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?
This is actually quite funny. MIT basically doubled their 2003 warming projection by adding “social” sciences and adding in previously unobserved warming (that the models said should have been there) to their modeling program…
Any time I see interdisciplinary programs like these: The Earth Institute, Energy and Resources Group or Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change a little alarm bell goes off in my head. Columbia’s EI and Berkley’s ERG are interdisciplinary programs that generally don’t require science backgrounds for admission. They are “touchy-feely” psychobabble programs that teach Liberal Arts majors how to push socioeconomic agendas with scientific-sounding jargon.
Columbia’s EI is run by an economist (Jeffrey Sachs). It’s another “policy” program…
Ooooohhhh! A whole ten weeks of Earth Science!
John Holdren spent most of the past 30 years running Berkley’s ERG…
MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change…
MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change is not a science program. It’s an integration of a “policy” program with a “science” program.
This really has become an academic “theatre of the absurd.”
Here, a copy of David Chandler’s article on MIT Journal:
The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth’s climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago — and could be even worse than
that.
The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer
simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters,
selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge.
Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well — such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.
Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and
director of MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding
global warming, it is important “to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science,” he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. “In that sense, our work is unique,” he says. The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90 percent probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees. The difference is caused by several factors rather than
any single big change. Among these are improved economic modeling and newer economic data showing less chance of low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios. Other changes include accounting for the past masking of underlying warming by the cooling induced by 20th century volcanoes, and for emissions of soot, which can add to the warming
effect. In addition, measurements of deep
Dr. Schneider disagrees with MIT, by at least a factor of two.
Smokey (17:36:51) :
Ron de Haan (17:19:15),
Anyone who thinks Steven Schneider is ethical should read Schneider’s own words:
“…we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. 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. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
IOW, Schneider advocates lying in order to promote the AGW agenda. Therefore, he won’t debate. He knows his quote will hound him — as it should”.
Smokey,
You are as sharp as a razor, as always and I agree 100%.
I think Pielke was just trying to be polite.
The study is being touted as the most comprehensive done to date, but its weakness was clear from the outset, and may be seen in the picture. (…Anybody?) The problem lies… in the team’s roulette spinner!
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html
Not pictured are the “modelling darts”. Since this is a game designed to revert eventually to very young children, magnets had to be substituted for real metal points. As anyone knows, it’s a bit tricky to get the darts to stick to a spinning board.
To be sure, there are many, many scientists now engaged in figuring out how to get flying “stimulus” and climate funds to stick to their persons as they stand up in public and scream, “I’m a scientist, and I think it’s going to be hot as hell, and I’m not going to take being left out any more!!”
The degree to which they expect the tempurature to rise is ridiculous. Not to mention that the temperature wouldn’t even have to rise much to make people aware enou
These MIT guys could probably package their software as a game, call it ‘SimClimateWorld’ and make some real money, as well as providing something useful and entertaining for people who enjoy that sort of thing.
Then we could all develop and publish our own (limitless) end-of-the-world catastrophic storylines.
Steve, I think “.. out of concern for the credibility of science ..” is a rapidly vanishing noble art. I personally thank you for your continued contributions in attempt to preserve that credibility!
This article, from the same MIT Roulette pdf deserves a new post:
Chu began his talk by describing various measures of the pace of recent climate change, emphasizing that the changes being seen now — including the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice, and the rate of rise of global sea level — are already either at, or even beyond, the most extreme projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations.
“We’re skirting the outer limits of the range” of predicted changes, he said. “Things that were said a decade ago are coming true, but a little bit faster” than had been expected.
I like Roy Spencer’s wheel better.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/the-mit-greenhouse-gamble-small31.jpg
Joel Shore (19:18:22) :
Joel,
I used to think you were credible, wanted to find the truth, and simply found to evidence for AGW convincing. Not anymore. You have just lost credibility with me.
The idea that there is some ethical dilemma to resolve is revealing. Most ethical dilemmas are cases of trying to rationalize a lie. This one fits nicely therein.
Lyman Horne
“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.”
No, energy is a byproduct of effort. It takes work to create it so that in turn it can fuel more work. Therefore it is not a natural currency but rather a part of the labour process. And the idea out behaviour has to be controlled and modified by politicians who indulge in our taxes to pay for the mortgages of their three homes is not something I would accept peacefully or otherwise.
From http://www.iceagenow.com
Camping this weekend? Many Oregon areas are still under snow
by Richard Cockle, The Oregonian
Thursday May 21, 2009, 4:56 PM
Campers and picnickers this Memorial Day weekend may find a cold, wet blanket of snow over some of their favorite high-country picnicking and camping spots.
On the Deschutes National Forest, visitors are warned of 8-foot snow depths at campgrounds and picnic sites above 5,500 feet. The Cascade Lakes Highway, south and west of Bend, has been plowed open but offers barely enough room for two cars to pass between snowbanks.
On the Mount Hood National Forest, visitors are likely to encounter snow on any road or trail at 3,500 feet to 4,000 feet elevation, said Rick Acosta, another Forest Service spokesman.
“Some of our more popular spots are snowed-in still,” he said. “It just depends on where you go. A lot of those campgrounds are normally open for Memorial Day, but this year, they are not.”
The situation is no better in eastern Oregon’s scenic Blue Mountains. Most camping and picnicking sites above 4,500 feet on the Umatilla National Forest are still snow-covered “to the point of being inaccessible,” said Joani Bosworth, a Forest Service spokeswoman in Pendleton.
At lower elevations, travelers should beware of large, impassible snowdrifts on roads that are shaded by trees or cutbanks, she said. Three to 5 feet of snow still covers the popular Tollgate recreation area of the Blues along Oregon 204, linking Elgin and Weston, she said
“This is an unusual spring for the Blue Mountains,” said Larry Randall, recreation staff officer for the Umatilla National Forest in Pendleton.
On the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Oregon’s largest national forest, recreation areas above 5,000 feet generally remain inaccessible, said Dan Ermovick, a Forest Service recreation manager in Baker City.
Some picnic and camping spots near the popular Anthony Lakes Mountain Ski Area in the Elkhorn Mountains are buried, he said. It’s still impossible to drive from the ski area to the semi-ghost town of Granite on the Elkhorn Loop Road because of snow. Many trailhead gateways into the 560-square-mile Eagle Cap Wilderness are also inaccessible.
The road to the Hells Canyon Snake River overlook at Hat Point is blocked by snow about 8 miles southeast of Imnaha, Ermovick said. When heading into the high country, he recommends bringing provisions for an unexpected overnight stay and not relying on cell phone service.
“There are a lot of cell phone spots that are dead on the forest,” said Ermovick.
Richard Cockle: rcockle@oregonwireless.net
As I have repeatedly noted in other threads, you cannot rely on articles about articles about studies. The Reuters and Telegraph articles quoted by Steve Goddard grossly mischaraterize the actual results of the study. The MIT researchers did NOT predict “a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise at least 9 degrees by 2100.“ They did NOT say billions would die. In the first comment in this thread, “wws” pointed this out and posted a link to the actual MIT press release about the study. It is worth posting again:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html
WUWT readers should read that article (or the actual study itself if you have access to it) before bashing the MIT team. Not that the team is beyond reproach; the use of the roulette wheel at their press conference was overdramatic and unprofessional. With respect to the study itself, another commenter noted that Prinn himself is quoted as saying “we don’t pretend we can do it accurately. Instead, we do these 400 runs and look at the spread of the odds.”
In summary, two big stories are generally being missed here:
1. The journalisitc fraud committed by the mainstream media who wildly exaggerated (certainly intentionally) the results of the study
2. The claim by MIT that this study is “The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out” while the lead author admits “we don’t pretend we can do it accurately.”
I may not be an MIT scientist, or even anywhere close to a great scientific mind, but can anyone tell me what the “proper” temperature is for our planet?
Yeah, I didn’t think so.
MIT Model conclusions:
1.0 You are doomed.
2.0 You are doomed.
3.0 You are doomed.
Sigh….who, me?
MIT researchers’ psychiatrist: “Sorry but they are doomed”
🙂
While we’re on claims of calamity, this is MY brother at the day of action in London:
Now I know the world is in trouble!
Reply: Hmmm…are nature vs. nurture debates an allowable topic here? Just kidding. ~ charles the tongue in cheek moderator.
Mike Abbott,
And note the abstract for the paper says median surface warming 2091-2100 is 5.2C according to their model, but that recent data on ocean warming reduces this to 4.1C.
But “nevertheless all our simulations have a much smaller probability of warming less than 2.4C” – ie, the figure they came up with in 2003.
What does “much smaller probability” mean? Is that a scientific term? It also definitely includes the probability that the warming could be less than 2.4C.
Is this Copenhagen ‘shroud waving’?
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.
Correction:
Carbon credits are completely artificial and are desired because they are a completely new resource to be doled out to the highest bidders and/or highest campaign contributors. Carbon credits are a perfect way to hide new taxes, regulate the economy and control the lives of the unwashed masses.
I don’t think economic growth models take into account the shrinkage that has happened in the past year and a half, nor do they take into account the fact that the reason we had an economic shrinkage in the past year and a half is because it was discovered that much economic data being used for investment was unknown or false.
OT, but California Air Resources Board’s seminar is online-webcast now, title is “What Americans Really Think About Climate Change.”
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/seminars/krosnick/krosnick.htm
Mike T (12:56:00) :
We, the “poor people” of the third world….will inherit the world, for sure, after you disappear from the face of the earth by your own self fulfilled prophecy.
OT You gotta love that Google Ad about eating hamburgers.
It brings to mind Popeye’s friend Wimpy.
I will gladly pay you AGW Tuesday, for one
hamburger today!
Now, every time I eat one, I feel short sighted and dirty.
tudobeleza (09:40:51) : said
“TonyB,
Thank you for mentioning Agenda 21. Probably about less than 1% of the world population understands what UN Agenda 21 is really about. Global warming, which I like to call ‘the weather’, is the vehicle to bring it about.”
As you can see no one else in this thread has referred to my comment that Steven Goddard should write a story about it. This suggests either they know everything about it already, no nothing of it and don’t understand the significance or are just uninterested;
Bearing in mind the questing minds here #3 is unlikely.
To me Agenda 21 enables us to put AGW into its proper context and understand why Govts and other bodies are so keen to embrace a philosophy (agw) that is still only a hypotheses, yet is claimed as a settled fact.
Did you see the discussion I had with Smokey and Aron about it a month or so ago?
Come on Steven-is it worth an article?
Tonyb
Carbon credits is also a method for Europe and North America to hold it’s imperial hegemony over the world. While we have been and can afford to decarbonise, lesser developed and poor nations cannot. Their carbon dioxide output will rise as they develop, but to hold their development back they will be forced to purchase carbon credits from much wealthier decarbonised nations. Thus they will not be able to compete on the same level because much of the money they need to invest in their own people will be spent buying carbon credits from powerful states and multinational companies.
Meanwhile the working classes the world over will be buying carbon credits from the poor and also non-working lazy bums. The upper classes will be laughing for their interest payments alone can purchase enough carbon credits. For them there is no expense or they pass the expense to their companies who then pass the cost to the working classes.
Working class people and developing nations are thus trampled upon by the rich and powerful by all forms of carbon trading. Anyone who wants to elevate their position in the world through hard work will find it so costly that they will progress very little, if at all. That’s what today’s Champagne Socialists call sustainable development.