[LINK TO THE HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE]

[RELATED POST ON THE ANTHROPOCENE]

THIS POST IS A CRITICAL REVIEW OF A YOUTUBE LECTURE [LINK TO YOUTUBE VIDEO]  ON CLIMATE CHANGE BY CLIMATE SCIENTIST MICHAEL MANN. IT IS PRESENTED IN TWO PARTS. PART-1 IS A TRANSCRIPT OF THE LECTURE. PART-2 IS A CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON CLAIMS MADE IN THE LECTURE.

PART-1: TRANSCRIPT OF THE LECTURE

We human beings, homo sapiens, have been on this planet for a tiny fraction of the full history of life on earth. We are unlike other species in that we are able to have a global impact on our environment through our activities. We are now within this era known as the Anthropocene where human beings have sort of taken over, taken the reins from geological processes and natural processes in being the primary driver of changes in the earth system. And certainly the burning of fossil fuels and climate change is one primary example of that.

My name is Michael Mann. I am a professor at Penn State University and a climate researcher. In this ??mook?? I am going to lay down the fundamental scientific principles behind climate change and global warming. We need to understand the science in order to solve the societal, environmental, and economic problems that climate change is bringing.

We begin with the principles of atmospheric science. We will talk about how climate data are collected, the trends that these data show, and how do we look for signals of climate change in the data. We’ll learn how to do basic computations and view theoretical models of the climate system to address questions about future climate change.

Finally we will discuss the impacts that climate change may have on the social, cultural, economic, urban, and other human systems. The science of climate change impacts tells us that once we warm the planet beyond about 2C relative to pre-industrial times, we are likely to see most damaging and potentially irreversible climate change. 2C is probably a line that we don’t want to cross.

I am hoping that this course will help arm others with information and knowledge and resources that they can use down in the trenches as we all fight this collective battle to preserve our planet for future generations.

PART-2: CRITICAL COMMENTARY

CLAIM: We are now in a geological epoch called the Anthropocene wherein humans have taken over from geological forces and humans are now the primary force that is reshaping the planet. RESPONSE: The crust of the planet consisting of land, ocean, and atmosphere where we have things like climate, climate change and  the carbon cycle and carbon life forms like plants, trees, animals, humans, fish, and whales and stuff like that, is 0.3% of the planet containing 0.2% of the planet’s carbon. The other 99.7% of the planet and 99.8% of the carbon is down in the mantle and core. This is the source of the energy and immense power of the planet’s geological forces that do things like plate tectonics, volcanism, mantle plumes, and rifts that transfer energy and carbon from the 99.7% of the planet to the 0.3% of the planet where we have climate. Life on the 0.3% is made from the little bits of carbon that oozes out of the 99.7% . It is true that since the Industrial Revolution we humans have been digging up some of the minute portions of the planet’s carbon found in the crust of the planet and burning it for energy but that does not make us the new geological force nor does it place the fate of the planet in our hands. The total cumulative carbon emissions of the industrial economy of humans since pre-industrial times is estimated to be 102 billion tonnes, less than 0.000001% of  the of carbon in the mantle. AGW climate change does not have a planetary interpretation. The yearning of climate science for a planetary relevance of AGW climate change has no basis. It is an extreme form of the atmosphere bias of climate science and an irrational form of climate activism to describe the planet’s geological forces in terms of the carbon emissions of the industrial economy of humans.

MORE ABOUT THE ANTHROPOCENE  [LINK]

CLAIM: … and how do we look for signals of climate change in the data.

RESPONSE: Looking for signals of climate change in the data is a form of circular reasoning that presumes the existence of such signals and imposes a bias into the research methodology. In objective and unbiased scientific inquiry the data analysis must be free of predetermined assumptions about the findings. The admission by a high profile climate scientist to this kind of bias in climate research methodology raises serious questions about the credibility and the findings of climate science research.

CLAIM: The science of climate change impacts tells us that once we warm the planet beyond about 2C relative to pre-industrial times, we are likely to see most damaging and potentially irreversible climate change. 2C is probably a line that we con’t want to cross.  RESPONSE: The determination that a warming of 2C above pre-industrial will create catastrophic climate change impacts in the form of irreversible climate change such that 2C is a line that we must not cross, is dated. It derives from an IPCC report published in 2015. Since then the IPCC special report of 2018 was published and it says that the science says that the line that we must not cross to avoid catastrophic and irreversible climate change is 1.5C. Prior to the 2C determination of 2015, there was the IPCC report published in 2013 and there the science of climate science had determined that the line that we must not cross to avoid catastrophic and irreversible climate change is 3C. Prior to 2013, the IPCC 2007 report had issued a similar warning which said that warming must not be allowed to exceed 4C above pre-industrial to avoid catastrophic impacts and irreversible climate change. And prior to that, in 2001 the science of climate science told us that warming since pre-industrial must not be allowed to exceed 5C in order to avoid catastrophic consequences and irreversible climate change.

An additional consideration is that the reference temperature described as pre-industrial is also an unknown because there is some confusion about when AGW climate change began. In 2001, the IPCC report said it was the year 1750 but in the 2015 report it says the reference pre-industrial year was 1850. The NASA website says the human caused anthropogenic global warming began in 1950  [LINK]  and climate scientist Peter Cox used computer models to determine that human caused warming began in the 1970s  [LINK]. The world’s first AGW climate change paper was Callendar 1938 [LINK]  where we read that human caused global warming began in 1900. The extreme state of confusion in the matter of when human caused global warming began and therefore exactly what the “pre-industrial” reference temperature is and how much warming above that reference temperature we can tolerate before catastrophic irreversible climate change sets in does not indicate that climate scientists understand the current warming trend well enough to lecture us about the details of a theory and its warming targets of which they themselves appear to be grossly unsure. Yet this is the basis of the demand that the world must overhaul its energy infrastructure “to save the planet” in the Anthropocene [LINK]  .