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.
This is clearly a contender in the
“Worst Climate Predictions Of All Time” challenge.
Double entendre is intentional.
Dave Middleton (19:16:36) :
OR – A mass delusion could overtake western civilization, destroy the world economy and starve billlions this century…
Any day now, we will read a news release from Nature or Science that says that the oceans will be boiling in 3 years, UNLESS we do what [SNIP] says. LOL. They are now wasting vast amounts of $$ trying to convince a public that is already laughing at them. Bunch of losers, LOL.
Joel Shore (19:18:22),
OK then, let’s give the entire Schneider quote. Readers can make up their own minds about Schnieder’s ethics. Scneider says:
Translation: AGW proponents fib when it’s convenient, in order to advance their AGW agenda.
bill,
Thanks for pointing out the bad link. If you right click on the image and select “open image in new window” you can see the source.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide_files/image002.gif
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm
I don’t want to set the world on fire
I just want to start a flame in your heart
bill,
Consider the late Jurassic. CO2 was at least 400% of present values, and temperatures were no more than 5 degrees warmer.
If we want that much warming by the year 2100, we’ll have to get a move on. We’ve been backtracking for quite a spell.
The last graph could be the best argument against catastrophic AGW of them all. CO2 is, right now, almost .04% of the atmosphere. When dinosaurs ruled the earth, it was almost .2%. In the Cambrian period, when diverse live on this earth exploded into existence, it was about .6%.
If it rises to .05% we’re all gonna die? How dumb is that?
Too realistic…It would never fly as a Sci-Fi plot…;)
So odd that anyone would say, “I hope that means being both.” Doesn’t he know the difference? Maybe if he had studied divinity he would know the difference… or not…
I do fear that the actions that are imposed or planed to by put in place by the green mafia to stop this imagined catastrophe would indeed be catastrophic.
Here is what I have found out about scientist in general!
All researchers are not trying to research and find out the absolute and objective truth.
While this is true for many scientists.
This type of “research results” in this example makes a mockery of science.
Even scientist that believe in AGW should by deeply embarrassed by this type of agenda driven subjective “science”.
jorgekafkazar (18:19:38)
Oh brother – NOT THIS AGAIN. Thanks jorgekafkazar for unearthing the press release. There’s also this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm
AGAIN THE MONEY QUOTE:
“Prinn stresses that the computer models are built to match the known conditions, processes and past history of the relevant human and natural systems, and the researchers are therefore dependent on the accuracy of this current knowledge. Beyond this, “we do the research, and let the results fall where they may,” he says. 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.”
–
To repeat, “…we don’t pretend we can do it accurately.” How fitting…
Bill Illis (17:47:11) :
“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).”
If this is true, it’s even worse than I thought…can’t they even use one of the MIT AOGCMs rather than the GISS junk codes??
Heat doesn’t kill people. That’s Chuck Norris’ job.
Joel Shore (19:18:22) :
“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”
I read it. Weasel words after he got called on it.
MIT alarmist climate models = GIGO
Or the plot runs like this: Small but fiendish group of Humanity-haters (Green Crush) dupe leading world figures into a massive climate altering campaign. Opposed by scholars worldwide but no political support, the top physicists and climatologists call a meeting, and go digging. One party of them stumbles upon the secret documents outlining the genocidal plans. Thier mission: Get to the UN before police, mercenaries and hit-men get to them first.
A James Bond thriller featuring a cast of Hollywood’s best.
The scientists display incredible ingenuity in thwarting the nefarios efforts of Green Crush to derail them.
The opening scene is a closed door meeting of the scientists viewing a secret last video given by Carl Sagan, who was aware of the plans laid down when the original Freeze scare of the 70’s failed.
Hey, where does a fella get an interview for script-writer these days?
The desperation factor is palpable among the AGW proponents. The escalating claims in the face of contradictory evidence speaks volumes.
Their studies are writing checks the evidence can’t cash.
Joel Shore (19:18:22) :
Smokey says:
Anyone who thinks Steven Schneider is ethical should read Schneider’s own words:
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
I read your link, in fairness. In context out of context the conclusion is the same.
It is evident to me that S Schneider has very elastic ethics. “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.”, there is no dounle ethical bind. There is only ethics and turning science into a ring is unethical, in my not so humble opinion.
There goes peer review:Catching the public’s imagination is not what science is about. Nobody has to, one chooses to, and it is unethical for a scientist.
Gotta jump in with Smokey and anna v here Joel. I read that link and laughed that that quote was considered a defense when given in its entirety.
It is rather ironic that the lead author, Andrei Sokolov, is listed at the ExxonSecrets website
http://exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=53
since MIT has received almost $1 million from Exxon.
So we now know that this paper is a product of Big Oil and cannot be trusted.
But Sokolov is in good company since Richard Lindzen is also listed.
This MIT study was pretty thorough…except they forgot to project how this catastrophe will affect Santa and Rudolph. I’ve read that elves are quite heat intolerant. And that fluffy red suit will be a scorcher when the arctic starts looking like maui.
This means that the MIT crew are completely unaware of the UAH satellite temp data ????
The picture shown at the heading of this article must be of London because London bridge is in the background. Since the elevation of London is only 20-50 feet, global warming of that magnitude would raise sea level enough to swamp the whole town. It certainly wouldn’t look like a desert.
Joel Shore (19:18:22) :
Smokey says:
Anyone who thinks Steven Schneider is ethical should read Schneider’s own words:
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
Joel,
How can a “double ethical bind” have a solution? Schneider does not propose a solution, he proposes a compromise.
Funny how the ‘experts’ never manage to come up with anything positive happening in the future. They spend years obtaining an MIT degree, years of experience working with super-duper-computers to compute the odds of natural disasters — supervolcanoes, earth-killing asteroids, supernova gamma ray bursts, super earthquakes, super tornadoes, super-intense hurricanes, intense global warming, ice ages, etc., etc. — and, as yet, nothing of the sort has ever occured.
Seems like the only thing they have learned in all those years of academic effort and employment is that, if you don’t predict doom and gloom, you lose your funding/grant/goverment employment, and you don’t get your picture in the news.
Gore apparently learned that lesson early on. There’s money to be made in disaster predictions. It isn’t honest money, but hey, who cares when you make so much that you don’t have time to worry about how much your spend on mansions and private jets that run contrary to the cause you espouse?