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.
“…For example, the global temperature this afternoon should be higher than it is rightnow.”
‘Global temperature’, assuming that concept has any meaning at all, would by definition know no mornings and afternoons. ‘What time is it now on the earth’ is a badly formed question.
Pat:-)
I have to say that when one listens to or reads a diatribe from the greeny loonies/econuts (I won’t say Nazi so as not to offend), it sounds suspiciously & frighteningly just like a cunningly worded invitation to join the Borg Collective!
AtB
“Squidly (05:15:06) :
Truly a sad day for science. This is precisely what I have feared. I have always respected MIT, my father graduated MIT with honors. I have met several MIT alumni through the years, whom I have held in the highest regard.
However, my fears are unfolding before my eyes. The destruction of scientific trust. How can I ever again trust any scientific studies coming from MIT? How can I respect this once fine institution? When the next big discovery leaps from the laboratories of MIT, do I believe it? Can I believe it? How can I know? Is any other university any better? Who can I believe? Who can I trust? Bad science is everywhere…
My friends, we are witnessing the collapse of science as we know it. It is as I have predicted (and have written previously here at WUWT).
It is a sad day…”
Science, sadly, departed this debate a long time ago. Politics, control, media spin, lies, etc etc rule the day.
I vote for a revolution! Trouble is, as long as people get their “fix” (I mean back in the times when Guy Faukes wanted to destroy the Houses of Parliament, most people’s fix was warmth and food), via sit-com, doco, sports etc etc on TV, beer in the fridge and a delivered pizza (Yes, the USA lifestyle), they don’t care about what effects THEY have on others.
I live in a condo, poorly made one at that. I have to contend with people who don’t understand their obligations living in a complex. My neighbours live the way they want at 2am on a Sunday night. I “lived” with that until 11:45pm Monday night.
If you want to see just how far from reality these modelers have pushed themselves, check out this graph of how temperatures would have to increase to go from today’s +0.6C to +5.2C by 2100.
MIT warming required. You really have to have faith in your climate model to publish these numbers.
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/2693/mitmodelc.png
‘…assuming doubling CO2 produces 2C rise in temp then a 400% increase would give 4deg C rise’.
Not so, since temperature increase is a logarithmic function of CO2 increase, which means that the more CO2 that is introduced into the atmosphere, the less the ‘bang for the buck’ from each volumetric increase.
The AGW gameboy climate models depend on the triggering of ‘positive feedback’ from other factors, e.g from higher concentrations of that terrible pollutant, H2O, the ‘greenhouse gas’ par excellence.
Wow. I wonder how many of the people commenting on this have read the actual paper?
Or, maybe even the real press release and not the misquoting by random other websites?
Steven Goddard
Thanks for the clarification – I had convinced myself that anomalies were year on year changes, but of course compared to a fixed baseline it is obvious. I am trying to explain the facts to a neighbour who has a doctorate in ecology and is currently working on a tidal energy scheme in the western UK, and wanted to be sure of my ground.
His response so far is to dismiss contrary evidence as a global oil conspiracy.
As an interesting addendum to my earlier comment, the ecologist observed that the tidal barrage scheme was of marginal value in the overall scheme of things and that he saw nuclear energy as the most important contributor to solving the “problems” of AGW.
After so many posts like this, referring to apocalyptic climate changes, which reveal a self destructive desire, a tanathophilia, that would deserve an special post made by a psychiatrist, because as far as I know, these scatological day dreamings are a symptom of something else.
As such these can not be opposed by regular rational arguing, if that would be the case we should have to argue endlessly, and this is what is happening.
Well, if a computer says so, then it must be true. They wouldn’t go to all this trouble to write-up this report if it wasn’t true. Why would they lie?
Global Cooling of 7c could kill billions. Global stasis of 0c could kill billions. Someone pointed out correctly that billions will die no matter what happens.
We’re all going to die.
I thought the question (life, the universe, and everything) was what do you get when you multiply 7 by 9 (42, obviously)
On a very general note, if socially and ecologically concerned scientists want to help the world improve, I think they need to think about what it is that they specifically want.
Take for example, “caring for creation”. I for one am happy to accept this as a noble, worthy, and ethically-sound drive. But as with all ethical and spiritual aspirations, at some point, you have to live it. And that means, concrete specific actions. And those actions need to be demonstrated to actually achieve or move towards the desired outcome. You can be the most enlightened person on the planet, but unless you have concrete specific tangible and practical knowledge that can be applied, there will be no “better world”. May as well keep quiet and let things run their course.
My feeling is that these scientists are indeed genuinely concerned individuals. The quibble is that they don’t know how to achieve what they wish for a better planet. Can “better planet” even be defined? A recent bit of research documented something like 200 schools of thought on ecology and the environment. But you don’t have to be a researcher to notice that. As people here have rationally questioned, if it is getting too warm, what is the correct temperature? Does windpower actually reduce CO2? Does hydrogen use actually conserve energy?
You don’t have to be a skeptic to ask these questions. Too often the green movement takes these questions as a sign that the questioner is somehow evil or just doesn’t care, and is nitpicking to create confusion and doubt, to protect their own selfish lifestyle.
And yet, these are the questions that the greens should be first and foremost asking for themselves. They should be the most critical ones. The practicalities are everything.
And this leads us to something which several people have commented, which is simply that the so called skeptics are often enough more involved in practical solutions for the environment than the so called greens are.
10 to 1 odds on the under? Wish I would be here in 100 years to collect on that bet.
I too am a little disappointed with MIT for letting them put their brand on this GIGO party.
The way that I am reading this, they tweaked the dynamics of the model even farther in favor of their desired outcome, and got their results as expected 90% of the time.
Yes, it sounds a lot like the hockey stick graph, but pay no attention to the Mann behind the curtain. Please only read the headlines.
As far as grant money, it is clearly being distributed to the more dramatic alarmist studies. Who wants to pay millions to someone studying what they believe is a non-problem? How do you write that grant proposal?
The personal carbon credits as currency does not sound far fetched at all. Energy is without question the very source of our prosperity. It is therefore a natural currency, and a perfect way to control behavior.
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…
When I first encountered the statement the whole thing was quoted. Yeah, he hopes so. But it ain’t so.
Funny how the ‘experts’ never manage to come up with anything positive happening in the future.
One notable exception: Herman Kahn (Ref, The Next 200 Years).
Steven —
Thanks for the post. However, you give the study undue credence by attributing it to MIT. There are many good people at MIT, notably Richard Lindzen, who don’t deserve to be associated with this study.
The Reuters report you cite, which is lifted uncritically from a Guardian site, mentions no names (or even the “Center for Global Climate Change” you give). JorgeKafkazar (5/25 18:19:38) did find a more detailed press release, at http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/miot-mcc051909.php, but oddly this is from something called “Eureka Alert” rather than an MIT PR office. In any event, the lead author is Ronald Prinn of MIT, and the study appears in the Journal of Climate, so it would be more appropriate to call it the Prinn or J. Climate study than the “MIT study.”
BTW, Pielke Sr’s challenge to debate Schneider, mentioned by Ron de Haan 5/25 17:19:15, would make a good WUWT post in itself. It kind of gets buried in this thread. I believe Pielke Sr was at CU, however, not Colorado State.
Have read it … and believe it is a good example of BS (bad science)
I particularly like this excerpt from the Reuters editor:
I think that sums up this BS (bad science) rather well.
Peter Plail,
If there is a global oil conspiracy, I’m not in on it. I don’t get any compensation for writing other than personal satisfaction. I do my writing because I enjoy it, and out of concern for the credibility of science.
The climate-Industrial Complex concerns me.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286145192740987.html
Advocacy = Bias.
Advocacy is a great motivator. But then there is scientific method and review, which is supposed to protect the process. It’s the war against proper review that is the problem.
Wouldn’t that be a good thing? With fewer humans to destroy the planet, the earth will soon recover to its natural state. The human virus will be controlled so the survivors can live in harmony with Mother Gaia.
A new civilization will rise from the ashes of the old like the
proverbial Phoenix.
Alan the Brit has just coined (to my knowledge) an important knew term:
WAGTD
We’re
All
Going
To
Die
WAGTD pretty much sums up the underlying sales pitch of extremists.
And, as Alan properly points out, they have never, ever been correct.
Apocalypse is good for religion.
It is horrible when misrepresented as science and dangerous when turned into public policy.
AGW is simply, and dangerously, a social movement based on WAGTD.
One of the problems we’re facing is that lefty environmentalist types go to University to study Earth Sciences, which include Atmosphere & Oceans type courses. There is an inherent bias therefore in the candidates up for tenure/fellowship as they are the people more likely to believe in AGW in the first place. I doubt there are many raised eyebrows in the lecture halls at MIT, unless of course Prof. Lindzen is doing the lecturing (it would be nice if you could persuade him to guest post on this story).
Anyway, the propaganda onslaught has only just begun. There’s a big conference later in the year where the Western Nations will make the decision to roll back the industrial age (as Lindzen would say). Ever worn Hessian underpants? The future is indeed bleak!
Anyway, I missed writing my favourite comment:
This is nothing more than Policy Based Evidence Making.
What I think it shows is a decreasing temperature anomaly, but since the anomaly is above zero then it does actually show that temperature is still rising
No, an anomaly is just an arbitrary fixed point, not a “rate”. A straight average of a given range of years. It’s not a decrease in the increase; it’s an actual decrease.
I think the MIT boys and girls need to take their bi-polar drugs.
Was that a pun?
My goodness you almost gave me a heart attack!
ANOTHER AGW-related death . . .
His response so far is to dismiss contrary evidence as a global oil conspiracy.
It’s about time oil started fighting back.
I thought I read here that cycle 24 was ramping up and yet I see nothing? Any thoughts? Bad Science or just “they really don’t have a clue” And I am not being negative, we are in a part of history that today’s science has not seen.