You have to wonder- what were these guys thinking? The only media visual they could have chosen that would send a worse message of forecast certainty was a dart board…or maybe something else?
MIT’s “wheel of climate” – image courtesy Donna Coveney/MIT
The Greenhouse Gamble: Ronald Prinn, director of MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, and his group have revised their model that shows how much hotter the Earth’s climate will get in this century without substantial policy change. Standing with the group’s “roulette wheel” are, from left to right, Mort Webster, professor in the Engineering Systems Division; Adam Schlosser, principal research scientist at the Center for Global Change Science; Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry; and Sergey Paltsev, principal research scientist, MIT Energy Initiative.
Popular Science writes:
It’s time to call your bookie, because the line on global warming is in. A new paper from MIT breaks down the odds of different outcomes from global warming, based on whether governments take action now or later. And if you’re taking that action, bet on “government getting involved” to beat the spread, as last week an important climate change bill made it out committee in the House of Representatives.
The bill, named the American Clean Energy and Security Act, would institute a cap-and-trade program, and reduce carbon emissions by 17 percent over fifteen years. The plan also calls for increased research into alternative energy, and provides $750 billion in subsidies to consumers to help offset the increase in energy cost the bill would cause.
See the compete article here
With that kind of cash payout, and since an MIT odds calculating machine is involved in making the modeling forecasts over 400 model runs, maybe this would be a more appropriate prop for the MIT photo op:
This report well illustrates how desperate the AGW scientists are to get any publicity to their obviously flawed and failing science . To sell the proven scientific approach to a roulette wheel is a major disgrace to all scientists and goes against their entire insistence on peer review approach. Who did their peer review -Las Vegas gambling Casinos?
Doesn’t the fact that the blue wedge for “no change” get’s less than one whole space in their clicky wheel and the chance of cooling non-existant, prove some bias???
RW (03:34:09) :
Looks like you spectacularly missed the point.
no he got the point you have missed the point, that they are in the business of getting more money for M.I.T. and with our current greenie in chief they are going to get millions or more.
Please tell me this is actually the Milwaukee Institute of Technology.
These guys or physicist Niels Bohr, you decide.
Niels Bohr on “greenhouse effect”:
http://www.giurfa.com/gh_experiments.pdf
From: http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2009/05/paul-driessen-climate-change-morality.html
‘Some are getting $400-$850 an hour for their skill in promoting mandates, subsidies, legal measures to hobble competitors, and cap-tax-and-trade versions of the mortgage derivatives market. Al Gore alone boasts of having received $300 million (from unnamed sources) to trumpet alarmism and draconian legislation.
Colleges, scientists, activists, unions and companies receive billions in taxpayer money, to hype climate chaos claims, intimidate skeptics and lobby Congress. African bureaucrats get millions from the UN (and thus US taxpayers) to hype climate disaster claims that keep millions of Africans impoverished and deprived of the life-enhancing benefits of reliable, affordable electricity.
President Obama says the Bush Administration “made decisions based upon fear, rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions.” He and his Democrat allies in Congress should take that critique to heart on global warming.
As it stands, this Congress is rapidly shaping up to be the most unethical, immoral and dictatorial in history. When the people finally rebel, it won’t be a pretty sight’.
Publications like the one above bring a rebellion ever closer, ever faster.
Thanks for a job well done Anthony, you can’t do any better.
They were asking for it and you served them with a 5 star treatment.
One can imagine this “Global Change Center” was not created without funding from? in order to marginalize the scientific work and department of Lindzen at MIT. Here is for rewarding integrity. This perversion of the the highest scientific institutions would be condemned severely if they were studiying races for instance… yet, here it is perfectly acceptable. One always will find a human being ready to go lower to bottom feed…
Geothermal not so clean after all.
The MIT group is very scientific… (sarcasm off)
Interdisciplinary amalgamations of social science, policy and bits of real science have literally become the norm at many of the nation’s top universities…Berkley’s Energy and Resource Group, Columbia’s Earth Institute, MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Potsdam’s Institute for Climate Impact Research, etc.
Most of these universities have solid Earth and Atmospheric Science programs; yet they create these hybrid schools that teach socio-economic agendas cloaked in pseudo-science.
Side Show Bob would be proud of ’em…
Dr Spencer in his last blog on the MIT report writes:
“Since that average rate of warming (about 0.5 deg. C per decade) is at least 2 times the observed rate of global-average surface temperature rise over the last 30 years, this would require our current spate of no warming to change into very dramatic and sustained warming in the near future. “http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/the-mit-global-warming-gamble/
I have checked the least squares trend slope for the last 30 years [1979-2009] and find
GISS 0.0161C/YEAR
RSS 0.0156 C/YEAR
UAH 0.0126 C/YEAR
HADCRUT3VGL 0.0159C/YEAR
I agree with most of what Dr Spencer writes and would just comment further
The MIT predicted average rate of warming of 5.2 C is, according to my calculation ,3.2 to 4 times ,depending on whose data you use, the observed rate of global average surface temperature anomaly rise over the last 30 years and not 2 times. The worst case scenario of 7.4 C would be 10 times the observed rate of global temperature anomaly rise for the period 1900-2009.[ 0.72C] These high projections seem absurd but coming from a roulette wheel, anything is possible as this is not a scientific approach .
Has anyone else looked into the MIT figures?
I Googled the four guys in the photo…Surprisingly none of them are Earth Scientists…
Mort Webster is a professor of “decision-making”…
Adam Schlosser is a student…
Ronald Prinn is a chemistry professor…
Sergey Paltsev is an economist…
Ron de Haan (08:12:43) :
As it stands, this Congress is rapidly shaping up to be the most unethical, immoral and dictatorial in history. When the people finally rebel, it won’t be a pretty sight’.
Ron,
This troubles me too.
The outcome is always the same.
Dave
OT: Obama plan: Paint roofs white to save world
Suggests light colors would reduce global warming
WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=99290
Steven Chu, who directed the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and was professor of physics and molecular and cell biology at the University of California before being appointed by President Obama to be the U.S. Energy Secretary, says white paint is what’s needed to fix global warming.
Chu, who according to the federal agency’s website, successfully applied the techniques he developed in atomic physics to molecular biology and recently led the lab in pursuit of new alternative and renewable energies, has told the London Times that by making paved surfaces and roofs lighter in color, the world would reduce carbon emissions by as much as parking all the cars in the world for 11 years.
The DOE says Chu’s areas of expertise are in atomic physics, quantum electronics, polymer and biophysics. According to the Times, he was speaking at the St. James’ Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium, in which the Times partners for media events, when he described his simple and “completely benign” … “geo-engineering” plan.
He said building codes should require that flat roofed-buildings have their tops painted white. Visible sloped roofs could be painted “cool” colors. And roads could be made a lighter color.
Chu, a co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1997, was sworn in as energy secretary Jan. 21.
Obama said when he appointed Chu, “The future of our economy and national security is inextricably linked to one challenge: energy… Steven has blazed new trails as a scientist, teacher, and administrator.”
“I think with flat-type roofs you can’t even see, yes, I think you should regulate quite frankly,” Chu said in the Times report.
And asked if governments should promote white paint as the global warming “solution,” he said, “Yes, absolutely … White roofs everywhere, yes.”
Light surfaces reflect more of the sunlight that falls on them, hardly a surprise in warmer parts of the world where walls and roofs have been whitewashed for generations.
Chu told the Times his dogma on the issue was prompted by Art Rosenfeld of the California Energy Commission, who prompted a change in that state that now requires all flat roofs on commercial buildings to be painted white.
The Times report said a year ago, Rosenfeld and several colleagues estimated changing the color of roofs in 100 of the largest cities around the world would save 44 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions.
“Now, you smile, but [Rosenfeld has] done a calculation, made a paper on this, and if you take all the buildings and make their roofs white and if you make the pavement more of a concrete type of color rather than a black type of color, and you do this uniformly… it’s the equivalent of reducing the carbon emissions due to all the cars on the road for 11 years, you just take them off the road for 11 years,” Chu told the Times.
“Get a bucket of paint and a brush and save the planet!” wrote a participant in the news page’s forums page.
—————-
How will this stop the greenhouse effect? Isn’t the UHI effect minimal? Is white paint a carbon sink?
OMG. These guys have finally stumbled into the truth! I have to say though that this is a pretty elaborate prop to say a pretty simple thing. Wouldn’t it be easier to just say, “We don’t know what the hell we’re talking about; in fact we’re really just guessing”
I did a little digging on Mr. Prinn trying to figure out what in the heck they were thinking. His page at MIT leads you to these admissions:
Prinn admits to big uncertainties in the IGSM: clouds, which play a large role, are difficult to model. There are also uncertainties about emissions, and ocean-mixing, the churning of cooler and warmer waters, which can bring carbon buried on the ocean floor to the surface. Prinn’s caveat is “never seriously believe any single forecast of the climate going into the future.”
That about says it all. They have proved that there is nothing but uncertainty in this business and the best icon for the whole mess is a half assed carnival wheel of chance.
This story here suggests there was big global warming 1000 years ago
http://cdapress.com/articles/2009/05/23/columns/columns06.txt
The Blackfeet tribe in Montana suggest that the glaciers in Glacier National Park almost disappeared 1000 years ago and retreated/advanced dozens of times during the 2000 or so years they were living there according to their historian.
Let’s see about that, and they were observing the climate way before modern meteorology was even invented.
Anthony,
Dave Middleton’s search should be added as an update to the article: it corroborates how MIT is trying to marginalize Lindzen’s work…
Lets see, nine and 1/2 years of this century gone and we have a slight downward “global temperature” [if there is such a thing] trend. If the cooling continues, this means the remaining years temperatures must rise at ever increasing rates in order to make the AGW/IPCC goals.
In 2018, this MIT model will be revised upward to, say, 7°C/82years.
If we [well not me, but everyone alive] reach 2098 with no net warming, that last year is gonna’ be a killer!
Great adlibs all.
Love the picture Mike McMillan! The White House should have called on you to do the photo for the NYC flyover.
But what troubles me is, here are three scientists and an engineer (they obviously needed him to design that very complicated and sophisticated Analog Global Temperature Increase Prognosticative Unit – AGTIPU, sitting on the table) that are supposedly well-educated and serious individuals, presenting the results of a project on a very serious subject, that consumed some good portion of their time (as well as others, one would presume) and money (including “taxpayer”, one would presume) in such a way as to make the average person question 1. – If it’s a joke or 2. – If they have clumsily made a joke of it? It also begs the question – Are we laughing at them or, unbeknownst to us, are we laughing WITH THEM? Or maybe it should be, are THEY laughing at us?
Whatever, the point is this is just the latest example of what pretends to be a “scientist” now days.
I mean give me a break! As a summary of their work (and money from whatever source) they produce a spinning wheel called – “The Greenhouse Gamble”? If THE REPORTS predictive acumen is the same as THE WHEEL’S (and why create it, if it’s not) it’s not just silly, it’s a mockery! A mockery of GOOD science and another “black-eye” for true scientist!
I can see the White House meeting now:
Science advisor, “Yes, Mr. President. That prestigious group over at MIT called, the Center for Global Change Science, has finished a study and produce a report that clearly and mistakably, I mean UN-mistakably shows that there will be an increase in global temperatures of any where from zero to greater than 7 degrees over some period of time, depending completely on whether we have some sort of policy – or not, relating to – or not, the composition of the atmosphere – – I think….”
The President, “Well, obviously if it’s from MIT, it must be right – – uh, correct! What’s this report called?”
Science advisor, “The Greenhouse Gamble Report, Sir.”
The President, “Oh, I like gambling. Didn’t know MIT was into that kind of thing.”
Science advisor, “Yes Sir, and here is the wheel they made just for you.” Go ahead and give it a whirl Mr. President!”
The President, “I’m all in! Here goes. Hope I don’t land on “No policy”!”
LOL
And just for Mike Bryant:
All in thought clouds-
Mort- “W·m−2·Hz−1 / W·sr−1 + erg·cm−2·s−1 ….. This is nuts! Those numbers are way low!”
Adam- “I’m Adam – – I think. This is a wheel – – I think. Adam’s going to spin the wheel – – now?”
Ronald- “A $20 million grant, all summed up in this stupid wheel. You gota love it! Give me more.”
Sergey- “The simple minded MSM are going to eat this up. I see a bestseller in my future.”
MKE Bob
Disputin (00:08:34) :
…
More seriously, I keep reading of these multiple model runs with slight changes in input data being averaged. Is that valid?
If you run a constructive simulation repeatedly with the same script but different inputs, it’s called “sensitivity analysis” and it is an extremely useful technique in system analysis and system engineering. However, and this is extremely important, the script you run in the constructive simulation has to come from a virtual simulation, or, ideally, from real world observation.
If you are interested in studying climate variation, you might want to use it to study the sensitivity of the climate to increased CO2 – but ONLY after you have developed a model that has been independently validated and verified.
To my knowledge, there are no IV&Ved climate models. There are also no models that can “backcast,” i.e. be run in revere to generate the historic climate record.
I’ve reviewed R&D programs in the past, and found cases of overlooking things, math errors, etc., so I’m pretty careful in throwing around the term “fraud.” In this case, after reading http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html, the fraud is pretty obvious.
BTW, any manager in engineering who works at a company that actually has to produce something will tell you to recruit engineers at Cal Tech, VA Tech, Michigan Tech, or any of dozens of top notch engineering schools. But stay away from MIT. To be blunt, it doesn’t deserve its reputation.
RE: Adolfo Giurfa (07:59:06) :
“US wants to paint the world white to save energy”
Another article about this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5389278/Obamas-green-guru-calls-for-white-roofs.html
“President Obama’s energy adviser has suggested all the world’s roofs should be painted white as part of efforts to slow global warming. ”
– Mr. Watts, Should we use whitewash or latex? 😉
And, Way Off Topic, but too good to miss:
Article about the World Business Summit climate conference in Copenhagen.
http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article719339.ece
” “We’ve been extremely busy. Politicians also need to relax after a long day,” says ‘Miss Dina’, herself a prostitute.”
Love the wording and its implication.
It becomes more clear everday…Climate and AGW has nothing to do with anything. It’s about moving money around to where’s it’s deemed to fit the desired outcome. There is now talk of a national sales tax on top of national income tax.
CO2 Cap and Tax
National Sales Tax
Company provided insurance to be taxed as income
Higher Income Tax is coming
I still like this site because I like true science, but it’s clear to me at this point that your not going to make a difference short term with the truth. Maybe in 25 years people can dig this info up and it will be listed as reference.
Dig in, it’s just starting……..
Steve
Prof Prinn is a reasonable person, who teaches limits on global warming models as well.
He is even in violation of several of Chris Colose’s ‘quantifying skeptic arguments’ rules.
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/11/03/quantifying-skeptical-arguments/
Yes but science plays an important new part in the Chu Chu scheme, right after they paint the earth white.
Anybody see the similarities to the 1970s put carbon black all over the ice caps to melt them and stop the next ice age nonsense?
Come to think of it, what’s so bad about a dart board, at least you are right 50-50.