Steve Milloy at Junkscience.com posted this yesterday, and even though it is a few months old, it’s too funny to pass up. It is so ridiculous that it reminds me of Al Gore’s famous claim that the Earth’s mantle is “millions of degrees” on national television.
Even the worst case scenario computer models pushed by IPCC don’t come close to this, and they only go out to to the year 2100, because the uncertainty beyond that is so great.
![2.01_-_observed_and_modelled_global_temperature_growth_1000-2100[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/2-01_-_observed_and_modelled_global_temperature_growth_1000-21001.png?quality=75)
The Grist writer who made the ridiculous statement, David Roberts, is famous for regularly making wacky claims, such as his suggestion that climate skeptics should undergo Nuremberg style war crime trials.
My question is: How does somebody who makes claims like that get cleared for a TED talk? Watch the video and note all the emotional video and image insertions to go with his rhetoric, then note the graphs.
Junkscience writes:
Nuremberg-Trials-for-Skeptics-Guy says Earth’s surface temp may reach 180-degrees F by 2300 without emissions curbs
But the Earth only re-radiates so much radiation for CO2 to absorb and there’s already a surfeit of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The clip starts at about 10:15 into the video.
Note: watch until 11:08, where he makes the 180F claim. – Anthony
=============================================================
Gotta love the FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE at the end with the music.
Assuming somehow Earth could get the extra energy from the sun needed to sustain such an increase, and assuming somehow CO2 manages to overcome its limits related to LWIR response in the atmosphere at band saturation, it still falls short if we take the worst case IPCC model path at project into the future to 2300.
Depending on who you ask, the average surface temperature of the Earth now is anywhere from 57F to 61F. For the purpose of this demonstration, I’ll choose 60F. I’ve taken the IPCC worst case projection and extended the line all the way into the year 2300, getting a anomaly value of 18.6C (65.5F -32F for zero line of anomaly= 35.5F) and adding that to our current average Earth temperature of 60F, (or his comment on “places of the Earth that have an average of 80F”) it STILL comes up short.
Here’s why it can’t continue in a straight line, nearly straight up as Roberts claims.
The LWIR response of CO2 is logarithmic, not linear. We don’t get much more heating for a doubling of CO2.
And then there’s Earth’s own thermostat…and the demonstrated low climate sensitivity:
…there have now been several recent papers showing much the same – numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.’ – James Annan
Wild temperature increases like the Roberts 180F by 2300 claim, and the more recent uptick hockey schtick by Joe Romm:
…look increasingly laughable.
Crazy, yes, but still 32 degrees less zany than NASA’s own Jim Ted Hansen’s “boiling oceans”.
Here is a Zoom-in on the Log warming which goes out to the year 2300 (as Roberts apparently thinks he is doing) under the IPCC’s RCP 6.0 scenario where CO2equivalent reaches 805 ppm (or nearly two doublings) by the Year 2300.
This is then compared to the IPCC AR5’s forecast track and to the actual Observations to date which only gets to about +1.3C by the year 2300.
http://s17.postimg.org/ptzqvibdr/Zoom_in_Log_Warming_Actuals_to_date_Feb13.png
Climate scientists has always had a problem with the math.
Mean while Mother Nature is up to her usual tricks with snow in the UK, US and Germany.
I have to wonder- what are these people smoking ingesting ? How many are Vegans?
Or have a deficiency in B12/amino acids? This is irrational. I have seen better 9th grade
science fair presentations…
Of course, Paul Ehrlich, who predicted that we already reached surface temperatures of 212 F around 20 years ago, makes Hansen look like a CACC denier-
““We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”
Paul Ehrlich, 1972
Is there an exercise going on at WUWT to print as many April the First qualifying stories as possible so as to soften us up so that we won’t recognize the real spoof when it comes shortly?
This is a hockey stick with the blade and handle reversed.
You’ll have to stop saying, “The stupid, it burns”. They’re starting to take you literally.
Human “popullution” proponent Ehrlich was talking about breeder reactors in 1972. Now he’s worried about fossil fuel burning (with a brief excursion into “nuclear winter” en route). Don’t know his opinion on windmills, but as a biologist, he should be horrified at their affect on wildlife. Hard to say how the world would be powered if he were dictator, but billions of dead humans might be just what he’d like. No apocalypse too loopy for him.
At least half the Warmists I talk to, talk exactly like this. A mixture of credulous hysteria, bad science, less knowledge, mixed in with a lot of anger. It seems to give them a sense of importance.
Garymount said: …Without GHG’s…30C…not 280C…
Not defending him, but he opened up discussing an atmosphere, then he started discussing the makeup of atmosphere incluuding GHG’s…all those GHG’s and we’re still waiting for Spring
pat – you talk to warmists? You must have the patience of a saint. Ten seconds in, an I’d want to hit them upside the head with a hockey stick.
At about 10:00, “Climate change will literally take on a life of its own.” Say what? Climate change hasn’t always had a life of its own?
This is currently my biggest complaint about the debate–the incredible carelessness/shameless dishonesty of the CAGW crowd. CAGW, AGW, global warming, and climate change are all used interchangably. This linguistic slight of hand is consistently used by CAGW believers to twist the debate to their advantage.
Even on this blog I’ve seen “climate change” used Where CAGW is meant. The skeptic community needs to be more vigilant in making sure the proper terms are used. I believe real headway could be made simply by policing the conversation better.
chris y says:
March 22, 2013 at 9:06 am
Of course, Paul Ehrlich, who predicted that we already reached surface temperatures of 212 F around 20 years ago, makes Hansen look like a CACC denier-
““We must realize that unless we are extremely lucky, everybody will disappear in a cloud of blue steam in 20 years.”
Paul Ehrlich, 1972
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Interesting, steam is normally white under natural lighting conditions. I wonder where the blue is supposed to come from?
Nuremberg trials for skeptics? What about the carbon policy wonks in the UK that killed 30,000 people from hypothermia in the UK this year? CAGW hysteria is MASS MURDER.
I say to the AGW freakos – show me one instance in which a skeptic killed anybody.
How long will it be before there is fusion of the lighter elements of the planet, leaving only iron.
We’re already capturing about 80% of the outgoing LWIR. That only leaves about 20% more. This is the 40 w/m2 that escapes at the moment. If we could capture it all we would increase the temperature to around 22C (right around 80F). This dude is claiming we can violate the laws of physics. The only way to get to where he claims we are heading is to add multiple steel shells. I don’t think that’s going to happen.
I wonder if anyone in the audience realized they were being fed a bunch of bull.
Heard on BBC early this AM that the RCMP had to shut down the main road outside Edmonton in Alberta, Canada because of the snow and 100-vehicle multi-car/truck pile-ups as a result. Called my friend who lives up there, and she said she got 16 inches overnight, and that it had been snowing for a week.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/drive+slowly+Edmontonians+cautioned+wake+spring+storm/8137540/story.html
Meanwhile GISS figures are out for Feb, and are lower than the 2012 average.
More significantly, the Dec-Feb anomaly is a mere 0.1C higher than the 1981-2010 average. (And how much of that is “adjustment?)
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/giss-figures-out-for-february/
Another guy who uses “climate change.” I tend to disregard immediately someone who uses that because I’m not sure if they really think they can control the climate so it is static.
And after the talk I bet he got in his SUV and drove home…
I think I found the source of the Ehrlich “Blue Steam” quote. He seems to be speaking about population and not breeder reactors:
http://newspaperarchive.com/ames-daily-tribune/1969-08-16
Note I can only read the grey text all the way at the bottom of the web page; I can’t view the photo of the newspaper for some reason.
Chad Wozniak says:
March 22, 2013 at 9:58 am
Nuremberg trials for skeptics? What about the carbon policy wonks in the UK that killed 30,000 people from hypothermia in the UK this year?
+++++++++++++++++++++
Hi Chad, I’ve seen this troubling claim a few times recently but have not found a source for it. Can you (or another reader) supply one? Thanks!
He states that the temperatures we are experiencing now are a result of the green house gasses we put into the atmosphere 50 to 100 years ago and that current gasses being released will affect the temperatures 50 to 100 years from now. How does that work? Why doesn’t CO2 have an immediate effect when it enters the atmosphere? Does it go to sleep for 50 years? Even if he assumes it would take that long for the oceans to warm up, wouldn’t it still have to increase air temperatures first to warm the oceans? I just don’t get where they come up with the 50 year lag.