[Vision2020] Hansen (Head of NASA Goddard Institute For Space Studies) et. al.: Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?

[Ted Moffett]

Tom Hansen is correct that I should have emphasized who James Hansen is
(lead author of the paper on climate science referenced in my post earlier
today), given that James Hansen is one of the most well published climate
scientists on the planet, and heads NASA's Goddard Institute for Space
Studies.  I should have emphasized Hansen's credentials,
especially considering the paper on climate science I referenced is not yet
published (it is expected to be...).

Info on NASA's James Hansen:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html
-------------------------
Quote from the paper on climate science under discussion, with URL below to
pdf copy of the paper:

"If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which
civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted,
paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need
to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf
--------------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Tom Hansen <thansen at moscow.com> wrote:

> To avoid any confusion, the "Hansen" to which Mr. Moffett refers is JAMES
> Hansen (the scientist), not TOM Hansen (the . . . whatever).  While James
> Hansen is researching greenhouse gas mitigation, Tom Hansen struggles to
> boil water.  Just clearing up some confusion.
>
> However, you are free to confuse me with Brad Pitt.
>
> Tom Hansen
> Moscow, Idaho
>
>
>
> > At URL at bottom is a draft of a as yet unpublished (as far as I know)
> > scientific paper by Hansen et. at. arguing that the current atmospheric
> CO2
> > level of 385 ppm, much less the higher CO2 level (450 ppm) targets that
> are
> > proposed as reasonable goals in greenhouse gas mitigation, is too high to
> > avoid serious long climate change.
> >
> > As I posted to Vision2020 previously,
> > http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2008-July/055108.html
> > climate sensitivity (temperature change for doubling atmospheric CO2) is
> ~3
> > C., a figure arrived at via averaging the scientific work examining
> climate
> > sensitivity going back to Arrhenius in 1896 (sourced from Barton Paul
> > Levenson's research),
> > http://members.aol.com/bpl1960/ClimateSensitivity.html
> >
> > I was surprised to find this ~3 C. climate sensitivity estimate (not
> sourced
> > from Barton Paul Levenson, as far as I know) in this paper, a figure
> Hansen
> > et. al. suggest below is the climate sensitivity only including "fast
> > feedback processes."  Including "slow feedback processes...," climate
> > sensitivity is ~6 C., as this paper proposes.  I trust I do not need to
> > emphasize with alarming descriptions what a 6 degree C. (or even ~3
> degree
> > C.), 10.8 degree Fahrenheit change in global average temperature would
> mean:
> >
> > Quote from the paper under discussion:
> >
> > "If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which
> > civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted,
> > paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will
> need
> > to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."
> >
> > http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf
> >
> > ------------------------------------------
> > Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080804/0fe0691d/attachment.html