Earth's energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications

[Guest PlaneteBleue]

NASA / Earth's energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications (James Hansen et al )

 

Abstract :

 

" Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing humanmade greenhouse gases and aerosols among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 W/m2 more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space. This imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of increasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years.

 

Implications include:

 

(i) expectation of additional global warming of about 0.6°C without further change of atmospheric composition;

(ii) confirmation of the climate system’s lag in responding to forcings, implying the need for anticipatory actions to avoid any specified level of climate change;

and (iii) likelihood of acceleration of ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise" (...)

 

Comment (translated from french with babelfish - altavista) : The scenario of reheating of 0,6 degrees of the team directed by J.Hansen leaves the assumption of the absence of additional CO2 emissions (and other GES) by the man... It is thus an assumption low... NASA leaves only energy measurements and the current atmospheric composition (i.e. a CO2 concentration of 378ppm). Even if the men stopped emitting completely as of today gases for purpose of greenhouse, the reheating is at least 0,6 degrees, it is inescapable. The reheating of 0,6 degrees is not immediate taking into account phenomena of thermal inertia (oceans). But unfortunately the man continues to emite enormous quantities of gas in the atmosphere (combustion of oil, of coal and natural gas etc.)... And there thus much chance is that scenarii of the GIEC (reheating between 2 and 5 degrees from here 2050) or of Climate prediction (reheating between 2 and 11,5 degrees from here 2050) are carried out. The most probable assumption all confused models is + 3,4 degrees: it is dramatic; for the man, not for the life which will be able to adapt to the environmental changes which will result from it. "No more possible doubt: the gases produced by the human ones are the dominant cause of the reheating observed (...) This energy imbalance is the track which we seek (...) the data collected by the satellites of observation showed that the level of the oceans already went up 3,2 centimetres since 1993. This variation appears tiny but it is twice more important than that recorded on the whole of last century. It is thus necessary to supervise the cast iron and disintegration of the ices to prevent that this phenomenon do not become unverifiable "insists James Hansen.

 

Let us act, quickly!

 

Rererences : Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications - Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Tovakov, Ju. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tauusnev 2005. Earth's energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science, doi:10.1126/Science.1110252.

 

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_HansenNazarenkoR.pdf

 

 

PlaneteBleue

[Ophiolite]

It is generally thought that a science forum is place for exchanging views rather than expounding an agenda. You appear to be following the latter. As this is your first post on the forum I am even doubtful that you will hang around for a discussion. Can you disabuse me of these negative perceptions?

[TerrysID]

It's his view/comment of the abstract he posted.

[Ophiolite]

Yes, I appreciate that, but there are already a number of threads addressing this issue. Dominating a thread with a summary of a single article (out of tens of thousands) that address the issue, then simply declaring "Let us act quickly", hardly provides inspiring material for debate.

I am confident that PlaneteBleue has considerably more interesting things to say on the issue than 'let us act quickly'. If he doesn't, then the evangelical tone is decidedly out of place. If he does, then I hope he will say them, so we may have something to engage with.

[des]

What do we do, to act quickly? Isn't that the question?

As usual, it's agreeing on a solution that trips us up.

I'm assuming none of us are doing anything at all in our daily lives to contribute to global warming:)