Holy crap on a cracker! This Q&A with Michael Mann at some blog nobody has ever heard of called “Down with Tyranny” leaves me wondering, what is he smoking? I think the self imposed “climate interpreter” title needs some work.
-by Gaius Publius
One of my hats is as a climate interpreter to the interested lay person. I have something of a science background and can read the papers “in the original.” Another hat is as an occasional interviewer for Virtually Speaking. This month the two hats merged on the same head, and I got to interview the “Hockey Stick graph” climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann. – See more at: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2014/10/michael-mann-on-climate-theres-very.html#sthash.y25kBteI.dpuf
[QUESTION] What level of CO2 is reasonable?
[ANSWER] Most still think that 350 ppm (parts per million) CO2 is what’s needed to keep us at the upper end of Holocene (era of civilized human culture) temperatures. For contrast, the ice ages averaged about 180 ppm CO2 at the bottom, and pre-industrial (pre-1750) concentrations were about 280 ppm CO2. Pre-industrial temperatures were at the bottom of the Holocene (post–ice age) temperature range, so there’s some headroom above that 280 ppm number. How much exactly? No one knows.
It looks like we’re headed for a IPCC-“safe” 450 ppm CO2 unless we stop. Not safe, IMO; nor in Dr. Mann’s. For starters, this “450 ppm” measures CO2 only, not other GHGs like methane and nitrous oxide. The effective ppm in “CO2 equivalent” with those other added GHGs is higher if only CO2 is at 450.
It’s roughly thought that the original ice sheet formations of 35 million years ago, which gave us modern Antarctic, Greenland and Arctic ice, occurred in a cooling environment that crossed below CO2 concentrations in the range of 550-400 ppm or so.
First, that’s a wide range. Second, that’s no indication of what will happen going the other direction, where the warming tipping points are. Hansen writes, correctly IMO, that real climate sensitivity depends on (a) the starting point (i.e., how near we are to tipping points), and (b) the direction (effect of warming of X amount is not necessarily correlated to the effect of cooling of that same amount).
Nevertheless, the massive uncertainty, plus the world-historical consequences, gives most of us pause. Me, I think 450 ppm CO2 is ultimately a death sentence for civilized humans. Back to life as hunter-gatherers for our third- or fourth-generation descendants. And if worldwide social chaos takes over before we stop, the process could run to conclusion, which, the old IPCC A1FI scenario says, tops out at +7°C warming.
On Mann:
“First, he’s actually good on the politics, better than most. But second, I wanted to get his thoughts regarding next steps. For me the key, core messages are — Stop Now… Zero Carbon “Budget” … Free Market Solutions Won’t Work. He surprised me in agreeing with the third point, and I hope he carries that message to the public going forward. He was already mainly on board on the first two, but I wanted to hear him say so for the record, since I hadn’t encountered his public comment on this. “
Source: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2014/10/michael-mann-on-climate-theres-very.html
H/t to Steve Mosher
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Lol, spoken with no sense of irony. It is precisely the mitigation policies if implemented to the full extent that would send humans back to hunter gatherers.
“For contrast, the ice ages averaged about 180 ppm CO2 at the bottom, and pre-industrial (pre-1750) concentrations were about 280 ppm CO2. Pre-industrial temperatures were at the bottom of the Holocene (post–ice age) temperature range, so there’s some headroom above that 280 ppm number. How much exactly? No one knows.”
Cherry pick, not? A skeptic might have written about CO2 levels being thousands of ppm in the past. So there’s some headroom above 45 0ppm. Quite a lot actually.
Let’s see if I get this right: In order to calculate the tipping point we need to figure out the ‘real climate sensitivity’ – which is best done when you are near to the tipping point – which you can calculate by…..
Hansen and his pals are rent seeking on every level: Circular arguments, redefinition of terms, control of data, fear mongering and of course a deep seated need for other people’s money. Did Sens. Wirth and Gore have any idea of the disservice they were doing by starting their bit of theater back in 1988?
Prof. Mann is a world class shark jumper already. Perhaps now he is working on a comedy career?
What I wouldn’t give to see that shark slow down just a bit and tip his head back with his mouth open……
As someone who was educated and trained in the hard sciences, it’s just extremely difficult for me to believe that the difference between 3 parts in 10,000 and 5 parts in 10,000 can make that big of a difference in the amount of radiation absorbed and turned to heat. This isn’t like a chemical titration between an acid and base where there’s an immediate tipping point. An even if it were, there’s plenty of other factors that would serve as buffers.
Hunting and gathering mean he has to ditch his platform shoes. Hard to stalk in those.
Assuming CO2 is responsible for 100% of the warming (a really bad assumption, but let’s go with it for the moment), going from 280ppm to 400ppm has caused the earth to warm by about 0.7C. Now Mikey tells us that if we go another 50ppm to 450ppm, civilization is going to end?????
It’s called stop tyranny but says free market solutions aren’t the answer, tyranny is.
My irony meter just fell off the wall.
You know what “free market solutions won’t work” means?
It means: human freedom won’t work. “Free market” is used as a euphemism by statists for YOUR freedom to your own life.
The comprehensive failure of government the world over and its putative democracies will turn the trick long before climate change gets undressed.
200 PPM would make us hunter-gatherers, 100PPM …. and we all die.
“Mann’s ‘climate interpreter’ claims 450 PPM CO2 will turn humans back into ‘hunter-gatherers’
If anyone had doubt that the team wasn’t part of a world-wide group studying and reporting genuine science for human progressive interest and not political motivated pseudoscience environmental agenda, this was it.
CO2 changes in the planets atmosphere naturally are the effect caused by the climate mechanisms equilibrium movement. Cause and effect can not lead to being both the same equal positive feedback’s or the planet would have always been inhabitable. The cause would increase the effect and effect increase the cause in a viscous circle.(the planet has never shown this occur with CO2 always lagging behind temperature) The large increases in CO2 have had very little/ no noticeable influence on climate recently. The alarmists have been trying to trick the public that the previous atmospheric effect of changing climate is more concern than the cause. Just because one variable changes with another doesn’t mean both are proportional in either direction.
It colds outside so we put thicker/more layers of clothes on to keep us warm. Putting these extra layers of clothes on didn’t cause it get cold outside. Putting further layers of clothes on won’t continue it to cool outside either. So why should increasing the effect cause more warming, when the cause was responsible for it it the first place like the example just mentioned? Well it’s a greenhouse gas so some slight warming should be expected, but the biggest mistake is in thinking that changing the effect is bigger than changing the cause. The alarmist have tried to promote this pseudoscience, which has never been shown by the planet Earth.
Adding further 50 ppm CO2 will have a much smaller influence on global temperatures than the increase since the 1860’s. In a way I wish there could be a 150 ppm increase in just 5 years to show that it will make hardly any difference and end once for all this pseudoscience speculation.
“……or the planet would have always been inhabitable”.
Should be uninhabitable.
True. Also, you wouldn’t survive.
This implies that it was warmer in the past than the current temperatures, therefore there is no unprecedented warming!! At least not yet.