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?
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?
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
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
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
These clowns at MIT can’t even predict next year nevertheless 2100. Idiots.
OMG, I’ve killed them with my car…
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/29/annan.climate.change.human/index.html
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.
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.
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.
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…
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
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.
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?
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!