out in the cold just like Mao.
Take the idea of going back in time for the average. How about moving back to the medieval warm period and forget all this little ice age stuff which is in our current and their proposed base lines. It was warmer back than yet the world did not end but if they did that than the doom and gloom would not sell.