Global temperatures to rise 9 degrees by 2100

[alan1]

don't you love how people who can't get a 5 day forecast right can tell us the weather 90 years from now?

You're confusing meteorology for climatology. Simple mistake, I understand how it could happen.

not really. if a 10 day "model" is unreliable, how can anyone have faith in a 90 year prediction?

The key word is "faith".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

don't you love how people who can't get a 5 day forecast right can tell us the weather 90 years from now?

You're confusing meteorology for climatology. Simple mistake, I understand how it could happen.

not really. if a 10 day "model" is unreliable, how can anyone have faith in a 90 year prediction?

Meteorology is based on sound science and it can not be SURE what will happen more , it is based on and uses OBSERVED phenomena to extrapolate what will happen over the next week. And at best it can provide gross percentages based on a large physical area.

Models designed for Global warming as so inaccurate that using those models one can NOT recreate previous weather that is accurately recorded and the currently known variables are all available. But we are to believe that they can, with any possible success, predict what may happen in 90 years?

 

[editec]

FYI

Here's the report, that I presume Reuters is reporting on

Probabilistic Forecast for 21

st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions​

(without Policy) and Climate Parameters
A.P. Sokolov*, P.H. Stone*, C.E. Forest*, R. Prinn*, M.C. Sarofim*, M. Webster*, S.
Paltsev*, C.A. Schlosser*, D. Kicklighter†, S. Dutkiewicz*, J. Reilly*, C. Wang*, B. Felzer‡,
J. Melillo†, and H.D. Jacoby*
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 5.1oC compared to 2.4oC 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​

​

oC. Nevertheless all our simulations have a very small probability of warming​

less than 2.4oC, 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.​

​

​

​

​

 

[editec]

Yet another doom n gloom "model" just in time for Cap N Trade legislation!!! Imagine that!

Oh - and GE aka NBC is also doing an all-out promotion on this as GE has invested hundreds of millions into the GO-GREEN industrial machine.

I am constantly amazed that so many still fall for this assault on actual science...

Yes, because MIT is so well known for its constant assaults on "actual" science, isn't it?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yet another doom n gloom "model" just in time for Cap N Trade legislation!!! Imagine that!

Oh - and GE aka NBC is also doing an all-out promotion on this as GE has invested hundreds of millions into the GO-GREEN industrial machine.

I am constantly amazed that so many still fall for this assault on actual science...

Yes, because MIT is so well known for its constant assaults on "actual" science, isn't it?

In regards this issue, YES as a matter of fact. There is almost no sane science in 10 year models much less 90 that claim to have a 90 percent accurate finding.

 

[code1211]

Yet another doom n gloom "model" just in time for Cap N Trade legislation!!! Imagine that!

Oh - and GE aka NBC is also doing an all-out promotion on this as GE has invested hundreds of millions into the GO-GREEN industrial machine.

I am constantly amazed that so many still fall for this assault on actual science...

Yes, because MIT is so well known for its constant assaults on "actual" science, isn't it?

All tchnological science is a process of working toward some goal. I would assume that MIT(echnology) would be training its students in the kind of science that does just this. The unbiased, uninterested scientists that we like to believe exist probably does not. Most start with a thesis and then set about proving it.

That is the basis of peer review. To tear the thesis apart. I can't say this with certainty, but I would think that every time any particular scientist publishes, there is probably another who hates this guy who will turn over every rock to prove him wrong. In some cases, there are probably groups drooling for the chance to do this.

How does this reflect in AGW science? Well, it really doesn't. There are no avenues for this debate because the gatekeepers of the journals in which peer review is played out will not allow the debate to continue. Without peer review, is this stuff science or just a conversation between the like minded? This the kind of conversation that produces Dark Ages.

 

[editec]

Yet another doom n gloom "model" just in time for Cap N Trade legislation!!! Imagine that!

Oh - and GE aka NBC is also doing an all-out promotion on this as GE has invested hundreds of millions into the GO-GREEN industrial machine.

I am constantly amazed that so many still fall for this assault on actual science...

Yes, because MIT is so well known for its constant assaults on "actual" science, isn't it?

In regards this issue, YES as a matter of fact. There is almost no sane science in 10 year models much less 90 that claim to have a 90 percent accurate finding.

And you know this based on your expert understanding of climatology, right?

 

[editec]

Yet another doom n gloom "model" just in time for Cap N Trade legislation!!! Imagine that!

Oh - and GE aka NBC is also doing an all-out promotion on this as GE has invested hundreds of millions into the GO-GREEN industrial machine.

I am constantly amazed that so many still fall for this assault on actual science...

Yes, because MIT is so well known for its constant assaults on "actual" science, isn't it?

All tchnological science is a process of working toward some goal. I would assume that MIT(echnology) would be training its students in the kind of science that does just this. The unbiased, uninterested scientists that we like to believe exist probably does not. Most start with a thesis and then set about proving it.

That is the basis of peer review. To tear the thesis apart. I can't say this with certainty, but I would think that every time any particular scientist publishes, there is probably another who hates this guy who will turn over every rock to prove him wrong. In some cases, there are probably groups drooling for the chance to do this.

How does this reflect in AGW science? Well, it really doesn't. There are no avenues for this debate because the gatekeepers of the journals in which peer review is played out will not allow the debate to continue. Without peer review, is this stuff science or just a conversation between the like minded? This the kind of conversation that produces Dark Ages.

Now you're trying to tell us that the team of MIT scientists who worked on this are part of some conspiracy to lie to us?

And you are also implying that this paper won't get the benefit of peer review?

You're a tad nuts, you know that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, because MIT is so well known for its constant assaults on "actual" science, isn't it?

In regards this issue, YES as a matter of fact. There is almost no sane science in 10 year models much less 90 that claim to have a 90 percent accurate finding.

And you know this based on your expert understanding of climatology, right?

Let's play your ignorant game, shall we? If I can not have a well informed opinion on this issue, because according to you, No one that is not a scientist in that SPECIFIC field can ever understand it, then YOUR opinion is based on just accepting the pronouncements of a group of people in white Smocks because YOU have FAITH they are right.

Get the idea you dumb ass? I don't have to be a scientist to understand that if a model can not reproduce previous facts using the model designed, it can not possible provide any useful information 90 years down the road on UNKNOWNS.

I do NOT have to be a scientist to KNOW that in this field we know a LOT less then is needed. There is no compelling evidence at all that Science can predict what the temperature will be globally in 10 years MUCH LESS 90.

Especially when they do not even know what caused the short burst of now gone heating in the first place.

The reality is that in 100 years the planet heated approximately 1 degree. Which is a normal occurrence, nothing abnormal about that. We know that the planet is now cooling, but the Global man made warming bunch can't have that so they pretend with ignorant unproven untestable models that are flawed from conception they can predict what will happen a century away. Hell just 10 years ago they claimed the sea would have risen HOW far now and it would be HOW much hotter by now?

I would say your white smocks have PROVEN they do not have a clue.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, because MIT is so well known for its constant assaults on "actual" science, isn't it?

All tchnological science is a process of working toward some goal. I would assume that MIT(echnology) would be training its students in the kind of science that does just this. The unbiased, uninterested scientists that we like to believe exist probably does not. Most start with a thesis and then set about proving it.

That is the basis of peer review. To tear the thesis apart. I can't say this with certainty, but I would think that every time any particular scientist publishes, there is probably another who hates this guy who will turn over every rock to prove him wrong. In some cases, there are probably groups drooling for the chance to do this.

How does this reflect in AGW science? Well, it really doesn't. There are no avenues for this debate because the gatekeepers of the journals in which peer review is played out will not allow the debate to continue. Without peer review, is this stuff science or just a conversation between the like minded? This the kind of conversation that produces Dark Ages.

Now you're trying to tell us that the team of MIT scientists who worked on this are part of some conspiracy to lie to us?

And you are also implying that this paper won't get the benefit of peer review?

You're a tad nuts, you know that?

Keep that FAITH and preach on Brother.

 

[editec]

In regards this issue, YES as a matter of fact. There is almost no sane science in 10 year models much less 90 that claim to have a 90 percent accurate finding.

And you know this based on your expert understanding of climatology, right?

Let's play your ignorant game, shall we?

There is nobody more ignorant than those who do not understand what they are ignorant of, sport.

If I can not have a well informed opinion on this issue, because according to you, No one that is not a scientist in that SPECIFIC field can ever understand it, then YOUR opinion is based on just accepting the pronouncements of a group of people in white Smocks because YOU have FAITH they are right.

First of all you assume I assume which expert is right. Based on what? Based on the fact that you stereotype people and them presume to tell them what they wrote means something other than what they wrote.


Secondly, yes, that is exactly what most laymen do. They choose the expert opinions which most suit their own ignorance and presume to tell us that they others are wrong.

Just as you (not I) so recently did in this thread

Get the idea you dumb ass?

I am so many light years beyond you intellectually, sport, that for you to call me a dumb ass is simply goofy beyond understanding.

I don't have to be a scientist to understand that if a model can not reproduce previous facts using the model designed, it can not possible provide any useful information 90 years down the road on UNKNOWNS.

Lots of wrods, no real content.

Models don't produce facts, they assume facts and presuppositions (which they state for the benefit of the reader) and postulate outcomes from those.

I do NOT have to be a scientist to KNOW that in this field we know a LOT less then is needed.

Yes, I quite agree....as would the scientists who wrote that paper, indcidently.

Therefore how is that you can pronounce with such certainly which expert is wrong or right?

There is no compelling evidence at all that Science can predict what the temperature will be globally in 10 years MUCH LESS 90.

There isn't? And you know this how, exactly? You don't.

Especially when they do not even know what caused the short burst of now gone heating in the first place.

Short burst of heating? You're in over your head, sport.

The reality is that in 100 years the planet heated approximately 1 degree. Which is a normal occurrence, nothing abnormal about that.

How do YOU know that? You don't. You rely on experts, don't you?

We know that the planet is now cooling, but the Global man made warming bunch can't have that so they pretend with ignorant unproven untestable models that are flawed from conception they can predict what will happen a century away. Hell just 10 years ago they claimed the sea would have risen HOW far now and it would be HOW much hotter by now?

We know the planet is cooling, do we?

I would say your white smocks have PROVEN they do not have a clue.

Well you can SAY whatever you want, champ, but saying things and making a logical arguments that supports what you say are wildly different things.

And you couldn't make a logical argument one came in a kit with step by step instructiuons.

You prove this to us every damned day, actually.

 

[Red Dawn]

A new study, which researchers have called "the most exhaustive end-to-end analysis of climate change impacts yet performed", predicts that global warming could be twice as bad as previous estimates had suggested.

Published this month in the Journal of Climate, the MIT-based research found a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise at least 9 degrees by 2100.

New Study: Global Temperatures to Rise 9 Degrees by 2100 | Green Business | Reuters

I don't have a clue about the law of thermodynamics, mass balance, atmospheric physics, or isotope analysis. In fact, I haven't had a science class since high school.


But, I feel perfectly comfortable pronouncing that this climate change crap is all hogwash, becasue I read something on a rightwing blog that told me to think that.

 

[code1211]

A new study, which researchers have called "the most exhaustive end-to-end analysis of climate change impacts yet performed", predicts that global warming could be twice as bad as previous estimates had suggested.

Published this month in the Journal of Climate, the MIT-based research found a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise at least 9 degrees by 2100.

New Study: Global Temperatures to Rise 9 Degrees by 2100 | Green Business | Reuters

I don't have a clue about the law of thermodynamics, mass balance, atmospheric physics, or isotope analysis. In fact, I haven't had a science class since high school.


But, I feel perfectly comfortable pronouncing that this climate change crap is all hogwash, becasue I read something on a rightwing blog that told me to think that.

Obviously, you get most of your info from politically biased sources.

Try this one:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tropospheric-temperature-trends-for-march/

This does not draw conclusions or make predictions. It just shows the graphed data of two of the recognized data gathering outfits, RSS and UAH. These are satelite driven data sets and don't have the inherant innaccuracies of the land based temperature stations.

I find it interesting that MIT makes one study in 2003 and another in 2009 and determines that the rate of warming will double over the predicted period in the later prediction while out in the real world, the actual Global Temperature dropped. This might lead one to question which orafice the boys at MIT are speaking out of.

What is more interesting is that at the time of the release of the 2003 study, the Global Temperature had already been clearly dropping for 2 years.

Who needs the real world if you've got a jim dandy model, though, huh?

In reviewing the link, be sure to read the comments that follow as a fly on the wall overhearing the musings of the Geek Squad talking climate and making jokes. These are the real scientists revealed without the PR crews that twist their research into political positions.

 

[Gurdari]

A new study, which researchers have called "the most exhaustive end-to-end analysis of climate change impacts yet performed", predicts that global warming could be twice as bad as previous estimates had suggested.

Published this month in the Journal of Climate, the MIT-based research found a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise at least 9 degrees by 2100.

New Study: Global Temperatures to Rise 9 Degrees by 2100 | Green Business | Reuters

Those scientists are just trying to ruin the economy, right?
Stupid economy haters...

 

[Chris]

A new study, which researchers have called "the most exhaustive end-to-end analysis of climate change impacts yet performed", predicts that global warming could be twice as bad as previous estimates had suggested.

Published this month in the Journal of Climate, the MIT-based research found a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise at least 9 degrees by 2100.

New Study: Global Temperatures to Rise 9 Degrees by 2100 | Green Business | Reuters

I don't have a clue about the law of thermodynamics, mass balance, atmospheric physics, or isotope analysis. In fact, I haven't had a science class since high school.


But, I feel perfectly comfortable pronouncing that this climate change crap is all hogwash, becasue I read something on a rightwing blog that told me to think that.

People who listen to Rush and Beck think they know more than the scientists at MIT.

Meanwhile, the glaciers and the polar ice cap keep melting, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere keeps rising.

 

[KittenKoder]

A new study, which researchers have called "the most exhaustive end-to-end analysis of climate change impacts yet performed", predicts that global warming could be twice as bad as previous estimates had suggested.

Published this month in the Journal of Climate, the MIT-based research found a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise at least 9 degrees by 2100.

New Study: Global Temperatures to Rise 9 Degrees by 2100 | Green Business | Reuters

I don't have a clue about the law of thermodynamics, mass balance, atmospheric physics, or isotope analysis. In fact, I haven't had a science class since high school.


But, I feel perfectly comfortable pronouncing that this climate change crap is all hogwash, becasue I read something on a rightwing blog that told me to think that.

People who listen to Rush and Beck think they know more than the scientists at MIT.

Meanwhile, the glaciers and the polar ice cap keep melting, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere keeps rising.

Who's "people"? I read, just not your garbage anymore. Yes, I have always been for "being smart" ... until you and your peer pressured scientists overstepped their boundaries and started endorsing corporations which should have failed for having an inferior product.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yet another doom n gloom "model" just in time for Cap N Trade legislation!!! Imagine that!

Oh - and GE aka NBC is also doing an all-out promotion on this as GE has invested hundreds of millions into the GO-GREEN industrial machine.

I am constantly amazed that so many still fall for this assault on actual science...

Yes, because MIT is so well known for its constant assaults on "actual" science, isn't it?

All tchnological science is a process of working toward some goal. I would assume that MIT(echnology) would be training its students in the kind of science that does just this. The unbiased, uninterested scientists that we like to believe exist probably does not. Most start with a thesis and then set about proving it.

That is the basis of peer review. To tear the thesis apart. I can't say this with certainty, but I would think that every time any particular scientist publishes, there is probably another who hates this guy who will turn over every rock to prove him wrong. In some cases, there are probably groups drooling for the chance to do this.

How does this reflect in AGW science? Well, it really doesn't. There are no avenues for this debate because the gatekeepers of the journals in which peer review is played out will not allow the debate to continue. Without peer review, is this stuff science or just a conversation between the like minded? This the kind of conversation that produces Dark Ages.

Code, this is an outright lie, as you well know. So you are a shill for the fossil fuel people.

If someone actually writes a good article pointing out real errors in the present understanding of global warming, it will be published.

 

[KittenKoder]

Yes, because MIT is so well known for its constant assaults on "actual" science, isn't it?

All tchnological science is a process of working toward some goal. I would assume that MIT(echnology) would be training its students in the kind of science that does just this. The unbiased, uninterested scientists that we like to believe exist probably does not. Most start with a thesis and then set about proving it.

That is the basis of peer review. To tear the thesis apart. I can't say this with certainty, but I would think that every time any particular scientist publishes, there is probably another who hates this guy who will turn over every rock to prove him wrong. In some cases, there are probably groups drooling for the chance to do this.

How does this reflect in AGW science? Well, it really doesn't. There are no avenues for this debate because the gatekeepers of the journals in which peer review is played out will not allow the debate to continue. Without peer review, is this stuff science or just a conversation between the like minded? This the kind of conversation that produces Dark Ages.

Code, this is an outright lie, as you well know. So you are a shill for the fossil fuel people.

If someone actually writes a good article pointing out real errors in the present understanding of global warming, it will be published.

They have, they were, you were shown them ... and still ignored them, like all the other parrots.

 

[Old Rocks]

A new study, which researchers have called "the most exhaustive end-to-end analysis of climate change impacts yet performed", predicts that global warming could be twice as bad as previous estimates had suggested.

Published this month in the Journal of Climate, the MIT-based research found a 90% probability that worldwide surface temperatures will rise at least 9 degrees by 2100.

New Study: Global Temperatures to Rise 9 Degrees by 2100 | Green Business | Reuters

I don't have a clue about the law of thermodynamics, mass balance, atmospheric physics, or isotope analysis. In fact, I haven't had a science class since high school.


But, I feel perfectly comfortable pronouncing that this climate change crap is all hogwash, becasue I read something on a rightwing blog that told me to think that.

Obviously, you get most of your info from politically biased sources.

Try this one:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/tropospheric-temperature-trends-for-march/

This does not draw conclusions or make predictions. It just shows the graphed data of two of the recognized data gathering outfits, RSS and UAH. These are satelite driven data sets and don't have the inherant innaccuracies of the land based temperature stations.

I find it interesting that MIT makes one study in 2003 and another in 2009 and determines that the rate of warming will double over the predicted period in the later prediction while out in the real world, the actual Global Temperature dropped. This might lead one to question which orafice the boys at MIT are speaking out of.

What is more interesting is that at the time of the release of the 2003 study, the Global Temperature had already been clearly dropping for 2 years.

Who needs the real world if you've got a jim dandy model, though, huh?

In reviewing the link, be sure to read the comments that follow as a fly on the wall overhearing the musings of the Geek Squad talking climate and making jokes. These are the real scientists revealed without the PR crews that twist their research into political positions.

There you go again, Code. Repeating that worn out lie. Eleven of the warmest years in the last 150 in the last 13 years, but it is cooling. That is some cooling.

 

[Old Rocks]

All tchnological science is a process of working toward some goal. I would assume that MIT(echnology) would be training its students in the kind of science that does just this. The unbiased, uninterested scientists that we like to believe exist probably does not. Most start with a thesis and then set about proving it.

That is the basis of peer review. To tear the thesis apart. I can't say this with certainty, but I would think that every time any particular scientist publishes, there is probably another who hates this guy who will turn over every rock to prove him wrong. In some cases, there are probably groups drooling for the chance to do this.

How does this reflect in AGW science? Well, it really doesn't. There are no avenues for this debate because the gatekeepers of the journals in which peer review is played out will not allow the debate to continue. Without peer review, is this stuff science or just a conversation between the like minded? This the kind of conversation that produces Dark Ages.

Code, this is an outright lie, as you well know. So you are a shill for the fossil fuel people.

If someone actually writes a good article pointing out real errors in the present understanding of global warming, it will be published.

They have, they were, you were shown them ... and still ignored them, like all the other parrots.

No, Kitten, I saw one article in one peer reviewed journal that challenged the assumption that CO2 was the primary cause of the warming that we are seeing. I have seen no other referances to peer reviewed journals, just crap from shithead right wingnut outfits like Cato.

OISM is nothing more than a group of agrian wingnuts that used to have some connections with science. A connection they disavowed many years ago. And all too many of the other "scientists" that are "skeptics" are on the payroll of Phillip Morris and Exxon.