Robert, Do you have a page number or an explanation of how you arrived at your figures? In the paper(https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04474) on p. 31 I'm finding: "The 7-10 C global warming is the eventual response if today's level of GHGs is fixed and the aerosol amount is somewhere between its year 2000 amount and preindustrial amount." but the key temp Figure 7 on p. 18 doesn't extend beyond 2025. In the section on Climate response times (p. 32) the paper states that the in 2020 GISS GCM: "...the time required for the model to achieve 63% of its equilibrium response remains about 100 years" which would put the expected temp based on forcing estimated in the paper at 6.3 C (63% or 10) by 2023. Is this where you're getting your 6.3 C by 2120 from? Unfortunately, I have not had the time (and probably not the background) to go through the entire paper and understand it well!
Best, Ron On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 7:09 PM Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the correction Robert! > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 26, 2023, at 6:41 PM, Robert Chris <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ron > > Hansen et al say that the 10degC is based on 'today's GHG level' and that > it has an e-folding time of 100 years. That implies 6.3degC by 2120 and a > bit less by 2100. > > Regards > > Robert > > > On 26/02/2023 23:43, Ron Baiman wrote: > > Jim Hansen et al (https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04474 ) believe that > existing legacy GHG's have put us in "in the pipeline" for 10 degrees C > warming by 2100! > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAPhUB9DMt%3Dt9jMUnc%2BV%3DaPCL9X6Qnn4-9WDhpz-CKXhxzw65CQ%40mail.gmail.com.
