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)
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.
Matt says:
March 22, 2013 at 9:54 am
That’s generally the stuff found below sea level. Most people find it incredibly difficult to breathe–some even complain of drowning.
So much for the “science” of Paul Ehrlich Obviously he’s no expert in thermodynamics.
“Note: watch until 11:08, where he makes the 180F claim. – Anthony”
I know where he got the idea! In the 1961 film “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea”, the Van Allen Belt “catches fire” and raises the Earth’s temp upward of 170 degrees. Check this trailer at about 1:20:
A.D. Everard says:
March 22, 2013 at 1:56 pm
Don says:
March 22, 2013 at 11:19 am
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!
*
Hi Don. I’ve got this from the Office of National Statistics giving the figure of 24,000 excess winter deaths for the winter of 2011/2012 (England and Wales only). Each year is different, of course. I don’t know what the highest count (year) is, but it’s very disturbing that’s it’s as high as it is.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health2/excess-winter-mortality-in-england-and-wales/2011-12–provisional–and-2010-11–final-/index.html
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks, A.D. I followed your link and skimmed the report it summarizes, which can be accessed here:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_288362.pdf
If “excess winter deaths” (also called excess winter mortality or EWM) is what Chad is referring to, he is greatly mistaken in his interpretation. According to the report, more deaths occur in winter than in summer in all countries, and EWM is the excess of deaths (apparently from all causes) in winter above deaths in “summer” (actually nonwinter months), and is calculated as follows (quoting the report):
“The ONS standard method defines the winter period as December to March, and compares the number of deaths that occurred in this winter period with the average number of deaths occurring in the preceding August to November and the following April to July:
EWM = winter deaths – average non-winter deaths
This produces the number of excess winter deaths, which is then rounded to the nearest 10 for final data and to the nearest 100 for provisional data.”
Also according to the report:
“Although EWM is associated with low temperatures, conditions directly relating to cold, such as hypothermia, are not the main cause of excess winter mortality. The majority of additional winter deaths are caused by cerebrovascular diseases, ischaemic heart disease and respiratory diseases (The Eurowinter group, 1997 and ONS, 2011).”
So to claim that all or even many of these excess winter deaths are due to hypothermia is erroneous. It is also instructive to note that a graph in the report shows an overall decline in EWM over several decades, so this recent number (whether 24,000 or 30,000) is not at all unusually large. In 1962-63, for example, it was upwards of 80,000! However, if higher heating bills are indeed causing reduced heat settings and lower home and workplace temperatures, I would expect the EWM to rise somewhat, mostly due to indirect effects of cold, but also due to a modestly increased fatal hypothermia incidence, as per Stephen Brown at 2:59pm.
Or sunny side up!
As with many here, I was awestruck by the imagery of Nazis used to explain–well, actually I have no clue what he was getting at. Why not images of something more contemporary such as North Korean or Cuban military parades?
We now have a record, almost as long as the vaunted satellite record, of YouTube presentations predicting uncontrollable climate change if nothing happens in the next two, five, or ten years.
180F by 2300.
So their math says that in about 287 years, or 104,755 days (and using Anthony’s starting point 60F) 120F will be added.
That means (if my math is right), they’re only expecting a .4 degree rise per year, or a mere 0.00109F per day.
Another ice cube in my drink should cover today’s expected rise.
The guy is an idiot.
Consider, the planet gets ~1370W/m2 at the TOA. This is equivalent to 120C at radiative equilibrium. You cannot get hotter than this.
At the surface the TOA figure is reduced by albedo, atmospheric adsorption to ~1000W/m2, in the zenith position, which is 88C at radiative equilibrium. This is the MAXIMUM surface temperature possible. But convection, wind, latent heat of evapouration of water, radiation reduces this by 30C or more.
Mind you I suppose this guy is talking degrees F not the scientific degrees C(or K). 180F is 82C so we are getting this heating NOW but natural forces at work get this down to the livable temperature. Whatever scale he used he is wrong.
Question about this guy Dave Roberts
Ive tried to Google him.
Where is he getting his money from
Whenever criticism of the mainstream is suppressed, “colorful” perspectives will go unchallenged. The allowable range will be between “conservatives” (maintaining the status quo) and “progressives” who want to carry through the implications of the mainstreams beliefs.
This denier cult is a religion; full of the simple-minded who can’t handle complex issues and want reassurance that all will be well and there’s nothing to worry about children. So much activity for no result, so many half-wits blabbing their copied and pasted nonsense. But the proof is in the real world, and it is coming thick and faster every day, and increasing. And all the little retards with their tiny brains come here to show off the patest bit of ‘proof’ they’ve found made up somewhere. Before the web idiots kept their fantasies to themselves. Now they become scientific experts [they think] and can rubbish the work over decades of tens of thousands of top scientists with impunity. But t5hen it’s only for retards so no great challenge. One day soon reality is going to catch up with you people, I hope it’s in the form of flash floods, mudslides and being washed away.
REPLY: Mr Peter Simmons, who runs a photography website “oneworldnet”, is obviously highly qualified to speak about climate, more so than anyone here, which is why he can refer to everyone who doesn’t share his view as “retards”. /sarc. – Anthony
[Can’t run a spell check utility either. Mod]
suggesting that civilisation could survive a anomaly value of 18.6C in 2300 is preposterous!
long before civilisation will be drowned, ruined and ended, by overheating, submersion, drought and war or civilwar;
this is a blamage for a weblog that pretends to be scientific;
I know it’s rubbish because Al Gore’s scissor lift doesn’t go that high.
Reply to oneworldnet re MR Peter Simmons
You response shows you and your kind up for what they/you are. You lost the aurgument a long time ago. All you have left is a typical response you have just give.
You are incapable of having an intelligent discussion and have to resort name calling/libel. In fact to all readers of this blog that reside in the uk perhaps we should take leaf of mann’s book and form a class action suit against Mr P Simmons.
***
oneworldnet says:
March 23, 2013 at 5:34 am
***
Textbook example of psychological projection, Mr Simmons. Just substitute “warmunists” for denier.
And no, I don’t wish you’ll be washed away. Just go away…
Is it too obvious or did I miss it somewhere? I figured you guys would be all over:
http://now.msn.com/punxsutawney-phil-groundhog-deserves-death-penalty-says-ohio-prosecutor?GT1=50501&ocid=ansnow11
One can only shake their heads when we see the internal conflicts expressed by Mr. Simmons. In his vast projections we see what truly drives people like him. He recognizes that clientology (the church of climate science) is another “religion”. He also realizes that those who unthinkingly follow those preaching this religion are not too sharp. Subconsciously he hates that he has fallen for the scam, made obviously by the lack of warming, but his ego won’t let him release the belief because he has been berating the critical thinkers for years now.
His own personal hatred for what he has become is now available for all to read.
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
If they did their work on the non CO2 influenced predicted patterns using the same methods used for signal extraction in the military electronics field the rise is such that there is no forcing at all and a figure of nearer 0.8 is realistic. In determining the rise they have utterly ignored the cyclic rises that would have happened thanks to an almost childish over simplification of the trend analysis methods. We see the same stupidity in the met office claims for the exceptional UK rainfall when the cyclic pattern is almost painfully clear in the full data set which they surely had access to.
oneworldnet says:
March 23, 2013 at 5:34 am
“But the proof is in the real world, and it is coming thick and faster every day, and increasing. And all the little retards with their tiny brains come here to show off the [latest] bit of ‘proof’ they’ve found made up somewhere. ”
Funny that you say that. I’m a German; we have the coldest March I can remember. Here’s the temperature anomaly map for Europe.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/22/berlin-freezes-in-100-year-winter-record-snow-blankets-germany-bitter-cold-grips-europe/
It’s funny, because the elevated CO2 concentrations should have lead to a pressure broadening of CO2 absorption/re-emission lines, and that should have caused extra warming, all other things being equal.
Now this indicates to me that all other things are not equal. What are your thoughts about possible negative feedbacks, oneworldnet-man?
Quite entertaining watching – and the facts and figures reeled off just pat – and papers referred to “a recent paper said this” etc – but no citation to any of the papers
0/10
Andy
I do hope Mr. Simmons made it back to TrollsRUs OK. He seemed a mite confused; probably he just had ODed on Klimate Koolaid.
oneworldnet says:
March 23, 2013 at 5:34 am
“But the proof is in the real world, and it is coming thick and faster every day, and increasing.”
Yes the proof is in the real planet and that is one that is not warming.
Speaking of Al Gore, he was also cleared for a TED talk. He figures prominently in the opening frames of every one, which basically sends me elsewhere.
Who will be first to claim 1000F in the near future?
Now that is what I call hockeystick
Grister David Roberts says Earth to roast at 180 degrees F by year 2300, film at eleven
Well, at least the oceans will not be boiling.
🙂