MIT's global warming prediction

[daveman]

We should all hope that the climate change is man caused, as that way it can be controlled. If it is only natural, then we will be the effect, and that has never been successful for a species. By dealing with it, we have little to lose, but by ignoring it, we may lose everything. Besides, someday we will run out of fossil fuels; we won't run out of solar, wind, hydro and tidal. And science may save the species.

Climate change has never been successful for a species...but man is the only species in history with the capability to adapt.

You can tell because people live in the Arctic and the Sahara and in every climate in between.

 

[Old Rocks]

Instead of models, lets look at the physical universe: melting ice caps both North and South, 87% of all glaciers are retreating, record high temps far outnumber record low temps, flora and fauna moving poleward at about 10 K per decade, extreme weather events, and rising sea levels. None of these events are easy to hide or falsely create; the planet is showing us what is happening.

Look again. Glaciers are advancing all over the world.

You dumb fuck of a liar. What the hell do you think you are doing? That stupid lie is so easy to check.
Global glacier retreat


The world operates on fantastically long periods of time. In the time you live your entire life the Earth breathes three times. You have no concept of how the planet functions. It takes years for anything to happen.

Both going into and coming out of the Younger Dryas, the major temperature change occured in the period of a decade.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Perspective on Abrupt climate Change

And then there are the Heinrich events. You do know what those are, right?

Tropical vegetation evidence for rapid sea level changes associated with Heinrich Events

A Cariaco Basin pollen record shows the development of tropical salt marshes during marine isotope stage 3. Rapid and abrupt expansions of salt marsh vegetation in tropical South America are associated with north Atlantic Heinrich Events stadials (HE-stadials). Intervals of salt marsh expansion have an internal structure, which consists of a recurrent alternation of species that starts with pollen increments of Chenopodiaceae, that are followed by increments of grasses, and subsequently by increments of Cyperaceae. This pattern suggests a successional process that is determined by the close relationship between sea-level and plant community dynamics. The salt tolerant Chenopodiaceae, indicate hypersaline intertidal environments, which were most likely promoted by extremely dry atmospheric conditions. Rapid sea-level rise characterizes the onset of HE-stadials, causing the continued recruitment of pioneer species, which are the only ones tolerating rapid rates of disturbance. Once sea-level rise decelerates, marsh plants are able to trap and stabilize sediments, favouring the establishment of more competitive species. These results add to the scarce knowledge on the dynamics of tropical salt marsh ecosystems, and provide independent paleoclimatic evidence on sea-level changes following Antarctic climate variability.



We have seen the temp increases halt and they have stayed constant for ten years and now they are going into decline.

What a crock of shit. 2010 tied 2005 and 1998 for the hottest year on record. So, within the space of 12 years you have the three warmest years on record. Not only that, the 10 warmest years on record are all within that period. Even by Dr. Spencers graphs, you can clearly see the rise since 1998.

UAH Temperature Update for May, 2011: +0.13 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

That's why there have been record snowstorms the last three winters in a row. You are correct, we can see what is happening. And it's not what the warmists predicted it would be.

Record snow storms, but not record colds temps such as those in the early part of the 20th Century.

In spite of part of a record La Nina occuring in the latter half of 2010, that year matched 2005, and 1998 for warmth. Now we are in 2011, predicted by fools like you to be the coldest in a long time, and the first three months were just barely negative, -0.01, -0.02, and -0.1 for January, February, and March. And now April and May have had positive temperatures, 0.12, and 0.13.

At this rate, the median temperature low for this year will be above all the other median highs save that of 1998 and 2010, by Dr. Spences graph.

Record snow storms represent record precipitation, exactly as predicted.

 

[Big Fitz]

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate 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. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees. The difference is caused by several factors rather than any single big change. Among these are improved economic modeling and newer economic data showing less chance of low emissions than had been projected in the earlier scenarios. Other changes include accounting for the past masking of underlying warming by the cooling induced by 20th century volcanoes, and for emissions of soot, which can add to the warming effect. In addition, measurements of deep ocean temperature rises, which enable estimates of how fast heat and carbon dioxide are removed from the atmosphere and transferred to the ocean depths, imply lower transfer rates than previously estimated.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

Yes folks, it's time for everybody game of No-Theory Settled Science

Wheel

of

Climate

Change!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvJGDxVFp5Q]YouTube - ‪Animaniacs - Wheel of Morality‬‏[/ame]

ahhhhhh.... close enough.

 

[Chris]

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s.

The question is no longer whether global warming is upon us … but how we can rise to its challenge.

MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change is a world leader in this effort. Our many activities cohere around one strategy: science and policy have to work together.​

They had their minds made up going in. No surprise their models arrived at the predetermined conclusion.

Computers can't predetermine.

But you can.

 

[daveman]

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s.

The question is no longer whether global warming is upon us … but how we can rise to its challenge.

MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change is a world leader in this effort. Our many activities cohere around one strategy: science and policy have to work together.​

They had their minds made up going in. No surprise their models arrived at the predetermined conclusion.

Computers can't predetermine.

But you can.

People who program computer models can, too.

 

[Chris]

The question is no longer whether global warming is upon us … but how we can rise to its challenge.

MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change is a world leader in this effort. Our many activities cohere around one strategy: science and policy have to work together.​

They had their minds made up going in. No surprise their models arrived at the predetermined conclusion.

Computers can't predetermine.

But you can.

People who program computer models can, too.

That's not the case here.

The people at MIT are the smartest people in the country.

Which is more than I can say for the posters here.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Computers can't predetermine.

But you can.

People who program computer models can, too.

That's not the case here.

The people at MIT are the smartest people in the country.

Which is more than I can say for the posters here.

5.2c of warming within the next 89 years would be 65% of the 8c that occurred over a 10,000 year period from the base of the last major ice age to coming into this interglacial. That would change climate in bad ways. I doubt it because the warming so far is lagging below the AR1 and AR2 predictions...We're following a worst case right now in co2 and it is not even warming to the 2000 co2 level models that if we cut all co2 off at that time "we would be this temperature by 2010". Yes we're warming, but to try to forecast something out of pure air doesn't make sense. Who's to say that these feed backs are going to feed back?

 

[Chris]

People who program computer models can, too.

That's not the case here.

The people at MIT are the smartest people in the country.

Which is more than I can say for the posters here.

5.2c of warming within the next 89 years would be 65% of the 8c that occurred over a 10,000 year period from the base of the last major ice age to coming into this interglacial. That would change climate in bad ways. I doubt it because the warming so far is lagging below the AR1 and AR2 predictions...We're following a worst case right now in co2 and it is not even warming to the 2000 co2 level models that if we cut all co2 off at that time "we would be this temperature by 2010". Yes we're warming, but to try to forecast something out of pure air doesn't make sense. Who's to say that these feed backs are going to feed back?

These feedbacks are already happening.

More open sea in the summer months....already happening

More methane from arctic tundra that is thawing.....already happening.

But the Republicans, because the are wholly owned by the extraction companies, will deny it until the pole is gone.

 

[daveman]

Computers can't predetermine.

But you can.

People who program computer models can, too.

That's not the case here.

The people at MIT are the smartest people in the country.

Which is more than I can say for the posters here.

You silly little man. I already showed you they had their minds made up.

That's not how science is done. Well, it's how climate science is done, but it's not how real science is done.

Doesn't speak well about your intelligence.

 

[Chris]

People who program computer models can, too.

That's not the case here.

The people at MIT are the smartest people in the country.

Which is more than I can say for the posters here.

You silly little man. I already showed you they had their minds made up.

That's not how science is done. Well, it's how climate science is done, but it's not how real science is done.

Doesn't speak well about your intelligence.

You didn't show anything.

Do you know any climate scientists?

 

[daveman]

That's not the case here.

The people at MIT are the smartest people in the country.

Which is more than I can say for the posters here.

You silly little man. I already showed you they had their minds made up.

That's not how science is done. Well, it's how climate science is done, but it's not how real science is done.

Doesn't speak well about your intelligence.

You didn't show anything.

Pretending it's not there doesn't mean it's really not there.

Do you know any climate scientists?

No. But I don't get moist girly crushes on scientists like you do.

Irrelevant question anyway.

 

[Chris]

You silly little man. I already showed you they had their minds made up.

That's not how science is done. Well, it's how climate science is done, but it's not how real science is done.

Doesn't speak well about your intelligence.

You didn't show anything.

Pretending it's not there doesn't mean it's really not there.

Do you know any climate scientists?

No. But I don't get moist girly crushes on scientists like you do.

Irrelevant question anyway.

I didn't think so.

The science is not in dispute. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. We are adding 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is warming the earth.

 

[daveman]

You didn't show anything.

Pretending it's not there doesn't mean it's really not there.

Do you know any climate scientists?

No. But I don't get moist girly crushes on scientists like you do.

Irrelevant question anyway.

I didn't think so.

The science is not in dispute. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. We are adding 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is warming the earth.

Thus spaketh The Goracle.

You serve your masters well, and you will be rewarded.

 

[elvis]

Pretending it's not there doesn't mean it's really not there.

No. But I don't get moist girly crushes on scientists like you do.

Irrelevant question anyway.

I didn't think so.

The science is not in dispute. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. We are adding 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is warming the earth.

Thus spaketh The Goracle.

You serve your masters well, and you will be rewarded.

chris is auditioning to be Algore's personal um..... masseuse.

 

[Big Fitz]

I really think that Chris needs his avatar forcibly changed to the George Lazenby Bond. Even Sean Connery would slap Chris's significant other around over the misuse of his image.

 

[elvis]

I really think that Chris needs his avatar forcibly changed to the George Lazenby Bond. Even Sean Connery would slap Chris's significant other around over the misuse of his image.

agreed. another moral dilemma.

 

[Chris]

Pretending it's not there doesn't mean it's really not there.

No. But I don't get moist girly crushes on scientists like you do.

Irrelevant question anyway.

I didn't think so.

The science is not in dispute. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. We are adding 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is warming the earth.

Thus spaketh The Goracle.

You serve your masters well, and you will be rewarded.

Huh?

None of that is in dispute.

That's why every national science organization on the planet accepts man made global warming.

And as far as being rewarded, I do quite well thank you.

 

[daveman]

I didn't think so.

The science is not in dispute. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. We are adding 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is warming the earth.

Thus spaketh The Goracle.

You serve your masters well, and you will be rewarded.

chris is auditioning to be Algore's personal um..... masseuse.

Happy ending every time, huh?

 

[daveman]

I didn't think so.

The science is not in dispute. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. We are adding 10 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is warming the earth.

Thus spaketh The Goracle.

You serve your masters well, and you will be rewarded.

Huh?

None of that is in dispute.

That's why every national science organization on the planet accepts man made global warming.

...based on flawed models, cherry-picked data, and outright falsification.

And as far as being rewarded, I do quite well thank you.

Do you get paid per post?

 

[daveman]

Huh?

None of that is in dispute.

That's why every national science organization on the planet accepts man made global warming.

...based on flawed models, cherry-picked data, and outright falsification.

And as far as being rewarded, I do quite well thank you.

Do you get paid per post?

Does atmospheric CO2 cause the earth to retain heat?

Nobody knows. And don't bring up that experiment again, because CO2 in a container with, what, 2 variables has nothing to do with a system as vast and complex as the entire planet.