MIT: Global Warming of 7°C ‘Could Kill Billions This Century’

By Steven Goddard

File:Earthcaughtfire.jpg

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 researchA 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.


Temperature trends since 2003

Arctic ice extent is at the highest late May levels in the AMSR-E satellite record.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

Antarctic ice has broken the record for greatest extent ever recorded.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
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.WFT_goddard_mit_temptrendGiven 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://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide_files/image002.gif
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 actiondo they want us to engage in?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate data, Earth, media, Modeling, Ridiculae. Bookmark the permalink.

290 Responses to MIT: Global Warming of 7°C ‘Could Kill Billions This Century’

  1. wws says:

    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.

  2. Gerald Machnee says:

    Is anyone going to read and audit this Ring of Fire?

  3. Ron de Haan says:

    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.

  4. MySearch4Truth says:

    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…

  5. Ray says:

    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.

  6. Global Madness says:

    Pity none of those scientists will be around in 2100 to see how their prediction materialized…

  7. Leon Brozyna says:

    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?

  8. Pamela Gray says:

    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”

  9. Kyle McCracken says:

    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.

  10. John F. Hultquist says:

    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?

  11. Dodgy Geezer says:

    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….?

  12. rbateman says:

    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.

  13. Ron de Haan says:

    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?

  14. Dave Wendt says:

    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.

  15. matt v. says:

    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.

  16. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    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.”

  17. Wansbeck says:

    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.

  18. Smokey says:

    Dodgy Geezer (16:31:37):

    “Fire is the biggest hazard in Antarctica…”

    click here for proof!

  19. Robert Wood says:

    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

  20. hunter says:

    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.

  21. rbateman says:

    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.

  22. Ron de Haan says:

    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

  23. Audio Vermin says:

    Of course fire is a problem in Antarctica. There is a lot of wind, practically zero humidity and folks live inside small dwellings.

  24. Tom in Florida says:

    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.

  25. Smokey says:

    Ron de Haan (17:19:15),

    Anyone who thinks Steven Schneider is ethical should read Schneider’s own words:

    “…we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

    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.

  26. Bruce Hall says:

    M.I.T. = Missed It Totally

  27. Hope they are right…the earth would flourish, during El Nino 97-98 we had maximum temperature 10 degrees above normal in summertime…and you won´t believe it, hills around Lima city, which are absolutely arid became green…but wait…without any rain whatsoever. I clearly remember a hill covered with sand which is seen at the east end of an avenue looked green. That was its first and last time looking like that.
    These guys did not go to elementary school. Tell them to remember “the water cycle” (3rd.grade I guess): Sun-water heats up-evaporation-clouds-rain.
    Is this “study” predicting a new biblical flooding?

  28. Bill Illis says:

    The MIT climate model uses the code from James Hansen’s 1988 climate model (which is only off by a slim margin of 2:1 so far).

    All the climate models (including Hansen’s 1988 version) are based on the same assumptions about greenhouse gases.

    They do not secretly consult a truth machine or a time machine or God to find out how much warming there will actually be. They do not pop out results generated by a new artificial intelligence computer program, they are just based on software-coded rules.

    Some of them produce a random walk around the basic greenhouse gas assumptions, some of them have different equilibrium response times coded into them, and some have different fudge factors (like Aerosols) built in, but they are all based on the IPCC’s GHG formula.

  29. “Global warming of 7C ‘could kill billions this century‘. Global temperatures could rise by more than 7C this century killing billions of people”
    LOL, the most probable consequence it would be the arousal of “estro” with a contrary result: A tremendous increase in human reproduction, for sure.
    Don´t these funny researches know what happens in the world during spring time and summer…you know. (THEY don´t know….one more reason they are ALIENS, they don´t have sex…wow!)

  30. That would be PARADISE AGAIN!!. Remember theories of Lost Golden Era because of a temperature decrease.

  31. Tom Fuller says:

    Well, glad to see my story’s making the rounds. I must say that both Professor Schneider and Professor Pielke have been most gracious about all this. I’d be pleased to see a debate between the two as well.

    This MIT story just mystifies me. From what I’ve read, they just made their input assumptions more pessimistic, plugged them into their computer model, and hey presto!

    If I find more information I’ll do a story on it at Examiner–let’s see if I can beat Anthony and his cohort. Usually I’m linking to his stories–it’d be nice if it went the other way for once.

  32. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/miot-mcc051909.php

    This press release was far worse than I expected!

    “…Since there are so many uncertainties, especially with regard to what human beings will choose to do and how large the climate response will be, “we don’t pretend we can do it accurately. Instead, we do these 400 runs and look at the spread of the odds.” –Ronald Prinn

    This has all the finesse, prudence, and precision of playing darts with hand grenades in the dark. Shame on MIT for allowing this travesty to be published! Shame and opprobrium!

    [But wait! Is it possible...? Could this be a parody? Yes! Yes!! This can only be the work of...Voo Doo, the MIT campus humor magazine! "Voo Doo, MIT's only intentionally humorous campus publication. Since 1919." Then, it's pretty funny. Hilarious, in fact.]

    Contact: Elizabeth Thomson
    thomson@mit.edu
    617-258-5402
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  33. [SNIP - tone it down or find another blog. This is the second post of yours that was wildly OT and inflammatory that I've had to snip today. Thank goodness for airport WiFi - Anthony]

  34. Jack Hughes says:

    Strange line in the BBC story about the Antarctic hut burning down:

    “With the extremely dry conditions, he said it was fortunate that staff removed themselves from harm quickly.”

    This looks like 2 unrelated ideas jammed together into 1 sentence, like a monk and a nun stuck in a lift. Don’t forget that the BBC journos are paid to write this stuff: it’s their job.

  35. I can’t stop laughing!

  36. Tom Fuller says:

    Hi all,

    Found a bit of information about the study–and note that Joe Romm added a degree to their projections just because he wanted to.

    http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m5d25-The-global-warming-empire-strikes-back

  37. Dear Anthony: I just wanted to point how funny this post was, because it is very easy to figure out how would the earth look if tempeatures increase 7 degrees celsius: Just like amazon basin cities in Peru and Brazil. I couldn´t refrain from making a joke.

  38. Mike McMillan says:

    “The results appear to be credible and quantify a certain unease many scientists have on the real magnitude of the climate problem ahead of us, one that is not adequately appreciated by most politicians,” writes Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and an IPCC lead author, in an e-mail.

    .
    “To my knowledge, this is indeed the most exhaustive end-to-end analysis of climate change impacts yet performed,” notes Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University and also an IPCC author. “The results of the analysis are sobering, namely that we face a monumental challenge if we are to avoid dangerous interference with the climate system.”

    .
    Hey, they ran the computer model 400 times. How can you possibly argue with that?

  39. we don’t pretend we can do it accurately. Instead, we do these 400 runs and look at the spread of the odds.” –Ronald Prinn

    Then we pick the absolute worst of the 400 runs and rint -magnify and exaggerate THAT one result.

    Ans then ask for more money from an administration that NEEDS us to scream our lies so they can get their money, keep their power, and maintain their lies.

  40. Dave Wendt says:

    Perhaps you should change the headline on this post to “Predictions of Global Warming Worse Than Expected” as in ” If you thought our other predictions about the climate were inaccurate, illogical, and generally lousy, this new one is even worse.”

  41. From Thomas Fuller’s remarks, see link above.


    I’ll take the under on this bet. But I learned something new–one of the Editors Emeritus of the Journal of Climate is Michael Mann–so check their graphs pretty closely (Michael Mann was the fellow who produced the thoroughly discredited hockey stick graph that graced the IPCC report a few years back). Isn’t he a bit young to be an Editor Emeritus?

    Hmmn. So if I too fake analysis, fake analysis results, and falsify policy based on bad analysis, can I get my Prof Erroritus (ErrorWritus?) nomination too?

  42. Steven Goddard says:

    Is Dr. Schneider talking about the same Dr. Hansen who forecast 2007 to be the hottest year ever? The Dr. Hansen who said that 2009 might be the hottest year ever?

    Apparently this Dr. Hansen fellow knows a lot more about the climate than even Mother nature. I stand in awe of his academic credentials.

  43. Dave Middleton says:

    In declining order of probability…

    10. “MIT: Global Warming of 7°C ‘Could Kill Billions This Century’”

    9. Godzilla could kill billions this century…if he existed.

    8. A space alien invasion could kill billions this century…if they existed and were bad.

    7. The Blob! could billions this century…If someone found its frozen carcass and thawed it out.

    6. If the Earth’s core suddenly stopped spinning…it could kill billions this century…And possibly worse: It could bring a sequel to the most scientifically flawed Sci-Fi movie this side of An Inconvenient Truth.

    5. If the Earth suddenly stopped spinning…And we didn’t stop spinning…Billions could die this century.

    4. If really survived being blown up by Kurt Russell and global warming thawed its carcass out…Billions could die this century.

    3. If a full scale nuclear war erupted…It could kill billions this century.

    2. If a super-space-virus named The Andromeda Strain leaked out of a space capsule in New Mexico…It could kill billions this century.

    1. If a really big space rock hit the Earth…It could kill billions this century.

  44. Dave Middleton says:

    D’oh! I meant *increasing* order of probability…[slaps own forehead].

  45. Joel Shore says:

    Smokey says:

    Anyone who thinks Steven Schneider is ethical should read Schneider’s own words:

    You might also try reading Stephen Schneider’s discussion of how his quote has been taken out of context and the solution that he proposed to the “double ethical bind” conveniently omitted: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm

  46. Dave Middleton says:

    D’Oh Part Deux…

    4. If really survived being blown up by Kurt Russell and global warming thawed its carcass out…Billions could die this century.

  47. Sam bailey says:

    I am truly amazed at the what always seems to be the omissions of real data, the inclusion of exponential speculation that is biased towards a desired outcome, and the absence of thorough review that SCIENCE demands.

    An example..
    It rains 125 inches annually where I live, and sometimes when it rains it rains for days, and we get some flooding.. I think that it will flood badly one day..
    so.. I have concluded a 90% likelyhood that it will rain for 40 days straight, at some point, so eventually i will be under 18 feet of water.

    I could gather some of my relatives, sauce them up on cheap scotch.. give them thermometer, an etch a sketch… and and old farmers almanac and get a better idea.

  48. bill says:

    Steven could you please give the source of this often quoted information.
    I have only ever seen the graph (that you have incorrectly attributed).

    Quoting the source of the temperature data:

    520M The climate of the Cambrian is not well known. It was probably not very hot, nor very cold. There is no evidence of ice at the poles.
    480M Mild climates probably covered most of the globe. The continents were flooded by the oceans creating warm, broad tropical seaways.
    440M The Late Ordovican was an Ice House World. The South Polar Ice Cap covered much of Africa and South America. The climate in North America, Europe, Siberia and the eastern part of Gondwana was warm and sunny

    So the temperature was no known during the CO2 peak.

    I assume the CO2 plot comes from geocarb 3 COMPUTER MODEL. How can this be accurate if the temp was not known?

    Lets assume that CO2 was at 7000ppm. Then it is just not clever trying to equate conditions 520M years ago when the world was so different:
    http://www.scotese.com/mlcambcl.htm
    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/anim1.html

  49. rbateman says:

    Billions will die if they shut down the West to satisfy a Green Garden of Eden fantasy. Besides those who perish from hunger and mad roving mobs, there will be those who perish from the invading armies eager to colonize the collapsed West.
    Imagine playing Survivor for real, on a continental scale.
    Only this time it’s the West instead of the Roman Empire, and it’s the East instead of the Barbarians.

  50. LloydG says:

    This is clearly a contender in the
    “Worst Climate Predictions Of All Time” challenge.
    Double entendre is intentional.

  51. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Dave Middleton (19:16:36) :

    OR – A mass delusion could overtake western civilization, destroy the world economy and starve billlions this century…

  52. jae says:

    Any day now, we will read a news release from Nature or Science that says that the oceans will be boiling in 3 years, UNLESS we do what [SNIP] says. LOL. They are now wasting vast amounts of $$ trying to convince a public that is already laughing at them. Bunch of losers, LOL.

  53. Smokey says:

    Joel Shore (19:18:22),

    OK then, let’s give the entire Schneider quote. Readers can make up their own minds about Schnieder’s ethics. Scneider says:

    “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

    ~ Prof. Steven Schneider

    Translation: AGW proponents fib when it’s convenient, in order to advance their AGW agenda.

  54. Steven Goddard says:

    bill,

    Thanks for pointing out the bad link. If you right click on the image and select “open image in new window” you can see the source.
    http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide_files/image002.gif
    http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm

  55. evanmjones says:

    I don’t want to set the world on fire
    I just want to start a flame in your heart

  56. Steven Goddard says:

    bill,

    Consider the late Jurassic. CO2 was at least 400% of present values, and temperatures were no more than 5 degrees warmer.

  57. evanmjones says:

    If we want that much warming by the year 2100, we’ll have to get a move on. We’ve been backtracking for quite a spell.

  58. Frederick Michael says:

    The last graph could be the best argument against catastrophic AGW of them all. CO2 is, right now, almost .04% of the atmosphere. When dinosaurs ruled the earth, it was almost .2%. In the Cambrian period, when diverse live on this earth exploded into existence, it was about .6%.

    If it rises to .05% we’re all gonna die? How dumb is that?

  59. Dave Middleton says:

    Graeme Rodaughan (19:57:41) :

    Dave Middleton (19:16:36) :

    OR – A mass delusion could overtake western civilization, destroy the world economy and starve billlions this century…

    Too realistic…It would never fly as a Sci-Fi plot…;)

  60. Mike Bryant says:

    So odd that anyone would say, “I hope that means being both.” Doesn’t he know the difference? Maybe if he had studied divinity he would know the difference… or not…

  61. I do fear that the actions that are imposed or planed to by put in place by the green mafia to stop this imagined catastrophe would indeed be catastrophic.

    Here is what I have found out about scientist in general!
    All researchers are not trying to research and find out the absolute and objective truth.

    While this is true for many scientists.
    This type of “research results” in this example makes a mockery of science.

    Even scientist that believe in AGW should by deeply embarrassed by this type of agenda driven subjective “science”.

  62. Frank K. says:

    jorgekafkazar (18:19:38)

    Oh brother – NOT THIS AGAIN. Thanks jorgekafkazar for unearthing the press release. There’s also this:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

    AGAIN THE MONEY QUOTE:

    “Prinn stresses that the computer models are built to match the known conditions, processes and past history of the relevant human and natural systems, and the researchers are therefore dependent on the accuracy of this current knowledge. Beyond this, “we do the research, and let the results fall where they may,” he says. Since there are so many uncertainties, especially with regard to what human beings will choose to do and how large the climate response will be, “we don’t pretend we can do it accurately. Instead, we do these 400 runs and look at the spread of the odds.”

    To repeat, “…we don’t pretend we can do it accurately.” How fitting…

    Bill Illis (17:47:11) :

    “The MIT climate model uses the code from James Hansen’s 1988 climate model (which is only off by a slim margin of 2:1 so far).”

    If this is true, it’s even worse than I thought…can’t they even use one of the MIT AOGCMs rather than the GISS junk codes??

  63. ohioholic says:

    Heat doesn’t kill people. That’s Chuck Norris’ job.

  64. Mike Borgelt says:

    Joel Shore (19:18:22) :
    “You might also try reading Stephen Schneider’s discussion of how his quote has been taken out of context and the solution that he proposed to the “double ethical bind” conveniently omitted: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm

    I read it. Weasel words after he got called on it.

  65. F. Ross says:

    MIT alarmist climate models = GIGO

  66. rbateman says:

    Or the plot runs like this: Small but fiendish group of Humanity-haters (Green Crush) dupe leading world figures into a massive climate altering campaign. Opposed by scholars worldwide but no political support, the top physicists and climatologists call a meeting, and go digging. One party of them stumbles upon the secret documents outlining the genocidal plans. Thier mission: Get to the UN before police, mercenaries and hit-men get to them first.
    A James Bond thriller featuring a cast of Hollywood’s best.
    The scientists display incredible ingenuity in thwarting the nefarios efforts of Green Crush to derail them.
    The opening scene is a closed door meeting of the scientists viewing a secret last video given by Carl Sagan, who was aware of the plans laid down when the original Freeze scare of the 70’s failed.

    Hey, where does a fella get an interview for script-writer these days?

  67. FredG says:

    The desperation factor is palpable among the AGW proponents. The escalating claims in the face of contradictory evidence speaks volumes.

    Their studies are writing checks the evidence can’t cash.

  68. anna v says:

    Joel Shore (19:18:22) :

    Smokey says:

    Anyone who thinks Steven Schneider is ethical should read Schneider’s own words:

    You might also try reading Stephen Schneider’s discussion of how his quote has been taken out of context and the solution that he proposed to the “double ethical bind” conveniently omitted: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm

    I read your link, in fairness. In context out of context the conclusion is the same.

    It is evident to me that S Schneider has very elastic ethics. “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.”, there is no dounle ethical bind. There is only ethics and turning science into a ring is unethical, in my not so humble opinion.

    There goes peer review:Catching the public’s imagination is not what science is about. Nobody has to, one chooses to, and it is unethical for a scientist.

  69. Richard Henry Lee says:

    It is rather ironic that the lead author, Andrei Sokolov, is listed at the ExxonSecrets website
    http://exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=53
    since MIT has received almost $1 million from Exxon.

    So we now know that this paper is a product of Big Oil and cannot be trusted.

    But Sokolov is in good company since Richard Lindzen is also listed.

  70. jeez says:

    Gotta jump in with Smokey and anna v here Joel. I read that link and laughed that that quote was considered a defense when given in its entirety.

  71. layne says:

    This MIT study was pretty thorough…except they forgot to project how this catastrophe will affect Santa and Rudolph. I’ve read that elves are quite heat intolerant. And that fluffy red suit will be a scorcher when the arctic starts looking like maui.

  72. tokyoboy says:

    This means that the MIT crew are completely unaware of the UAH satellite temp data ????

  73. Bob Wood says:

    The picture shown at the heading of this article must be of London because London bridge is in the background. Since the elevation of London is only 20-50 feet, global warming of that magnitude would raise sea level enough to swamp the whole town. It certainly wouldn’t look like a desert.

  74. AKD says:

    Joel Shore (19:18:22) :

    Smokey says:

    Anyone who thinks Steven Schneider is ethical should read Schneider’s own words:

    You might also try reading Stephen Schneider’s discussion of how his quote has been taken out of context and the solution that he proposed to the “double ethical bind” conveniently omitted: http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm

    Joel,

    How can a “double ethical bind” have a solution? Schneider does not propose a solution, he proposes a compromise.

  75. Funny how the ‘experts’ never manage to come up with anything positive happening in the future. They spend years obtaining an MIT degree, years of experience working with super-duper-computers to compute the odds of natural disasters — supervolcanoes, earth-killing asteroids, supernova gamma ray bursts, super earthquakes, super tornadoes, super-intense hurricanes, intense global warming, ice ages, etc., etc. — and, as yet, nothing of the sort has ever occured.

    Seems like the only thing they have learned in all those years of academic effort and employment is that, if you don’t predict doom and gloom, you lose your funding/grant/goverment employment, and you don’t get your picture in the news.

    Gore apparently learned that lesson early on. There’s money to be made in disaster predictions. It isn’t honest money, but hey, who cares when you make so much that you don’t have time to worry about how much your spend on mansions and private jets that run contrary to the cause you espouse?

  76. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    How did we get into this mess?

    The fundamental flaw…

    Science as a cultural practice is subject to the same issues as any cultural practice, it can improve, stagnate or devolve.

    The essence of the traditional practice of science, and still current practice for many scientists is the discourse between theory and experiment. Where experiment allows for the destructive testing of theory by empirical observation. Theories that don’t stand up to the destructive testing of experiment fall by the wayside. In this way Science is able to eliminate the false theories.

    Over time (say the last 30 to 40 years) there has been the rise of Advocacy as a practice of science. Where Advocacy differs from the traditional practice of science is in the refusal to use destructive testing by experiment. Advocates instead defend their positions by highlighting “supporting” evidence and ignoring, and attacking contrary evidence. No advocate is “thrilled” by the prospect that their theory might be wrong, and that there might be something new to learn. Advocates substitute other theoretical constructs (i.e. Computer Models) for destructive testing. Theory ends up referencing theory in a closed loop. Advocacy = Bias.

    Exploiting the opportunity…

    With the rise of Advocacy Science, and the concurrent development of scientific blindness to false theory, there have emerged a large number of opportunists who seek to exploit the existing credibility of science to further their own agendas. These opportunists perpetuate the weakness of Advocacy Science to identify false theories, as it allows them to continue to use the credibility of science to further their own agendas.

    Restoring Science…

    As the root cause is the presence of Advocacy Science, the solution would involve the insistence on “destructive testing of theories via experiment with empirical observation”. This could be done by ensuring that government funding could only be accessed for science by insisting that proposals for research funding described in detail “how” the work to be funded would be subject to “destructive testing” and what the failure criteria would be.

    To sum up…

    Climate science as a cultural practice represents a devolution of the traditional and mainstream scientific practices of destructive testing of theory with experiment and empirical observation, and the adoption of a closed loop theory to theory discourse that is not grounded in empirical observation.

    Advocacy has it’s place, in politics, in the law court, in business – just not in Science.

    Note that no conspiracy is required for Advocacy to rise within the practice of Science. Science like any other cultural practice is subject to the vagaries of human nature. Any practice that is subject to Sloth, Hubris, Greed, Venality, Cowardice, etc… will devolve. By the same token, Courage, Hardwork, Intelligence and a real Commitment to restore science can still have an effect.

  77. John F. Hultquist says:

    ““MIT predicts “a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise at least 9 degrees by 2100.”””

    Does anyone know how “90% ” was obtained. Did 360 of their 400 computer games show this? I haven’t been able to figure out where this and similar probabilities in other AGW studies pop out.

  78. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Smokey (20:14:46) :

    Joel Shore (19:18:22),

    OK then, let’s give the entire Schneider quote. Readers can make up their own minds about Schnieder’s ethics. Scneider says:

    ““On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

    ~ Prof. Steven Schneider

    Translation: AGW proponents fib when it’s convenient, in order to advance their AGW agenda.

    There are three key assumptions (both very contentious and very likely to be false) that underpin the above statement by Prof. Steven Schneider.

    [1] That humans can impact and successfully control global climate, and

    [2] That the cost of implementing global climate control is less than the costs of adapting to climate change as it occurs, and

    [3] That telling the truth will produce a sub-optimal outcome.

    If any of the above assumptions are false, his ethical bind disappears, and defaults back to a simple requirement to tell the truth.

  79. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    p.s (all very contentious… yeah, I started of with only points 1 and 2…)

  80. Pat says:

    “Bob Wood (21:50:37) :

    The picture shown at the heading of this article must be of London because London bridge is in the background. Since the elevation of London is only 20-50 feet, global warming of that magnitude would raise sea level enough to swamp the whole town. It certainly wouldn’t look like a desert.”

    Classic film, one of my favourite B&W sci-fi movies. And proves that when you move nearer a source of heat energy (Or the source gets hotter) things get, well, hotter.

    London, incidentally, is sinking. In fact pretty much the whole SE of England is. That’s one reason why the London tidal barrier was built.

  81. Timebandit says:

    Sadly there are already flames in the Antarctic … but they are not caused by AGW…Sir Ed’s hut just burnt down…

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10574378

    but if we wait long enough I’m sure someone will claim it was caused by man … and I don’t mean with a match!

  82. Steven Goddard says:

    London Bridge is in Arizona. The bridge in the picture is the Tower Bridge. The story goes that the buyers of the London Bridge thought they were buying the much more attractive Tower Bridge.

    “Why do you resist us? Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. We only come to improve the quality of life of all species.”
    – Locutus of Borg

  83. Brian Johnson says:

    Bob Wood re Original TDTECF artwork.

    The heading photo was originally a Matte painting by Oscar winning [Superman Visual Effects] Les Bowie, a Brit who employed me as his gopher on The Day the Earth Caught Fire. Having just left the RAF and in need of work I was amazed at what an extremely low budget and lateral thinking can achieve! Total budget for Visual Effects on that picture was 17,000 Pounds Sterling. How times have changed. In two years I was driving down the River Thames in February in my Mini Cooper S from Old Windsor to Runnymeade and back because the ice was so thick. Not even a crack. That night we had an ice party [450 people and spit roast lamb + alcohol in the middle of the Thames. The Times was predicting a New Ice Age nearly every day around that time [Feb 63]
    What a scam all this CO2 poison/pollution really is.

  84. D. King says:

    Tom Fuller (18:32:29) :

    Great link.

    But I learned something new–one of the Editors Emeritus of the Journal of Climate is Michael Mann–so check their graphs pretty closely (Michael Mann was the fellow who produced the thoroughly discredited hockey stick graph that graced the IPCC report a few years

    Nuf said!

  85. Disputin says:

    jorgekafkazar (18:19:38) :

    “This has all the finesse, prudence, and precision of playing darts with hand grenades in the dark.”

    Wonderful metaphor, can we have it as a Quote of the Week?

    Bob Wood (21:50:37) :

    It was London, because it was set and filmed there, but it’s Tower Bridge in the background.

  86. Cassandra King says:

    The warmist/alarmist/AGW/MMCC believers have a problem, the problem that has dogged all dishonest propagandists throughout history.

    The problem is the propaganda curve, when a group starts lying to promote and sustain its cause people will at first trust what they are being told BUT when people start to see the lies for what they are, the liars can either give up and admit the truth OR make the lies bigger.

    Once on the path of lies its impossible to get off, they end telling lies to cover the lies and more lies on top, a kind of propaganda hockey stick, the AGW/MMCC believers know that more and more people no longer believe the lies so they simply have to ramp up the fear mongering and scare stories targeting children gives them a short term gain because they tend to trust what adults tell them.

    The original idea to create a new world order via the AGW/MMCC theory requires that the ordinary person is made to fear a common enemy that everyone can rally around creating a unity that the originators can mould and shape into a political weapon, all dictatorships used this tool, the nazis used the jews and the communists, the Soviets used the capitalists, wealth creators and the rich.
    Once the people are misled into fearing this fantasy enemy they will do almost anything the originators demand, lies and propaganda play a vital part in whipping up the hysteria and fear against the targeted scapegoats.

    Once the big lie program has been unleashed it must be protected by denying sceptics from having a mass media platform, insults and accusations follow with a concerted effort to demean and marginalize dissent.

    The problem with the big AGW/MMCC lie is that actual reality does not agree with the artificial reality created by the big lie so the lies have to get bigger and more scary, the originators have no choice because their whole scheme feeds on making people afraid and fearful.

    We are now witnessing the big lie on the upward ramp of the propaganda curve, it will carry on untill the lies become so self evident that no lie however big will be believed and when that occurs the whole scheme collapses in on itself, there is an old saying that people who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again, one can only hope that this time we will learn never to blindly trust the big lie and its originators ever again.

  87. E.M.Smith says:

    This link:

    http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/png/monthlyanom/nhland01.png

    under the CO2 graph, if ‘cut and pasted’ takes you to the snow cover graph (no surprise) BUT if clicked upon, takes you to the CO2 graph… WUWT?

  88. Ray Harvey says:

    We’ve all read it, Joel Shore. We’ve read it to weariness. We’ve read holes through it. We’ve read it in its full, unmistakable context. We read it twenty years ago, when it first came out in Discover magazine, and we reread it every one of those three hundreds times that you and Gavin and Tamino and Colose and all the other usual suspects justified it for us.

    Joel Shore, the content of Steve’s infamous remark is so absurdly obvious that only a lunatic or a fool would try rationalizing that pablum. But of course don’t let that stop you, as I know it won’t. Only one thing, please: would you afterward tell us again how the full context changes Albert Gore’s equally infamous remark — “I believe it’s appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is” — please tell us again (and again) how “the full context” actually makes that a perfectly sensible and scientific thing to say.

  89. Aron says:

    They want the public to accept the idea of personal carbon credits as a new form of global currency by 2018-2020. Ed Milliband let slip that very date and time schedule in a February Guardian article. It’s up the media and academics to scare the shit out of the public to accept the new currency.

    Personal carbon credits sounds like a good idea (you force yourself to be more efficient, save money, and if you can’t you can buy credits from the poor anywhere in the world) but it requires the state to observe all your consumption patterns and energy use to ensure your carbon credits are properly accounted for, which means your personal privacy will almost entirely be demolished.

  90. Mike D. says:

    We now know why the seas are boiling hot. The followup question that matters then is whether pigs have wings.

  91. Jared says:

    I actually admire Steven Schneider’s attempt at honesty. He admits that scientists are also humans, which naturally means they will have biases and not always be objective. In addition, he admits that the truth may sometimes have to be sacrificed for the message.

    For a true believer, this makes perfect sense.

  92. *Note to the moderator: I submitted two comment under my real name — Ray Harvey — both of which gotten eaten up by your SPAM catcher, I presume. I’ve posted here before, without any trouble, under my Thinking Man sobriquet, but the thinking man dot com website is being phased out, so I’m back to using my actual name. It’s my second comment, with the link to the Dr. Bill Gray and Dr. Kevin Trenberth written debate I arranged, that I’d really like to get posted. It’s VERY interesting reading. If this comment goes through — and it may not — I’d still prefer that you delete it, and post the other two. Thank you. Ray Harvey

    Schneider is flat wrong that these so-called heavy hitters “like Kevin Trenberth” would win an open debate easily against the skeptical scientists, and I can prove it: I arranged, semi-recently, a written debate between Dr. Trenberth and Dr. Bill Gray; this debate appeared in the Fort Collins (Colorado) newspaper that I write for, and if anyone would like to read it, please download it (for free) from here:

    http://fortcollinsteaparty.com/index.php/home/bill-gray-and-kevin-trenberth-debate/

    And please pass it around. This extraordinarily edifying exchange got great local readership, but not nearly the national and international attention it deserved. We even conducted an informal poll, and Dr. Gray easily came out on top.

  93. E.M.Smith says:

    Per Steven Schneider saying:

    “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

    Hope is not a strategy; and it certainly is not a moral compass. Hope is an emotional state that arises from unresolved conflict. There is no conflict for the moral person on this issue.

    That the question even enters his mind says he has a broken moral compass.

    There is no bind, no ethical bind, and certainly no double ethical bind.

    There is truth. There is honesty. There is knowing that something is right and doing that. Effectiveness is not for sale at the cost of truth and honesty. The ethics are clear, sacrificing honesty for effect is not moral.

    That he does not know this, first, foremost, last, and always: tells me all I need to know about him. He is tortured on his own lack of center …

    A centered person would have no such torture from no such dilemma between non-conflicted non-choices. A centered moral person would know that they had to choose honesty, and accept the effectiveness that comes with it. That is what ethics is all about. Knowing in advance that an answer is the right one; no matter the cost and no matter the personal goals. The ends do not justify the means.

    Unless, of course, your integrity has a price… then you need to haggle with yourself about how much it is worth to you… and have you gotten enough on the scales to ‘balance’ it out…

  94. Espen says:

    Speaking of arctic ice levels, the NANSEN graphs are really funny today, but also the AMSRE shows a sudden steep drop. What’s up?

  95. Alan the Brit says:

    rbateman:-)

    Sorry to be Mr Picky, I get the point you’re making, but surely Canada et al would suffer from Arctic temperatures as opposed to Antarctic ones?

    Question! Is the MIT’s “puter” called Deep Thought by any chance? (5 x 9 = 42!!!!) As an engineer, if I lied, I’d be out! How good will these predictions be @ 90% probability if we changed the stakes, put a little money on the table, maybe a few lives & careers on there too? Incentive is a good thing, prove your prediction & I won’t sack you, you get to keep your pension, & your house. If you’re wrong, you lose the lot. How scarey would their message be then I wonder. Now I can see many would think that unreasonable.

    AND can someone tell me when any of the many predicted scare stories that have blighted our lives past & present, ever come true? Can any one name just one? Deja Vu, aliens from Mars we’re all going to die, aliens full stop we’re going to die (& they’re always evil, not once do any of them offer us a cup of tea!), Nuclear Holocaust we’re all going to die, Biological Warfare we’re all going to die, Chemical Warfare we’re all going to die, Ice Age wagtd, Asian Flu, wagtd, AIDS wagtd, BSE wagtd, Flesh eating bugs wagtd, Superbugs wagtd, Foot n’ mouth wagtd, Avian Flu wagtd, Swine Flu wagtd! Have I missed one? Oh I forgot the Chinese are tunnelling under the Pacific Ocean to invade America as I type so watch out you Colonials, (now that was a bad movie.) Why is it they always thought we would have a crummy digital clock to tell the time?

    Dear Met Office,
    I put off the gardening yesterday morning because you forecast heavy rainfall but we didn’t get it. It was lovely weather after all! What’s the weather going to be exactly next Sunday at 11:07am as I want a barbecue lunch & need to get the charcoal lit in time! MIT please respond for a second opinion!
    Yours sincerely

    AtB with bad back!

  96. MJW says:

    The study’s lead author, Ronald Prinn, said, “There is no single revision that is responsible for this change. In our more recent global model simulatations, the ocean heat-uptake is slower than previously estimated, the ocean uptake of carbon is weaker, feedbacks from the land system as temperature rises are stronger, cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century are higher, and offsetting cooling from aerosol emissions is lower.”

    I assume they reduced the rate of heat uptake by the oceans because actual measurements show the oceans have warmed less than previously predicted. If so, that’s certainly an example of “heads I win, tails you lose.” If the oceans were warming faster than predicted, I have absolutely no doubt it would be cited as the final, unassailable proof of AGW.

  97. bill says:

    Steven Goddard (20:23:43) :
    Consider the late Jurassic. CO2 was at least 400% of present values, and temperatures were no more than 5 degrees warmer.

    Doesn’t that prove current warmist theory then.
    assuming doubling CO2 produces 2C rise in temp then a 400% increase would give 4deg C rise

    But you still have not given the reference for the proof of temperature and CO2 levels 500MY to 5MY.

  98. Flanagan says:

    [snip]

    Well isn’t it obvious that a small temperature flattening over a few years completely disproves 150 years of global warming? Because we all know that all the models predict a continuously increasing worldwide temperature. For example, the global temperature this afternoon should be higher than it is rightnow. This will be a very good and relevant test of century-long climate changes.

    The Arctic sea ice is now at the 2008 level, isn’t it good news? 2008 wasn’t such a bad year for Arctic sea ice after all (only the second lowest!)… So everything is fine, everything in its right place. No alarms and no surprises, please…

    Reply: Please refrain from the broad attacks on other commentators or subsequent posts will be deleted. ~ charles the moderator

  99. Stefan says:

    @anna v

    Indeed, in the full context the quote is the same if not worse. I find troubling the opening part:

    “On the one hand, as scientists [...] On the other hand, we are [...] human beings as well”

    Now apply that “ethics” to being a police officer. Or a high court judge.

    He really doesn’t seem to have thought deeply about ethics, or is simply not well informed. It only requires asking, how is it that different people can come to very different ethical choices? “Being human” is not a virtue in and of itself… humans display a vast range of ethical IQ, so if this chap wants to talk ethics, let him take training and study the field and actually develop his ethical IQ, before he gives up the professional science day job. If I may say, I would prefer these people to remain scientists DESPITE being human. I expect the police to remain fair and honest DESPITE their feelings about criminals.

    Anyway, that quote only serves to illustrate what we all already know, that climate science and the UN is composed of many many individuals who share a common worldview, and in their heart of hearts believe they are bringing that worldview (and lifestyle) to the rest of the world. It is probably what attracted them to the job in the first place.

    It is essentially ‘religious’ in the strict sense of being a teaching about how we should live and what it is that is of ultimate concern for humans (not a judging/saviour God as in traditional Christianity, but a bonded united humanity in balance with our place in the web of life of ecology).

    This is how he defines his “humanity” (even though if you asked a broad range of the 6 billion people on the planet today to define their “humanity”, you’d get about 7 different classes of answers, or more).

    It is also an interesting place for them to be, as the scary scenarios are supposed to grab the attention of a public that apparently isn’t as ethically developed as they are, isn’t in touch with their own (nature-bonded) humanity. Perhaps we should all change how we do our jobs and become more “human”. Somehow these ‘scientists’ see themselves as being the most ethically advanced individuals (even though they have had no training) and are unaware that perhaps some people consider their ethics a bit limited and counterproductive…..?

  100. pkatt says:

    Well you know Hansen has his climate dice.. it seems only fair MIT researchers created a pair of ‘roulette wheels.’ I mean why should Hansen have all the fun eh? Geeze to quote Buggs Bunny “What a bunch of Maroons”

  101. old construction worker says:

    wws (15:48:34) :
    ‘Oh, and they added another heating bias to the temperature record by “accounting for the past masking of underlying warming by the cooling………’

    Let me get this straight. Things have cooled down even though things are still warming. It’s just the “cold” is “masking” the “heat” as we get hotter.
    I think the MIT boys and girls need to take their bi-polar drugs.

  102. Neil Jones says:

    And obviously the sky is falling

  103. Benjamin says:

    Was it not long ago that they were yammering on about even a slight rise of 1C being the point-of-no-return catastrophy? What I mean to say is that their 7C increase doesn’t sound much worse than the 1C rise, so I have to wonder why they upped the conditions for doom in their computer-generated predictions. Hmm…

    I think references to smaller rises with the same outcomes will cease to be uttered and will in time disappear. Since it’s looking like we’re really in a cooling period in the cycle, they can just use those 7C predictions later when things start to warm again in order to try and associate whatever might happen then with “catastrohpic” rising temps. Preparing for their future, ie, where they hope to come back in popularity. Either that or they are just buying time because they know how the cap-and-trade battle is going. Nice of them to “play god” for us and dely things, eh?

  104. von Stauffenberg says:

    Has Schneider no self-awareness or insight ?

    Has he never heard the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes ?

    Just imagine if every scientist in a large institution made up her own mind on a subject and then, instead of passing on genuine results warts-and-all, she just passed on one-sided or distorted or even false misinformation that supported some hypothesis.

  105. StephenH says:

    It will take a long time for billions of people to die due to AGW – they had better start soon.

  106. pkatt says:

    PS .. Perhaps we should email Ronald G. Prinn as he seems to be the head of the beast rprinn@mit.edu …. here is his testimony to the committee on Ways and Means, it ‘splains the roulette wheels.. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=view&id=5563

    His page is http://mit.edu/rprinn/

    It doesnt take much google searching to discover where his grants are coming from.. SIGH!!!

  107. Peter Plail says:

    I hate to say it, as a fervent AGW denier, but my understanding of the first graph (and by extension, all other similar graphs) is that it doesn’t show the decline of global temperatures, since I assume the graph is showing temperature anomoly.

    What I think it shows is a decreasing temperature anomaly, but since the anomaly is above zero then it does actually show that temperature is still rising, but at an increasing slow rate, and if the trend continues (and I hate straight line trends) it will eventually start to drop.

    I am not a scientist so if my understanding is wrong, please correct me.

    If you take into account the “background” temperature rise due to recovery from the LIA then any other influencing factor, anthropogenic or natural, may actually result in a falling temperature conribution, and certainly don’t come anywhere near temperature runaway.

    I make this point because AGW proponents criticise this and other sites for making claims that they don’t agree with. I think that a more rigourous use of language would ensure that they have less foundation for criticism.

  108. Pat says:

    “Steven Goddard (23:09:05) :

    London Bridge is in Arizona. The bridge in the picture is the Tower Bridge. The story goes that the buyers of the London Bridge thought they were buying the much more attractive Tower Bridge.

    “Why do you resist us? Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. We only come to improve the quality of life of all species.”
    – Locutus of Borg”

    Indeed it is, and we Brits love the fact we fooled some from the colonies.

  109. Steven Goddard says:

    Peter Plail,

    If the temperatures anomalies (relative to a fixed baseline) are declining, then the temperatures are also declining. Adding a constant to a linear equation does not change the slope.

  110. Steven Goddard says:

    bill,

    If you increase the temperature of the ocean, the solubility of CO2 decreases, so the oceans out gas more CO2. Thus the close relationship where CO2 concentration follows temperature – as seen in the Vostok graphs.

  111. Pat says:

    More inconvenient warming…

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/new-zealand/2442017/Fairytale-opening-to-ski-season

    And from the link to the article…

    “Fairytale opening to ski season
    It’s snow time folks, and New Zealand skiing has never had it so good”

    I feel the warmth…

  112. Bill Ryan says:

    I nominate Cassandra King’s post as post of the week. Brilliant!

  113. Miles says:

    The shrill is getting louder because they know the public isn’t buying into their propaganda. It’s becoming painfully obvious what Freeman Dyson meant when he said this is bad science. I think there is a concerted effort by the AGW forces to try and manipulate public opinion, especially since important legislation is pending in the Congress. But, I think this is great news. It should be widely circulated and the public should be made very aware of this chicken little theory so that when the apocalyptic projects don’t materialize, the public sentiment will turn even more negative, hopefully killing legislation such as cap and trade for good.

  114. Mike Bryant says:

    The CAGW hypothesis is really very beautiful. Unfortunately it is “masked” by “ugly”.

  115. Dave says:

    The reason for this story is obvious– The Climate Bill.

    This MIT study, which will later be withdrawn or changed, is timed to give Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic alarmists in congress a powerful public relations weapon for their cap and trade scheme.

  116. Squidly says:

    Truly a sad day for science. This is precisely what I have feared. I have always respected MIT, my father graduated MIT with honors. I have met several MIT alumni through the years, whom I have held in the highest regard.

    However, my fears are unfolding before my eyes. The destruction of scientific trust. How can I ever again trust any scientific studies coming from MIT? How can I respect this once fine institution? When the next big discovery leaps from the laboratories of MIT, do I believe it? Can I believe it? How can I know? Is any other university any better? Who can I believe? Who can I trust? Bad science is everywhere…

    My friends, we are witnessing the collapse of science as we know it. It is as I have predicted (and have written previously here at WUWT).

    It is a sad day…

  117. Robert Wood says:

    Joel Shore @19:18:22

    Thanks for the link. I still don’t find this man convinving – he’s squirming in that article

  118. maximum1 says:

    My goodness you almost gave me a heart attack!

  119. hunter says:

    IRT Schneider’s dissing Skeptics and others who point out how full of it AGW promoters are:
    Be careful what you wish for, AGW believers.

  120. Espen says:

    I’ll answer my question above: The SSMI satellite data seems to be broken again, just look here:
    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/Arctic-ice-concentration-maps-from-SSMI-and-AMSRE

    So the NANSEN and NSIDC graphs are pretty useless right now, but AMSR-E data look OK.

  121. hunter says:

    Also the MIT ‘study’ puts AGW in a quandry:
    The IPCC/Hansen, etc. all say that the great models they use to tell us about AGW are correct.
    Not one of those models predict 7oC by 2100.
    So if their models are wrong, why should the AGW promoters have any credibility at all?
    Another question is this:
    How many times has the AGW community come out in the last ten years or so to claim loudly that “AGW is much worse than predicted”?
    Has anyone bothered to correlate those predictions with actual climate events vs. political events that required prodding along?

  122. Arthur Glass says:

    “…the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

    So if the ‘right balance’ is 50-50, then 50 % of the truth will accord with 50% effectiveness, but 10% truth will make you 90% effective.

    ‘Extremism in defense of brainwashing is no vice; moderation in pusuit of truth is no vice either.”

    With apologies to my first and only political hero.

  123. gianmarko says:

    i would just like to share these pictures with you. as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. these are taken in switzerland, in the simplonpass area of the alps
    http://gianmarco.dyndns.org/varie/snow1.jpg
    this picture is taken the 30th of april, there is a lot of recent snow, like i have never seen in the last 6 or 7 years.
    http://gianmarco.dyndns.org/varie/snow2.jpg
    this is how a bus stop sign looks like, the same day.
    http://gianmarco.dyndns.org/varie/snow3.jpg
    this is taken from a local newspaper. the 27th of may the gottard pass is supposed to open, but in some places there are still FIVE meters (thats 17 feet) of snow, and the roadworks department had to remove 220,000 metric tons of snow.

    there was so much snow on the mountains that there were numerous and massive snow avalanches, and many skiers and trekkers were killed (because cold kills, but that is just weather, i guess. wonder if all those deaths will be attributed to global warming, in the stats)
    many people living in the mountains got their houses destroyed by avalanches.
    http://gianmarco.dyndns.org/varie/snow4.jpg
    these are the remains of a 2 or 3 weeks old massive snow avalanche, air temperature is 25 C at an altitude of about 700mt, but still a lot of snow is there. it is reduced to a quarter or a fifth of the original mass, but is still quite impressive. the “tunnel” in the middle has been produced by the river water. Also, all rivers are very swollen, because of the massive amount of water coming from the thawing of the enormous snow mass.
    we had a very harsh winter, with massive snowfall and record low temps. i would have really liked to have a few greenies trying to live out of sun and wind in my garden last winter, with down to -14C temperatures.

  124. timbrom says:

    rbateman – re The Plot

    If you can find a copy, there’s a c1950s Sci-fi story called Occam’s Razor. It concerns an alien race, posing as humans, who come from a dying world who’s atmosphere is higher in all sorts of pollutants than Earth’s. They take over corporations in a position to pollute Earth’s air, such as automobile manufacturers, mining and power generation. The conspiracy comes out when someone performs an autopsy on one of the disguised aliens.

    Not that I’m suggesting we cut open any of the Team or allies. At least, not until they are actually dead!

  125. Imran says:

    The fact that they predicted a “90% chance that temperatures will be at least 9 degrees” tells you this is complete nonsense. If thats the 90/10, what the 50/50 ? 15 degrees ? ha ha. These chumps can’t even describe a basic expectation curve.

    I have to laugh at some of the EcoWorldly comments as well. “The models are all getting worse and worse” … oh no – we are all doomed. Its funny how the models seem to be getting worse and worse, but the actual data seems to be showing us getting cooler and cooler.

    And given that Richard Lindzen is Professor of Meterology at MIT I find it difficult to believe that MIT was involved at all.

  126. Arthur Glass says:

    “…For example, the global temperature this afternoon should be higher than it is rightnow.”

    ‘Global temperature’, assuming that concept has any meaning at all, would by definition know no mornings and afternoons. ‘What time is it now on the earth’ is a badly formed question.

  127. Alan the Brit says:

    Pat:-)

    I have to say that when one listens to or reads a diatribe from the greeny loonies/econuts (I won’t say Nazi so as not to offend), it sounds suspiciously & frighteningly just like a cunningly worded invitation to join the Borg Collective!

    AtB

  128. Pat says:

    “Squidly (05:15:06) :

    Truly a sad day for science. This is precisely what I have feared. I have always respected MIT, my father graduated MIT with honors. I have met several MIT alumni through the years, whom I have held in the highest regard.

    However, my fears are unfolding before my eyes. The destruction of scientific trust. How can I ever again trust any scientific studies coming from MIT? How can I respect this once fine institution? When the next big discovery leaps from the laboratories of MIT, do I believe it? Can I believe it? How can I know? Is any other university any better? Who can I believe? Who can I trust? Bad science is everywhere…

    My friends, we are witnessing the collapse of science as we know it. It is as I have predicted (and have written previously here at WUWT).

    It is a sad day…”

    Science, sadly, departed this debate a long time ago. Politics, control, media spin, lies, etc etc rule the day.

    I vote for a revolution! Trouble is, as long as people get their “fix” (I mean back in the times when Guy Faukes wanted to destroy the Houses of Parliament, most people’s fix was warmth and food), via sit-com, doco, sports etc etc on TV, beer in the fridge and a delivered pizza (Yes, the USA lifestyle), they don’t care about what effects THEY have on others.

    I live in a condo, poorly made one at that. I have to contend with people who don’t understand their obligations living in a complex. My neighbours live the way they want at 2am on a Sunday night. I “lived” with that until 11:45pm Monday night.

  129. Bill Illis says:

    If you want to see just how far from reality these modelers have pushed themselves, check out this graph of how temperatures would have to increase to go from today’s +0.6C to +5.2C by 2100.

    MIT warming required. You really have to have faith in your climate model to publish these numbers.

    http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/2693/mitmodelc.png

  130. Arthur Glass says:

    ‘…assuming doubling CO2 produces 2C rise in temp then a 400% increase would give 4deg C rise’.

    Not so, since temperature increase is a logarithmic function of CO2 increase, which means that the more CO2 that is introduced into the atmosphere, the less the ‘bang for the buck’ from each volumetric increase.

    The AGW gameboy climate models depend on the triggering of ‘positive feedback’ from other factors, e.g from higher concentrations of that terrible pollutant, H2O, the ‘greenhouse gas’ par excellence.

  131. Marcus says:

    Wow. I wonder how many of the people commenting on this have read the actual paper?

    Or, maybe even the real press release and not the misquoting by random other websites?

  132. Peter Plail says:

    Steven Goddard

    Thanks for the clarification – I had convinced myself that anomalies were year on year changes, but of course compared to a fixed baseline it is obvious. I am trying to explain the facts to a neighbour who has a doctorate in ecology and is currently working on a tidal energy scheme in the western UK, and wanted to be sure of my ground.

    His response so far is to dismiss contrary evidence as a global oil conspiracy.

  133. Peter Plail says:

    As an interesting addendum to my earlier comment, the ecologist observed that the tidal barrage scheme was of marginal value in the overall scheme of things and that he saw nuclear energy as the most important contributor to solving the “problems” of AGW.

  134. After so many posts like this, referring to apocalyptic climate changes, which reveal a self destructive desire, a tanathophilia, that would deserve an special post made by a psychiatrist, because as far as I know, these scatological day dreamings are a symptom of something else.
    As such these can not be opposed by regular rational arguing, if that would be the case we should have to argue endlessly, and this is what is happening.

  135. John Galt says:

    Well, if a computer says so, then it must be true. They wouldn’t go to all this trouble to write-up this report if it wasn’t true. Why would they lie?

  136. Retired Engineer says:

    Global Cooling of 7c could kill billions. Global stasis of 0c could kill billions. Someone pointed out correctly that billions will die no matter what happens.

    We’re all going to die.

    I thought the question (life, the universe, and everything) was what do you get when you multiply 7 by 9 (42, obviously)

  137. Stefan says:

    On a very general note, if socially and ecologically concerned scientists want to help the world improve, I think they need to think about what it is that they specifically want.

    Take for example, “caring for creation”. I for one am happy to accept this as a noble, worthy, and ethically-sound drive. But as with all ethical and spiritual aspirations, at some point, you have to live it. And that means, concrete specific actions. And those actions need to be demonstrated to actually achieve or move towards the desired outcome. You can be the most enlightened person on the planet, but unless you have concrete specific tangible and practical knowledge that can be applied, there will be no “better world”. May as well keep quiet and let things run their course.

    My feeling is that these scientists are indeed genuinely concerned individuals. The quibble is that they don’t know how to achieve what they wish for a better planet. Can “better planet” even be defined? A recent bit of research documented something like 200 schools of thought on ecology and the environment. But you don’t have to be a researcher to notice that. As people here have rationally questioned, if it is getting too warm, what is the correct temperature? Does windpower actually reduce CO2? Does hydrogen use actually conserve energy?

    You don’t have to be a skeptic to ask these questions. Too often the green movement takes these questions as a sign that the questioner is somehow evil or just doesn’t care, and is nitpicking to create confusion and doubt, to protect their own selfish lifestyle.

    And yet, these are the questions that the greens should be first and foremost asking for themselves. They should be the most critical ones. The practicalities are everything.

    And this leads us to something which several people have commented, which is simply that the so called skeptics are often enough more involved in practical solutions for the environment than the so called greens are.

  138. bobbyv says:

    10 to 1 odds on the under? Wish I would be here in 100 years to collect on that bet.

  139. RayB says:

    I too am a little disappointed with MIT for letting them put their brand on this GIGO party.

    The way that I am reading this, they tweaked the dynamics of the model even farther in favor of their desired outcome, and got their results as expected 90% of the time.

    Yes, it sounds a lot like the hockey stick graph, but pay no attention to the Mann behind the curtain. Please only read the headlines.

    As far as grant money, it is clearly being distributed to the more dramatic alarmist studies. Who wants to pay millions to someone studying what they believe is a non-problem? How do you write that grant proposal?

    The personal carbon credits as currency does not sound far fetched at all. Energy is without question the very source of our prosperity. It is therefore a natural currency, and a perfect way to control behavior.

  140. evanmjones says:

    So odd that anyone would say, “I hope that means being both.” Doesn’t he know the difference? Maybe if he had studied divinity he would know the difference… or not…

    When I first encountered the statement the whole thing was quoted. Yeah, he hopes so. But it ain’t so.

    Funny how the ‘experts’ never manage to come up with anything positive happening in the future.

    One notable exception: Herman Kahn (Ref, The Next 200 Years).

  141. Hu McCulloch says:

    Steven —
    Thanks for the post. However, you give the study undue credence by attributing it to MIT. There are many good people at MIT, notably Richard Lindzen, who don’t deserve to be associated with this study.
    The Reuters report you cite, which is lifted uncritically from a Guardian site, mentions no names (or even the “Center for Global Climate Change” you give). JorgeKafkazar (5/25 18:19:38) did find a more detailed press release, at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/miot-mcc051909.php, but oddly this is from something called “Eureka Alert” rather than an MIT PR office. In any event, the lead author is Ronald Prinn of MIT, and the study appears in the Journal of Climate, so it would be more appropriate to call it the Prinn or J. Climate study than the “MIT study.”
    BTW, Pielke Sr’s challenge to debate Schneider, mentioned by Ron de Haan 5/25 17:19:15, would make a good WUWT post in itself. It kind of gets buried in this thread. I believe Pielke Sr was at CU, however, not Colorado State.

  142. Squidly says:

    Marcus (06:19:40) :

    Wow. I wonder how many of the people commenting on this have read the actual paper?

    Or, maybe even the real press release and not the misquoting by random other websites?

    Have read it … and believe it is a good example of BS (bad science)

    I particularly like this excerpt from the Reuters editor:

    ” … the more comprehensive and sophisticated our computer models get, the grimmer the news.”

    I think that sums up this BS (bad science) rather well.

  143. Steven Goddard says:

    Peter Plail,

    If there is a global oil conspiracy, I’m not in on it. I don’t get any compensation for writing other than personal satisfaction. I do my writing because I enjoy it, and out of concern for the credibility of science.

    The climate-Industrial Complex concerns me.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286145192740987.html

  144. evanmjones says:

    Advocacy = Bias.

    Advocacy is a great motivator. But then there is scientific method and review, which is supposed to protect the process. It’s the war against proper review that is the problem.

  145. John Galt says:

    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

    Wouldn’t that be a good thing? With fewer humans to destroy the planet, the earth will soon recover to its natural state. The human virus will be controlled so the survivors can live in harmony with Mother Gaia.

    A new civilization will rise from the ashes of the old like the
    proverbial Phoenix.

  146. hunter says:

    Alan the Brit has just coined (to my knowledge) an important knew term:
    WAGTD
    We’re
    All
    Going
    To
    Die
    WAGTD pretty much sums up the underlying sales pitch of extremists.
    And, as Alan properly points out, they have never, ever been correct.
    Apocalypse is good for religion.
    It is horrible when misrepresented as science and dangerous when turned into public policy.
    AGW is simply, and dangerously, a social movement based on WAGTD.

  147. Robinson says:

    One of the problems we’re facing is that lefty environmentalist types go to University to study Earth Sciences, which include Atmosphere & Oceans type courses. There is an inherent bias therefore in the candidates up for tenure/fellowship as they are the people more likely to believe in AGW in the first place. I doubt there are many raised eyebrows in the lecture halls at MIT, unless of course Prof. Lindzen is doing the lecturing (it would be nice if you could persuade him to guest post on this story).

    Anyway, the propaganda onslaught has only just begun. There’s a big conference later in the year where the Western Nations will make the decision to roll back the industrial age (as Lindzen would say). Ever worn Hessian underpants? The future is indeed bleak!

  148. Robinson says:

    Anyway, I missed writing my favourite comment:

    This is nothing more than Policy Based Evidence Making.

  149. evanmjones says:

    What I think it shows is a decreasing temperature anomaly, but since the anomaly is above zero then it does actually show that temperature is still rising

    No, an anomaly is just an arbitrary fixed point, not a “rate”. A straight average of a given range of years. It’s not a decrease in the increase; it’s an actual decrease.

    I think the MIT boys and girls need to take their bi-polar drugs.

    Was that a pun?

    My goodness you almost gave me a heart attack!

    ANOTHER AGW-related death . . .

    His response so far is to dismiss contrary evidence as a global oil conspiracy.

    It’s about time oil started fighting back.

  150. Steven Hill says:

    I thought I read here that cycle 24 was ramping up and yet I see nothing? Any thoughts? Bad Science or just “they really don’t have a clue” And I am not being negative, we are in a part of history that today’s science has not seen.

  151. Frank K. says:

    The thing to remember with this kind of research is that we the taxpayers of the US order these “products” through the NSF, DOE, and other government agencies. The researchers merely deliver the “products” to us in the form of a research paper and project reports, many of which have their conclusions (or “goals”, if you will) stated before they start the research.

    In this specific case, it appears that Mr. Prinn and his colleagues at MIT received a juicy $2.6 million dollar, multi-year NSF award to generate this “product” for us.

    http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0120468

    It would be interesting to see how this money was spent. What is the salary + benefits for an MIT prof these days?

    Perhaps everyone here can contact the NSF to express your appreciation for the “product” delivered to you after (apparently) 7+ years of effort. Also, everyone should search the NSF awards archive at http://www.nsf.gov, using the keyword “climate”, to see for themselves how much money we are spending to stimulate the AGW industry…

  152. jlc says:

    “Have read it … and believe it is a good example of BS (bad science)”

    Nomination for QOTW – along with hand grenades one.

    I must say that this post and the comments demonstrate the charm, grace and humour of the WUWT fraternity. Keep up the good work!

  153. MartinGAtkins says:

    Peter Plail (03:56:42) :

    What I think it shows is a decreasing temperature anomaly, but since the anomaly is above zero then it does actually show that temperature is still rising, but at an increasing slow rate, and if the trend continues (and I hate straight line trends) it will eventually start to drop.

    What the positive number above the anomaly zero line shows is that the temperature has risen since the calculated anomaly period. So no it does not mean that temps are still rising. The graph shows that temperatures in real terms have been falling since 2003. The anomaly zero line is immaterial.

    If the anomaly was calculate over a different period of time then it may result in a different anomaly reference point but it would not effect the actual calculated temperature movement between any two given time periods.

  154. JLKrueger says:

    Hu McCulloch (07:15:44) :

    “However, you give the study undue credence by attributing it to MIT.

    Except that the real press release from MIT is on the MIT website, so it would appear that they are claiming “credit”:

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

    I can’t see how this is undue credence attributing it to MIT. Am I missing something?

  155. John Galt says:

    Roy Spencer posted his observations on the ‘study’ on his blog:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    Climate science took another step backward last week as a new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was announced which claims global warming by 2100 will probably be twice as bad as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted.

    The research team examined a range of possible climate scenarios which combined various estimates of the sensitivity of the climate system with a range of possible policy decisions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which (presumably) cause global warming. Without policy action, the group’s model runs “indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees”.

    Since that average rate of warming (about 0.5 deg. C per decade) is at least 2 times the observed rate of global-average surface temperature rise over the last 30 years, this would require our current spate of no warming to change into very dramatic and sustained warming in the near future.

    And the longer Mother Nature waits to comply with the MIT group’s demands, the more severe the warming will have to be to meet their projections.

    Of course, as readers of this web site will know, the MIT results are totally dependent upon the climate sensitivity that was assumed in the climate model runs that formed the basis for their calculations. And climate modelers can get just about any level of warming they want by simply making a small change in the processes controlling climate sensitivity – especially cloud feedbacks — in those models.

    So, since the sensitivity of the climate system is uncertain, these researchers followed the IPCC’s lead of using ‘statistical probability’ as a way of treating that uncertainty.

    But as I have mentioned before, the use of statistical probabilities in this context is inappropriate. There is a certain climate sensitivity that exists in the real climate system, and it is true that we do not know exactly what that sensitivity is. But this does not mean that our uncertainty over its sensitivity can be translated into some sort of statistical probability.

    The use of statistical probabilities by the IPCC and the MIT group does two misleading things: (1) it implies scientific precision where none exists, and (2) it implies the climate system’s response to any change is a “roll of the dice”.

    We know what the probability of rolling a pair of sixes with dice is, since it is a random event which, when repeated a sufficient number of times, will reveal that probability (1 in 36). But in contrast to this simple example, there is instead a particular climate sensitivity that exists out there in the real climate system. The endless fascination with playing computer games to figure out that climate sensitivity, in my opinion, ends up wasting a lot of time and money.

    True, there are many scientists who really do think our tinkering with the climate system through our greenhouse gas emissions is like playing Russian roulette. But the climate system tinkers with itself all the time, and the climate has managed to remain stable. There are indeed internal, chaotic fluctuations in the climate system that might appear to be random, but their effect on the whole climate system are constrained to operate within a certain range. If the climate system really was that sensitive, it would have forced itself into oblivion long ago.

    The MIT research group pays lip service to relying on “peer-reviewed science”, but it looks like they treat peer-reviewed scientific publications as random events, too. If 99 papers have been published which claim the climate system is VERY sensitive, but only 1 paper has been published that says the climate system is NOT very sensitive, is there then a 99-in-100 (99%) chance that the climate system is very sensitive? NO. As has happened repeatedly in all scientific disciplines, it is often a single research paper that ends up overturning what scientists thought they knew about something.

    In climate research, those 99 papers typically will all make the same assumptions, which then pretty much guarantees they will end up arriving at the same conclusions. So, those 99 papers do not constitute independent pieces of evidence. Instead, they might be better described as evidence that ‘group think’ still exists.

    It turns out that the belief in a sensitive climate is not because of the observational evidence, but in spite of it. You can start to learn more about the evidence for low climate sensitivity (negative feedbacks) here.

    As the slightly-retouched photo of the MIT research group shown above suggests, I predict that it is only a matter of time before the climate community placing all its bets on the climate models is revealed to be a very bad gamble.

  156. Dave Middleton says:

    Steven Goddard (07:16:59) :

    [...]

    The climate-Industrial Complex concerns me.

    Goes kind of hand-in-hand with Ike’s second warning…After warning us about the Military-Industrial Complex, Ike warned us “…that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/21/ikes-second-warning-hint-it-is-not-the-military-industrial-complex/

  157. Rmoen says:

    I am a Democrat who for the past 20 years believed global warming was caused by CO2. Now, I think the wheels are coming off the man-made global warming theory. More and more it looks like is a natural phenomenon to me.

    A year ago I launched http://www.energyplanusa.com where I try to bring common sense discussion to our country’s energy policy. Since energy policy is closely tied to global warming (i.e. climate change) I set out to find the ‘smoking gun’ that proves global warming is driven by CO2. Instead, I found that the wellspring of man-made global warming theory, the UN’s IPCC reports on climate change, are compromised by politics, and that man-made global warming theorists cherry pick facts and ignore contradictory evidence from reliable studies. In short, there is no smoking gun and the man-made crowd refuses to entertain other possibilities.

  158. TonyB says:

    Steven Goddard

    Its Agenda 21 that bothers me, togethger with its school propoganda arm -Sage.

    Have you ever done an article on it?

    tonyb

  159. SteveSadlov says:

    Better 7 deg C warming (vs which baseline?) than 5 deg C cooling.

  160. Ashish says:

    I think MIT is one of the known universities in the world. I don’t see any reason why they would do all this carelessly, at least I would support their report and follow precautions to reduce the effect, rather than listing to some of us here who think they know better sitting in their homes and workout the model and facts predict what will happen.

  161. arcticmyst says:

    Can anyone say…”this is a bunch of bull!” How do scientists justify their studies on this crap basing it on things that happened 10 million years ago (when there was no modern science to record such things), as if they know for a fact the earths history over that time. Also, say they do a study of the ground in certain places. How do you go supposedly 10 million years back in the earths history. We can’t get that deep if the earth is constantly changing. AAAAAHHHGGGGGG…I can’t take it anymore!

  162. anna v says:

    Bill Illis (06:00:36) :

    If you want to see just how far from reality these modelers have pushed themselves, check out this graph of how temperatures would have to increase to go from today’s +0.6C to +5.2C by 2100.

    MIT warming required. You really have to have faith in your climate model to publish these numbers.

    http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/2693/mitmodelc.png

    And this has been peer reviewed?

  163. John Galt says:

    May 26, 2009
    American Thinker Blog: Is Big Oil behind Global Warming Scaremongering?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/is_big_oil_behind_global_warmi.html

    Is Big Oil behind Global Warming Scaremongering?
    Richard Henry Lee
    If the website, Exxon Secrets, is correct, then Big Oil has switched sides and now forecasts unprecedented global warming.

    A new MIT study warns that global temperatures might increase twice as much as originally predicted.

    The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees.

    But as discussed in an article at the WattsUpWithThat website, the MIT study is full of holes. In particular, the temperatures have been dropping since the original study in 2003, not rising as models had predicted.

    But these scary predictions can be dismissed on other grounds. It appears that Big Oil has its sticky fingers all over this study. According to the Exxon Secrets website, the lead author, Andrei Sokolov, is merely a tool of Exxon Mobil since he works at MIT, and that educational institution has received almost $1 million from the oil giant.

    Exxon Secrets makes a habit of smearing any and all climate researchers who disagree with the “scientific consensus” that humans are causing unprecedented global warming. It is therefore quite amusing that they are now smearing one of their own.

    We also wonder how long it will take for the Exxon Secrets website to be “updated”. We grabbed a screenshot just in case.

  164. rbateman says:

    WAGTD.
    We’re All Going To Live Forever if we follow AGW. They promised us.
    WAGLF.

  165. tudobeleza says:

    So what has changed since 2003…?

    The hype and nothing but the hype.

  166. Steve Goddard says:

    Ashish,

    I have no idea what will happen in the future. My point is that observations of climate since 2003 don’t seem to justify the claims that the problem has doubled in severity since then.

    Models need to be verified vs. real world observations.

  167. tudobeleza says:

    TonyB,

    Thank you for mentioning Agenda 21. Probably about less than 1% of the world population understands what UN Agenda 21 is really about. Global warming, which I like to call ‘the weather’, is the vehicle to bring it about.

    “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
    dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
    – Club of Rome,
    premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations

  168. E.M.Smith says:

    Graeme Rodaughan (22:39:42) :
    [3] That telling the truth will produce a sub-optimal outcome.

    If any of the above assumptions are false, his ethical bind disappears, and defaults back to a simple requirement to tell the truth.

    I would assert that you ought to have a fourth, given his statements:

    4) That telling the truth is of subordinate value to achieving goals.

    I would assert that on the face of it #4 is false (with perhaps the exception of an extreme duress from evil – i.e. a lie to a murderous captor so that one can call the police…). If #4 is true, then one has no reason to ever tell the truth. One will always be driven by goals. Rent seeking with any lie is just fine. Cheating on your spouse is fine ( the goal justifies the lie). Tax fraud is just attempting to reach your low tax goal. etc. … Moral relativism rules.

    Deception to achieve one’s goals is not a moral dilemma. It is dishonesty.

    Truth and honesty have their own value, and that value is not subordinate to goal seeking.

  169. John Galt says:

    Ashish (09:04:51) :

    I think MIT is one of the known universities in the world. I don’t see any reason why they would do all this carelessly, at least I would support their report and follow precautions to reduce the effect, rather than listing to some of us here who think they know better sitting in their homes and workout the model and facts predict what will happen.

    Earlier I posted

    John Galt (06:42:20) :

    Well, if a computer says so, then it must be true. They wouldn’t go to all this trouble to write-up this report if it wasn’t true. Why would they lie?

    That was sarcasm.

    This is just more junk science created in order to support their already determined conclusion. The assumptions that went into the computer model are not based upon reality.

    Computer climate models do not output facts. That is a fact you should keep in mind.

    What I don’t understand is how this passed any of MIT’s internal review processes.

    The scientific method is dead. GIGO is alive and well.

  170. John Galt says:

    Ashish (09:04:51) :

    I think MIT is one of the known universities in the world. I don’t see any reason why they would do all this carelessly, at least I would support their report and follow precautions to reduce the effect, rather than listing to some of us here who think they know better sitting in their homes and workout the model and facts predict what will happen.

    Earlier I posted

    John Galt (06:42:20) :

    Well, if a computer says so, then it must be true. They wouldn’t go to all this trouble to write-up this report if it wasn’t true. Why would they lie?

    That was sarcasm.

    This is just more junk science created in order to support their already determined conclusion. The assumptions that went into the computer model are not based upon reality.

    Computer climate models do not output facts. That is a fact you should keep in mind.

    What I don’t understand is how this passed any of MIT’s internal review processes.

    The scientific method is dead. GIGO is alive and well.

  171. Does anybody have a psychiatrist friend, to invite him to give his opinion on this issue?. This is not longer a case for physicists, chemists and least for meterologists.
    Is there that kind of research in China, Japan, Russia or India?, Is this kind of research made in countries of the EU, US and Canada only?. If that is the case then we have found something in common, perhaps an unconcious projection of an era ending, the era of the so called “occidental culture”.

  172. E.M.Smith says:

    Mike Borgelt (20:47:56) :
    Joel Shore (19:18:22) :
    “You might also try reading Stephen Schneider’s discussion of how his quote has been taken out of context ”

    I read it. Weasel words after he got called on it.

    I read it too. Waste of time. Weasel Words, for sure. Very “nuanced”… but it basically came down to, IMHO, trying to redefine his “dilemma” as one of “completeness vs effectiveness” instead of what he said before, honesty vs effectiveness. Now if he had originally said “completeness” I would agree with him. But he didn’t. Now he’s trying to rewrite history (golly, where have I seen that before…) to restore his effectiveness… Wait a moment; he’s choosing effectiveness again… and what did he say he was willing to trade away to gain effectiveness? Hmmm…

    And that is why their is no ‘ethical bind’. Even if you despise the truth. Because your effectiveness is not at the expense of the truth; it is absolutely dependent on honoring truth and honesty…

    Living a centered life is easy.
    Twisting in the wind or moral relativism is hard…

  173. fred wisse says:

    What did adolf hitler postulate about lies ?

    If the public is not accepting it , just make them bigger and it will be accepted.

  174. MikeN says:

    That 9C you refer to isn’t in the abstract. The median level was 5.2 C. I think the journalists confused Fahrenheit and Celsius.

  175. Dave Middleton says:

    This is actually quite funny. MIT basically doubled their 2003 warming projection by adding “social” sciences and adding in previously unobserved warming (that the models said should have been there) to their modeling program…

    The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s.

    […]

    The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees. The difference is caused by several factors rather than any single big change. Among these are improved economic modeling and newer economic data showing less chance of low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios. Other changes include 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.

    Any time I see interdisciplinary programs like these: The Earth Institute, Energy and Resources Group or Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change a little alarm bell goes off in my head. Columbia’s EI and Berkley’s ERG are interdisciplinary programs that generally don’t require science backgrounds for admission. They are “touchy-feely” psychobabble programs that teach Liberal Arts majors how to push socioeconomic agendas with scientific-sounding jargon.

    Columbia’s EI is run by an economist (Jeffrey Sachs). It’s another “policy” program…

    From asteroid impacts and climate change to oceanography and microbiology, undergraduates will spend ten weeks conducting exciting and often ground-breaking scientific research in the Earth Intern program at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

    Ooooohhhh! A whole ten weeks of Earth Science!

    John Holdren spent most of the past 30 years running Berkley’s ERG…

    The Energy and Resources Group (ERG) seeks students who have excelled academically, whatever their discipline; who show promise of ability to cross disciplinary boundaries; and who want not only to understand problems of energy, resources, and environment but to help solve them.

    Those admitted to the program have strong academic records and letters of recommendation, balanced and strong GRE scores, and related work experience and publications. It is preferred that applicants have a minimum of one year of mathematics and one year of college-level chemistry or physics on transcripts of social science majors and four or more basic social science and humanities courses on the transcripts of science and engineering majors.

    MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change…

    The question is no longer whether global warming is upon us … but how we can rise to its challenge.

    […]

    The Program integrates multidisciplinary expertise from the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research and the Center for Global Change Science and collaborates with other major research groups within and outside MIT. In particular, the Marine Biological Laboratory’s Ecosystems Center has been a key partner for over a decade.

    Our cornerstone is the MIT Integrated Global System Model (IGSM) of economic and environmental change…

    MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change is not a science program. It’s an integration of a “policy” program with a “science” program.

    This really has become an academic “theatre of the absurd.”

  176. Here, a copy of David Chandler’s article on MIT Journal:
    The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth’s climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago — and could be even worse than
    that.
    The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer
    simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters,
    selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge.
    Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well — such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.
    Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and
    director of MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding
    global warming, it is important “to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science,” he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. “In that sense, our work is unique,” he says. The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90 percent probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees. The difference is caused by several factors rather than
    any single big change. Among these are improved economic modeling and newer economic data showing less chance of low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios. Other changes include 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

  177. Steve Goddard says:

    Dr. Schneider disagrees with MIT, by at least a factor of two.

    My best guess, 2-4 deg c warming by 2100, but if we’re very lucky a bit less–and if very unlucky, even more.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m5d24-The-global-warming-debates-Stephen-Schneider#comments

  178. Ron de Haan says:

    Smokey (17:36:51) :

    Ron de Haan (17:19:15),

    Anyone who thinks Steven Schneider is ethical should read Schneider’s own words:

    “…we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

    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”.

    Smokey,
    You are as sharp as a razor, as always and I agree 100%.
    I think Pielke was just trying to be polite.

  179. Bill P says:

    The study is being touted as the most comprehensive done to date, but its weakness was clear from the outset, and may be seen in the picture. (…Anybody?) The problem lies… in the team’s roulette spinner!

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

    Not pictured are the “modelling darts”. Since this is a game designed to revert eventually to very young children, magnets had to be substituted for real metal points. As anyone knows, it’s a bit tricky to get the darts to stick to a spinning board.

    To be sure, there are many, many scientists now engaged in figuring out how to get flying “stimulus” and climate funds to stick to their persons as they stand up in public and scream, “I’m a scientist, and I think it’s going to be hot as hell, and I’m not going to take being left out any more!!”

  180. climber7407 says:

    The degree to which they expect the tempurature to rise is ridiculous. Not to mention that the temperature wouldn’t even have to rise much to make people aware enou

  181. Old Chemist says:

    These MIT guys could probably package their software as a game, call it ‘SimClimateWorld’ and make some real money, as well as providing something useful and entertaining for people who enjoy that sort of thing.
    Then we could all develop and publish our own (limitless) end-of-the-world catastrophic storylines.

  182. Squidly says:

    Steven Goddard (07:16:59) :

    Peter Plail,

    If there is a global oil conspiracy, I’m not in on it. I don’t get any compensation for writing other than personal satisfaction. I do my writing because I enjoy it, and out of concern for the credibility of science.

    Steve, I think “.. out of concern for the credibility of science ..” is a rapidly vanishing noble art. I personally thank you for your continued contributions in attempt to preserve that credibility!

  183. This article, from the same MIT Roulette pdf deserves a new post:

    Chu began his talk by describing various measures of the pace of recent climate change, emphasizing that the changes being seen now — including the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice, and the rate of rise of global sea level — are already either at, or even beyond, the most extreme projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations.
    “We’re skirting the outer limits of the range” of predicted changes, he said. “Things that were said a decade ago are coming true, but a little bit faster” than had been expected.

  184. coaldust says:

    Joel Shore (19:18:22) :

    Joel,

    I used to think you were credible, wanted to find the truth, and simply found to evidence for AGW convincing. Not anymore. You have just lost credibility with me.

    The idea that there is some ethical dilemma to resolve is revealing. Most ethical dilemmas are cases of trying to rationalize a lie. This one fits nicely therein.

    Lyman Horne

  185. Aron says:

    “The personal carbon credits as currency does not sound far fetched at all. Energy is without question the very source of our prosperity. It is therefore a natural currency, and a perfect way to control behavior.”

    No, energy is a byproduct of effort. It takes work to create it so that in turn it can fuel more work. Therefore it is not a natural currency but rather a part of the labour process. And the idea out behaviour has to be controlled and modified by politicians who indulge in our taxes to pay for the mortgages of their three homes is not something I would accept peacefully or otherwise.

  186. Ron de Haan says:

    From http://www.iceagenow.com

    Camping this weekend? Many Oregon areas are still under snow
    by Richard Cockle, The Oregonian
    Thursday May 21, 2009, 4:56 PM

    Campers and picnickers this Memorial Day weekend may find a cold, wet blanket of snow over some of their favorite high-country picnicking and camping spots.

    On the Deschutes National Forest, visitors are warned of 8-foot snow depths at campgrounds and picnic sites above 5,500 feet. The Cascade Lakes Highway, south and west of Bend, has been plowed open but offers barely enough room for two cars to pass between snowbanks.

    On the Mount Hood National Forest, visitors are likely to encounter snow on any road or trail at 3,500 feet to 4,000 feet elevation, said Rick Acosta, another Forest Service spokesman.

    “Some of our more popular spots are snowed-in still,” he said. “It just depends on where you go. A lot of those campgrounds are normally open for Memorial Day, but this year, they are not.”

    The situation is no better in eastern Oregon’s scenic Blue Mountains. Most camping and picnicking sites above 4,500 feet on the Umatilla National Forest are still snow-covered “to the point of being inaccessible,” said Joani Bosworth, a Forest Service spokeswoman in Pendleton.

    At lower elevations, travelers should beware of large, impassible snowdrifts on roads that are shaded by trees or cutbanks, she said. Three to 5 feet of snow still covers the popular Tollgate recreation area of the Blues along Oregon 204, linking Elgin and Weston, she said

    “This is an unusual spring for the Blue Mountains,” said Larry Randall, recreation staff officer for the Umatilla National Forest in Pendleton.

    On the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Oregon’s largest national forest, recreation areas above 5,000 feet generally remain inaccessible, said Dan Ermovick, a Forest Service recreation manager in Baker City.

    Some picnic and camping spots near the popular Anthony Lakes Mountain Ski Area in the Elkhorn Mountains are buried, he said. It’s still impossible to drive from the ski area to the semi-ghost town of Granite on the Elkhorn Loop Road because of snow. Many trailhead gateways into the 560-square-mile Eagle Cap Wilderness are also inaccessible.

    The road to the Hells Canyon Snake River overlook at Hat Point is blocked by snow about 8 miles southeast of Imnaha, Ermovick said. When heading into the high country, he recommends bringing provisions for an unexpected overnight stay and not relying on cell phone service.

    “There are a lot of cell phone spots that are dead on the forest,” said Ermovick.

    Richard Cockle: rcockle@oregonwireless.net

  187. Mike Abbott says:

    As I have repeatedly noted in other threads, you cannot rely on articles about articles about studies. The Reuters and Telegraph articles quoted by Steve Goddard grossly mischaraterize the actual results of the study. The MIT researchers did NOT predict “a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise at least 9 degrees by 2100.“ They did NOT say billions would die. In the first comment in this thread, “wws” pointed this out and posted a link to the actual MIT press release about the study. It is worth posting again:

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

    WUWT readers should read that article (or the actual study itself if you have access to it) before bashing the MIT team. Not that the team is beyond reproach; the use of the roulette wheel at their press conference was overdramatic and unprofessional. With respect to the study itself, another commenter noted that Prinn himself is quoted as saying “we don’t pretend we can do it accurately. Instead, we do these 400 runs and look at the spread of the odds.”

    In summary, two big stories are generally being missed here:
    1. The journalisitc fraud committed by the mainstream media who wildly exaggerated (certainly intentionally) the results of the study
    2. The claim by MIT that this study is “The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out” while the lead author admits “we don’t pretend we can do it accurately.”

  188. stevewords says:

    I may not be an MIT scientist, or even anywhere close to a great scientific mind, but can anyone tell me what the “proper” temperature is for our planet?

    Yeah, I didn’t think so.

  189. MIT Model conclusions:

    1.0 You are doomed.
    2.0 You are doomed.
    3.0 You are doomed.

    Sigh….who, me?
    MIT researchers’ psychiatrist: “Sorry but they are doomed”

    :-)

  190. Mike T says:

    While we’re on claims of calamity, this is MY brother at the day of action in London:

    Now I know the world is in trouble!

    Reply: Hmmm…are nature vs. nurture debates an allowable topic here? Just kidding. ~ charles the tongue in cheek moderator.

  191. Dave Andrews says:

    Mike Abbott,

    And note the abstract for the paper says median surface warming 2091-2100 is 5.2C according to their model, but that recent data on ocean warming reduces this to 4.1C.
    But “nevertheless all our simulations have a much smaller probability of warming less than 2.4C” – ie, the figure they came up with in 2003.

    What does “much smaller probability” mean? Is that a scientific term? It also definitely includes the probability that the warming could be less than 2.4C.

    Is this Copenhagen ‘shroud waving’?

  192. John Galt says:

    The personal carbon credits as currency does not sound far fetched at all. Energy is without question the very source of our prosperity. It is therefore a natural currency, and a perfect way to control behavior.

    Correction:

    Carbon credits are completely artificial and are desired because they are a completely new resource to be doled out to the highest bidders and/or highest campaign contributors. Carbon credits are a perfect way to hide new taxes, regulate the economy and control the lives of the unwashed masses.

  193. chunter says:

    I don’t think economic growth models take into account the shrinkage that has happened in the past year and a half, nor do they take into account the fact that the reason we had an economic shrinkage in the past year and a half is because it was discovered that much economic data being used for investment was unknown or false.

  194. Roger Sowell says:

    OT, but California Air Resources Board’s seminar is online-webcast now, title is “What Americans Really Think About Climate Change.”

    http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/seminars/krosnick/krosnick.htm

  195. Mike T (12:56:00) :
    We, the “poor people” of the third world….will inherit the world, for sure, after you disappear from the face of the earth by your own self fulfilled prophecy.

  196. D. King says:

    OT You gotta love that Google Ad about eating hamburgers.
    It brings to mind Popeye’s friend Wimpy.

    I will gladly pay you AGW Tuesday, for one
    hamburger today!

    Now, every time I eat one, I feel short sighted and dirty.

  197. TonyB says:

    tudobeleza (09:40:51) : said

    “TonyB,

    Thank you for mentioning Agenda 21. Probably about less than 1% of the world population understands what UN Agenda 21 is really about. Global warming, which I like to call ‘the weather’, is the vehicle to bring it about.”

    As you can see no one else in this thread has referred to my comment that Steven Goddard should write a story about it. This suggests either they know everything about it already, no nothing of it and don’t understand the significance or are just uninterested;

    Bearing in mind the questing minds here #3 is unlikely.

    To me Agenda 21 enables us to put AGW into its proper context and understand why Govts and other bodies are so keen to embrace a philosophy (agw) that is still only a hypotheses, yet is claimed as a settled fact.

    Did you see the discussion I had with Smokey and Aron about it a month or so ago?

    Come on Steven-is it worth an article?

    Tonyb

  198. Aron says:

    Carbon credits is also a method for Europe and North America to hold it’s imperial hegemony over the world. While we have been and can afford to decarbonise, lesser developed and poor nations cannot. Their carbon dioxide output will rise as they develop, but to hold their development back they will be forced to purchase carbon credits from much wealthier decarbonised nations. Thus they will not be able to compete on the same level because much of the money they need to invest in their own people will be spent buying carbon credits from powerful states and multinational companies.

    Meanwhile the working classes the world over will be buying carbon credits from the poor and also non-working lazy bums. The upper classes will be laughing for their interest payments alone can purchase enough carbon credits. For them there is no expense or they pass the expense to their companies who then pass the cost to the working classes.

    Working class people and developing nations are thus trampled upon by the rich and powerful by all forms of carbon trading. Anyone who wants to elevate their position in the world through hard work will find it so costly that they will progress very little, if at all. That’s what today’s Champagne Socialists call sustainable development.

  199. Aron says:

    Man my grammar is bad at this time of the night :P

  200. Jim says:

    Nice farce. All this to be a democrat socialist. Get your news from non news / ad sellers. Study ecology and socialism for an hour. It goes way way way back. It’s a mainstay of the left and once world govt agenda. Always has been, always will be. It’s a farce and only the uneducated, which unfortunately are many, are the only one’s affected by this stupidity. You got your government grower / incentive to succeed reducer in office, now go away. who is john galt?

  201. sky says:

    Graeme Rodaughan (22:26:17):

    Your philosophical reflections upon New Age “science” are masterful! Someone with musical talent could compose a Requiem for Reason with your sage words.

  202. Steven Goddard says:

    Mike Abbott,

    I don’t buy your arguments.

    If the press coverage is incorrect and the science team wants to get the correct story out, there are lots of different ways for them to to set the record straight. They can’t have it both ways.

  203. Actually, just like between 700 A.D. and 1000 A.D., the earth’s termpurature has been dropping since 1998, not 2003 as stated above.

  204. talamanca1 says:

    Richard Lindzen is a climatologist from MIT and he says Global Warming is not a cause for alarm…. It is dangerous to yell fire in a crowded Earth. It could cause a stampede and kill a lot of people as they freeze to death without furnace oil.

  205. dissentia says:

    The Club of Rome created this hoax.

  206. alphajuno says:

    Prinn stresses that the computer models are built to match the known conditions, processes and past history of the relevant human and natural systems, and the researchers are therefore dependent on the accuracy of this current knowledge. Beyond this, “we do the research, and let the results fall where they may,” he says. Since there are so many uncertainties, especially with regard to what human beings will choose to do and how large the climate response will be, “we don’t pretend we can do it accurately. Instead, we do these 400 runs and look at the spread of the odds.”

    I think if I were to include statements like these in my simulation class homework, then I wouldn’t have gotten an “A”. In order to run a credible simulation, you have to have credible data and a good model. So, even if their model was perfect, the data is suspect. Even worse, it looks like both the model and the data are suspect.

  207. Paul McNeil says:

    Never mind 2100, it’s going to rain all bloody day in the UK tomorrow. Awful.

  208. Dave Middleton says:

    LeeHInAlexandria (14:17:37) :

    Actually, just like between 700 A.D. and 1000 A.D., the earth’s termpurature has been dropping since 1998, not 2003 as stated above.

    It all depends on how you factor the 1997-1998 ENSO into the equation.

    1998 clearly was the hottest year on record…But I just can’t see a cooling trend until 2003 at the earliest…When the oceans clearly started to cool (on average). By 2005, “global cooling” clearly was setting in.

    I know that some people have said that if you statistically remove the 1997-1998 ENSO, the cooling trend appears to have started in ~1995. I’m not sure I buy that.

  209. Bastiat says:

    Enviros have turned ‘science’ into a new religion. Actually it’s not science but pseudo – science.

  210. Aron: Champagne Socialists = Caviar Socialists :-)

  211. John F. Hultquist says:

    For the US, 1934 is the “corrected” warmest year. This has been discussed repeatedly. Considering the state of temperature data I’m not sure how one can accurately say these sorts of things but if you want to say it, then say 1934. Globally it is claimed that 2005 holds the honor. Check these things out on your own if you like.
    http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/08/1934_warmest_year_on_record.php

  212. MJW says:

    I may have missed it, but I don’t recall seeing a link to the original paper. Here it is in all its GIGOesque glory: MIT SimCity Climate Study

    I advise opening it in Adobe Reader instead of Firefox. I had problems with the download hanging in Firefox. IE probably works okay, but I haven’t tried it.

    There’s nothing in the paper that makes it seem any more credible than what’s in the press release. Most of the paper is devoted to details of the different computer games involved in the projections.

    One section that attracted my attention is:

    Three properties that are commonly recognized as being major contributors to the uncertainty in simulations of future climate change are the effective climate sensitivity of the system (S), the rate at which heat is mixed into the deep ocean (Kv), and the strength of the aerosol forcing associated with a given aerosol loading (Faer) (Meehl et al. 2007a). These same properties and their uncertainties also affect 20th century simulations. Thus in principle estimates of these properties and their uncertainties can be derived from simulations in which these properties are varied to determine which give simulations consistent with observed 20th century changes.

    The last statement is, of course, bunk. There’s no principle that says that by varying the three of the major sources of uncertainty until the model output resembles the observed data one can derive valid estimates. Lots of people have lost their shirts in the stock market by relying on the same “principle.”

  213. Pragmatic says:

    Joel Shore (19:18:22),

    Scneider says:

    “ And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. ”

    Which assumes that man in his infinite power is ABLE to cause “disastrous climatic change. “

  214. Mike Bryant says:

    The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things, though that is great enough; but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them; for then it must sink back into savagery.

    WILLIAM KINGDON CLIFFORD,
    The Ethics of Belief

  215. matt v. says:

    Dave Middleton

    Here are least square trend line slopes for start of global cooling

    LEAST SQUARE SLOPE ANALYSIS [WOOD FOR TREES –INTERACTIVE GRAPHS]

    OCEANS SST
    GLOBAL OCEANS SST [HADSST2gl] started decline in 2000 at [-0.00204/year]

    NORTHERN HEMISPHERE OCEANS SST [HADSST] started decline in 2002 at [-0.0233/year]

    SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE OCEANS SST [HADSST] started decline in 2000 at [-0.00204/year]

    GLOBAL TEMPERTAURE ANOMALIES

    COMPOSITE OF RSS, UAH, HADCRUT, GISS started decline in 2001 at [-0.0105 C /year]

    UAH started decline in 2001 at [-0.0137C/ year]

    RSS started decline in 2001 at [-0.01588/year]

    GISS started decline in 2001 at [- 0.00134/year]

    HAD CRUT3gl started decline in 2001 at [-0.0102/year]

  216. Mike Bryant says:

    “The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out” … “we don’t pretend we can do it accurately.”

    But we ARE confident enough to raise your contribution to society (through cap and raid) to approximately 3100 bucks per household per year. Of course, that is only an average and if you actually do anything productive, you might want to double that number… at least. And don’t forget that after cap and betrayed, the costs are engineered to increase rapidly. But don’t worry… you have a job!!!

  217. Frank K. says:

    MJW (15:07:45) :

    “There’s no principle that says that by varying the three of the major sources of uncertainty until the model output resembles the observed data one can derive valid estimates.”

    Indeed!

    These people appear to be under the mistaken belief that “tuning” their models like this will somehow provide acceptable accuracy, given the high level of coupling and non-linearity exhibited by the “solutions” (if you can call these simulations “solutions” in the mathematical sense).

    Besides, they forgot the biggest uncertainty of them all – the surface temperature records themselves, as extensively documented by Anthony for the US surface stations!

  218. matt v. says:

    To me this looks like yet another “unlikely to materialize doom and gloom” prediction article and report. To raise the global temperature by 7.4 degrees C by 2100, the rate of warming would have to increase by a factor of about 10 over the actual past historical rate of warming since 1900 [0.7284 C/century]. Since 2001 and to 2009, the planet has been cooling at the least square trend line of -0.0102 C per year as per HADCRUT3VGL data] This article is again timed to coincide with the EPA decision deadline on declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant and is meant to frighten the politicians and give support to EPA decision makers .Let’s hope EPA see their way through the pure fear creating jargon in this report and make the right decision not to declare carbon dioxide a pollutant.
    It has the usual AGW jargon phrases like:
    Unprecedented detail
    Need for rapid and massive action
    90% chance
    More risk than previously expected
    World should not take these risks
    Results for the planet would be catastrophic

  219. C. Paul Barreira says:

    Lysenko rules.

  220. dragonovic says:

    I disagree, all of you need to study deeper into global warming. Man has not lived long enough on the Earth to begin to establish his results on such warming. First you need to study The Club of Rome or better yet Google The Green Agenda. One great book is Not by Fire but by Ice by Robert Felix. We actually are in climate change, and in fact this is very normal within the past millions of years according to Co2 levels in the ice cores. The Chem Trails may have something to do with it, so you better study what stuff really is in there. It’s been found the Chem Trails being sprayed in Canada and the US have been since 1998. Global Warming to me is bogus.

  221. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    E.M.Smith (01:22:37) :
    and
    E.M.Smith (09:44:07) :

    Graeme Rodaughan (22:39:42) :
    [3] That telling the truth will produce a sub-optimal outcome.

    If any of the above assumptions are false, his ethical bind disappears, and defaults back to a simple requirement to tell the truth.

    I would assert that you ought to have a fourth, given his statements:

    4) That telling the truth is of subordinate value to achieving goals.

    I would assert that on the face of it #4 is false (with perhaps the exception of an extreme duress from evil – i.e. a lie to a murderous captor so that one can call the police…). If #4 is true, then one has no reason to ever tell the truth. One will always be driven by goals. Rent seeking with any lie is just fine. Cheating on your spouse is fine ( the goal justifies the lie). Tax fraud is just attempting to reach your low tax goal. etc. … Moral relativism rules.

    Deception to achieve one’s goals is not a moral dilemma. It is dishonesty.

    Truth and honesty have their own value, and that value is not subordinate to goal seeking.

    E.M.Smith – well said, – your ethical insight is stronger than mine.

  222. Mike Bryant says:

    MIT is currently working with a brand new climate model that they believe will extend our understanding of the many terrible things that will soon befall us.

  223. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    sky (14:11:59) :

    SKY: Thanks.

    Looks like my first degree with a major in History and Philosophy of Science wasn’t wasted…

    G

  224. Mike Bryant says:

    “Cheating on your spouse is fine ( the goal justifies the lie). Tax fraud is just attempting to reach your low tax goal. etc. … Moral relativism rules.”

    Moral relativism is only for the chosen few. I have a funny feeling that if I cheated on my wife or did not pay my taxes, it would NOT qualify me to run the country or the IRS.
    The Lady of Justice has thrown away her scales and is peeking from behind her blindfold:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/sminor/2925971159/in/set-72157607938831847/

  225. Joel Shore says:

    Mike Bryant says:

    But we ARE confident enough to raise your contribution to society (through cap and raid) to approximately 3100 bucks per household per year.

    And where did this number come from? It seems to go up every time I see it. Last time, someone posted this link http://www.reason.com/news/show/133572.html, which quotes numbers of $680 to $2,180, depending on what quintile you’re in…except that if you follow it back to the original CBO study that these estimates come from ( http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=2104&type=0&sequence=4 ), one finds that these numbers include the costs of the pollution permits…but not the revenues generated by them! If the revenues are returned to the people, then the average cost is only about $100 per household and, if the distribution isn’t done too regressively the bottom quintiles can come out ahead (see Table 5). (If done regressively, the top quintile can get a windfall.)

    When I defended Stephen Schneider here because if you read his full quote, he clearly does not think that it is a good thing if “we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have”, many people responded sanctimoniously that they didn’t believe him and even mentioning this as a possibility in a double ethical bind was horrible. And yet, here we have an example of a scary economic scenario offered up that is not just simplified or dramatic, it is out-and-out wrong (by more than an order of magnitude), as near as I can tell!!! I assume the same sanctimonious statements will soon appear here condemning such things and insisting that all the statements about the economic effects of cap-and-trade be based on careful analysis and full disclosure of any doubts or uncertainties?

  226. fred says:

    @ Joel Shore 19:18:22

    [quote] So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. [/quote]

    Seems pretty plain to me.

  227. bill-tb says:

    Computer models are now science. Hey it’s a lot easier than the old way.

  228. Joel Shore says:

    Okay, I now see that the $3100 number per household comes from a misinterpretation of an MIT study, not the CBO study. However, the mistake is basically the same, i.e., counting the costs of the permits but not counting the revenues derived from them…and the actual number the MIT study comes up with is $800 per year per household ( http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/23/mit-study-waxman-markey-weekly-standard-misrepresentation-of-his-april-2007-study-to-project-costs-for-waxman-markey-is-inappropriate-silly-and-qu/ ). And this, by the way, in spite of Mikes is not the initial cost in 2015, which is less, but rather is the average (net present value) cost for the entire time period from 2015 to 2050.

    And, also, historically the estimates of these costs for environmental regulations have tended to be overestimates since they have not properly accounted for the way that the market comes up with cheaper solutions to the problem. (I’m not talking about costs for environmental remediation after the damage is done, which unfortunately tend to be underestimated.)

  229. Bill Illis says:

    Having read the study linked to by MJW at (15:07:45).

    http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt169.pdf

    There are a few strange things about this study.

    – They’ve got CO2 rising to 900 ppm by 2100 (the current trendline is for about 680 ppm by 2100).

    – They are indeed using components of the GISS climate models (except they are old mid-1980s versions).

    – They have warming in the Arctic at +10C by 2100 (sea ice would melt out by March at these temps and the Greenland glaciers would be melting out very fast).

    – They have the current net forcing at about 1.9 Watts/metre^2 * 0.32C/Watt/metre^2 = current +0.6C warming, (same as current climate models) but …

    – But by 2100, the forcing ramps up to 9.0 Watts/metre^2 * 0.58C/Watt/metre^2 = +5.2C (which is far off the numbers other models have for 2100 for both parts of the temperature impact equation).

    – Continuing the trends they have until 2150 or 2200 and you would get to +10C global pretty fast.

    So, this is just strange and and it doesn’t relate to anything I have seen before in other climate models.

  230. Mike Bryant says:

    ” IF the revenues are returned to the people, then the average cost is only about $100 per household and, IF the distribution isn’t done too regressively the bottom quintiles can come out ahead (see Table 5). (IF done regressively, the top quintile can get a windfall.)”

    Joel do you really believe that anyone will get money back from cap and charade???
    The sky in my world is purple! Al Gore’s sky is folding money green… what color is the sky in YOUR world?

  231. elathrop says:

    How did the great glazier melt? Was it from people running their SUV’s? Probably. The worse part is they teach this global warming crap in schools like it was science. Global warming isn’t a theory. Heck, it isn’t even a hypothesis. All it is is an opinion. Supposedly a consensus. You should have to do better than that to rule the world with it!

  232. Joel Shore says:

    Oh…one more thing…as the piece that I linked to notes, another reason why the MIT number of $800 per year per household is probably still too high an estimate is that it did not model the specific legislation but rather a cap-and-trade scenario that would likely be more costly than the Waxman-Markey bill and used some very conservative assumptions as discussed in that piece. After all, it was the Republicans opposed to cap-and-trade who chose this specific study to focus on and you can bet that they did not choose the MIT study to focus on because it was lowballing the costs!

  233. Joel Shore says:

    Bill Illis says:

    There are a few strange things about this study.

    – They’ve got CO2 rising to 900 ppm by 2100 (the current trendline is for about 680 ppm by 2100).

    However, if you look at the rise in CO2 with time, it is clearly not just linear but has an upward trend (see http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/mauna_loa_co2_trend.png?w=499&h=363&h=363 or http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/co2_growth_rate.PNG ), as would be expected as emissions increase (and the fraction that gets absorbed by the oceans and biosphere so far seems to remain approximately unchanged). So, just projecting the current linear trend out to 2100 is probably not realistic in the absence of serious efforts to reduce our CO2 emissions.

  234. Bill Illis says:

    Joel Shore,

    My CO2 number of 680 by 2100 is based on the exponential increase in CO2 which has occurred to date. It is not linear.

    (This chart stops at about 2070 but you can get the drift.)

    http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/1071/co2forecastwz0.png

  235. Mike Bryant says:

    What will this cost tax payers? The Obama Administration says only $800.00 per household, but this calculation does not include the taxes that are passed through to consumers. An example would be that he isn’t counting the taxes/costs paid by utility companies for the cost of the carbon credits (all of these costs are passed on to the consumers of the energy). When these expenses are included the Government mandated tax/carbon credit expense represents $3,900.00 each household. Whether the home’s residents are earning minimum wage or any other income level. This represents the highest tax increase in US history! This does not include the expenses already committed by the Administration for tax payer funded energy pork projects.
    Our nation has all the energy it needs in Coal, Shale, Natural Gas, and Nuclear. We can lower our energy expenses without tax payer funding and the earth has been getting cooler for over 10 years. -Rocky

    I agree with Rocky. If no one is paying anything, where are the trillions coming from to refill the coffers? Don’t fool yourself, the administration is counting on cap and trade and the related hidden costs to pay for high speed rail, windmills, solar energy, huge deficits, wealth redistribution, rent seekers, and the gigantic costs associated with rebuilding America into Amerika.
    Please don’t tell me about MIT studies. MIT is a joke like NSIDC, NASA, NOAA, GISS and many many institutions that have turned political to gorge at the public trough.

  236. Pamela Gray says:

    Joel, are you factoring in “greening” due to increased availability of CO2? They do that in greenhouses (but WAY more than humans or nature can do on their own, even when breathing hard) and the plants just thrive on it. In fact, when removed from the greenhouse, the plants are in for a bit of a shock from the severe decrease in CO2 availability in ambient air. I am surprised that environmentalists are not marching around in a little circle in front of Safeway for selling 100% organic but CO2-pumped greenhouse tomatoes. I would hazard a guess that most of your fresh organic veggies you consume come from greenhouse sources rich in CO2. The plants grow faster and get bigger on the stuff without artificial fertilizers. And to think we are eating this CO2 contaminated produce.

    My gawd! I just remembered that yesterday I consumed an entire package of 100% organic sugar snap pea pods! The package says that and that they were grown in an environmentally controlled greenhouse! I’ve been poisoned! Call CDC! 911! Ambulance! EMT’s! Throw a dart on the MIT’s scary dartboard to see if I will die!

  237. Graeme Rodaughan says:

    Pamela Gray (19:43:39) :

    Joel, are you factoring in “greening” due to increased availability of CO2? They do that in greenhouses (but WAY more than humans or nature can do on their own, even when breathing hard) and the plants just thrive on it. In fact, when removed from the greenhouse, the plants are in for a bit of a shock from the severe decrease in CO2 availability in ambient air. I am surprised that environmentalists are not marching around in a little circle in front of Safeway for selling 100% organic but CO2-pumped greenhouse tomatoes. I would hazard a guess that most of your fresh organic veggies you consume come from greenhouse sources rich in CO2. The plants grow faster and get bigger on the stuff without artificial fertilizers. And to think we are eating this CO2 contaminated produce.

    My gawd! I just remembered that yesterday I consumed an entire package of 100% organic sugar snap pea pods! The package says that and that they were grown in an environmentally controlled greenhouse! I’ve been poisoned! Call CDC! 911! Ambulance! EMT’s! Throw a dart on the MIT’s scary dartboard to see if I will die!

    Pamela – I’ve become utterly terrified of the demonic pollutant “CO2″. I’ve begun walking backwards at all times to ensure that I don’t accidentally -RE-INHALE the stuff.

    I’ve started sleeping with a wet cloth over my face to stop inadvertant RE-INHALATION.

    I insist that all people near me face the other way so that I don’t accidentally RE-INHALE.

    When will the terror end???

  238. Mike Bryant says:

    Graeme and Pamela,
    Why do you think they call it Carbon Die Oxide?
    Better send all your money to good ole Al right away. It’s the only way to conquer carbophobia.

  239. yadab das says:

    Good analysis and narration of the report. It is not a surprise and it is going to happen!! We do not have control on followings:-
    1) Population (India specially)
    2) Cheap fuel and no research on alternative energy
    3) Some extremely greedy species

  240. MJW says:

    Joel Shore: When I defended Stephen Schneider here because if you read his full quote, he clearly does not think that it is a good thing if “we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have”,we many people responded sanctimoniously that they didn’t believe him and even mentioning this as a possibility in a double ethical bind was horrible.

    It’s not that people said they didn’t believe Schneider; it’s that they believed what he originally said instead of his later, rather incomprehensible, claim that he was taken out of context. The question isn’t whether Schneider thought it was a a good thing if “we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have,” the question is, did he reject that option. He did not, saying, “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” So he’s willing to lie, but he’ll feel bad about it.

  241. evanmjones says:

    I’ve been poisoned! Call CDC! 911! Ambulance! EMT’s! Throw a dart on the MIT’s scary dartboard to see if I will die!

    Not only that but your pig will explode.

    “and make little mention of any doubts we might have”

    Actually, that part interested me. What doubts DO they have?

  242. Lance says:

    WoW, just WoW. :I

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-2-enlarged.jpg

    From the picture caption,

    “Ronald Prinn, director of MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, and his group have revised their model that shows how much hotter the Earth’s climate will get in this century without substantial policy change. Standing with the group’s “roulette wheel” are, from left to right, Mort Webster, professor in the Engineering Systems Division; Adam Schlosser, principal research scientist at the Center for Global Change Science; Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry; and Sergey Paltsev, principal research scientist, MIT Energy Initiative”

    Posing in front of a roulette wheel to show what they we are up against(us) or what they’ve learned(?) is quite a perplexing remark and beyond ironic.

    AND, a sad day for MIT and science in general.

    We’re living in bizarro world/times and we all need to get out there and speak up/out about this BS(bad science) NOW.
    I’m going to a council meeting in my area (May 30th)about the municipality getting almost 8 million dollars for a government sponsored project payed out from carbon taxes from us. We all pay a total of almost a half a billion dollars a year I just found out. Our Mayor and council got awarded for a program to reduce our CO2 or sorry, our green house gas omissions to be a sustainable(another catch phrase I’m learning to hate) guilt complex that is as wrong as it’s is decisive in it’s nature.
    I think that they really mean is putting new sidewalks and repave a hilled stretch of over used road. Yeah, everyone wants wide side walks to walk a hill that can give people coronaries. A good stroll on a 45% grade builds community spirit to reduce green house gas of CO2.. that of course would be from the carbon offset from your death. But hey, it’s all good if we save a ……….?

    Anywho,
    No worries about real pollution, are even any real municipal problems we might have or even talk to the public about anymore. We’ll tell you what we want even without public consultation. Guilt that over rides facts based on public ignorance of complacency.

    Even facts like ALL our power is hydro electric and we’ve been playing into for over 50 years. We (the public) own the power and our dams. Through our governments, we’ve leased out the power to a corporation that makes money from us be managing our own power.
    Even though the people of BC Canada own the resource, I know it’s crazy?! And they still want MORE money. :/
    My small community, I can only imagine what they are expecting that might be so green to stop GHG from being created. And how will they stop the main green house gas, water vapor? A ban on lawn sprinkling, or pools, or maybe even oceans and lakes.. ?

    Ok I may of jumped the shark tank! :p lol!

    But you get the point. Or not and that’s cool too.

    It will be an interesting evening and I’m sure I’ll come off as a crazy.

    But it’s time to fight this BS( bad science) that is now infecting our municipal local government.
    I can’t wait really, and so we should all be prepared to explain our knowledge of science truths. Get ready for the backlash these government sponsored “ecoministerys” will have on the non believers.

    If we don’t fit the program, they then will imprison us and take us in for reprogram.

    1984 may be coming true, but I’ll never give up, nor should you. The truth will prevail.

    [/DRAMA]

    :)

  243. PB says:

    Computer models are now science. Hey it’s a lot easier than the old way.

  244. robscott2007 says:

    I think you’re forgetting the important point here: its not the scientists at MIT who are to blame for these inaccuracies; its their PR department combined with awful journalism. If people weren’t knocking out sensationalist reports, then there wouldn’t be a problem. It seems like whichever report you read, it was totally flawed.

    Also, don’t trust anything which quotes heavily from the Telegraph.

  245. Tim says:

    I love the red trend line graph. Excellent analysis.

  246. MikeN says:

    You ask what has changed? The answer is the estimate of how much carbon will be emitted. Hansen’s various model scenarios in the 80s underestimated the actual amount of carbon emitted. Similarly, growth in China and other countries will probably be higher than is currently forecast, just as China became the leading emitter sooner than expected. In fact if you look at the IPCC report, the developed world has a strange dropoff in emissions later this century.

  247. Brendan H says:

    TonyB: “This suggests either they know everything about [Agenda 21] already, no nothing of it and don’t understand the significance or are just uninterested;”

    Personally, I’m more concerned about Plan 9:

  248. Steven Goddard says:

    PB,

    If the MIT scientists actually wanted to stop the exaggerated press coverage, they would have little difficulty doing so. I don’t see that happening.

    MikeN,

    It is important to remember that as a greenhouse gas, the first 30 PPM of CO2 have most of the effect, and that each incremental increase in CO2 has less and less effect on the radiative balance of the atmosphere. Even a two metre column of air shows almost 100% SW absorption in the relevant bands.

  249. Bob H says:

    Perhaps this has already been posted. I’ll admit I haven’t read all 250+ previous posts, but an article came out in February in Bloomberg. It looks like this is about money, a lot of money, around $2B. See the link below:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=azc_06_kZpMM

  250. Bob H says:

    Here’s one more little tidbit to chew on. On Sept. 10, 2008, MIT president Susan Hockfield appeared before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming (link to transcript below). Like I said before, this is about a lot of money.

    http://web.mit.edu/hockfield/speeches/2008-energy.html

  251. ron says:

    easy. they said by 2100. is it 2100 yet? no. it’s clearly complex and not something we can expect to rise constantly for the next 91 years.

    if you wrote this in 2100, i’d agree with you. it’s 2009 last time i checked. they didn’t fail any predictions about 2009, did they?

  252. Indiana Bones says:

    Thanks to Brendon H for the “Plan Nine” best lines and this disturbing conclusion:

    “Perhaps someone will pass you in the dark, and you will never know it. For they will be… From outer space. God help us, in the future!”

    This “report” from MIT invokes tactic #22 from the “25 Tactics of Truth Suppression;” an outdated, dogeared manual, smudged by fatted fingers of fiefdom:

    22. “Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.”

    http://www.benfrank.net/disinfo/

  253. sunsettommy says:

    ROFLMAO!

    Was this latest climate modeling “research” verified? Has it been replicated by anyone? Has the “research” conclusions been supported with FUTURE data?

    Oh wait they have a crystal ball!

  254. Wondering Aloud says:

    Joel Shore

    Sorry Joel but I heared Steven Schneiders original comment in its original context and it has not been mischaracterized. He really did endorse exaggerating to support his agenda.

  255. lifeisagony says:

    Tell this to the people who think global warming is natural, nothing to be afraid of and a hoax. I see from the comments, people are still ignorantly deneying the truth, so nothing will get done, because people are so dumb, its scarey.

  256. O.S.KRISHNAMURTHY says:

    global warming is undoubtedly on the forward march.It has gone beyound scientific research ,which can record minute changes ,to obvious point which the tiny creatures to human beings can recognise.The point now is what can be done .The plan must be collective ,beyond continents ,nations.colour caste and creed.The aim must be to control global warming and gift out the world we enjoyed to the children of ours .If you really love your child you must begin to do something worthwhile to them. We can do it if we have heart.

  257. gullybogan says:

    So, you have strong opinions on the weather, huh.

  258. Joel Shore says:

    Mike Bryant says:

    What will this cost tax payers? The Obama Administration says only $800.00 per household, but this calculation does not include the taxes that are passed through to consumers. An example would be that he isn’t counting the taxes/costs paid by utility companies for the cost of the carbon credits (all of these costs are passed on to the consumers of the energy). When these expenses are included the Government mandated tax/carbon credit expense represents $3,900.00 each household.

    You are absolutely incorrect on this. The $800 does include all the costs that are passed on to consumers. However, what it also includes is the revenues that are obtained from the sale of the allowances. The only way that the $3,900 number (which I believe should really be $3,100 anyway…the $3,900 coming from double-counting) would apply is if the government took all this money received from the sale of the allowances and burned it.

    Please don’t tell me about MIT studies. MIT is a joke like NSIDC, NASA, NOAA, GISS and many many institutions that have turned political to gorge at the public trough.

    Well, your number comes from the MIT study too. The difference between them is the $800 estimate comes from a correct interpretation of the MIT study and the $3900 estimate comes from a complete misinterpretation of the study!

  259. Steven Goddard says:

    O.S.KRISHNAMURTHY,

    You must live in the Northern Hemisphere. In the Southern Hemisphere it gets cooler this time of year. It is important to not confuse Summer with “global warming,” though Dr. Hansen did his best to blur the line at his 1988 Congressional hearing.

  260. Dave Middleton says:

    @matt v. (15:58:18) :

    That’s very interesting. I picked the cooling onsets based on 6th order polynomial functions. That put the oceanic cooling onset in 2003 and the land cooling onset in 2005. I’m not sure which method is better; but both show cooling trends.

    In 2006 NASA issued a report of oceanic cooling since 2003 (See “Short-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming ‘Speed Bump'” at nasa-dot-gov)…But then retracted it to review the methodology. The author of the original paper said that the cooling he was observing was impossible, “Unless you believe The Day After Tomorrow.” (See “Correcting Ocean Cooling” at nasa-dot-gov)

    Since then NASA has used models to correct the data and declared the oceanic cooling to be nothing more than natural variability…Yet, the satellite data clearly show the Troposphere over the oceans to have been cooling since at least 2003.

  261. Sandy says:

    lifeisagony
    O.S.KRISHNAMURTHY

    Are you guys for real?
    A Global Warming Conference in Copenhagen in December?
    Mass cognitive dissonance is the only explanation.

  262. TonyB says:

    Brendan H

    Mysteriously, I could not hear the sound on the you tube clip, obvioiusly ‘THEY’ are trying to prevent me from learning the truth…

    Tonyb (or is it?)

  263. TonyB says:

    Brendan H

    Just saw the comment from O.S.KRISHNAMURTHY (07:10:26) :

    Obviously some people desperately want Agenda 21 but don’t realise it exists…

    Tonyb

  264. Richard Sharpe says:

    lifeisagony says:

    Tell this to the people who think global warming is natural, nothing to be afraid of and a hoax. I see from the comments, people are still ignorantly deneying the truth, so nothing will get done, because people are so dumb, its scarey.

    Man its so scary that people wilfully refuse to learn to spell correctly. What is this world coming to? We are doomed, I tell you. Indeed, if they don’t learn to use punctuation correctly, baby Jesus will cry again.

  265. matt v. says:

    Dave Middleton

    Here is my source for the start of the slight global cooling slope or negative phase

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2001/to:2009/plot/gistemp/from:2001/to:2009/trend/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2009/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2009/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2009/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2009/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2009/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2009/trend

    I found that the slope trend was positive for starting the calculation in 2000 and 1999 but went first negative in 2001. On an annual basis the global cooling has been apparent for 3 years and oceans for 6 years

  266. mbabbitt says:

    The public’s perception of science will be lowered from this trash. Someday, we will all have a good laugh, if w’ere still around. But what a perfect example of groupthink taking over the scinetific mind. Garbage built on garbage and then using some real data change as proof that something more horrible will occur in the future. Crying wolf so many times that when a real crisis appears, who will believe these “geniuses”.?

  267. Mike Bryant says:

    Joel,
    Are you telling me that the government will only get approximately 800 dollars from each household?
    Please tell me where the trillions that are currently being spent will come from.
    Mike

  268. Jeff says:

    Does MIT now stand for Muppets In Training?
    Obviously these “researchers” are being paid to come up with an answer to a what if question, like what if someday it got really hot and the sun stood still and we started to burn? What would our chances of survival be? So these “researchers” came up with a roulette wheel to show everybody that their chances of survival are a crap shoot. Just spin and see if you will burn real fast or real slow.
    It must be nice to be so well off we can afford to sit around and dream up disaster scenarios instead actually doing some real work. MIT used to do real science.
    A lot of money is being spent to force a single opinion upon the masses because there is a lot of money at stake. Just follow the money and it will reveal those who stand to gain the most. If we want to clean up that which is really messing up the planet lets start by cleaning up the corruption in Washington DC, and the UN, the rest will follow. Our chances of survival are a crap shoot not because of climate change but because og the idiots who want you to believe it.

  269. Joel Shore says:

    Mike Bryant says:

    Joel,
    Are you telling me that the government will only get approximately 800 dollars from each household?

    No. The $800 estimate is the estimate of what are called “substitution costs” and represent the costs to us of having to switch away from fossil fuel sources of energy (or pay to have those sequestered or what not). And, from what I can tell this result from the MIT estimate is toward or at the high end of such estimates. The CBO’s estimate was much lower (~$100 per household)…although I am not sure how the levels of the cap compared. And historically, market forces have tended to find the lowest cost solutions, particularly when regulations have the market flexibility that cap-and-trade does (i.e., by allowing those who can make the emissions reductions most efficiently do most of it and then sell their credits to those who can’t).

    And, of course, none of these estimates include any economic gains from avoided problems associated with AGW.

    The issue of how much the government gets depends on how things are structured. One can imagine a system where the government returns all of the dividends from the emissions allowances to the people to make things revenue-neutral or systems where the government keeps some of the money to reduce deficits, or whatever. But, this really isn’t talking about the cost of the economy of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions but rather general issues of funding government.

    Please tell me where the trillions that are currently being spent will come from.

    Well, it is indeed very unfortunate that over the last 9 years we have gone from a decent economy and a surplus to a large deficit and then the biggest economic implosion since the Great Depression. But, that is a totally different issue than the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I know that you are very suspicious of government and that this then informs your economic and scientific beliefs. But the science and economics of the issue actually exists independent of your political mindset and it is best to focus on the factual scientific and economic principles…or at least not to mix these up with the political issues too much. Hansen has clearly been worried about the issue of suspicion of government undermining the will to reduce greenhouse gases, which is why he was big on a carbon tax with a 100% dividend, i.e., a revenue-neutral approach. That is clearly one solution.

  270. Mike Bryant says:

    Joel,
    I have no political axe to grind. Eight hundred bucks per household will raise about a hundred billion dollars. That is a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions being spent. No matter what your political beliefs, the current level of spending cannot be borne by the American people.
    Mike

  271. Martin says:

    @Pamela

    sponsors are listed here:
    http://globalchange.mit.edu/sponsors/current.html

    big oil & Co :-)

    Martin

  272. Smokey says:

    O.S.KRISHNAMURTHY (07:10:26),

    Citations, please. “Obvious” and “undoubtedly” are fine for Letters to the Editor. But here, you need to verify what you say.

  273. Indiana Bones says:

    Martin (15:00:32) :

    sponsors are listed here:
    http://globalchange.mit.edu/sponsors/current.html

    big oil & Co :-)

    “When logic and proportion
    Have fallen sloppy dead
    And the White Knight is talking backwards…”
    Jefferson Airplane

  274. Roger Sowell says:

    Re projecting the CO2 increase for the next 90 years:

    From the U.S. Energy Information Agency, EIA,

    “. . . the electric power sector, which generates 41% of the carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, decreased its power generation by 1% in 2008, but decreased its carbon dioxide emissions by 2.1%. In other words, the power sector decreased its emissions intensity by 1.1% in 2008. The EIA attributes that accomplishment to a decrease in the use of all fossil fuels at power plants, a “feat credited in part to an increase in electricity generated from wind power.” [bold emphasis added -- RES]

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press318.html

    One can only wonder if the MIT study-group has included the impacts on atmospheric CO2 from all the wind-power plants that are to be built over the next 90 years? Or will this require yet another iteration of model-tuning and running?

  275. Mike Bryant says:

    Since we’ve been looking at some of the products coming from MIT, perhaps a post about the MIT study of Cap and Trade costs would be appropriate. I feel that MIT has grossly underestimated the costs per household, however I could be wrong. The concentrated attention of so many of the brilliant people here might bring a better understanding of the costs we are incurring, and whether those costs are justified by the science.
    Thanks,
    Mike

  276. Mike Bryant says:

    Joel,
    You said, “I know that you are very suspicious of government and that this then informs your economic and scientific beliefs.”

    I am no political beast but I believe we are all better off following Jefferson’s feeling’s about government…

    The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
    Thomas Jefferson

  277. Greg Walcher says:

    The study is not only absurd in its manner of reaching conclusion not based on science, but perhaps even worse, the press hype it generated has done untold damage to the reputation of MIT. Environmental discussions ought to be based on science, which is observational, not on computer models, which will always be subject to the will of the programmer (GIGO, as you wrote). No serious scientist would ever claim any fact of science is “settled,” as so many in the Gore-UN-IPCC crowd claim. Better, more accurate, and especially more recent information should always give rise to additional study. The fact that these “researchers” continue to base sensational claims on computer models already proven wrong simply shows that this is not science, but political activity.

    Check here for regular interpretation of natural resources policy – http://www.gregwalcher.com

  278. Rob H says:

    These clowns at MIT can’t even predict next year nevertheless 2100. Idiots.

  279. Smokey says:

    Just The Facts,

    That link was some amazing propaganda. A perfect example of the Big Lie technique. Everything it stated regarding globaloney is flagrantly wrong. But then it comes from the odious Kofi Annan, one of the most despicable human beings in existence.

  280. Mike Bryant says:

    I’m still loving the title, billions will be killed by global warming this century. Someone pointed this out above but I think it bears repeating. How many will die this century if the temperatures return to “optimum”? First, there is no optimum temperature for adaptable mankind and second, practically everyone alive today will die before the end of the century.
    Maybe the headline should read, “6.5 Billion People Will DIE this Century”.
    I don’t understand why this type of scare tactic works, I guess everyone thinks or feels they will live forever.
    It reminds me of Katie Couric asking Michael Eisner why animals were dying at the Disney Animal Kingdom ten or twelve years ago. Mike had to explain on TV that animals really do die sometimes no matter what precautions are taken. I think my dad exlained that to me when I was three.

  281. Brian in Alaska says:

    This article refers to medical studies showing the health benefits of a warming climate.

    “In early 2008, the Department of Health of the UK released “Health Effects of Climate Change in the UK 2008,” an update of previous reports from 2001/2002, edited by Sari Kovats. They used IPCC models that predicted 2.5 C to 3 C mean temperature increases in the U.K. by 2100. They found that there was no increase in heat-related deaths from 1971–2002, despite warming in summers, suggesting that the UK population is adapting to warmer conditions. But cold-related mortality fell by more than a third in all regions. The overall trend in mortality for the warming from 1971–2002 was beneficial. They state, in summary, that “Winter deaths will continue to decline as the climate warms.”

    After seeing the snow level coming down the mountains again over the last couple of days, I’m all for it.

  282. Just The Facts says:

    Smokey (04:33:55) :

    “But then it comes from the odious Kofi Annan, one of the most despicable human beings in existence.”

    I don’t think that Kofi is despicable, I think he is well meaning, but misinformed. I think if he knew how far off the IPCC models and conclusions are, and grasped the possibility that we may be heading for a period (of potentially catastrophic) cooling, then he would be acting to prepare the world for however the climate may change.

    Or maybe he just doesn’t have any power…

  283. Smokey says:

    It’s interesting reading the comments below a globaloney warming article on another site. Maybe people are really starting to see through the scam: click

  284. Michael H anderson says:

    I remember hearing the billions this century stat. It took about a second for me to realize that about 6.5 billion people will die in the next century. Heart attack, cancer, malnutrition, you name it – we’re all going to die “in the next century”.

    These people are either very stupid, or assume everyone else is. Either one troubles me greatly.

  285. Skepticism skeptic says:

    Note that the June Arctic ice area shown in the graphs is about the same as in 2007-2008 years of record lows, and having been higher in May, is therefore falling faster. Note also that the average ice thickness is far below historic norms, so there’s less to melt.

    Please revisit this in October, and tell us whether “Arctic ice extent is at the highest…” still seems like a good way to characterize the year.

    Also, regarding “the record for the most snow covered area” in January, is the area dusted with snow in midwinter really a good proxy for trends in global climate?

  286. Michael H Anderson says:

    Skepticism skeptic – do you just spam all the AGW skeptic sites with the same crap? This thread is about a laughable “statistic” in particular, not sea ice. Your point, such as it is, is not germane to the issue under discussion – and that’s how we tell an adult from an adolescent in the real world.

    Lies, damn lies, statistics – and transparent redirection. Holy red herring!

Comments are closed.