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
Hansen et al. - 2023 - Global warming in the pipeline
Oxford Open Climate Change, 2023, 3(1), kgad008
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgad008
Perspective article
Global warming in the pipeline
James E. Hansen¹*, Makiko Sato¹, Leon Simons², Larissa S. Nazarenko³,⁴, Isabelle Sangha¹, Pushker Kharecha¹, James C. Zachos⁵, Karina von Schuckmann⁶, Norman G. Loeb⁷, Matthew B. Osman⁸, Qinjian Jin⁹, George Tselioudis³, Eunbi Jeong¹⁰, Andrew Lacis³, Reto Ruedy³,¹¹, Gary Russell³, Junji Cao¹², Jing Li¹³
¹ Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY, USA
² The Club of Rome Netherlands, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
³ NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, USA
⁴ Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY, USA
⁵ Earth and Planetary Science, University of CA, Santa Cruz, CA, USA
⁶ Mercator Ocean International, Ramonville St., -Agne, France
⁷ NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA
⁸ Department of Geosciences, University of AZ, Tucson, AZ, USA
⁹ Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science, University of KS, Lawrence, KS, USA
¹⁰ CSAS KOREA, Goyang, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea
¹¹ Business Integra, Inc, New York, NY, USA
¹² Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
¹³ Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing, China
* Correspondence address. Director of Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, Earth Institute, Columbia University, 475 Riverside Drive, Ste. 401-O, New York, NY 10115, USA. E-mail: jeh1@columbia.edu
Abstract
Improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change yields Charney (fast-feedback) equilibrium climate sensitivity 1.2 ± 0.3°C (2r) per W/m², which is 4.8°C ± 1.2°C for doubled CO₂. Consistent analysis of temperature over the full Cenozoic era—including ‘slow’ feedbacks by ice sheets and trace gases—supports this sensitivity and implies that CO₂ was 300–350 ppm in the Pliocene and about 450 ppm at transition to a nearly ice-free planet, exposing unrealistic lethargy of ice sheet models. Equilibrium global warming for today’s GHG amount is 10°C, which is reduced to 8°C by today’s human-made aerosols. Equilibrium warming is not ‘committed’ warming; rapid phaseout of GHG emissions would prevent most equilibrium warming from occurring. However, decline of aerosol emissions since 2010 should increase the 1970–2010 global warming rate of 0.18°C per decade to a post-2010 rate of at least 0.27°C per decade. Thus, under the present geopolitical approach to GHG emissions, global warming will exceed 1.5°C in the 2020s and 2°C before 2050. Impacts on people and nature will accelerate as global warming increases hydrologic (weather) extremes. The enormity of consequences demands a return to Holocene-level global temperature. Required actions include: (1) a global increasing price on GHG emissions accompanied by development of abundant, affordable, dispatchable clean energy, (2) East-West cooperation in a way that accommodates developing world needs, and (3) intervention with Earth’s radiation imbalance to phase down today’s massive human-made ‘geo-transformation’ of Earth’s climate. Current political crises present an opportunity for reset, especially if young people can grasp their situation.
Keywords: Aerosols; Climate Sensitivity; Paleoclimate; Global Warming; Energy Policy; Cenozoic
Background information and structure of paper
It has been known since the 1800s that infrared-absorbing (greenhouse) gases (GHGs) warm Earth’s surface and that the abundance of GHGs changes naturally as well as from human actions [1, 2].¹ Roger Revelle wrote in 1965 that we are conducting a ‘vast geophysical experiment’ by burning fossil fuels that accumulated in Earth’s crust over hundreds of millions of years [3] Carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) in the air is now increasing and already has reached levels that have not existed for millions of years, with consequences that have yet to be determined. Jule Charney led a study in 1979 by the United States National Academy of Sciences that concluded that doubling of atmospheric CO₂ was likely to cause global warming of 3 ± 1.5°C [4]. Charney added: ‘However, we believe it is quite possible that the capacity of the intermediate waters of the ocean to absorb heat could delay the estimated warming by several decades.’ After U.S. President Jimmy Carter signed the 1980 Energy Security Act, which included a focus on unconventional fossil fuels such as coal gasification and rock fracturing (‘fracking’) to extract shale oil and tight gas, the U.S. Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences again to assess potential climate effects. Their massive Changing Climate report had a measured tone on energy policy—amounting to a call for research [5]. Was not enough known to caution lawmakers against taxpayer subsidy of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuels? Perhaps the equanimity was due in part to a major error: the report assumed that the delay of global warming caused by the ocean’s thermal inertia is 15 years, independent of climate sensitivity. With that assumption, they concluded that climate sensitivity for 2 × CO₂ is near or below the low end of Charney’s 1.5–4.5°C range. If climate sensitivity was low and the lag between emissions and climate response was only 15 years, climate change would not be nearly the threat that it is. Simultaneous with preparation of Changing Climate, climate sensitivity was addressed at the 1982 Ewing Symposium at the Lamont Doherty Geophysical Observatory of Columbia University on 25–27 October, with papers published in January 1984 as a monograph of the American Geophysical Union [6]. Paleoclimate data and global climate modeling together led to an inference that climate sensitivity is in the range 2.5–5°C for 2 × CO₂ and that climate response time to a forcing is of the order of a century, not 15 years [7]. Thus, the concept that a large amount of additional human-made warming is already ‘in the pipeline’ was introduced. E.E. David, Jr, President of Exxon Research and Engineering, in his keynote talk at the symposium insightfully noted [8]: ‘The critical problem is that the environmental impacts of the CO₂ buildup may be so long delayed. A look at the theory of feedback systems shows that where there is such a long delay, the system breaks down, unless there is anticipation built into the loop.’
Thus, the danger caused by climate’s delayed response and the need for anticipatory action to alter the course of fossil fuel development was apparent to scientists and the fossil fuel industry 40 years ago.² Yet industry chose to long deny the need to change energy course [9], and now, while governments and financial interests connive, most industry adopts a ‘greenwash’ approach that threatens to lock in perilous consequences for humanity. Scientists will share responsibility if we allow governments to rely on goals for future global GHG levels, as if targets had meaning in the absence of policies required to achieve them.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 to provide scientific assessments on the state of knowledge about climate change [10] and almost all nations agreed to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [11] with the objective to avert ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’. The current IPCC Working Group 1 report [12] provides a best estimate of 3°C for equilibrium global climate sensitivity to 2 × CO₂ and describes shutdown of the overturning ocean circulations and large sea level rise on the century time scale as ‘high impact, low probability’ even under extreme GHG growth scenarios. This contrasts with ‘high impact, high probability’ assessments reached in a paper [13]—hereafter abbreviated Ice Melt—that several of us published in 2016. Recently, our paper’s first author (JEH) described a long-time effort to understand the effect of ocean mixing and aerosols on observed and projected climate change, which led to a conclusion that most climate models are unrealistically insensitive to freshwater injected by melting ice and that ice sheet models are unrealistically lethargic in the face of rapid, large climate change [14].
…
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfclm/kgad008
Perspective article
Global warming in the pipeline
James E. Hansen¹*, Makiko Sato¹, Leon Simons², Larissa S. Nazarenko³,⁴, Isabelle Sangha¹, Pushker Kharecha¹, James C. Zachos⁵, Karina von Schuckmann⁶, Norman G. Loeb⁷, Matthew B. Osman⁸, Qinjian Jin⁹, George Tselioudis³, Eunbi Jeong¹⁰, Andrew Lacis³, Reto Ruedy³,¹¹, Gary Russell³, Junji Cao¹², Jing Li¹³
¹ Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY, USA
² The Club of Rome Netherlands, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
³ NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, USA
⁴ Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, NY, USA
⁵ Earth and Planetary Science, University of CA, Santa Cruz, CA, USA
⁶ Mercator Ocean International, Ramonville St., -Agne, France
⁷ NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA
⁸ Department of Geosciences, University of AZ, Tucson, AZ, USA
⁹ Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science, University of KS, Lawrence, KS, USA
¹⁰ CSAS KOREA, Goyang, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea
¹¹ Business Integra, Inc, New York, NY, USA
¹² Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
¹³ Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, School of Physics, Peking University, Beijing, China
* Correspondence address. Director of Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, Earth Institute, Columbia University, 475 Riverside Drive, Ste. 401-O, New York, NY 10115, USA. E-mail: jeh1@columbia.edu
Abstract
Improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change yields Charney (fast-feedback) equilibrium climate sensitivity 1.2 ± 0.3°C (2r) per W/m², which is 4.8°C ± 1.2°C for doubled CO₂. Consistent analysis of temperature over the full Cenozoic era—including ‘slow’ feedbacks by ice sheets and trace gases—supports this sensitivity and implies that CO₂ was 300–350 ppm in the Pliocene and about 450 ppm at transition to a nearly ice-free planet, exposing unrealistic lethargy of ice sheet models. Equilibrium global warming for today’s GHG amount is 10°C, which is reduced to 8°C by today’s human-made aerosols. Equilibrium warming is not ‘committed’ warming; rapid phaseout of GHG emissions would prevent most equilibrium warming from occurring. However, decline of aerosol emissions since 2010 should increase the 1970–2010 global warming rate of 0.18°C per decade to a post-2010 rate of at least 0.27°C per decade. Thus, under the present geopolitical approach to GHG emissions, global warming will exceed 1.5°C in the 2020s and 2°C before 2050. Impacts on people and nature will accelerate as global warming increases hydrologic (weather) extremes. The enormity of consequences demands a return to Holocene-level global temperature. Required actions include: (1) a global increasing price on GHG emissions accompanied by development of abundant, affordable, dispatchable clean energy, (2) East-West cooperation in a way that accommodates developing world needs, and (3) intervention with Earth’s radiation imbalance to phase down today’s massive human-made ‘geo-transformation’ of Earth’s climate. Current political crises present an opportunity for reset, especially if young people can grasp their situation.
Keywords: Aerosols; Climate Sensitivity; Paleoclimate; Global Warming; Energy Policy; Cenozoic
Background information and structure of paper
It has been known since the 1800s that infrared-absorbing (greenhouse) gases (GHGs) warm Earth’s surface and that the abundance of GHGs changes naturally as well as from human actions [1, 2].¹ Roger Revelle wrote in 1965 that we are conducting a ‘vast geophysical experiment’ by burning fossil fuels that accumulated in Earth’s crust over hundreds of millions of years [3] Carbon dioxide (CO₂ ) in the air is now increasing and already has reached levels that have not existed for millions of years, with consequences that have yet to be determined. Jule Charney led a study in 1979 by the United States National Academy of Sciences that concluded that doubling of atmospheric CO₂ was likely to cause global warming of 3 ± 1.5°C [4]. Charney added: ‘However, we believe it is quite possible that the capacity of the intermediate waters of the ocean to absorb heat could delay the estimated warming by several decades.’ After U.S. President Jimmy Carter signed the 1980 Energy Security Act, which included a focus on unconventional fossil fuels such as coal gasification and rock fracturing (‘fracking’) to extract shale oil and tight gas, the U.S. Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences again to assess potential climate effects. Their massive Changing Climate report had a measured tone on energy policy—amounting to a call for research [5]. Was not enough known to caution lawmakers against taxpayer subsidy of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuels? Perhaps the equanimity was due in part to a major error: the report assumed that the delay of global warming caused by the ocean’s thermal inertia is 15 years, independent of climate sensitivity. With that assumption, they concluded that climate sensitivity for 2 × CO₂ is near or below the low end of Charney’s 1.5–4.5°C range. If climate sensitivity was low and the lag between emissions and climate response was only 15 years, climate change would not be nearly the threat that it is. Simultaneous with preparation of Changing Climate, climate sensitivity was addressed at the 1982 Ewing Symposium at the Lamont Doherty Geophysical Observatory of Columbia University on 25–27 October, with papers published in January 1984 as a monograph of the American Geophysical Union [6]. Paleoclimate data and global climate modeling together led to an inference that climate sensitivity is in the range 2.5–5°C for 2 × CO₂ and that climate response time to a forcing is of the order of a century, not 15 years [7]. Thus, the concept that a large amount of additional human-made warming is already ‘in the pipeline’ was introduced. E.E. David, Jr, President of Exxon Research and Engineering, in his keynote talk at the symposium insightfully noted [8]: ‘The critical problem is that the environmental impacts of the CO₂ buildup may be so long delayed. A look at the theory of feedback systems shows that where there is such a long delay, the system breaks down, unless there is anticipation built into the loop.’
Thus, the danger caused by climate’s delayed response and the need for anticipatory action to alter the course of fossil fuel development was apparent to scientists and the fossil fuel industry 40 years ago.² Yet industry chose to long deny the need to change energy course [9], and now, while governments and financial interests connive, most industry adopts a ‘greenwash’ approach that threatens to lock in perilous consequences for humanity. Scientists will share responsibility if we allow governments to rely on goals for future global GHG levels, as if targets had meaning in the absence of policies required to achieve them.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 to provide scientific assessments on the state of knowledge about climate change [10] and almost all nations agreed to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [11] with the objective to avert ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’. The current IPCC Working Group 1 report [12] provides a best estimate of 3°C for equilibrium global climate sensitivity to 2 × CO₂ and describes shutdown of the overturning ocean circulations and large sea level rise on the century time scale as ‘high impact, low probability’ even under extreme GHG growth scenarios. This contrasts with ‘high impact, high probability’ assessments reached in a paper [13]—hereafter abbreviated Ice Melt—that several of us published in 2016. Recently, our paper’s first author (JEH) described a long-time effort to understand the effect of ocean mixing and aerosols on observed and projected climate change, which led to a conclusion that most climate models are unrealistically insensitive to freshwater injected by melting ice and that ice sheet models are unrealistically lethargic in the face of rapid, large climate change [14].
…
