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:
Are Scientists the new “priests” in our modern world with their “Wheel of Fortune” (Carmina Burana comes to mind)? Through ‘fear’ they try to control us like sheep. In all aspects of our lives they teach us what is good and what is bad. Their “Wheel of Fortune” is blazoned with catastrophes and is regularly spun to remind us of how we are sinful and will surely be punished. Of course, we must pay more tithes to finance their growing Monastery and avoid the hellfire. Clearly, more research is needed and we must build more Temples to the Holy Sciences.
Now I know what is really behind, or on top, of the AGW thing:
http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article719339.ece
Is this a Climate Science study or a Political Science study? I didn’t know scientists were supposed to advocate for public policy in their technical papers.
Bruce already beat me to it…
Yes.
Scientists aren’t supposed to do that sort of thing.
Hence, the profusion of “hybrid” schools…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.
Hence, the profusion of “hybrid” schools…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.
Indeed the construction of the Monasteries is progressing quite well – thank you for your contributions folks. Cromwell and Henry would probably smile knowingly if they could witness all this happening all over again…
Thise roulette wheel featured in an article by the Guardian’s Environment editor John Vidal back in March, and another by Monbiot last week. It was attributed to the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, who are sponsored by Exxon, Shell, BP and Total among others. Careful how you mock, there’s Big Oil money bet on this.
One thing I have noticed over the years is how the “warmists” react to their conclusions being challenged. Rather than defend their data or methods of analysis, they tend to attack the challenger. Rather than attack the challenger’s analysis, they get personal. That is generally a very good indication that there is no “there” there.
The tactics used to defend their conclusions are most often obfuscation and intimidation with a bit of name calling tossed in for good measure. If one asks to see the actual data and methods used to arrive at their conclusion, the first answer is generally “no”, followed by a circular chase to locate it, often followed by a final “we lost it”. Now I can see the dog eating the homework once. The problem is these people seem to have very hungry dogs and they are very keen on not allowing anyone to see the work behind the conclusions.
Should one dare to disagree or even ask to see the data, then they are a “denier” or an energy company shill, or whatever it takes to shift the focus from their work and place that focus on the person asking to see it. There is also a good deal of professional intimidation where paying homage to the “global warming” dogma is required for publication. If a paper or press release or study results in a conclusion that something happened due to natural rather than human causes, it must carry the “but this does not negate the impact of AGW” disclaimer before the end of the text. If Arctic ice was lost due to wind patterns, you must insert the obligatory AGW note in there someplace or risk your funding being cut off and disinvitation to the better cocktail parties.
Generally when one attacks the messenger rather than focusing on the message, it means they really have no defense. It is a way of changing the subject. It makes the challenger into the challenged and puts them on the defensive.
The “warmists” are the “deniers”. They offer no proof of their conclusions. Their conclusions would get tossed out of a high school science class as they refuse to “show their work”.
The “warmists” have also made a mockery of the peer review process. They create a circle of like-minded individuals who review each others papers and shut out any reviewer who raises uncomfortable questions. In return they make considerable sums in consulting and speaking fees. They become quite popular and appear on the front pages of major newspapers. Their cocktail party card is full, and yet they still can’t seem to find the money to properly feed that dog.
Maybe they should buy a vowel.
well, it only stands to reason since coral reefs first appeared when CO2 concentrations and atmospheric temperatures were much higher than today…
Heat-resistant Corals Ignore Climate Change Threats
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/heat-resistant-corals-ignore-climate-change-threats
This means that corals survived the worst ever mass extinction event in the history of Earth—the Permian-Triassic Extinction, 251 million years ago—and lived through the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous. During this span of nearly 200 million years, CO2 levels were 5-10 times higher than they are now with temperatures as much as 10ºC higher than today.. After surviving the event that killed off the dinosaurs, corals have remained the ocean’s primary reef builders during the Cenozoic era, roughly the past 63 million years. Scientists should have known that any creatures who can live through all that are tough enough to put up with slight fluctuations in water temperature.
Photo Caption “Smile boys, you should be all proud of what we have done here. We invented the wheel. Nice job. Damn Mort, you’re not smiling. Try harder.”
Addition to Photo Caption: “Mort, are you with us or with the enemy? Smile!”
Professor of “decision making” illustrating his work with a roullette wheel: priceless.
Anthony, do you have any idea how many thousands of people–besides me–stole that photo? It’s priceless. The AGW Scientific Method.
Bruce Foutch (10:03:07) :
Another article about this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5389278/Obamas-green-guru-calls-for-white-roofs.html
White=TiO2 (titanium dioxide). Is somebody interested in selling billions of tons of this pigment among the green crowd?.
Pearland Aggie (11:23:46) : You will become old arguing. It is NOT an issue of rational discussion, it is just a fanatic agenda, which will end provoking what all fanatic agendas have provoked in the past…I hope you will never see those hansen’s trains.
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
John Galt (09:35:52) :
“OT: Obama plan: Paint roofs white to save world
Suggests light colors would reduce global warming”
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.”
Wow, as an engineer, I would like to see the calculations and assumptions behind this claim. Remember Chu is the guy who can’t convert correctly between Centigrade and Degrees F. Sure, I believe that in the summer, a white roof is better if you have no shade trees, but not all of us live in warm sunny climates all year long. Doesn’t that dark roof help in the winter when it is cold outside? Is this benefit so large when you have a vented attic 10 inches of insulation between the attic and the and in
The gentleman trying to roll that Nostradamus thing has a face I would like to punch.
John Galt (10:24:54) :
Is this a Climate Science study or a Political Science study? I didn’t know scientists were supposed to advocate for public policy in their technical papers.
Heh! Haven’t you read Science, Nature, New Scientist, etc.?
“Is somebody interested in selling billions of tons of this pigment among the green crowd?.”
They better be careful with that stuff. A hundred thousand acres of white roof is equivalent to a hundred thousand acres of permanent glacial ice and could have an “interesting” albedo impact. It’s probably better to use a color that reflects about the same amount of light as the natural surrounding landscape outside the urban area.
Adolfo Giurfa (11:37:43) :
Bruce Foutch (10:03:07) :
Another article about this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/5389278/Obamas-green-guru-calls-for-white-roofs.html
White=TiO2 (titanium dioxide). Is somebody interested in selling billions of tons of this pigment among the green crowd?.
Hah! Excellent idea! But I need a government subside from cap&trade to start my business. 😉
I find it funny that the wheel features sections entirely devoted to temperature increases only, unless that little blue sliver at the top is uncertainty or possibility of cooling. It’s as if there’s absolutely NO WAY they could be wrong about future warming. Too funny!
Adolfo Giurfa (11:37:43) :
From the article,
“More pale surfaces could also slow global warming by reflecting heat into space rather than allowing it to be absorbed by dark surfaces where it is trapped by greenhouse gases and increases temperatures.”
That shows how little that guy understands about the greenhouse effect. That the photons are reflected or delayed (i.e. absorbed and reemitted) does not change anything.
My house and inside walls are all covered with TiO2 pigments, as it is the standard white pigment in paint. I understand that it is also good to purify the air, so they should be paying us now.
People need to read the paper itself. It’s 50 pages. At one point, they talk about precipitation systems, but they don’t have observations for the precipitation, so they rely on model runs to provide them the parameters for the precipitation system. Supposedly, you tune the model to the observation so as to make a better model. They tune their model to other models, thus incorporating the errors of the other models. What are the actual observations that they are relying upon for tuning the rest of their model, I didn’t really see explained at all. How they go from the logrithmic CO2 forcing to gain a feedback 900% more, they don’t really explain — at least not in a language I can understand. If there are posters here who have read it, if they might point to explanations within the paper itself that clarify how they arrived at their conclusions — or can translate what they’ve written into human form — I would greatly appreciate it. I would gather that the reporters just took their word for it — or the words from the press release.