Friday Funny: Grister David Roberts says Earth to roast at 180 degrees F by year 2300, film at eleven

Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com posted this yesterday, and even though it is a few months old, it’s too funny to pass up. It is so ridiculous that it reminds me of Al Gore’s famous claim that the Earth’s mantle is “millions of degrees” on national television.

Even the worst case scenario computer models pushed by IPCC don’t come close to this, and they only go out to to the year 2100, because the uncertainty beyond that is so great.

2.01_-_observed_and_modelled_global_temperature_growth_1000-2100[1]

The Grist writer who made the ridiculous statement, David Roberts, is famous for regularly making wacky claims, such as his suggestion that climate skeptics should undergo Nuremberg style war crime trials.

My question is: How does somebody who makes claims like that get cleared for a TED talk? Watch the video and note all the emotional video and image insertions to go with his rhetoric, then note the graphs.

Junkscience writes:

Nuremberg-Trials-for-Skeptics-Guy says Earth’s surface temp may reach 180-degrees F by 2300 without emissions curbs

But the Earth only re-radiates so much radiation for CO2 to absorb and there’s already a surfeit of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The clip starts at about 10:15 into the video.

Note: watch until 11:08, where he makes the 180F claim. – Anthony

=============================================================

Gotta love the FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE at the end with the music.

Assuming somehow Earth could get the extra energy from the sun needed to sustain such an increase, and assuming somehow CO2 manages to overcome its limits related to LWIR response in the atmosphere at band saturation, it still falls short if we take the worst case IPCC model path at project into the future to 2300.

Depending on who you ask, the average surface temperature of the Earth now is anywhere from 57F to 61F. For the purpose of this demonstration, I’ll choose 60F. I’ve taken the IPCC  worst case projection and extended the line all the way into the year 2300, getting a anomaly value of 18.6C (65.5F -32F for zero line of anomaly= 35.5F) and adding that to our current average Earth temperature of 60F,  (or his comment on “places of the Earth that have an average of 80F”) it STILL comes up short.

roberts_temp_by_2300

Here’s why it can’t continue in a straight line, nearly straight up as Roberts claims.

The LWIR response of CO2 is logarithmic, not linear. We don’t get much more heating for a doubling of CO2.

click for larger image

click for larger image

And then there’s Earth’s own thermostat…and the demonstrated low climate sensitivity:

…there have now been several recent papers showing much the same – numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.’ – James Annan

Wild temperature increases like the Roberts 180F by 2300 claim, and the more recent uptick hockey schtick by Joe Romm:

Romm_stick-Carbon-Final

…look increasingly laughable.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, Humor, Satire and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

103 Responses to Friday Funny: Grister David Roberts says Earth to roast at 180 degrees F by year 2300, film at eleven

  1. dean says:

    a temperature of 18.6 deg C is a temperature of 65.48 deg F
    a temperature difference of 18.6 deg C is a temperature difference of 33.48 deg F

    REPLY: Ah yes, right, anomaly not absolute, I fixed that typo thanks, refresh to see it. – Anthony

  2. Luther Wu says:

    For a moment there, I thought it said; Grifter David Roberts.

  3. Bill_W says:

    Wow, he is an incredibly poor speaker. I found it interesting that this bouncing of the energy was responsible for evaporation and precipitation. Quite a profound analysis. Most of the slides looked like ones that a 3d grader would use in a presentation.

  4. Bill_W says:

    We are all going to die of “hotness”. ROTFLMAO!!

  5. Jeff L says:

    Clearly another case of increasingly desperate alarmists trying to be “alarming” & get the attention of the public in the face of real world data that clearly isn’t cooperating with their beliefs. Sorry guys, it isn’t working – you are only making fools of yourselves.

  6. Hal44 says:

    180F? Now that is hot! I am sure glad I will be gone. My great-great-great-…….-great-grandkids will probably never forgive me for the decadent, carbon-prolific, environmentally-criminal lifestyle that I lived in the 20th and 21st centuries.

  7. Katherine says:

    That was one reason to take TED talks with a grain of salt.

  8. Robin Edwards says:

    Is there a “blow up” of the rightmost century on a legible scale. Haven’t seen one so far, but would like to. A reliable value for the slope of the apparently linear section would be instructive.

    Robin

  9. Mike H says:

    That’s a Tedx talk which according to this TED.com, (https://www.ted.com/tedx)

    TEDx was created in the spirit of TED’s mission, “ideas worth spreading.” The program is designed to give communities, organizations and individuals the opportunity to stimulate dialogue through TED-like experiences at the local level.

    I don’t believe they are put through the same level of quality control TED talks are put through before going in front of an audience. They better hope so, because from what little I saw, that was a whole lot of crap. It scares me there is a large enough audience, even in Granolaville, Wherever, they could fill even a home theatre to listen to that tripe. TED should rethink the idea of TEDx if they are going to bring out crap like that. If that quality level becomes the norm, their brand equity will begin to erode quickly. At least I would hope so. Things that make me go hmmm.

  10. garymount says:

    He also made a mistake at the very beginning of his talk. Without GHG’s it would be about 30 C colder, but he describes it in such a way that it would be about 280 C colder. Anyone else catch that mistake?

  11. NoAstronomer says:

    But the real question is: how long will the Mississippi river be in 2300?

  12. chris y says:

    Keep in mind that Roberts is being much more conservative than Hansen, who wrote this with a straight face:

    “After the ice is gone, would Earth proceed to the Venus syndrome, a runaway greenhouse effect that would destroy all life on the planet, perhaps permanently? While that is difficult to say based on present information, I’ve come to conclude that if we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.”
    Hansen, Storms of My Grandchildren

    For Hansen’s House of Hades to become a reality, all of the oceans must be boiled off and maintained as water vapor or lost to space. Since the boiling point increases with increased pressure, the surface temperature will be considerably higher than 212 F.

    Compared to Hansen, David Roberts is a bastion of reason and calm…

  13. Rick Bradford says:

    The video shows him to be one weird guy.

    Shortly after his 180F claim comes a shot of Nazi stormtroopers marching down the street, with a side order of Panzers.

    Indulging his secret Green fantasies, maybe.

  14. Neo says:

    Some how “jumped the shark” just isn’t enough.

  15. tty says:

    Let me see now, a rise of 120 F is equal to 67 C. If we take the IPCC high sensitivity of 4.5 C per doubling that means about 15 doublings are required, i. e. 2^15 times as much CO2 as today. 2^15 = 32768 times as much CO2 as today. That means that the atmosphere will have to contain about 1310 % carbon dioxide (that’s something like 200 pounds per square inch!). Unfortunately there is only 21 % oxygen, so even using up all oxygen in the atmosphere to make CO2 won’t get us anywhere near.
    On the other hand if we are content with just turning all oxygen in the atmosphere into CO2, then about 9 doublings are possible, which would require a sensitivity of about 7.5 C per doubling. In that case temperatures since 1950 should have risen something like 4 degrees (7 degrees Fahrenheit). In that case we should be growing oranges in Sweden by now, and I’m fairly sure I would have noticed that.

  16. Jimbo says:

    OT but on the Junkscience site I see a dangerous situation in the UK. For US folks gas in UK is the type used for heating homes & cooking. ;-)

    “Almost maxed out”: Britain on the brink of running out of gas with just TWO days left in reserve
    Gas stocks have been drained in recent weeks due to the unseasonably cold weather – pushing demand up to a fifth higher than normal
    Daily Mirror

    Also reported in the Daily Mail [36 hours gas left].

  17. William McClenney says:

    An ice age should take care of this subspecies rather neatly.

  18. Ford says:

    Hah…”The Goalie Stick”

  19. OldWeirdHarold says:

    “But the Earth only re-radiates so much radiation for CO2 to absorb and there’s already a surfeit of CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    What on earth does that mean in English?

  20. RockyRoad says:

    Ah yes, the fiction of extrapolation.

  21. PaulH says:

    Well, there goes 15 minutes of bandwidth (and my life) I’ll never get back again. And here’s a minor funny… Now that YouTube has noticed that I watched this drivel, YouTube is recommending “9-11 truther” videos along with assorted crackpot-alarmist CAGW videos. Ha!

  22. dfbaskwill says:

    Jumped the shark, then came back to beat the shark with a hockey stick…

  23. TRM says:

    TEDX have recently pulled several videos that “didn’t live up to review” by their scientific advisory board. Perhaps if we all emailed them questioning this bogus bit of “science” they would do the same? It would definately tell us if they value the scientific method at all.

  24. DirkH says:

    Oh no. The goats will kill us all.

  25. David Wells says:

    What is really worrying is that to many people this guy is sufficiently plausible – his presentational style not the content – for the more gullible amongst us to believe him. Think he is genuine need of care and protection, somewhere remote like the South Pole where he can ponder his conclusions at minus 92C, without gloves or boots or maybe he would like to be in the UK in West Yorkshire with blizzards and howling winds and drifts and it was the first day of spring two days ago. These guys live in a parallel universe and clearly never connect with what they see out of the window, bizarre.

  26. John Tillman says:

    Crazy, yes, but still 32 degrees less zany than NASA’s own Jim Ted Hansen’s “boiling oceans”.

  27. Bill Illis says:

    Here is a Zoom-in on the Log warming which goes out to the year 2300 (as Roberts apparently thinks he is doing) under the IPCC’s RCP 6.0 scenario where CO2equivalent reaches 805 ppm (or nearly two doublings) by the Year 2300.

    This is then compared to the IPCC AR5′s forecast track and to the actual Observations to date which only gets to about +1.3C by the year 2300.

    http://s17.postimg.org/ptzqvibdr/Zoom_in_Log_Warming_Actuals_to_date_Feb13.png

    Climate scientists has always had a problem with the math.

  28. Gail Combs says:

    Mean while Mother Nature is up to her usual tricks with snow in the UK, US and Germany.

  29. tgmccoy says:

    I have to wonder- what are these people smoking ingesting ? How many are Vegans?
    Or have a deficiency in B12/amino acids? This is irrational. I have seen better 9th grade
    science fair presentations…

  30. chris y says:

    Of course, Paul Ehrlich, who predicted that we already reached surface temperatures of 212 F around 20 years ago, makes Hansen look like a CACC denier-

    ““We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”
    Paul Ehrlich, 1972

  31. oldseadog says:

    Is there an exercise going on at WUWT to print as many April the First qualifying stories as possible so as to soften us up so that we won’t recognize the real spoof when it comes shortly?

  32. Phillip Bratby says:

    This is a hockey stick with the blade and handle reversed.

  33. Steve C says:

    You’ll have to stop saying, “The stupid, it burns”. They’re starting to take you literally.

  34. John Tillman says:

    Human “popullution” proponent Ehrlich was talking about breeder reactors in 1972. Now he’s worried about fossil fuel burning (with a brief excursion into “nuclear winter” en route). Don’t know his opinion on windmills, but as a biologist, he should be horrified at their affect on wildlife. Hard to say how the world would be powered if he were dictator, but billions of dead humans might be just what he’d like. No apocalypse too loopy for him.

  35. pat says:

    At least half the Warmists I talk to, talk exactly like this. A mixture of credulous hysteria, bad science, less knowledge, mixed in with a lot of anger. It seems to give them a sense of importance.

  36. JohnB says:

    Garymount said: …Without GHG’s…30C…not 280C…

    Not defending him, but he opened up discussing an atmosphere, then he started discussing the makeup of atmosphere incluuding GHG’s…all those GHG’s and we’re still waiting for Spring

  37. Bruce Cobb says:

    pat – you talk to warmists? You must have the patience of a saint. Ten seconds in, an I’d want to hit them upside the head with a hockey stick.

  38. tim maguire says:

    At about 10:00, “Climate change will literally take on a life of its own.” Say what? Climate change hasn’t always had a life of its own?

    This is currently my biggest complaint about the debate–the incredible carelessness/shameless dishonesty of the CAGW crowd. CAGW, AGW, global warming, and climate change are all used interchangably. This linguistic slight of hand is consistently used by CAGW believers to twist the debate to their advantage.

    Even on this blog I’ve seen “climate change” used Where CAGW is meant. The skeptic community needs to be more vigilant in making sure the proper terms are used. I believe real headway could be made simply by policing the conversation better.

  39. Matt says:

    chris y says:
    March 22, 2013 at 9:06 am

    Of course, Paul Ehrlich, who predicted that we already reached surface temperatures of 212 F around 20 years ago, makes Hansen look like a CACC denier-

    ““We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”
    Paul Ehrlich, 1972
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Interesting, steam is normally white under natural lighting conditions. I wonder where the blue is supposed to come from?

  40. Chad Wozniak says:

    Nuremberg trials for skeptics? What about the carbon policy wonks in the UK that killed 30,000 people from hypothermia in the UK this year? CAGW hysteria is MASS MURDER.
    I say to the AGW freakos – show me one instance in which a skeptic killed anybody.

  41. DocMartyn says:

    How long will it be before there is fusion of the lighter elements of the planet, leaving only iron.

  42. Richard M says:

    We’re already capturing about 80% of the outgoing LWIR. That only leaves about 20% more. This is the 40 w/m2 that escapes at the moment. If we could capture it all we would increase the temperature to around 22C (right around 80F). This dude is claiming we can violate the laws of physics. The only way to get to where he claims we are heading is to add multiple steel shells. I don’t think that’s going to happen.

    I wonder if anyone in the audience realized they were being fed a bunch of bull.

  43. policycritic says:

    Mean while Mother Nature is up to her usual tricks with snow in the UK, US and Germany.

    Heard on BBC early this AM that the RCMP had to shut down the main road outside Edmonton in Alberta, Canada because of the snow and 100-vehicle multi-car/truck pile-ups as a result. Called my friend who lives up there, and she said she got 16 inches overnight, and that it had been snowing for a week.
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/drive+slowly+Edmontonians+cautioned+wake+spring+storm/8137540/story.html

  44. Meanwhile GISS figures are out for Feb, and are lower than the 2012 average.

    More significantly, the Dec-Feb anomaly is a mere 0.1C higher than the 1981-2010 average. (And how much of that is “adjustment?)

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/giss-figures-out-for-february/

  45. Bob says:

    Another guy who uses “climate change.” I tend to disregard immediately someone who uses that because I’m not sure if they really think they can control the climate so it is static.

  46. John Bell says:

    And after the talk I bet he got in his SUV and drove home…

  47. rogerknights says:

    Lance says: October 20, 2011 at 3:40 am

    As I step away from my computer I accelerate to 3 m/h in 1 second. Extrapolating from these “actual measurements” I will break the sound barrier in a little over 4 minutes.
    I better button my pajamas.

  48. seanbrady says:

    I think I found the source of the Ehrlich “Blue Steam” quote. He seems to be speaking about population and not breeder reactors:

    http://newspaperarchive.com/ames-daily-tribune/1969-08-16

    Note I can only read the grey text all the way at the bottom of the web page; I can’t view the photo of the newspaper for some reason.

  49. Don says:

    Chad Wozniak says:
    March 22, 2013 at 9:58 am

    Nuremberg trials for skeptics? What about the carbon policy wonks in the UK that killed 30,000 people from hypothermia in the UK this year?
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    Hi Chad, I’ve seen this troubling claim a few times recently but have not found a source for it. Can you (or another reader) supply one? Thanks!

  50. Louis says:

    He states that the temperatures we are experiencing now are a result of the green house gasses we put into the atmosphere 50 to 100 years ago and that current gasses being released will affect the temperatures 50 to 100 years from now. How does that work? Why doesn’t CO2 have an immediate effect when it enters the atmosphere? Does it go to sleep for 50 years? Even if he assumes it would take that long for the oceans to warm up, wouldn’t it still have to increase air temperatures first to warm the oceans? I just don’t get where they come up with the 50 year lag.

  51. OldWeirdHarold says:

    garymount says:
    March 22, 2013 at 7:57 am

    He also made a mistake at the very beginning of his talk. Without GHG’s it would be about 30 C colder, but he describes it in such a way that it would be about 280 C colder. Anyone else catch that mistake?
    ======================
    That suggests not a mere misstatement, but a conceptual error of major proportions. If he believes that the earth would be at absolute zero if not for the atmosphere, we’re talking Al Gore league scientific illiteracy.

  52. vigilantfish says:

    seanbrady says:
    March 22, 2013 at 10:57 am

    I think I found the source of the Ehrlich “Blue Steam” quote. He seems to be speaking about population and not breeder reactors:

    http://newspaperarchive.com/ames-daily-tribune/1969-08-16
    ====================

    Thanks for posting that link. I wish I had the tech savvy to be able to print the news article out to pin on my office door for passing students to read. Ehrlich and his ilk need to be publicly lambasted at every opportunity.

    In an unrelated note: I was once editor-in-chief of a high school newspaper back in the dark ages. I thought our typesetting was cleaner than that. Probably wasn’t, though. What a difference word processing has made in our daily expectations! (Strange that public expectations of scientists are not concomitantly higher.)

  53. Gary Hladik says:

    Heh. Reminded me of this:

    See? You can make this stuff up! :-)

  54. phodges says:

    Even the worst case scenario computer models pushed by IPCC don’t come close to this, and they only go out to to the year 2100, because the uncertainty beyond that is so great.

    100 years???

    Try 3 days!

  55. jorgekafkazar says:

    I guess TEDx = Totally Erroneous Drivel, xtreme.

    TRM says: “TEDX have recently pulled several videos that “didn’t live up to review” by their scientific advisory board. Perhaps if we all emailed them questioning this bogus bit of “science” they would do the same?’

    Do you have a link, TRM?

  56. Wamron says:

    What kind of IDIOT gives a shit WHAT happens in 2100?

  57. john robertson says:

    I think its simple, Climatology accolades are from the, math is hard persuasion .
    Mandelbrot realized that weather can not be modelled without new mathematical tools, chaos theory was the start.
    But thats work, linear mathematics is so much easier so we have linear thinkers proclaiming the output of linear models, completely missing the cycles of real weather.
    When you know the word of God, all and any garbage in will produce Gospel Out.

  58. DirkH says:

    The best part is: I can’t watch the Gristers video because I’m behind the Great Music Wall of germany, where any video that our local RIAA equivalent, the GEMA, thinks contains precious copyrighted music, gets blocked. (Only when they actually care; in this case they did. I think their algorithms only catch crappy music anyway.)

  59. DirkH says:

    Louis says:
    March 22, 2013 at 11:20 am
    “Even if he assumes it would take that long for the oceans to warm up, wouldn’t it still have to increase air temperatures first to warm the oceans? I just don’t get where they come up with the 50 year lag.”

    Maybe he lives under the mistaken impression that LWIR penetrates water.

  60. HarveyS says:

    David Wells says:
    March 22, 2013 at 8:53 am
    says”
    maybe he would like to be in the UK in West Yorkshire with blizzards and howling winds and drifts and it was the first day of spring two days ago.”

    So true (u can be far from me then), also this from the daily mail today.
    “Parts of the UK received 15cm (6in) of snow today, and with temperatures falling as low as -3C (27F), the weekend is expected to be the coldest March weekend for more than 50 years.

    Up to a foot of snow is forecast to fall in areas such as the Pennines and North Wales overnight and into tomorrow.”
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297343/UK-weather-Up-foot-snow-just-hours-leads-travel-chaos.html#comments

    Can someone PLEASE explain to me why with co2( ok carbon /sarc) at nearly 400ppm, why the temperature has not continued to go up for the last 17 years, soon to be 18? ? answers on the back of postcard please from a nice beach /sarc

  61. A.D. Everard says:

    Don says:
    March 22, 2013 at 11:19 am

    Chad Wozniak says:
    March 22, 2013 at 9:58 am

    Nuremberg trials for skeptics? What about the carbon policy wonks in the UK that killed 30,000 people from hypothermia in the UK this year?
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    Hi Chad, I’ve seen this troubling claim a few times recently but have not found a source for it. Can you (or another reader) supply one? Thanks!

    *

    Hi Don. I’ve got this from the Office of National Statistics giving the figure of 24,000 excess winter deaths for the winter of 2011/2012 (England and Wales only). Each year is different, of course. I don’t know what the highest count (year) is, but it’s very disturbing that’s it’s as high as it is.

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health2/excess-winter-mortality-in-england-and-wales/2011-12–provisional–and-2010-11–final-/index.html

  62. Stephen Richards says:

    Even the worst case scenario computer models pushed by IPCC don’t come close to this, and they only go out to to the year 2100, because the uncertainty beyond that is so great

    You must mean 21:00 tonight, of course :)

  63. TonyG says:

    When you hear things like this and think “nobody could possibly believe that”, don’t doubt the credulity of your average person. I once posted a messed up google maps image ( http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mau297uNmx1rhptwbo1_1280.jpg ) that looked rather wavy, along with the (joking, so I thought) caption “Global Warming causing Las Vegas to melt!” – and people believed it was really happening!

  64. D.B. Stealey says:

    TonyG,

    Stop it, you’re scaring me! People can’t be that credulous …can they?

  65. Stephen Brown says:

    Considering the present weather conditions here in the UK, this is also relevant:-
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9078273/Hypothermia-deaths-double-over-five-years.html
    And so is this:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-21881129
    Yes! in our Government’s wisdom we have switched off one of our major (coal-fired) power stations when the snow is a couple of feet thick and our gas (that’s gas, not petrol) is now in such short supply that we are within a couple of weeks of running out.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9947340/Gas-is-running-low-as-chill-continues.html

  66. It gets better (or worse, depending on where you’re sitting):-
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21895654
    We’ve closed a nuclear power station so that the workers can get home!

  67. Ben D. says:

    IMO, the reason why popular belief in CAGW is falling away, is actually due to their over exposure to the “Boy that cried Wolf” scare mongering pablum that is fed to them, yet the hiatus in warming continues to be fact as CO2 levels continue to rise.

  68. Bruce Cobb says:

    HarveyS says:
    March 22, 2013 at 1:55 pm
    Can someone PLEASE explain to me why with co2( ok carbon /sarc) at nearly 400ppm, why the temperature has not continued to go up for the last 17 years, soon to be 18? ? answers on the back of postcard please from a nice beach /sarc
    That’s easy. The carbon from 50 years ago is on a break. Hey, it was the 60′s, so that’s cool. Can you dig it? Come to think of it though, so is the carbon from the 50′s. You see, unlike ordinary carbon, man-made carbon works in strange, almost-magical ways. It does what it wants to, when it wants to do it. You just need to be patient.

  69. Mac the Knife says:

    180F by the year 2300? That’s a long time to wait for a properly poached egg…..
    MtK

  70. JohnWho says:

    tim maguire says:
    March 22, 2013 at 9:51 am

    This is currently my biggest complaint about the debate–the incredible carelessness/shameless dishonesty of the CAGW crowd. CAGW, AGW, global warming, and climate change are all used interchangably. This linguistic slight of hand is consistently used by CAGW believers to twist the debate to their advantage.

    Even on this blog I’ve seen “climate change” used Where CAGW is meant. The skeptic community needs to be more vigilant in making sure the proper terms are used. I believe real headway could be made simply by policing the conversation better.

    I agree.

    I even take it further and use “CAGW by CO2″ to be even more specific.

  71. TonyG says:

    D.B. Stealey says:
    Stop it, you’re scaring me! People can’t be that credulous …can they?

    I scared ME. Unfortunately, they are.

  72. JR says:

    Good grief! The geniuses at TED must have lost their collective minds sponsoring scare-mongering junk like this. Whatever credibility they had will take a big hit.

  73. Bill Illis says:

    TEDx events are paid for by the speaker/promoter.

    So, you can buy your own if you want. If you are as crazy as this guy is, maybe you think it will pay for itself ( or maybe the crazy organization you work for does) or maybe wind farms will become economic or maybe temps will rise 100F, or maybe a person should just be sensible and not so prone to dump in their pants over nothing.

  74. Arno Arrak says:

    chris y — March 22, 2013 at 8:05 am:

    “Keep in mind that Roberts is being much more conservative than Hansen, who wrote this with a straight face: ‘After the ice is gone, ….. I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty.’
    Hansen, Storms of My Grandchildren.”

    His “Venus syndrome” is a runaway greenhouse effect, another fairy tale to add to those “storms” of his grandchildren. He was originally an astronomer on the Pioneer Venus project but he abandoned his job, jumped over to GISS, and in two years became the boss. Obviously by pre-arrangement, to facilitate spreading the gospel of global warming. Still, from his record you might think that he knows something about Venus but it turns out that he is totally ignorant. The geology of Venus, you see, is very different from the earth because Venus has no plate tectonics. This is vital to understanding its atmosphere. Radioactive heat on earth is constantly vented by plate boundary volcanism but on Venus it just builds up below the crust. It will form numerous in-plate volcanoes which so weaken the crust that it breaks up into large slabs that sink into the interior. A new crust is then formed and the cycle begins again. Judging from impact crater counts one such repaving cycle may take from 300 to 600 million years to complete. If the planet is the same age as the earth is there may have been as many as ten such cycles in its history. Its atmosphere is entirely a product of these giant eructations and has nothing whatsoever to do with any runaway greenhouse effect. But Hansen keeps spreading this misinformation and thereby fools people unfamiliar with the true state of Venusian atmosphere into unjustified fear of a non-existent danger. Someone should straighten him out every time he brings out this stupidity as science.

  75. Ryan Gainey says:

    He did not make the claim you are accusing him of making. If your point of view was honest, would you need to lie to defend it?

  76. zootcadillac says:

    I’m holding my own in the comments under this ludicrous video ( posting as pasanonic ) but it’s not my area of expertise and i may struggle with the serious bits. Any help gratefully received.

    I’ll still argue. not because I’m a contrarian but because when I think I’m right I’ll be right, dammit.

    I’m happy to be told I’m wrong as most of my education is fuelled by whisky ;)

  77. RockyRoad says:

    Matt says:
    March 22, 2013 at 9:54 am


    ““We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”
    Paul Ehrlich, 1972
    Interesting, steam is normally white under natural lighting conditions. I wonder where the blue is supposed to come from?

    That’s generally the stuff found below sea level. Most people find it incredibly difficult to breathe–some even complain of drowning.

    So much for the “science” of Paul Ehrlich Obviously he’s no expert in thermodynamics.

  78. Gary Hladik says:

    “Note: watch until 11:08, where he makes the 180F claim. – Anthony”

    I know where he got the idea! In the 1961 film “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea”, the Van Allen Belt “catches fire” and raises the Earth’s temp upward of 170 degrees. Check this trailer at about 1:20:

  79. Don says:

    A.D. Everard says:
    March 22, 2013 at 1:56 pm

    Don says:
    March 22, 2013 at 11:19 am

    Chad Wozniak says:
    March 22, 2013 at 9:58 am

    Nuremberg trials for skeptics? What about the carbon policy wonks in the UK that killed 30,000 people from hypothermia in the UK this year?
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    Hi Chad, I’ve seen this troubling claim a few times recently but have not found a source for it. Can you (or another reader) supply one? Thanks!

    *

    Hi Don. I’ve got this from the Office of National Statistics giving the figure of 24,000 excess winter deaths for the winter of 2011/2012 (England and Wales only). Each year is different, of course. I don’t know what the highest count (year) is, but it’s very disturbing that’s it’s as high as it is.

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health2/excess-winter-mortality-in-england-and-wales/2011-12–provisional–and-2010-11–final-/index.html
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Thanks, A.D. I followed your link and skimmed the report it summarizes, which can be accessed here:

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_288362.pdf

    If “excess winter deaths” (also called excess winter mortality or EWM) is what Chad is referring to, he is greatly mistaken in his interpretation. According to the report, more deaths occur in winter than in summer in all countries, and EWM is the excess of deaths (apparently from all causes) in winter above deaths in “summer” (actually nonwinter months), and is calculated as follows (quoting the report):

    “The ONS standard method defines the winter period as December to March, and compares the number of deaths that occurred in this winter period with the average number of deaths occurring in the preceding August to November and the following April to July:

    EWM = winter deaths – average non-winter deaths

    This produces the number of excess winter deaths, which is then rounded to the nearest 10 for final data and to the nearest 100 for provisional data.”

    Also according to the report:

    “Although EWM is associated with low temperatures, conditions directly relating to cold, such as hypothermia, are not the main cause of excess winter mortality. The majority of additional winter deaths are caused by cerebrovascular diseases, ischaemic heart disease and respiratory diseases (The Eurowinter group, 1997 and ONS, 2011).”

    So to claim that all or even many of these excess winter deaths are due to hypothermia is erroneous. It is also instructive to note that a graph in the report shows an overall decline in EWM over several decades, so this recent number (whether 24,000 or 30,000) is not at all unusually large. In 1962-63, for example, it was upwards of 80,000! However, if higher heating bills are indeed causing reduced heat settings and lower home and workplace temperatures, I would expect the EWM to rise somewhat, mostly due to indirect effects of cold, but also due to a modestly increased fatal hypothermia incidence, as per Stephen Brown at 2:59pm.

  80. rogerknights says:

    Mac the Knife says:
    March 22, 2013 at 4:52 pm

    180F by the year 2300? That’s a long time to wait for a properly poached egg…..
    MtK

    Or sunny side up!

  81. As with many here, I was awestruck by the imagery of Nazis used to explain–well, actually I have no clue what he was getting at. Why not images of something more contemporary such as North Korean or Cuban military parades?

    We now have a record, almost as long as the vaunted satellite record, of YouTube presentations predicting uncontrollable climate change if nothing happens in the next two, five, or ten years.

  82. 180F by 2300.

    So their math says that in about 287 years, or 104,755 days (and using Anthony’s starting point 60F) 120F will be added.

    That means (if my math is right), they’re only expecting a .4 degree rise per year, or a mere 0.00109F per day.

    Another ice cube in my drink should cover today’s expected rise.

  83. johnmarshall says:

    The guy is an idiot.
    Consider, the planet gets ~1370W/m2 at the TOA. This is equivalent to 120C at radiative equilibrium. You cannot get hotter than this.
    At the surface the TOA figure is reduced by albedo, atmospheric adsorption to ~1000W/m2, in the zenith position, which is 88C at radiative equilibrium. This is the MAXIMUM surface temperature possible. But convection, wind, latent heat of evapouration of water, radiation reduces this by 30C or more.
    Mind you I suppose this guy is talking degrees F not the scientific degrees C(or K). 180F is 82C so we are getting this heating NOW but natural forces at work get this down to the livable temperature. Whatever scale he used he is wrong.

  84. Question about this guy Dave Roberts
    Ive tried to Google him.

    Where is he getting his money from

  85. manicbeancounter says:

    Whenever criticism of the mainstream is suppressed, “colorful” perspectives will go unchallenged. The allowable range will be between “conservatives” (maintaining the status quo) and “progressives” who want to carry through the implications of the mainstreams beliefs.

  86. oneworldnet says:

    This denier cult is a religion; full of the simple-minded who can’t handle complex issues and want reassurance that all will be well and there’s nothing to worry about children. So much activity for no result, so many half-wits blabbing their copied and pasted nonsense. But the proof is in the real world, and it is coming thick and faster every day, and increasing. And all the little retards with their tiny brains come here to show off the patest bit of ‘proof’ they’ve found made up somewhere. Before the web idiots kept their fantasies to themselves. Now they become scientific experts [they think] and can rubbish the work over decades of tens of thousands of top scientists with impunity. But t5hen it’s only for retards so no great challenge. One day soon reality is going to catch up with you people, I hope it’s in the form of flash floods, mudslides and being washed away.

    REPLY: Mr Peter Simmons, who runs a photography website “oneworldnet”, is obviously highly qualified to speak about climate, more so than anyone here, which is why he can refer to everyone who doesn’t share his view as “retards”. /sarc. – Anthony

    [Can't run a spell check utility either. Mod]

  87. Martin van Etten says:

    suggesting that civilisation could survive a anomaly value of 18.6C in 2300 is preposterous!

    long before civilisation will be drowned, ruined and ended, by overheating, submersion, drought and war or civilwar;

    this is a blamage for a weblog that pretends to be scientific;

  88. DaveA says:

    I know it’s rubbish because Al Gore’s scissor lift doesn’t go that high.

  89. HarveyS says:

    Reply to oneworldnet re MR Peter Simmons

    You response shows you and your kind up for what they/you are. You lost the aurgument a long time ago. All you have left is a typical response you have just give.
    You are incapable of having an intelligent discussion and have to resort name calling/libel. In fact to all readers of this blog that reside in the uk perhaps we should take leaf of mann’s book and form a class action suit against Mr P Simmons.

  90. beng says:

    ***
    oneworldnet says:
    March 23, 2013 at 5:34 am
    ***

    Textbook example of psychological projection, Mr Simmons. Just substitute “warmunists” for denier.

    And no, I don’t wish you’ll be washed away. Just go away…

  91. taz1999 says:

    Is it too obvious or did I miss it somewhere? I figured you guys would be all over:
    http://now.msn.com/punxsutawney-phil-groundhog-deserves-death-penalty-says-ohio-prosecutor?GT1=50501&ocid=ansnow11

  92. Richard M says:

    One can only shake their heads when we see the internal conflicts expressed by Mr. Simmons. In his vast projections we see what truly drives people like him. He recognizes that clientology (the church of climate science) is another “religion”. He also realizes that those who unthinkingly follow those preaching this religion are not too sharp. Subconsciously he hates that he has fallen for the scam, made obviously by the lack of warming, but his ego won’t let him release the belief because he has been berating the critical thinkers for years now.

    His own personal hatred for what he has become is now available for all to read.

  93. David Cage says:

    combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.’ – James Annan

    If they did their work on the non CO2 influenced predicted patterns using the same methods used for signal extraction in the military electronics field the rise is such that there is no forcing at all and a figure of nearer 0.8 is realistic. In determining the rise they have utterly ignored the cyclic rises that would have happened thanks to an almost childish over simplification of the trend analysis methods. We see the same stupidity in the met office claims for the exceptional UK rainfall when the cyclic pattern is almost painfully clear in the full data set which they surely had access to.

  94. DirkH says:

    oneworldnet says:
    March 23, 2013 at 5:34 am
    “But the proof is in the real world, and it is coming thick and faster every day, and increasing. And all the little retards with their tiny brains come here to show off the [latest] bit of ‘proof’ they’ve found made up somewhere. ”

    Funny that you say that. I’m a German; we have the coldest March I can remember. Here’s the temperature anomaly map for Europe.
    http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/22/berlin-freezes-in-100-year-winter-record-snow-blankets-germany-bitter-cold-grips-europe/

    It’s funny, because the elevated CO2 concentrations should have lead to a pressure broadening of CO2 absorption/re-emission lines, and that should have caused extra warming, all other things being equal.

    Now this indicates to me that all other things are not equal. What are your thoughts about possible negative feedbacks, oneworldnet-man?

  95. Quite entertaining watching – and the facts and figures reeled off just pat – and papers referred to “a recent paper said this” etc – but no citation to any of the papers

    0/10

    Andy

  96. Bruce Cobb says:

    I do hope Mr. Simmons made it back to TrollsRUs OK. He seemed a mite confused; probably he just had ODed on Klimate Koolaid.

  97. Matt G says:

    oneworldnet says:
    March 23, 2013 at 5:34 am
    “But the proof is in the real world, and it is coming thick and faster every day, and increasing.”

    Yes the proof is in the real planet and that is one that is not warming.

  98. Mike Bromley the Canucklehead in Switzerland says:

    Speaking of Al Gore, he was also cleared for a TED talk. He figures prominently in the opening frames of every one, which basically sends me elsewhere.

  99. Mike Nystrom says:

    Who will be first to claim 1000F in the near future?

  100. Man Bearpig says:

    Now that is what I call hockeystick

  101. JohnWho says:

    Grister David Roberts says Earth to roast at 180 degrees F by year 2300, film at eleven

    Well, at least the oceans will not be boiling.

    :)

  102. TomR,Worc,MA says:

    Wamron says:

    What kind of idiot cares what happens in 2100?

    More like,

    ………. What kind of idiot buys into utter bollocks like the nonsense this guy is pedaling?

    …… If I had to guess …….. I would guess you.

  103. degrees says:

    Fine way of explaining, and good article to obtain information on the topic of my presentation focus, which i am
    going to convey in institution of higher education.

Comments are closed.