“Independent” and “Scientist” Michael Mann Say It’s Worse Than We Thought!!
By Paul Homewood
h/t Patsy Lacey
The Independent, not to mention Michael Mann long ago lost any credibility. Here’s a good example why:
Preventing global warming from becoming “dangerous” may have just got significantly harder after new research suggested climate scientists have been using the wrong baseline temperature.
The amount of global warming is often measured relative to the late 19th century even though this is about 100 years after the start of the industrial revolution, when humans started burning large amounts of fossil fuels.
Now an international team of scientists has suggested that the Earth’s true “pre-industrial” temperature could be up to 0.2 degrees Celsius cooler.
That would mean that instead of about 1C of global warming, the planet’s average temperature may have risen by up to 1.2C.
According to the Paris Agreement on climate change, the world should try to limit global warming to as close to 1.5C as possible to avoid its worst effects, such as deadly heatwaves, sea level rise that threatens coastal cities and more violent storms.
One of the researchers, Professor Michael Mann, said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had been using a definition of pre-industrial “that is likely underestimating the warming that has already taken place”.
“That means we have less carbon to burn than we previously thought, if we are to avert the most dangerous changes in climate,” he said.
“When the IPCC says that we’ve warmed 1C relative to pre-industrial, that’s probably incorrect. It’s likely as much as 1.2C.”
The study, described in a paper in the journal Nature Climate Change, found that anything from 0.02C to 0.21C of warming could already have taken place before the late 19th century.
The lower end of that range would mean the current use of the late 19th century is reasonably accurate, but the upper end would be a substantial change.
Professor Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, said that either the Paris targets “have to be revised” or the world could simply decide that they only wanted to restrict warming relative to the 19th century.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/climate-scientists-may-underestimating-global-150047680.html
Well pardon me for gatecrashing the alarmists’ “We’re all going to die party”
But the world’s climate is, without question, much more amenable since the Little Ice Age. If this is the case via 1.2C, rather than 1.0C, degree of warming, then surely that means that the consequences of another half a degree or so are hardly a case for panic!
In any event, we have not got a clue what the average temperature of the earth is now, never mind what it was 200 years ago.
If proper engineers and scientists presented this sort of junk science to their superiors, they would quickly end up in the dole queue.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
“They may have been using the wrong baseline…” They’ve consistently overestimated what minute warming there has been, and blown every prediction they’ve made. These “scientists” truly are the gang that can’t shoot straight!
That the media allow publishing of this junk is a measure of the intelligence or their readers. The only way to halt this rubbish is to drag someone or some organisation into court for fraud. M Mann is experiencing the US legal system and looks set to loose big time. 38 Degrees, Crowd Justice funding model to finance a case? Maybe steered by GWPF or other credible organisation? I would certainly contribute. During the Napoleonic Wars spreading alarm and false information about invasion to the general public was punishable by death. Maybe the statute is still in force?
It is actually an easy way for the papers to fill the pages since they have abandoned real journalism.
Why start temperatures in the midst of the LIA when conditions were grim, and there was wide spread famine
The temperatures of today are far better than then. Why would anyone wish to turn back the clock to darker times?
A little video for y’all. From the guys at the COLD face.
Why not start temperatures at the Holocene Optimum?
it is called the optimum for a reason! times were much better way back then, or for that matter back in the Minoan, or roman or even the Medieval Warm Periods.
Today is far too cold compared to past more optimum temperatures.
Oh dear Paul, it appears my last comment went to the spam bin?
You really seem to be having a lot of SPAM issues recently TomO 🙂
Sailing close to the wind with some comments usually does it. 🙂
LOL – That was my thought, as well!
“new research suggested climate scientists have been using the wrong baseline temperature.” The current base period reference is ~14.0°C. (1880-2000) or (1901-2000) NOAA.
When the IPCC says that we’ve warmed 1C relative to pre-industrial, that’s probably incorrect. It’s likely as much as 1.2C.” So… the revised base period reference [~1800?-2000]. is only ~12.8°C?
The 2016 global anomaly is plus 0.83°C and the 2016 global temperature = 14.83°C (NOAA). So new revised global temperature is what? … 13.63°C?
Or… is the revised anomaly 2.03°C and the 2016 temperature was ~16°C?
Confusing?
I have heard of preaching to the converted…but this is preaching to the converted who are certifiable.
Haven’t they noticed that they have just added 0.2 C to “the warming” in the peiod when CO2 emissions were LOW? Or are they SO stoopid that they really believe the early industrial revolution involved burning LARGE amounts of fossil fuel
http://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=x5ChvGTB&id=1F49620332504750D5AEA44104DB960E879E3D4F&thid=OIP.x5ChvGTBBd1JX6fAY7IA7QEsCr&q=fossil+fuel+emissions+1945&simid=608010565781291272&selectedIndex=1&ajaxhist=0
They just hope that we are that stupid.
“…added O.2 C to “the warming” in the period when CO2 emissions were low…”
Thereby increasing the trend from NON-anthropogenic sources, and necessarily reducing the amount of “modern warming” which may possibly be attributed to human action in the satellite period, at one blow, by a quarter.
Incidentally, the graph of emissions is startling. An exponential global trend like that means the human race, as a whole, is UNSTOPPABLE, in its iron determination to use fossil fuel.
It is like my evening wine. It is good for me. And if it isn’t, I don’t give a fig.
Yonason, sadly most of ‘us’ ARE stupid.
So is the implication that we are 0.2c closer to the dreaded 1.5c? If so, this shows you how arbitrary that number is as it was based on the original flawed baseline. if not, why mention it at all?
Perhaps we should be grateful that Mann et all didn’t go back to the last ice age for a baseline. Now that really would be scary.
I am sure others have noticed the increasingly hysterical tone in the pronouncements from the bunker. Most countries are blythely ignoring any emission reductions and even the European bastion is showing signs that the troops are willing to desert.
The Trump offensive has exposed their vulnerability, but the core believers fight on hoping to turn the tide with sheer desperation. Watch out for those who try to sneek off for South America..
I smell desperation in the air. And we are on the road to the next IPCC climate science fiction report. Scary reports surface so that they can be considered and added to the great myth.
“If proper engineers and scientists presented this sort of junk science to their superiors, they would quickly end up in the dole queue”
Sums up the fraud Mann.
Imagine going up the Empire State Building if the engineers had used sloppy “science” like Mann’s?
No way this little black duck would go up.
Must be getting embarrassing for the Climate loons. Models are looking more stupid each decade.
Video of Roger Pielke Jr. on ‘Climate Politics as Manichean Paranoia’
Mani Kee An. NOT mani chee an
Mani a heresy in Early Christian times. Good and Evil. Supposed to be influenced by Persian philosophy Popular for centuries in the East and into Central Asia. Maybe into China
somewhat like this.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Manichaeism
manichaeism a heresy. not Mani a heresy. Typo!
My direct-grant grammar school (the most academic in England – the highest proportion of entrance scholarship winners to Oxford and Cambridge in the country) had a little book in the library called “Straight and Crooked Thinking,” by Thoulness. I read this when I was fifteen (1960) and consciously tried to use it in all my work.
I mentioned to the Librarian that I thought it was really useful. He said he hadn’t actually read it; he just liked the title. I asked him how often it was taken out. He said I was the only one, ever, out of more than a thousand clever boys.
Few people imagine that their thinking is crooked. Wrong perhaps, but crooked? Pshaw.
Pielke is falling into one of the ways of thinking crookedly; namely, that the true position must lie between the APPARENT extremes. He mentioned Catholic and Protestant. Perhaps the true position is Atheist?
The Manichean analogy has some value. But I think the truer analogy is with a pompous teacher who has made a blunder in his instruction, and then threatens to cane anyone who disagrees with him; AND writes a sneaking, nasty note in the permanent record.
Another possible analogy is with a persistent , high-pressure salesman and a customer who just wishes him to take his foot out of the door. It is surely unfair to say that the customer is as high-pressure or devious as the salesman – even when the householder gets into an argument , or tells a little white lie about the bath runnning*.
*When the Jehova’s Witnesses come round I do not tell them the truth; that when I was six I signed up to the “Watchtower.” It sparked a life-long interest in Ancient History, but I gave up reading THAT particular take on it when I was ten.
Thanks for the post. Here’s another take on Pielke:
https://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2017/07/23/pielke-jr-re-entry-into-the-climate-atmopshere/
Data for the 20th century has been adjusted to suit AGW theory.
Data for the small part of this century has been adjusted to suit AGW theory.
The recent El Nino propped up AGW theory and without it we’d still have the 20 years long Pause.
They’ve adjusted sea temps, sea levels, satellite data, raw data, reported data, UHI data and even the pricing of renewable energy…ALL to prop up AGW theory.
Not forgetting how Mann himself adjusted tree ring data and conflated thermometers into the mix too, without remembering to tell anyone. Gosh that was sooooo unlucky. Anyone could’ve made that error, Mikey. Don’t feel too bad about it.
Is there anything they haven’t adjusted yet to suit their nefarious ends?
After all that now they want to go back to the 19th century and adjust those temperatures in order to (yes you’re ahead of me) prop up AGW theory.
It’s much worse than anything previously seen even in Paul Daniels Bunko Booth. What a scandal it is. Where’s The Donald when you really need him?
Always good to see them pushing back the beginning of the warming. Because the further back you go the less you can say that CO2 caused the warming.
““That means we have less carbon to burn than we previously thought”
OK Mickey Mann, STOP using CO2 based products.. I DARE YOU.
It IS “worse than we thought,” if data from the likes of Michael Mann is used to determine government policy.
The logic fails utterly. The increase since some baseline is utterly irrelevant. What matters are the supposed effect of a temperature, not how much it has increased. If say 40 degrees is too hot for us all to survive, then the problem is if it’s 40 degrees, not 1 or 1.2 more than a baseline.
This says we should care about temperatures relative to something, when all the claims about bad stuff are based on absolute temperatures.
The thought has struck me — I am very old and have to get up a few times every night — that perhaps we are approaching this from the wrong direction. Surely, if temperatures are increasing due to CO2 forming an insulating band around the globe the effect would be noticed on cloudless nights? What we should be measuring is the minimum temperature recorded? The thought occurred to me as it has been particularly cold some nights when we have a clear sky following a hot sunny day.
What you have (re)discovered is that water-vapour and clouds are much more important than CO2 in producing “the blanket effect.” The lack of water (in both forms) above the Poles is one of the reasons that these regions are so cold.
It is quite complicated. The tops of clouds radiate to space and are cooling the globe, in effect, but since they are colder high up in the air they do not radiate as much upwards as the bottoms of clouds radiate downwards. Again, clouds reflect sunlight to space and so are cooling* during the day**, but of course this doesn’t apply at night.
Etcetera,etcetera,etcetera.
*Or, more accurately, prevent heating.
**think of a summer’s day when a cloud suddenly covers the sun.
And also, Dave, why the Sahara desert can be rather parky in the middle of the night. CO2 is largely irrelevant. Whatever influence it has cannot compete with water vapour (or the lack of it).
Gerry — I have argued that case for a long time since even in my small village we have street lights 24 hours a day, central heating systems working till midnight, farmers harvesting until well after dark, all of them adding their own minute contribution to UHI effect to an extent they weren’t doing 50 years ago. I know that on a winter’s evening the village is always about 1°C above the countryside and our local town about 2°C above.
I wonder if Phil Jones ever looks at the thermometer on his dashboard as he drives home at night.
And you are also going down the path of is all the warming due to nighttime UHI raising the minimums while the maximums barely change, which is odd with all this ‘heat’.
Meanwhile, back in the real world it is snowing, down to 2400m, in the Austrian Alps.
Damn this Global warming!
And the other day it was Chamonix getting snow. We know this is not unusual or unprecedented, but haven’t the warmists been telling us snow will be a thing of the past even in winter? And surely there should be no summer snow in ‘the hottest year the planet has evah known’.
So does that mean the effects of climate change were 20% worse that we were told too?
“…the effects of climate change were 20% worse…”
The effects of NATURAL climate change…and, anyway, let us say 20% BETTER.
Sailing from the Atlantic to the Pacific over the top of the world looks a bit iffy this summer – as usual:
My God, Paul, I don’t know how you manage to keep your language so moderate in the face of all this rubbish.
Paul Homewood, if you want any sort of credibility in your writings in public forum, then you need to understand the difference between the words “Then” and “Than” and their proper usage!
“Independent” and “Scientist” Michael Mann Say It’s Worse Then We Thought!!
This statement is improper grammar and should read:
“Independent” and “Scientist” Michael Mann Says It’s Worse Than We Thought!!
Just saying……………………..
The “Independent” is a noun naming a newspaper, not an adjective qualifying “Mann.”
‘ [The] “Independent” and [the] “Scientist” Mann ‘ is the grammatical subject
” ‘John and Brian’ say. ” not ” ‘John and Brian’ says. “
“… Michael Mann long ago lost any credibility”
Only among non-scientists. Among the world’s geophysicists Dr Mann is lauded, applauded, and praised for his scientific achievements.
Regarding human-caused climate change already being worse than most scientists had projected, Dr Mann has consistently stated he is optimistic that we can solve the crisis in time. Everyone hopes he is right.