Mit

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2008
63,085
9,749
2,040
Portland, Ore.
MIT Global Change Program | Report 169

Report 169
Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters
by Sokolov, A.P., P.H. Stone, C.E. Forest, R.G. Prinn, M.C. Sarofim, M. Webster, S. Paltsev, C.A. Schlosser, D. Kicklighter, S. Dutkiewicz, J. Reilly, C. Wang, B. Felzer, J. Melillo, H.D. Jacoby (January 2009)
Joint Program Report Series, 44 pages, 2009

Superseded by Reprint 2009-12

Abstract
The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model's first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study. Many changes contribute to the stronger warming; among the more important ones are taking into account the cooling in the second half of the 20th century due to volcanic eruptions for input parameter estimation and a more sophisticated method for projecting GDP growth which eliminated many low emission scenarios. However, if recently published data, suggesting stronger 20th century ocean warming, are used to determine the input climate parameters, the median projected warning at the end of the 21st century is only 4.1°C. Nevertheless all our simulations have a very small probability of warming less than 2.4°C, the lower bound of the IPCC AR4 projected likely range for the A1FI scenario, which has forcing very similar to our median projection. The probability distribution for the surface warming produced by our analysis is more symmetric than the distribution assumed by the IPCC due to a different feedback between the climate and the carbon cycle, resulting from a different treatment of the carbon-nitrogen interaction in the terrestrial ecosystem.
 
Penguin%20polar%20bear%20symbols.jpg
 
MIT is an elitist school filled with left leaning scientists

I would rather believe what a good Christian school has to say about global warming
 
As usual, Old Rocksinthehead conveniently ignores the people at MIT who hold the view that anthropogenic gullible warming is pure bunk.

Why don't you start a thread on it?

List all the MIT professors who think it is all bunk
 
I'm not going to be alive in the year 2091 or 2100 so I could give a rat's ass how warm it is going to be. On top of this, the prediction is just pure crap cause MIT doesn't have a clue. More Al Gore folks shaking dead chickens and chanting...
 
I'm not going to be alive in the year 2091 or 2100 so I could give a rat's ass how warm it is going to be. On top of this, the prediction is just pure crap cause MIT doesn't have a clue. More Al Gore folks shaking dead chickens and chanting...

I agree....

Those geeks at MIT tried to warn us that cigarettes cause cancer too
 
5c/9

That is 5c divided into the remaining 9 decades between now and 2010-2100. We would need to warm .555c or start where we are doing now between .15c and increase the rate with each decade to near .8-1c per decade by 2090-2100. If not this cant be right....

What is going to force this speed up in rate of increase? The past 20 years it went from .12-.17 between the 1980 to 2000, but has dropped off to .12 within the past 10 years...No increase in rate. :confused:
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to be alive in the year 2091 or 2100 so I could give a rat's ass how warm it is going to be. On top of this, the prediction is just pure crap cause MIT doesn't have a clue. More Al Gore folks shaking dead chickens and chanting...

thats because the modeling over that lengthy a forecast is what I would refer to as 'informed speculation'.
 
As opposed the uninformed speculation so common on this board. The scientists are trying to warn you that we don't know just how bad it will be, and that by their best 'informed speculation' the range of possibilities looks like this, low to high. In this case, even the low is far too high.
 
As opposed the uninformed speculation so common on this board. The scientists are trying to warn you that we don't know just how bad it will be, and that by their best 'informed speculation' the range of possibilities looks like this, low to high. In this case, even the low is far too high.


it seems to me that the models change a lot from year to year, revision to revision, and are always in the first year or two of a hundred year prediction, with the disaster heavily loaded into the future and the current warming always falling short of expected from versions of the past.

it all seems like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic anyways as the real problem is increased population which needs to use resources to live. why isnt population control one of the publicized solutions to 'climate disruption'? another case of cause being ignored while symptom is fixated on.
 
Hmmm...... Care to have a look at the weather in the last 12 months in Australia? Or China? Say Tennessee? How about Pakistan? Sri Lanka? Russia? And I have left out a few.
 
As opposed the uninformed speculation so common on this board. The scientists are trying to warn you that we don't know just how bad it will be, and that by their best 'informed speculation' the range of possibilities looks like this, low to high. In this case, even the low is far too high.


it seems to me that the models change a lot from year to year, revision to revision, and are always in the first year or two of a hundred year prediction, with the disaster heavily loaded into the future and the current warming always falling short of expected from versions of the past.

it all seems like shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic anyways as the real problem is increased population which needs to use resources to live. why isnt population control one of the publicized solutions to 'climate disruption'? another case of cause being ignored while symptom is fixated on.

I agree

Until we are absolutely 100% positive about global warming ....we should do nothing about it

Then, when it is too late to do anything about it we can blame the liberal scientists.
 
I'm not going to be alive in the year 2091 or 2100 so I could give a rat's ass how warm it is going to be. On top of this, the prediction is just pure crap cause MIT doesn't have a clue. More Al Gore folks shaking dead chickens and chanting...

thats because the modeling over that lengthy a forecast is what I would refer to as 'informed speculation'.
Yup and if people aren't sufficiently scared by the numbers we can adjust the model a wee bit until we get big press.
Alarmists have been preaching doom and gloom since the 60's. When we didn't all freeze to death due to a hole in the ozone layer, suddenly all the polar ice is going to melt and Denver will be beach front property.

Near as I can figure it we have a scientifically "proven" way of controlling global warming.
Every time we notice some freakish weather, we just release some chlorofluorocarbons.
 
Science is for loser geeks

I only believe what Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck tell me

They both are on in the same time slot, are you a 24/7 member and download Rush's show?

Do you download Glenn Beck's show. Or maybe you watch Glenn Beck and listen to Rush.

Let me know, I do not listen to Glenn Beck, he is too weak.

I like to listen to Mark Levin, if you notice nobody is able to post anything questionable coming from Mark Levin.

You should try Levin, a much better show, very well researched and backed up with facts and sources (as is both Rush and Beck as you know).

Mark Levin
 

Forum List

Back
Top