Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

James Hansen: CO2 - 350ppm should be the target (2 posts)

  1. chrisc
    Member

    People here will have heard this from Hansen before, but today it was the lead article on the front page of the UK Guardian newspaper:

    Hansen says the EU target of 550 parts per million of C02 - the most stringent in the world - should be slashed to 350ppm. He argues the cut is needed if "humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed". A final version of the paper Hansen co-authored with eight other climate scientists, is posted today on the Archive website. Instead of using theoretical models to estimate the sensitivity of the climate, his team turned to evidence from the Earth's history, which they say gives a much more accurate picture.

    The team studied core samples taken from the bottom of the ocean, which allow C02 levels to be tracked millions of years ago. They show that when the world began to glaciate at the start of the Ice age about 35m years ago, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere stood at about 450ppm.

    "If you leave us at 450ppm for long enough it will probably melt all the ice - that's a sea rise of 75 metres. What we have found is that the target we have all been aiming for is a disaster - a guaranteed disaster," Hansen told the Guardian.

    At levels as high as 550ppm, the world would warm by 6C, the paper finds. Previous estimates had suggested warming would be just 3C at that point.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/07/...

    The paper: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080...

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. chrisc
    Member

    There is an article on this paper on realclimate.org:

    Target CO2

    What is the long term sensitivity to increasing CO2? What, indeed, does long term sensitivity even mean? Jim Hansen and some colleagues (not including me) have a preprint available that claims that it is around 6ºC based on paleo-climate evidence. Since that is significantly larger than the 'standard' climate sensitivity we've often talked about, it's worth looking at in more detail.
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008...

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.