10:10 and 350.org are deluding themselves. Their targets are worthless.
The hockey stick clearly shows that the tipping point occurred in 1900 (green circle) when CO2 levels were 290 ppm. By contrast 350 ppm (1988) is marked by the red circle. Obviously 350 is way past the tipping point and is a meaningless target.
In order to get to get to 290 ppm, which Mann very clearly shows as the tipping point, we all need to reduce our CO2 emissions by 100%.
If you believe that Mann’s hockey stick is valid, then you probably don’t have much oxygen getting to your brain anyway. So 100:100 is a reachable goal!
okay, I’ll shoot myself now.
Please don’t shoot yourself… think of all that extra CO2 the exploding gunpowder will release… think of all that extra lead shot you will be releasing into the environment… and think of all that extra water and chemical cleaners that will be used to clean up your splattered bodily fludids… and have you made your last wishes known… hopefully you will get someone to bury your carbon footprint in the ground… no cremations… and no motorised funeral procession… no limestone headstone that releases CO2 for centuries… no flying relations over for the funeral… think of all the extra fuel being burnt to heat the church hall for your wake… so no hot meals… and no fizzy drinks either.
Come to think of it… don’t do it… stay alive… keep breathing… and smile 🙂
STAY ALIVE – YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE – JUST SAY NO TO DEATH
and no flowers delivered by special courier… no flowers grown in heated, CO2 enriched greenhouses (so I guess that means any flowers as the atmosphere is CO2 enriched)… and no letters or cards of sympathy unless they are on recyled paper, hand delivered and you provide a recycling bin in the church… and no teak coffins (remember the poor rain forests)… and no driving to the funeral either… and no smoking (especially as it will increase the number of C02 funerals in the short term)… and don’t be buried in your clothes – they can be re-cycled… and have you signed a consent form to donate your organs – so please aim carefully because we can only used undamaged organs – and please don’t smoke or drink alcohol for at least 14 days before you pull the trigger… and remember to turn off the gas central heating and all electrical appliances in your home before you pull the trigger – we don’t want to be heating and lighting an empty house after all… and can you be bending over the top of a well when you pull the trigger please – this will ensure the gun falls into the well so it can’t be used by any children or madmen that encounter your corpse… and please no scatering of your ashes from a car / plane / motorboat… in fact its better to get your carbon ashes buried deep in the ground…
In climatology a “tipping point” is defined as a change from one stable state to another stable state, so it is hyperbolic to describe the upturn in temperatures in 1900 a “tipping point” as there is no evidence that temperatures would not return to something like the pre-industrial (approximate) equilibrium if carbon emissions were cut to zero. I rather doubt Mann would describe it as such.
According to Mann, temperatures started to rise at 290. The rate hasn’t changed much since 290. The hockey stick offers absolutely no support to the 350 theory.
Yes, temperatures do seem to start to rise from about 1900, but that still doesn’t make it a “tipping point”, a tipping point implies an irreversible change. Do you have any evidence that Mann views the change since 1900 irreversible? As I said, it is hyperbole.
Also it is hardly surprising that the hockey stick offers no support to the 350 theory. The 350 target is based on climate and impacts modelling, not on paleoclimate data. Prior to 1900 CO2 levels had not reached 300ppm for the last 600,000 years or so, so how can such a record tell you if a level of 350ppm is safe or not?
Straw man.
If a model doesn’t match historical data, then it seems a safe bet that the model is incorrect.
There is obviously no such thing as an “irreversible change.” CO2 levels were 10X higher during the Ordovician ice age.
Basing your reality around crappy computer models is not good approach to life.
O.K., so on geological timescales changes are reversible, but that is a pretty desparate argument. If the Greenland ice sheet melts due to AGW, then albedo feedback means it isn’t going to come back in anything less than a geological timescale, so it is to all intents and purposes “irreversible”. Would the fact that the Greenland ice sheet may come back in (say) a few tens of thousands of years mean that its melting due to AGW would be no problem? No, of course not.
You are just evading the point, a “tipping point” means a change from one stable state to another (to all intents “irreversible” becasue *WE* won’t be able to do anything to get it back to its original state again). 1900 was not a tipping point, it isn’t even the point where the effect of increases in GHGs becomes detectable (the IPCC for example attribute most of the warming of the first half of the 20th century to solar forcing). Now if you were to provide some evidence that it did signal a change from one stable state to another, then you would justify your use of “tipping point”, but so far all you have done is bluster.
As for the levels of CO2 being 10 times higher in the Ordovician, the sun was about 6% less bright then, try doing the calculation for the radiative forcing resulting from 10 times higher CO2 and the sun being 6% dimmer, and you will see why that isn’t such a good argument as you might think.
If the hockey stick were correct, the climate “tipped” at 290. Mann’s ridiculous graph shows behaviour which obviously doesn’t make any sense.
You are just arguing semantics.
I am arguing that “tipping point” has a specific meaning in climatology, and you use of “tipping point” to describe the upturn in temperatures in 1900 (which was for the first fifty years mainly solar forced) is (a) incorrect as it isn’t a change from one stable state to another stable state and (b) hyperbolic as genuine “tipping points” would be a genuine cause for concern.
You could just admit that perhaps it wasn’t the best phrase to have used and simply edited the article to use a more correct term. Your reluctance to admit error (as usual) does not suggest a very scientific attidude to the subject matter.
Oh well, you can lead a horse to water….
A real scientist admits and corrects their errors when they are pointed out, the evasion does you no credit.
SteveGoddard wote:
“If a model doesn’t match historical data, then it seems a safe bet that the model is incorrect.”
and
“If you believe that Mann’s hockey stick is valid, then you probably don’t have much oxygen getting to your brain anyway. ”
So the models are incorrect because they don’t match the invalid historical data? Priceless!
Coming in late to your feud with Goddard, but just an observation – you do realize that you are making no sense? circular logic is still that, and you do not seem to be able to recognize your starting point.
Yes, the humor lies in the juxtaposition of the two quotes from Steve. In one quote he says the models don’t match the historical data and the other says the historical data are wrong, I thought the irony of that would be obvious.
BTW I have no feud with Steve, science progresses by presenting ideas for criticism, and taking it in the spirit intended, but if you can’t take criticism, perhaps it isn’t the best activity to pursue.
Perhaps it is best for you to step back and take a look at HOW you are doing your criticism, instead of WHAT you are criticizing. I do not know you or Steve, I only made an observation after reading several of your back and forths over the last month on his blog.
I have already. If you hadn’t noticed, when Steve starts the “back and forth”, I have just pointed out the serious discussion has appeared to have ended and let him have the last word, for example here:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/the-dirty-little-secret-about-satellites/#comment-4827
This sort of comment does you no credit… you line of argument does you no credit… the post clearly illustrates the fundmental problems associated with the AGW faith based sytem… the Hockey Stick image is an visual icon of this faith based system… the Tipping Point is a linguistic icon of this faith based system… and I respect your religious beliefs… just don’t ask me to enter into a dialogue regarding your religious imagery, language and interpretations.
Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium”….
~~”Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years”
-the National Academy of Science report on the Mann Hockey Stick graph, page 4
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=4
People are defending climate models in this thread too. Don’t make me get all my climate model videos out! 😉
The love of unverified climate models continues!
Sigh.