By Steven Goddard
Some readers may remember the 1961 film “The Day the Earth Caught Fire”. It could be viewed as the original “climate alarmist” film as it contains all of the plot elements of our current climate alarmism scenarios: exaggerated images of a dying planet, a mainstream media newspaper reporter, technology that is feared, the Met Office, and last but not least, junk science.
You can read about the whole wacky plot here.
Back to the present.
A new study out of MIT predicts “a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise at least 9 degrees by 2100.”
This is more than twice what was expected in 2003. The Telegraph reports
“Global warming of 7C ‘could kill billions this century‘. Global temperatures could rise by more than 7C this century killing billions of people and leaving the world on the brink of total collapse, according to new research“A similar 2003 study had predicted a mere- but still significant- 4 degree increase in global temperatures by 2100, but those models weren’t nearly as comprehensive, and they didn’t take into consideration economic factors.
So what has changed since 2003 to cause the scientists at MIT’s “Centre for Global Climate Change” to believe the world is going to boil over this century and send billions of us directly to a toasty demise similar to our featured movie?
Since 2003, global temperatures have been dropping.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
January, 2008 broke the record for the most snow covered area ever measured in the Northern Hemisphere.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/png/monthlyanom/nhland01.png
I added a red line below showing the reported projected rise in temperatures from the MIT models, compared with the actual observed temperature trends since the previous 2003 report. Their projections show a correlation of essentially zero.
Given that the observed trends are exactly opposite what the MIT models have predicted, one might have to ask what they have observed since 2003 to more than double their warming estimates, and where their 90% confidence value comes from?
The study, carried out in unprecedented detail, projected that without “rapid and massive action” temperatures worldwide will increase by as much as 7.4C (13.3F) by 2100, from levels seen in 2000.
This study has a strong scent of GIGO (garbage, in garbage out.) MIT has one of the world’s preeminent climatologists Dr. Richard Lindzen in their Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. I wonder if the scientists at the “Centre for Global Climate Change” checked with him before firing this remarkable piece off to the press?
During the Phanerozoic, CO2 levels have at times been more than 1,500% higher than present, but temperatures have never been more than 10C higher than present. So how does a projected 30% increase in CO2 produce a 7C temperature rise in their models? During the late Ordovician, there was an ice age with CO2 levels about 1000% of current levels. Hopefully the newspaper headlines don’t accurately represent the content of the article.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/png/monthlyanom/nhland01.png
Finally, does their name (“Centre for Global Climate Change“) hint at a possible inherent bias in their raison d’être? What “rapid and massive action” do they want us to engage in?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interestingly enough, the MIT press release states that the study found a 90% chance of temperatures rising between 3.5 and 7.4 degrees C. Still laughable, but hardly what this story claims the study found. Someone needs to work on their reading comprehension.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html
As has proven to be typical, this study’s results are all the results of different assumptions plugged into the models for “future economic growth.” Oh, and they added another heating bias to the temperature record by “accounting for the past masking of underlying warming by the cooling induced by 20th century volcanoes, and for emissions of soot, which can add to the warming effect. In addition, measurements of deep ocean temperature rises, which enable estimates of how fast heat and carbon dioxide are removed from the atmosphere and transferred to the ocean depths, imply lower transfer rates than previously estimated.”
Of course, they have no actual data to justify the lower transfer rates. It’s just another assumption made becuse it makes the numbers bounce the way the authors want them to bounce.
yawn.
Is anyone going to read and audit this Ring of Fire?
This report shows how politisized scientific institutions have become.
It’s a great shame that developments are going in the direction of a complete fraud commited by the UN, US Government, Government bodies like EPA and our elite scientific institutions.
People will accept this which will put the in green shackles for generations to come or unite and fight back.
We are ruled by monsters and their faces will show uglier than those of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot put together.
These clowns need to look up from their computer screens long enough to ‘observe’ what is really happening. Temperatures are dropping (while C02 rises), ice is advancing and OUR SUN IS IN AN UNPRECEDENTED MODE OF INACTIVITY. We don’t see much press about real concerns – those created in computer simulations take priority. I suppose this is yet another disappointing example that unethical support for the green political agenda marches on…
Here’s a nice article outlining a report by the ‘Green’ economic impact on Spain (Obama’s Model for the US):
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=46453
Quote: “Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created….”
See the full paper in PDF format for yourself:
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
Great timing! I wonder what we can expect for an encore. Using the Weimar Republic as a model for saving our economy I imagine…
You might also notice that at the time of very high CO2 concentration and temperatures in excess of 10 C higher than today, life was thriving on earth and there were huge dinosaurs and massive forests.
The models are not programmed to say anything about how life on earth will do. They are just programmed to give an expected outcome on global temperature. The people looking at the computer output come up with the doomsday scenarios, most likely for political attention in order to increase funding. Good ol’ science does not sell well. I know, else I would be rolling in millions.
Pity none of those scientists will be around in 2100 to see how their prediction materialized…
There they go again.
The greater the skepticism of the public to previous forecasts, the more outrageous the newer forecasts.
What’s next – the seas will boil?
Shall we follow the money? Who might these industrial and foundation sponsors be?
“…Industrial and foundation sponsors of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change”
It is all about research grants and publications. Climate alarmism is where the money is. Given the political currents in the US, federal funding is likely to continue to flow to catastrophist computer model-based “studies.”
The news media is unwilling to question this new religious melding of politics and pseudo-science, so it is up to a few brave and persistent questioners to keep pointing out the flaws in the arguments.
To quote a famous dog: “Good Grief!”
Can we get a list of all the folks that participated in this study and their ages. Some might live long enough to NOT see this happen because there must not be any adult supervision. Or maybe the roadside ditches and medians contain hemp – any fires there lately?
I can’t understand you all!
You all sit there looking at satellite temeratures and arguing about corrections, while in front of your eyes is all the evidence you need. Here is a recent picture from Antarctica – you can see how bad things are getting. Brave polar explorers who are trying to save penguins from drowning have to put up with these temperatures: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8066991.stm
Look at the quote from someone who has been there – “Fire is the biggest hazard in Antarctica…”. No longer the cold, but FIRE! Now will you remember to swap the light in your fridge for an energy saving one….?
one might have to ask what they have observed since 2003 to more than double their warming estimates
They have observed that people don’t believe them when they blame both warming & cooling on C02 increase, and that nature is not co-operating and will not ever co-operate.
You might as well fight AGW fire with LIA freezing.
Ports will be useless as the oceans drop 20 feet, the Suez and Panama canals will be non-operable (killing global trade), most of Alaska and the Canadian North will be uninhabitable suffering Antarctic cold, glaciers will advance and block drainages, Equatorial heat will be trapped in the tropics, and whole crops will have to rotate southwards as zonal flows replace meridonial flows (thanks Basil & Anthony !!!), Alberta tar sands will become a frozen wasteland and unprofitable, ice will plug up major waterways, and a whole host of other things.
We must consider the position of Dr. Lindzen here.
He will be forced to take a stand againt the very institution he is working for.
This is the perfect scenario to get rid of Dr. Lindzen.
If it was me I would resign immediately and go to court.
Does anybody know of a response from Lindzed to this lunatic report?
I found it enlightening that the boys from CFGCC decided to highlight the seriousness of their work by reducing it to a couple of roulette wheels. It sure makes me want to take what they say more “seriously”. Actually it suggests rather strongly that they’re taking guidance less from people practicing science, but much more from guys like Saul Alinsky.
There are several signs of caution that I use when asessing these AGW alarmist reports such as this .
How far into the future do they project . Anyone can make prediction 100 years ahead . This is a safe area to project The authors will never be around to be accountable for their work and short term field verification is difficult .
90% Confidence level ? No one can predict 100 years ahead with 90 % confidence . The hurricane forecasters used this confidence level and they were wrong predicting only one year ahead.Anyone who needs to add such high and questionable confidence level statement to their work clearly has some concern that the public will not buy the science . Sound science stands on its own merits .
Timing of the report? . With EPA review for carbon as a pollutant under review and cap and trade decision pending it just happens that another alarmist report comes out in support of AGW
Worst case scenarios ? AGW science supporters use this tecnique to make things look worse than they really are to catch the public and media attention. Things in real life tend to be more stable and best and worst scenarios tend to level out more.
Those MIT wimps…
Here’s an alarmist prediction that I have pulled out of thin air for free.
“Runaway man made global warming will raise temperatures by a massive 47 degrees celcius by 2100. This unprecedented temperature rise will kill all the major lifeforms on planet earth. Polar Bears will be extinct with 5 years. Civilization will cease to exist within 10 years and will be followed by 20 years of social chaos and human cannibalism before humans die out around 2040.”
“Our only hope is to secure funding for an MIT run “New Manhatten Project” to build a time machine to go back in time to 1988, and warn the US Senate of the impending global climate catastrophy.”
“Fortunately, our hero, Mr J Hansen has bravely stepped forward to be the time traveller to go back and warn the US Senate in 1988 of the impending disaster.”
“We expect that the new 10% “Time Machine to save us all” tax on all transactions will secure at least half the necessary funding for the time machine project. We expect that Federal treasury will supply the rest of the funds by responsibly printing more dollars.”
“This initiative is the only sure way to save both the planet and civilisation, and all necessary sacrifices for the common good must be done to prevent this warming doom.”
“May the future generations of man look back and thank us for our foresight.”
My mother took me to see that film when I was but a bairn, I loved anything to do with science fiction.
If I remember correctly, a big if, MIT may have discovered that CO2 will cause the Van Allen belt to ignite thus providing positive feedback.
Dodgy Geezer (16:31:37):
“Fire is the biggest hazard in Antarctica…”
click here for proof!
I fight back. Every time I read a POC like this from a previously revered institution. My letter to MIT:
May I point out that at least six and a half billion people will die during the 21st Century; that is all who are alive today.
All those who worked on the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model should be spanked, fired and sent home.
These computers models are not the tablets from the mountain, but justifications of pre-conceived ideological positions, generally to satisfy paymasters. This brings discredit upon MIT.
Robert Wood
Engineer
Ottawa, Canada
This study is emblematic of AGW.
AGW promoters recycle through the “It is much worse than predicted” closing line every few months.
It is as credible as a used car salesman talking about how if you do not buy *now* there will never be another car deal like this again.
I think that this tag line by MIT may well prove to be the one pressure tactic too many.
It is so outlandish and over the top in its assumptions. Its analysis is infantile. Its conclusion is silly. The reaction of a growing number of people will be, at the least, rolling of the eyes.
More and more will simply come to the proper conclusion that AGW is a scam.
Here’s my 50 years ago time machine for ocean levels:
http://www.sheltercoverealty.us/bin/web/real_estate/AR202436/EXTRA2/1224516287.html
Scroll down a ways and you will see
Shelter Cove, before the subdivision! extra2-lidsil116701.jpg
and
Shelter Cove Northern Approach extra2-lidsil116782.jpg
How’s about a little effort to find similar pics?
Then Anthony can write a blockbuster article that will light up eyes.
Warmist Scientists denigrates WUWT and other Skeptic web sites:
May 24, 2009
Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. accepts global warming debate challenge!
By Marc Morano, Climate Depot
Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. responded to Stanford University professor Stephen Schneider’s May 24, 2009 boast that he could “slaughter” skeptical scientists in a global warming debate. (See: Warming Promoter Prof. Stephen Schneider warns skeptical scientists he could ‘slaughter them in public debate!‘ )
Pielke Sr . May 15, 2009 Excerpt: I would be glad to debate Dr. Schneider (or any of the other individuals who are listed).
I also challenge them to refute in the professional literature (and in a debate) the numerous peer reviewed articles and national (e.g. see) and international climate assessments (e.g. see) that present scientific evidence that conflicts with the narrow perspective on climate science that Steve Schneider is representing.
I am disappointed that Steve Schneider personally attacked the websites that are listed. I have quite a bit of respect for Dr. Schneider’s past work [e.g. his book Genesis Strategy is an excellent example of why we need a resource-based, bottom-up assessment of vulnerability, as has been discussed in our peer reviewed papers (e.g. see) and books (e.g. see)].
However, his casual denigration of each of the websites, Watt’s Up With That, Climate Skeptic, Climate Audit and Climate Science (each of whose contributions to the discussion of climate science are informative and very valuable) represents a failure to engage in constructive scientific debate.
This cavalier dismissal of these websites illustrates that instead of evaluating the soundness of their scientific evidence, the authors of these websites, who provide a much needed broader viewpoint on climate science, are insulted. This is not the proper way to discuss scientific issues. For Dr. Pielke Sr. full response see here.
See the claim by Schneider he or any other alarmists could slaughter a climate skeptic in a debate during an interview here.
Examiner Excerpt: Question: More specifically, the principal skeptic websites (Watt’s Up With That, Climate Skeptic, Climate Audit and Climate Science) that I look at regularly seem to think they are winning the day. They think data is coming in that questions the established paradigm.
Schneider: They have been thinking that as long as I have observed them and they have very few mainstream climate scientists who publish original research in climate refereed journals with them–a petroleum geologist’s opinion on climate science is a as good as a climate scientists opinion on oil reserves. So petitions sent to hundreds of thousands of earth scientists are frauds. If these guys think they are “winning” why don’t they try to take on face to face real climatologists at real meetings–not fake ideology shows like Heartland Institute–but with those with real knowledge–because they’d be slaughtered in public debate by Trenberth, Santer, Hansen, Oppenheimer, Allen, Mitchell, even little ol’ me. It’s easy to blog, easy to write op-eds in the Wall Street Journal. (Photo below)
Of course, the Heartland offered to pay numerous alarmists and Al Gore (his normal huge fee) to attend and speak at the Heartland and they all declined. They all recall what Schneider has forgotten, that in every debate between alarmists and skeptics, the skeptics have won. A few examples follow:
Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate – March 16, 2007
Lord Monckton Declared Victor in Global Warming Debate – By His Opponent! – August 19, 2008
Debate Over Whether ‘Global Warming is a Global Crisis’ – March 6, 2009
Climate Depot’s Morano debates former Clinton Official Romm – April 6, 2009
From Icecap.us
Of course fire is a problem in Antarctica. There is a lot of wind, practically zero humidity and folks live inside small dwellings.
If current world population is around 6.8 billion and “billions” may be killed by global warming, how is that a bad thing? Afterall, isn’t it the most sacred wish of Gaia worshipers that most of humanity be eliminated? Perhaps we should just let nature take is course and enjoy ourselves for the few decades we have left.
Ron de Haan (17:19:15),
Anyone who thinks Steven Schneider is ethical should read Schneider’s own words:
IOW, Schneider advocates lying in order to promote the AGW agenda. Therefore, he won’t debate. He knows his quote will hound him — as it should.