Zeke, this is clear to me and seems to contradict the arm-waving explanation by Michael Mann. I posed a rhetorical question to Claude AI and it affirms my understanding. Would you please opine on the Claude assessment of my query?
<<Today, Zeke Hausfather posted on his ‘Climate Brink’ Substack “Plateauing CO2 emissions have slowed atmospheric growth – CO2 concentrations have continued to increase - but more slowly than they otherwise would have” essay at the link below*
Does this align with or contradict Michael Mann’s and Al Gore’s (and others’) assertion that after reducing CO2 emissions to Net Zero around 2050, atmospheric CO2 concentration will begin to decline within 3-4 years and global temperature will begin to cool a few decades thereafter following achieving Net Zero,gradually plateauing at a peak temperature around 2°C-2.7°C.
Will Hausfather’s temperature trajectory follow Mann & Gore et al’s curve?
I see the term "doomer" as the elite equivalent of "alarmist" and they both annoy the hell out of me. Of course, I've only encountered them used by Americans living in comfort.
I would like to invite Michael Mann, Chris Hayes ("I'm not a doomer.") and Jeff Goodell ("I'm not either.") on a fully-funded trip to discuss the problems of "doomerism" to their choice of venue: the slums of Dhaka housing the Bangladeshi who lost their land to the sea, an audience of ground workers of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent, or the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network.
Yes, I have had to explain to people that the human species is not going to go extinct, that natural selection will as always award the most "pre-adapted" life forms, or that facets of our current civilization will certainly survive, but that is at best technical pedantry. How will the "best plausible scenario" impact the food supply and quality of life for 8.3 billion people?
Or maybe I should embrace the attitude of General Buck Turgidson, as he certainly wasn't the dreaded "doomer":
"I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depending on the breaks."
Silence of the lambs. We, in comfort, are much more comfortable putting blinders on to the poor in the tropics as Earth 🔥. There is no doom if they don't exist in our minds.
Well said, and props for the cinematic allusion. One of the most brilliant satires ever produced. But as Prof. Dessler said last week, "nobody knows the future of energy", which largely determines emissions, which largely determines atmospheric CO2 concentration, which largely determines GMST. The excess atmospheric concentration over the multi-millennial average is wholly anthropogenic, and so is its future trajectory until anthropogenic emissions effectively cease, and poorly-understood natural drawdown takes over.
We acknowledge the future's contingency on past events and the stochasticity of what happens next within that constraint, "depending on the breaks". Climate science can project future GMST under specified scenarios, but the range of probable scenarios depends on *future individual and collective human behavior*. There is as yet no science of Psychohistory with which to predict more than a few years ahead. IOW, the cone of credible futures expands, even as we natter away on the Internet. Hey, it passes the time in retirement.
Interesting - but odd that you note the carbon sinks but apparently don’t include them in the model. They must be very significant since they equilibrated natural CO2 emissions until we began burning ancient carbon.
If we’re at equilibrium combustion and probably going to decline (given solar and battery massive uptake), why not include the sinks?
Thank you for this. While I knew that emissions growth had slowed, I didn’t realize the extent to which emissions had plateaued, so that’s welcome news.
But, more acidic oceans mean that fewer carbonates are precipitating out right? And warming temperatures release more CO2 (not anthropogenic, but the result of human use of fossil carbon) as well as methane, correct?
I'd be interested in seeing how these plots change over time if you take into account the weakening land and ocean carbon sinks (some of which are being transformed into sources), as well as the increasing contributions to atmospheric CO2 and CH4 concentrations from thawing permafrost.
Great explanation Zeke! The one unknown is the weakening capabilities of the carbon sinks from heat stress as you implied. To me, seems prudent to help cool Earth now.
Since the price of oil has started to rise, Ukraine has focused on the destruction of Russian oil export infrastructure to reduce the invaders' income, resulting in massive, multi-day columns of smoke at many of the targets.
Zeke, this is clear to me and seems to contradict the arm-waving explanation by Michael Mann. I posed a rhetorical question to Claude AI and it affirms my understanding. Would you please opine on the Claude assessment of my query?
<<Today, Zeke Hausfather posted on his ‘Climate Brink’ Substack “Plateauing CO2 emissions have slowed atmospheric growth – CO2 concentrations have continued to increase - but more slowly than they otherwise would have” essay at the link below*
Does this align with or contradict Michael Mann’s and Al Gore’s (and others’) assertion that after reducing CO2 emissions to Net Zero around 2050, atmospheric CO2 concentration will begin to decline within 3-4 years and global temperature will begin to cool a few decades thereafter following achieving Net Zero,gradually plateauing at a peak temperature around 2°C-2.7°C.
Will Hausfather’s temperature trajectory follow Mann & Gore et al’s curve?
• https://theclimatebrink.substack.com/p/plateauing-co2-emissions-have-slowed>>
CLAUDE RESPONDED: https://claude.ai/share/71c77f2a-e109-4da1-afd8-da0e7272879f
You hit the jackpot in substack posting ideas! What if every post had a Claude reply to the posters question? It gives additional context at least.
"Shared by doomers and skeptics alike...."
----
I see the term "doomer" as the elite equivalent of "alarmist" and they both annoy the hell out of me. Of course, I've only encountered them used by Americans living in comfort.
I would like to invite Michael Mann, Chris Hayes ("I'm not a doomer.") and Jeff Goodell ("I'm not either.") on a fully-funded trip to discuss the problems of "doomerism" to their choice of venue: the slums of Dhaka housing the Bangladeshi who lost their land to the sea, an audience of ground workers of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent, or the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network.
Yes, I have had to explain to people that the human species is not going to go extinct, that natural selection will as always award the most "pre-adapted" life forms, or that facets of our current civilization will certainly survive, but that is at best technical pedantry. How will the "best plausible scenario" impact the food supply and quality of life for 8.3 billion people?
Or maybe I should embrace the attitude of General Buck Turgidson, as he certainly wasn't the dreaded "doomer":
"I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say... no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depending on the breaks."
Silence of the lambs. We, in comfort, are much more comfortable putting blinders on to the poor in the tropics as Earth 🔥. There is no doom if they don't exist in our minds.
Relativity bites.
Yep. Catastrophe is in the eyes of the victims!
Well said, and props for the cinematic allusion. One of the most brilliant satires ever produced. But as Prof. Dessler said last week, "nobody knows the future of energy", which largely determines emissions, which largely determines atmospheric CO2 concentration, which largely determines GMST. The excess atmospheric concentration over the multi-millennial average is wholly anthropogenic, and so is its future trajectory until anthropogenic emissions effectively cease, and poorly-understood natural drawdown takes over.
We acknowledge the future's contingency on past events and the stochasticity of what happens next within that constraint, "depending on the breaks". Climate science can project future GMST under specified scenarios, but the range of probable scenarios depends on *future individual and collective human behavior*. There is as yet no science of Psychohistory with which to predict more than a few years ahead. IOW, the cone of credible futures expands, even as we natter away on the Internet. Hey, it passes the time in retirement.
Interesting - but odd that you note the carbon sinks but apparently don’t include them in the model. They must be very significant since they equilibrated natural CO2 emissions until we began burning ancient carbon.
If we’re at equilibrium combustion and probably going to decline (given solar and battery massive uptake), why not include the sinks?
Thank you for this. While I knew that emissions growth had slowed, I didn’t realize the extent to which emissions had plateaued, so that’s welcome news.
But, more acidic oceans mean that fewer carbonates are precipitating out right? And warming temperatures release more CO2 (not anthropogenic, but the result of human use of fossil carbon) as well as methane, correct?
I'd be interested in seeing how these plots change over time if you take into account the weakening land and ocean carbon sinks (some of which are being transformed into sources), as well as the increasing contributions to atmospheric CO2 and CH4 concentrations from thawing permafrost.
How do things look if we add in all the non-CO2 gasses such as methane?
Thanks a lot for this, honestly. Hope is seldom seen in this environment but works like this one let me have a bit of it.
Great explanation Zeke! The one unknown is the weakening capabilities of the carbon sinks from heat stress as you implied. To me, seems prudent to help cool Earth now.
Estimate from →first two weeks← of Iran war is more than 5 million tonnes of CO₂e generated:
https://www.qmul.ac.uk/news/latest-news/2026/humanities-and-social-sciences/hss/war-in-iran-has-already-produced-emissions-equivalent-to-a-year-of-icelands-carbon-output.html
================
Since the price of oil has started to rise, Ukraine has focused on the destruction of Russian oil export infrastructure to reduce the invaders' income, resulting in massive, multi-day columns of smoke at many of the targets.
Russian refinery bingo: https://x.com/KHoholenko/status/2063667173327880532
ETA: Better image of June 7 status https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HKOeTGAXIAA2yu4?format=jpg