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.
M.I.T. = Missed It Totally
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?
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.
“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!)
That would be PARADISE AGAIN!!. Remember theories of Lost Golden Era because of a temperature decrease.
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.
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
[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]
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.
I can’t stop laughing!
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
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.
“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?
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.
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.”
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?
IT’S A JOKE!!!!!!
http://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html
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.
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.
D’oh! I meant *increasing* order of probability…[slaps own forehead].
Smokey says:
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
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.
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.
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
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.