MIT : One Degree Rise Per Decade Forecast

http://www.reuters.com/

“South Park Earth Day Brainwashing Festival”

“My daddy is a geologist and he says there is no concrete evidence of global warming”

“That’s not true. Global warming is going to kill us all, and the Republicans are responsible.”

“You have ruined the Earth for the last time, boys.”

“Environmental activists don’t use logic or reason.”

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to MIT : One Degree Rise Per Decade Forecast

  1. suyts says:

    lol, yes, a fiery death for us all! More and more shrill! And a pox on all of our houses for ever thinking they could be wrong!

  2. suyts says:

    I hate this statement, “To reach their conclusions, the MIT team used computer simulations….”

    No, that isn’t a correct statement. To reach their conclusions they had a programmer input variables that reached the preconceived conclusions. That’s how programming works. Yeh, pc’s can do the math quicker, but they don’t make decisions about what is put in the programming. Its a horrible statement that infers intelligence upon circuitry.

    • Mike Davis says:

      GIGO is alive and well in the X-Boxes and Nintendo on steroids called GCMs.
      They really are using the latest technology as was shown recently on WUWT:
      The Forecast Wheel of Fortune!!!! It is the latest thing out and any University can have their own for a measly 60 million. Just send me the money and you will have one custom made to include your preferred agendas

  3. Bruce says:

    “the MIT team used computer simulations that took world economic activity as well as climate processes into account”

    So they attached a global economic model (of the kind that didn’t predict the GFC) to a global climate model (of a kind which couldn’t model the last 12 years of temperature)? And wrote a paper and a press release? Arrgh! This is lunacy beyond lunacy.

  4. Leon Brozyna says:

    Oh great … they’ve added economic modeling into the mix. Is this the same economic modeling that prevented the housing market bubble from happening, and when it still did, helped prevention the implosion ?

  5. peterhodges says:

    this is just beyond ridiculous.

    the last model greatly overestimated current increases…so they wrote a new model increasing the estimates?

    and these guys got into MIT?

  6. Erik says:

    “Earlier climate warming may also have been masked by the global cooling”

    Damn!

    ..so earlier climate cooling may also have been masked by the global warming ?

  7. Yarmy says:

    “Earlier climate warming may also have been masked by the global cooling effect of 20th-century volcanoes and by the emission of soot, which can add to warming, the scientists said in a statement.”

    Does that make sense as a sentence? Anyway, science by press release. Where’s the paper? Presumably the economic aspect is used to project unchecked CO2 emissions?

  8. Lazarus says:

    Guys you really need to get your credibility spectrum sorted.

    This is from MIT and published in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate. It isn’t from some liberal tree hugging bible college.

    And thanks to Steve misinformation, ‘One Degree Rise Per Decade Forecast’ is inaccurate. The research actually comes up with ‘a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees’.
    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html

    • Just goes to show how far the disease has spread.

      • Lazarus says:

        Indeed, the misinformation from you is affecting many of your readership – or is that the other way round?

      • Lazarus says:

        Are you talking about me? You are the one who has claimed ‘One Degree Rise Per Decade Forecast’ but those troubling facts say ‘a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees’.

        Even if you assume that the maximum 7.4 degrees occurs by 2100 (That’s 90 years away – you seem to have trouble with numbers), it is not ‘One Degree Rise Per Decade’ by any stretch of imagination (science deniers excluded of course).

    • Martin C says:

      What ‘mininformation, Laz ? ? ?

      5.2 degrees C is 9.3 degrees F. 9.3 degrees F in a century is about 1 degree (F) per decade. So what minsinformation are you talking about ?

      How about YOUR MISINFORMATION ?

      • Lazarus says:

        I have already said I confused C, which science uses with F, there is no misinformation on my part just a dumb moment – something I’ll freely admit to having. That is why I leave the science up to qualified scientists.

  9. Perry says:

    Lazarus,

    Drop dead,——————-again please

    • Lazarus says:

      Perry why are you on a Blog called, Ah Hem… ‘Real Science’ when you have no interest in science at all?

      Steve has reported on peer reviewed research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the top research organisations in the world, but he has clearly over egged the findings in an attempt to claim they are too incredible to be believed.

      But you seem more interested in having ago at some one you don’t know just because they are sceptical of unsupported or clearly misinformed claims – I think it says a lot more about you than I.

  10. Donald says:

    Lazarus – take a deep breath and slow down.
    Line 1 – “9.3 degrees F”
    for “That’s 90 years away” ( your comment)
    Title looks right to this layman.

    • Lazarus says:

      Ah the old F and C confusion again. Steve has still taken the very top end value, not the most probable on,e but often accuses others of being alarmist and sensationalist.

      Do you have any credible reason to doubt the quality of research from MIT?

      • Mike Davis says:

        Laz:
        You can not read. In the US Fahrenheit is commonly used even by the NWS to describe temperatures. This leaves the problem with you.
        As for quality of research from any academic group or even government agency is defined by how well their work follows reality and the stuff coming out of this MIT group is about equal to what can be found on my neighbors cow pasture!
        It seems you were the ONLY one confused by the old f /c thing.

      • Paul H says:

        “Ah the old F and C confusion again. Steve has still taken the very top end value, not the most probable on,e but often accuses others of being alarmist and sensationalist.”

        No Laz – you yourself said that 5.2C was the median not the maximum.

        As for your second point – as has already been pointed out the work is based on computer models. Is there any reason to believe this one when all the others have proved so inaccurate.

        As I have said before, scientists understand very little about how climate works. Tweaking more computer models won’t change this.

      • suyts says:

        Wrong question. The question is, do you have any reason to believe this particular statement to be true?

        BTW, did you see what you just did? That’s the perfect example of the alarmist mindset. You argued, because you saw no other explanation, no possibility that Steven could be correct. When shown, you simply moved a different form of errant argument.

      • Lazarus says:

        Mike says;
        “As for quality of research from any academic group or even government agency is defined by how well their work follows reality and the stuff coming out of this MIT group is about equal to what can be found on my neighbors cow pasture!”

        Paul H says:
        “As I have said before, scientists understand very little about how climate works.”

        suyts says:
        “Wrong question. The question is, do you have any reason to believe this particular statement to be true? ”

        All great answers – great at avoiding an examination of the research. Argument from Incredulity anyone?
        http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity

      • Martin C says:

        NO LAZ ! Steve took the middle value of 5.2 C. That is 9.3 F. What is so hard to see here . . .? Are you all upset that Steve didn’t put the ‘F’ in the title? Reuters spoke about 9.3 degrees F. Why aren’t you complaining to them?

      • Mike Davis says:

        LAZ:
        Once respect is lost for a specific group that group needs to provide evidence their work is beyond reproach. This group at MIT has been discredited. The stuff from GISS, UK MET, NIWA, IPCC, NSIDC, and many others that are promoting ACC are now in the category of discredited until verified. Just their claims in this report are mostly falsified before the report even reached publication because they are presenting nothing new but regurgitated garbage from various sources blended together with a bit of extra perfume to attempt to make it smell better. I am sensitive to the smell of that brand of perfume so it still stinks tom e!

      • Lazarus says:

        Mike, I’m sure MIT can’t sleep at night worrying over the fact they have lost the respect of such an intellectual giant as yourself.

  11. sunsettommy says:

    Lazarus,

    Do you realize what they published is not credible science research?

    It is based on projections,that are made from selected data they feed into computers.

    How can you reproduce this? Wait at least 50 years,60 or 90 years?

    It is funny that you attack Steve for his allegedly misleading title,but ignore the obvious that the published paper is WORTHLESS!

    • Lazarus says:

      “It is based on projections,that are made from selected data they feed into computers.”

      One can but wonder how they do research on your planet.

  12. Bruce says:

    Laz, here is what you said earlier:
    “That is why I leave the science up to qualified scientists.”

    You now question how we do scientific research…?

    I can add that I consider this apparent data complete garbage. Why? Well as it happens I’ve been doing large thermodynamic models for many years, and also financial models. Many many of them. I never link the two as my experience is that bad things happen when that is attempted. I am also very strongly aware about how important the input assumptions are. And how rarely modellers put enough effort into rigorously defining them. Or audit them, our term is”validation”. Believe me or not as you like, I’m only a scientist that does research for a living. Maybe your right and I’m not actually on the same planet as you are.

  13. co2hound says:

    Why is it that everyone trashes computer models used for climate change predictions?

    Yet in virtually every other science or engineering activity, computers models are vital to the success of the project? Whether it be weather forecasting or the finance industry, computer models are vital and to not have them would leave people totally in the dark.

    So enough about the models already. They are necessary for virtually everything we do in the modern world.

    • I do computer modeling for a living. Weather models do a great job for a few days. When you extend them much past that they are a complete joke. That is what is called a climate model.

    • Bruce says:

      Likewise I do models, for industry. They are useful for designing stuff and they are useful for showing the guys what they are doing needs to be improved. They are useful for comparing like vs like cases so you can do comparative economics. They are not accurate. To be accurate they need to have accurate data fed to them. The data fed is usually not accurate for a whole range of reasons not least that the input data has error bars usually of order of 5%. Errors can add. The models ARE very precise. Precision is not accuracy. The only accuracy is reality. If your industrial plant is going loopy and your inputs say they are fine, do you believe the computer or the plant?

      I use models as a guide to point me in the direction of reality. They can be very useful for this. I ALWAYS validate them to real world data if I can, or put large caveats on if I can’t. The problem is that climate scientists don’t validate their models, which means they need to match every twiddle and spike in the historical data. If they don’t explain each then they cannot have confidence in extrapolation, which is what predicting the future is. The trouble at the moment is the main models are ignoring statistically significant variables when even statistically insignificant variables could throw their predictions out by whole football pitches.

      As I said, then hooking an economic model to one is lunacy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *