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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Science

Showing Original Post only (View all)

OKIsItJustMe

(21,206 posts)
Thu Feb 20, 2025, 09:36 PM Feb 20

James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha - The Acid Test: Global Temperature in 2025 [View all]

https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2025/Acid.Test.20Feb2025.pdf
Figure 1. Global Surface Temperature Relative to 1880-1920¹


The Acid Test: Global Temperature in 2025

James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha 20 February 2025

The unprecedented leap of global temperature in 2023 and early 2024 exceeded 0.4°C (Fig. 1). We and coauthors² interpret that uniquely large warming as being due about equally to a moderate El Nino and reduction of ship aerosols, with a smaller contribution from the present solar maximum (our entire paper, including Abstract & Supplementary Material is available in a single compressed PDF here). An “acid” test of our interpretation will be provided by the 2025 global temperature: unlike the 1997-98 and 2015-16 El Ninos, which were followed by global cooling of more than 0.3°C and 0.2°C, respectively, we expect global temperature in 2025 to remain near or above the 1.5°C level. Indeed, the 2025 might even set a new record despite the present weak La Nina. There are two independent reasons. First, the “new” climate forcing due to reduction of sulfate aerosols over the ocean remains in place, and, second, high climate sensitivity (~4.5°C for doubled CO₂ ) implies that the warming from recently added forcings is still growing significantly.

The impact of high climate sensitivity warrants clarification. High climate sensitivity implies a large contribution from amplifying feedbacks: water vapor, surface albedo (sea ice/snow) and clouds. The feedbacks do not come into play immediately in response to a climate forcing, but rather in response to the global warming caused by the forcing. That warming takes time, and it takes longer for higher sensitivity.³ Thus, response to a forcing in the first few years depends little on climate sensitivity, as shown by the response functions for three climate sensitivities (Fig. 2); early response is due mainly to the forcing itself, not feedbacks. But as temperature change grows, feedbacks come into play and are the main cause of the continued, growing, response.a The relevant point here is that feedbacks stretch out the response time, so, within a decade or two, higher climate sensitivity yields a significantly greater response. If climate sensitivity is 3°C or less, the rapid, early, response to the ship aerosol forcing introduced in 2020 is complete in 2025, but if climate sensitivity is high, there is still substantial “juice” in the aerosol forcing change, which can thus offset tropical cooling.ᵇ

Figure 2. Global Temperature Response to 2×CO₂


Why are we confident that climate sensitivity is high? We have shown that in three independent ways: (1) climate sensitivity 4.8°C ± 0.6°C (1𝜎 ) based on comparison of glacial and interglacial climate states,4 (2) sensitivity of 4.5°C ± 0.5°C (1𝜎 ) based on temperature from 1750 through 2024,² (3) the large “darkening” (reduced albedo) of Earth between 2000 and 2024, which implies a strong cloud feedback (Fig. 3) – and strong cloud feedback implies high climate sensitivity.²

Figure 3. Contributions to Reduced Earth Albedo


19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
As it's so dire, it's not amusing to see an antinuke quoting the two most pronuclear climate scientists in the world. NNadir Feb 21 #1
I'm not "antinuke." OKIsItJustMe Feb 21 #2
In my position, I hear a lot from people who tell me they're not antinukes who nevertheless drag out every idiotic... NNadir Feb 22 #3
Simple questions OKIsItJustMe Feb 25 #4
Spoken like a true "I'm not an antinuke" antinuke. QED. One might ask how long it will take the useless solar.... NNadir Feb 27 #5
Who are you arguing with? OKIsItJustMe Feb 27 #6
To your point around destruction of wilderness Pull_Left Feb 28 #9
The first commercial nuclear reactor in the US was... NNadir Feb 28 #10
Really appreciate the detailed response Pull_Left Feb 28 #13
Let's not pretend that solar farms can only be built in the wilderness OKIsItJustMe Feb 28 #11
Absolutely agree! Pull_Left Feb 28 #12
Wherever and whenever they are built they will represent an unconcionable waste.. NNadir Feb 28 #14
None of this is relevant to the OP OKIsItJustMe Feb 28 #17
I certainly am very familiar with Jim Hansen and Pushkar Kharecha's work. I must have linked their highly cited... NNadir Mar 1 #18
I should know better OKIsItJustMe Mar 1 #19
Great post! Thanks for posting. Jim__ Feb 27 #7
You're welcome OKIsItJustMe Feb 27 #8
We can of course consider whether an appreciation of science... NNadir Feb 28 #15
I have worked with several scientists, some of them I call friends. OKIsItJustMe Feb 28 #16
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»James Hansen and Pushker ...»Reply #0