Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Professor Michael Mann, inventor of the climate Hockey Stick, has just shamelessly shifted the dreaded climate tipping point to 2020.
The Single Shining Hope to Stop Climate Change
Michael E. Mann Apr 09, 2017
Mann is a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University and co-author of The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy.
Science is under attack at the very moment when we need it most. President Donald Trump’s March 28 executive order went much further than simply throwing a lifeline to fossil fuels, as industry-funded congressional climate change–deniers have done in the past. It intentionally blinded the federal government to the impacts of climate change by abolishing an interagency group that measured the cost of carbon to public health and the environment. Now, the government won’t have a coordinated way to account for damages from climate change when assessing the costs and benefits of a particular policy.
With that in mind, Trump should read the landmark “2020” report now published by Mission 2020, a group of experts convened by the former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The report establishes a timeline for how we can ensure a safe and stable climate. We don’t have much time — 2020 is a clear turning point.
…
Read more: http://time.com/4731632/climate-change-2020-trump/
Until recently Mann claimed 2016/17 was a climate tipping point.
Welcome to the Madhouse: Scientist says Trump could destroy the world
FEBRUARY 10, 20175:01PM
A WORLD-leading scientist has warned Donald Trump may signal the end of the world — and Australia could be first to face the catastrophic consequences.
Michael Mann claims Mr Trump’s relationship to “post-truth” politics and “alternative facts” is much more than just embarrassing for the US and has the potential to destroy civilisation.
Sitting in an office at the University of Sydney Business School ahead of his sold-out talk this week, the Penn State professor says one only has to look at the city’s record January temperatures for proof of how dangerous the President’s attitude is.
“He’s building a wall between himself and the evidence of climate change,” Professor Mann told news.com.au. “He waffles, it’s hard to pin down, he says one thing to one audience then another thing to another audience.
…
All these years scientists and the climate community have been trying to identify key climate cycles – sunspots, Milankovitch cycles, ocean cycles, we all missed the obvious.
Climate is clearly driven by US Presidential Election cycles.
” . . . an interagency group that measured the cost of carbon.”
I don’t think the word “measured” means what Michael Mann thinks it does.
Did they also calculate the MASSIVE BENEFITS of carbon usage??
If they did not do so, it was a hugely BIASED exercise from the very start.
One of those benefits being the ability to jump on a co2 spewing jumbo jet and fly around the world to peddle nonsense about the evils of co2.
+10
+10
Sent your plus 10 to Andy by mistake. Oops. (No offense Andy)
Sigh…KURT…+10!!!
I wonder if David has a picture to cover throwing a flag for inadvertant flagging.
“… the world stands very little chance of limiting global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius …”
“… we have four years to bend the curve of global greenhouse gas emissions toward a steady decline …” (Mann).
I agree, I would say ‘fat chance’ but that is where the world is headed following ‘business as usual’ anyway:
Chris : where does this graph come from and is there an update beyond 2010 please? Thanks
And are not manmade CO2 emissions closer to scenario A, than any other scenario?
EPIC FAIL
nonono, it was a good projection that just happened to use wrong numbers. Hansen was RIGHT, at least if you ask SS. The dog just ate the warming.
“Professor Michael Mann, inventor of the climate Hockey Stick, has just shamelessly shifted the dreaded climate tipping point to 2020.”
This is a bizarre article, where the author didn’t seem to read what Mann actually said. Here is one quote from it:
“The good news is, we’re already moving in the right direction. Global carbon emissions have plateaued, and are projected to remain flat over the coming years, thanks to China’s widespread economic transformation and the global boom in renewable energy production. The 2020 climate turning point is within reach.”
Doesn’t sound like a dreaded tipping point.
.
If manmade CO2 emissions have plateaued, it is due to an economic slow down in China, India and perhaps Latin America. It is not due to the boom in renewable energy.
Going forward, China and India will greatly increase their CO2 emissions. There will be little reduction in CO2 emissions by America (given this Administrations policy on jobs and industry and infrastructure building) or by Germany (with mass migration into Germany, it is likely that German emissions will increase over the next 10 years as all these migrants are given housing, consume electricity, provision of more public transport, cars and infrastructure building required to accommodate them and their needs). Russia is also not interested in reducing emissions but has many economic issues besetting its growth.
It is clear from this that going forward, there will be no long lasting plateau in CO2 emissions. Anyone who thinks there will be is deluded. The Paris Agreement is a busted flush. No matter what Australia and Europe may do, manmade CO2 emissions, on a global basis, are set to rise as soon as the present and long lasting financial crash and ensuing economic downturn recedes.
I think Nick is correct here. What Dr. Mann is attempting to do is create a “soft landing” for himself around 2020. He wants to be able to say that, thanks in part to his tireless activism, the climate crisis has been averted and the dreaded temperature rise has been kept down to a manageable level. He will point to the leveling off (or perhaps even slightly declining) of the “global temperature” metric as proof. Smiling triumphantly, he will then attempt to leverage his new “hero” status to get funding for the next catastrophe he is researching. Mann, are we lucky he’s on the job again, his followers will cheer.
From the article:
We don’t have much time — 2020 is a clear turning point.
If emissions continue to rise beyond 2020, the world stands very little chance of limiting global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius,
@Nick Stokes;
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Um, is a turning point a tipping point? Maybe. Regardless, the credit goes to the pause, not renewable energy. Soils produce six times the CO2 humans do. They are extremely sensitive to temperature.
Nick, you are of course right about the „tipping point“.
In secret, of course, you wonder why one would use this term, if everything is promising to become better. You probably also wonder, how Mr. Mann could call a run-of-the-mill exhortational paper of an unimportant lobby-outfit a „landmark“ report http://www.mission2020.global/2020%20The%20Climate%20Turning%20Point.pdf
It was written by Chloe Revill and Victoria Harris, who seem be diligent workers for a perceived greater good – but not much more (no offense intended).
Why don’t you dissect the foreword by Rahmstorf for us, Nick – or Mann’s musing?
If you don’t feel any impulse to do that, I’ll understand: All these contradictions and self-promotion …
At least Mr. Mann now can point to an incidence of himself calling others “climate-change deniers”, right there on line 4.
http://time.com/4731632/climate-change-2020-trump/
Love this quote from your above link;
“I should know, having recently testified to the climate change–denying chair of the House Science Committee“
Nick, thanks for drawing attention to what Mann actually said.
If emissions continue to rise beyond 2020, …
what if the rise stops at 2025? At 2030? Is a steep rise that suddenly stops at 2020 worse than a shallow rise till 2025?
… the world stands very little chance of limiting global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius
this implies some very specific number on climate sensitivity. The IPCC has professed itself unable to produce such a number. So, where does it come from?
The study shows that by 2020, renewable energy must beat out coal in all major energy markets.
We could achieve that by replacing all coal with oil and maintaining just one windmill worldwide. Will this do?
—
It takes no expert knowledge at all to destroy Mann’s “scientific reasoning.” I’m sure he is aware of that; he is intentionally and cynically abusing his professional authority for scaring people who are afraid to think for themselves. As others have said, he truly is a disgrace to the profession.
“The IPCC has professed itself unable to produce such a number. So, where does it come from?”
From where the sun don’t shine.
‘My expectation was that a reasonable core of climate scientists would agree that Dr. Mann had overstepped the science. This was not the case. Instead, what I got was overwhelming support for Dr. Mann with not a single non-skeptic initially commenting negatively. It was as if Dr. Mann was the pope and the climate community his congregation. Nothing he said could be considered to be anything less than the truth, even if it took huge convolutions of logic to make it true.’
-Blair
In my opinion, scientists know critical commenting on what Mann says is not useful or even necessary, but it might cause serious trouble. Believers will attack, and none can help. Those who openly oppose are in trouble already.
How old are you Nick? According to the ‘experts’ in 1970, we have already past the so-called ‘tipping point’ …… nearly five decades ago!
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
ALL of the above ‘predictions’ were made on the first ‘Earth Day’ in 1970!
Go build yourself a ‘safe room’ stocked with heaps of crayons and colouring books.
Ouch.
So, here’s a question for Mr World Leader Mann.. (and anyone else who believes the GHG hypothesis)
Why are there rainforests and hot sandy deserts, at similar tropical & equatorial latitudes?
Which came first, the rain or the forest? What causes what? (chicken & egg is a similar nut to crack)
Its a pig of a question because, in human minds, something always has to cause something else.
Take yer time, keep a clear head, explore consequences, research awkwardness and ponder………….
The GHG hypothesis violates basic laws of physics because 1 molecule of Anthropogenic H2O cannot significantly affect the Temperature of 62,500 molecules of atmosphere. The Sun Controls the Climate by evaporating and condensing H2O in the atmosphere and creating the temperature differential between the equatorial regions and polar regions and between the surfaces of the Earth and the atmosphere, thereby driving prevailing winds and convective currents that are also affected by the rotation of the Earth and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The prevailing winds may or may not carry water vapor depending on their origins. Blowing and convecting wet air creates clouds and Jungles and Blowing and convecting dry air creates Deserts. The Kiss* Principle applies. *Keep it simple, Stupid.
Has ANY long-term social or climate prediction ever been accurately predicted, let alone for the right reasons? From Erlich’s Population Bomb, acid rain, nuclear winter and Peak Oil all the way through to global crop failures, famine, Y2K, 50 million refugees, New York under water and all manner of climate tipping points, I can’t think of a SINGLE ONE that has been called correctly. Literally not one. The ‘experts’ are never required to recant or be held to professional account, they just get replaced by the latest cash and fame-hungry doomsayer – often revealed to be working as a political or economic activist. All have been false flags, every last one. ‘Climate Change’ is no different.
The only prediction that has some legs is the Arctic Sea Ice, although prediction of its demise has been proved to be premature on several occasions.
If Oceanic cycles and/or a quiet sun are more important than presently given creed, it will be interesting to see what happens over the next 15 or so years.
It will be an embarrassment of riches, if the predictions with respect to the decline in Arctic Sea Ice also bites the dust.
I think the Arctic is the only global climate indicator that’s falling even remotely ‘in favour’ of AGW theory and even then it depends on how far back in time you go. The truth is there’s been a production line of ‘Ice free Arctic’ predictions going back decades and as of yet all have been wrong. That fact alone means ‘experts’ haven’t got their theory right, because if they had their predictions would be accurate.
“I think the Arctic is the only global climate indicator that’s falling even remotely ‘in favour’ of AGW theory and even then it depends on how far back in time you go.”
The arctic had less ice in 1972 that it does today.
Whether this is “long term” is debatable, but Hansen’s prediction of global temperature drop in the five years following Pinatubo was on target. Could have been a lucky one-off, has no bearing on climate sensitivity to CO2, and was actually amenable to a statistical analysis of prior discrete historical events, but it was an accurate climate prediction.
That’s all I can think of.
‘Tis odd he ever had any credibility; even odder any remains.
=================
“He waffles, it’s hard to pin down, he says one thing to one audience and another thing to another audience.”
Well, he knows all about how to do that.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
When considering Climate Tipping points, here is a great presentation that puts climate, and claims of climate change, climate disruption, in perspective.
Well worth 5 minutes of anyone’s time viewing it.
Wow, I’d heard about the ’30s but this video is really enlighting.
Mann has no credibility with me. In Sydney recently, he could not even answer this simple yes/ no question-“Is it acceptable for a scientist to misrepresent science or alter data according to their beliefs or for a greater social cause?”He made no attempt to answer yes or no.
I will bet his 2020 “deadline” will come and go. The planet will carry on as usual. The only difference will be
a few more soiled diapers from the warmists.
I wouldn’t dismiss it all that lightly-
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/09/claim-climate-will-cause-an-invasion-of-brain-eating-parasites/
The scientific method has been under attack by the Fabian socialists who commandeered public education and turned it into a quagmire of bureaucratic regulations. Sure, there are a few good teachers out in the schools but when the United States spends more per student than any other developed country with the atrocious outcome of being number 10..
If students knew the scientific method, they could determine socialism doesn’t work. So in self preservation, Fabian socialists must never teach the scientific method. Nevermind Austrian School of Economics..
Here are few ways to counter Michael Mann and his ilk.
Ceteris Paribus; Less is More, Use Only Data Sets That Don’t Require “Adjustments.”
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/ceteris-paribus-less-is-more-use-only-data-sets-that-dont-require-adjustments/
Rules for Climate Radicals; “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty”
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/rules-for-climate-radicals-accuse-the-other-side-of-that-which-you-are-guilty/
Climate “Science” Pillars of Sand; Eroding the Foundation of the Hoax
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/08/climate-science-pillars-of-sand-eroding-the-foundation-of-the-hoax/
I Am Woman Hear Me Roar; Michael Mann’s Bullying Backfires
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/i-am-woman-hear-me-roar-michael-manns-bullying-backfires/
“Mission 2020,” eh? I hope this doesn’t mean that they’ll be releasing a video showing exploding kids like that stupid 10:10 group.
Now Mann looks to the thermometers of his city for one month to measure global climate.
Yeah, Mann is doing really good science here. Mann also neglects to point out that Trump
is in favor of the most effective means of reducing emissions – nuclear power. Or that a GOP cpntrolled Congress and Presidency passed supporting legislation for revolutionary new nuclear technology, especially molten salt Thorium/uranium,nuclear waste fueled reactors that couldn’t cause any damage even if operated by terrorists. Mann is out of touch. About everything.
Someone advise Mann there are no such things as climate “tippping points.”
Mann might as well throw in the towel now. President Trump’s term of office does not end until — 2020 (assuming he is not re-elected), so, it looks like we’re going to hit the ‘turning point’ (at least the latest in the goal-post moving world of Mann).
Although, looking at that ‘turning point’ it appears to me that Dr Mann is trying to hand the Democrats an election issue.
Gamblers think The Donald will be impeached. link link
If people think Trump’s presidency is a mess, they have to consider the alternatives.
Are these the same “gamblers” that bet that Hillary had a 95% chance of becoming president ?? D’OH !
Impeached does not mean convicted and thrown out of office.
Most unlikely either will happen.
These are probably mostly people who are not US citizens and/or do not have accurate knowledge of the process and what it means.
Maxine Waters claims her side is working towards impeaching him, as if it is up to them.
It is not.
The Dems cannot bring any bill to the floor since they are a minority, not unless Ryan agrees to do it.
To be impeached, a majority of congress has to vote for the articles of impeachment. The President has at that point been impeached, but all that means is he goes on trial in the senate with the chief justice of the SCOTUS presiding over the trial.
After this trial, in order for the POTUS to be removed from office, over two thirds of Senators must vote for removal.
The thing is, people are talking like just not liking him is grounds for impeachment and removal, but this is ludicrous.
He has committed no high crimes or misdemeanors while in office, and has shown zero evidence of misusing his office or authority.
He may well go down in history as being the best President ever, if congressional Republicans can stop being their own worst enemies.
Best and strongest political position in the country since at least 1928 and maybe EVER, and many of them are more interested in a my way or the highway approach to legislating, than to moving forward on what they have said they wanted to do for the past forever many years.
Impeach the man who routed the Clintons out of politics once and for all?
Who vanquished all comers no matter how many ads and how much money spent?
Who the people just elected?
These people can be stubborn and muleheaded, but they are not suicidal.
A high crime and misdemeanor means whatever congress says it means.
If congress wanted to impeach and convict a president for having bad hair, they could do so.
That said, I don’t think anyone outside the fevered swamps of the DNC believes that the public would support impeachment and conviction based solely on the Democrats hatred of the man.
“Maxine Waters claims her side is working towards impeaching him, as if it is up to them.
It is not.
The Dems cannot bring any bill to the floor since they are a minority, not unless Ryan agrees to do it.”
That’s the heart of it. The Democrats, by themselves, cannot impeach Trump. If Republicans are not onboard, then it won’t happen. The likelihood of that happening today is very remote.
There are lots of Republicans who hate President Trump’s guts. They will bide their time and come out only if they think they can win. link Otherwise, they will keep their mouths shut.
If the Republicans vote to impeach Trump, or worse convict him. There won’t be more than about a dozen Republicans left in DC after the next election.
It is possible that Donald Trump will betray the people the same way they were betrayed by the Democrats and Republicans. I have hope that he won’t. I think he is our last best hope. Lincoln Losing him would extinguish that hope and lead us onto a ruinous path.
Force him to stake his reputation on it.
He has a reputation to stake?
Not any more.
2020, retirement date?
Yep. It’s a shame that >60% of Americans may be ignorant of the scientific method. However, it is downright criminal for climate “scientists” to willfully abuse and or disregard the scientific method for political purposes.
Experience with climate modelers has told me, David, that they neither understand nor recognize the scientific method.
I don’t think that’s true for most climate modelers. I think it is definitely true for people like Mann and Trenberth.
I’ve encountered more than a dozen now, in detail, David. Perhaps one recognized the distinction between precision and accuracy.
Push out the date during the hottest year ever? Oh Mann!
Most Life has always done better when global tempertures were this warm to warmer than this by several degrees and worse when global temperatures were as cool as they were 100 years ago to colder than that.
Life has always done best with atmospheric CO2 levels at double where they currently are.
With the exception of excessive rain events increasing because a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture and warmer oceans put more precipital water into it, the last 4 decades have featured the best weather and climate for life in at lest 1,000 years. The additional, beneficial CO2 during that period makes it the best for most life in many, many thousands of years.
The planet has been massively greening up during that entire period. The evidence is overwhelming and this one measure makes it “abundantly” clear.
“Life has always done best with atmospheric CO2 levels at double where they currently are.”
And as for the increase of CO2 concentration thus far … plant life appears to be “lovin it”!
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/full/nature11299.html
For 97% of the planet’s history, CO2 levels were higher than they are currently.
“For 97% of the planet’s history, CO2 levels were higher than they are currently.”
As was temperature for about as much of it as well. But of course the alarmist counter argument is always that geologists have not yet found the buried digital data logger with evidence precise enough to prove either has ever risen as quickly as now so obviously … it couldn’t have!
Why not? 2020 is the year of the next presidential election, save all your threats for then. That is the political way to approach climate science
I was going to say: What an outrage, identifying herr Dr as a mere professor instead of the correct “Distinguished Professor” … (creative data contortionism, the one true tree),
but then I see that the source article is credit to the Mann himself, with the modest title “The Single Shining Hope …”
Adjusting the Malthusian Climate Dial just a little bit keeps it as an emergency to make headlines but avoids criticism of Mayan hoax science with longer prediction horizons. As with the Mayan descendants, climate hoaxers will move on to other causes and dismiss it all as a misunderstanding when it fails to materialize.
Meanwhile cyclical cooling will usher in Mann’s retirement in a few years.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20SST-NorthAtlantic%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
Mann oh Mann. Mikey is assuming the mantle of chief climate priest from that other Nobel Prize winner Al Gore. From humble young scientist to millenarian cult leader supreme. What a journey. His bulbous head requires a bigger crown by the day. I remind or inform the community that the infamous Jim Jones once held an influential position with the city of San Francisco. He was considered an ally of Mayor Moscone and the hard Left. Investigative reporting by the Chronical newspaper eventually led local politicians to distance themselves from him and his flight from the city. Will we find a Chronicle to expose Mann and his friends. Will they flee the country. Stay tuned.
The Mann “tripping point”.