By Steven Goddard
Some readers may remember the 1961 film “The Day the Earth Caught Fire”. It could be viewed as the original “climate alarmist” film as it contains all of the plot elements of our current climate alarmism scenarios: exaggerated images of a dying planet, a mainstream media newspaper reporter, technology that is feared, the Met Office, and last but not least, junk science.
You can read about the whole wacky plot here.
Back to the present.
A new study out of MIT predicts “a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise at least 9 degrees by 2100.”
This is more than twice what was expected in 2003. The Telegraph reports
“Global warming of 7C ‘could kill billions this century‘. Global temperatures could rise by more than 7C this century killing billions of people and leaving the world on the brink of total collapse, according to new research“A similar 2003 study had predicted a mere- but still significant- 4 degree increase in global temperatures by 2100, but those models weren’t nearly as comprehensive, and they didn’t take into consideration economic factors.
So what has changed since 2003 to cause the scientists at MIT’s “Centre for Global Climate Change” to believe the world is going to boil over this century and send billions of us directly to a toasty demise similar to our featured movie?
Since 2003, global temperatures have been dropping.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg
January, 2008 broke the record for the most snow covered area ever measured in the Northern Hemisphere.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/png/monthlyanom/nhland01.png
I added a red line below showing the reported projected rise in temperatures from the MIT models, compared with the actual observed temperature trends since the previous 2003 report. Their projections show a correlation of essentially zero.
Given that the observed trends are exactly opposite what the MIT models have predicted, one might have to ask what they have observed since 2003 to more than double their warming estimates, and where their 90% confidence value comes from?
The study, carried out in unprecedented detail, projected that without “rapid and massive action” temperatures worldwide will increase by as much as 7.4C (13.3F) by 2100, from levels seen in 2000.
This study has a strong scent of GIGO (garbage, in garbage out.) MIT has one of the world’s preeminent climatologists Dr. Richard Lindzen in their Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences. I wonder if the scientists at the “Centre for Global Climate Change” checked with him before firing this remarkable piece off to the press?
During the Phanerozoic, CO2 levels have at times been more than 1,500% higher than present, but temperatures have never been more than 10C higher than present. So how does a projected 30% increase in CO2 produce a 7C temperature rise in their models? During the late Ordovician, there was an ice age with CO2 levels about 1000% of current levels. Hopefully the newspaper headlines don’t accurately represent the content of the article.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/png/monthlyanom/nhland01.png
Finally, does their name (“Centre for Global Climate Change“) hint at a possible inherent bias in their raison d’être? What “rapid and massive action” do they want us to engage in?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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/
Mike Bryant says:
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?
@ur momisugly 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.
Computer models are now science. Hey it’s a lot easier than the old way.
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.)
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.
” 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?
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!
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!
Bill Illis says:
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.
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
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.
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 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???
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.
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
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.
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?
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]
🙂
Computer models are now science. Hey it’s a lot easier than the old way.
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.
I love the red trend line graph. Excellent analysis.
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.
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:
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.