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.
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
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
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?
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/
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!
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.
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.
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.
So, you have strong opinions on the weather, huh.
Mike Bryant says:
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.
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!
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.
@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.
lifeisagony
O.S.KRISHNAMURTHY
Are you guys for real?
A Global Warming Conference in Copenhagen in December?
Mass cognitive dissonance is the only explanation.
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?)
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
lifeisagony says:
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.
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
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”.?
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
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.
Mike Bryant says:
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.
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.
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
@Pamela
sponsors are listed here:
http://globalchange.mit.edu/sponsors/current.html
big oil & Co 🙂
Martin
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.
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