Posted on 05/26/2009 1:55:35 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
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 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at web.mit.edu ...
We are so freaking screwed (and doomed).
Whose data are they using to further falsify this junk science?
And yet not one of these climate models replicates the glacial periods and thaws that are the overwhelming bulk of the last million years.... Anyone who buys into this crap needs their heads examined.
The fewer people who believe in Global Warming the more the fear mongers ratchet up the fear.
Geez, these people are caricatures of themselves.
So it’s going to be twice as bad as nothing ... that means, umm, just working this out, bear with me ...
NOTHING
so I say relax.
...i watched a part of that documentary last night on my lemur ancestor and it said Germany used to be rain forests...
Hey, if the models say so it musts be true, after all, there is no way models can be manipulated to a deliver particular result.
Data? We don't need no steenkin' data!
We got models!
But it does keep the money flowing to the “research” universities
What a crock.
By my model my 401K should be 11.8% higher this year than last. Actual data may prove different.
Except for the pesky fact that the planet has been static since 2002, and has recently been cooling.
Lets just cut to the chase and say its one trillion times worse than we ever believed.
We don’t need no stinkin’ models.
Now THAT’S a blank sun.
I would be impressed if we fed the past 50 years data into the MIT model and it accurately predicted last year’s weather worldwide.
Did it do that?
The most comprehensive model is still crap. Not ONE of these models predicted that the earth's temperature would level off for the last 10 years (actually slightly declined), but yet it did. These models would have given our Climate about a ZERO percent chance at having our current weather. The models all predicted a rapidly accelerating pace of global warming. They were ALL wrong. Now running models based on the same theory, but with new add variables will NOT help these crappy models become more accurate. Comprehensive DOES NOT mean accurate.
If they’re based on Michael Mann’s models, then they’re junk.
“Whose data are they using to further falsify this junk science?”
He doesn’t need data, he’s a “professor” sucking on the federal tit!
So the only way to manage global warming is to stop carbon-based economic activity. This would mean abandoning the modern world. Wake up everybody-these global-warming people are INSANE!!!
Dang, it looks like I picked the wrong year to quick sniffing glue!
It’s easier to “predict” out 100 years because we’ll all be dead.
I used to regard MIT, Caltech et al., as awesome academic institutions. What a joke the are becoming with this AGW crap...
Their computer models still don’t account for the action of clouds. Therefore they are absolutely wrong.
I remember when science was highly respected. But the previous generations did not poison it with politics and junk science like the current ones are doing. This will be part of our sad legacy.
“Other changes include accounting for the past masking of underlying warming by the cooling induced by 20th century volcanoes,...”
They’ve added the warming we didn’t get which would automatically double itself, for a starter.
I can make a model that shows us all living on a beach next to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and Wrigley Field, where the temperature is always 78 degrees.
Have they been able to accurately predict the past, yet? That is to say, can they punch in known data from 10 years ago and get the actual weather and climate from 10 years ago?
Any model that can not be back tested is junk pure and simple.
In time, you will come to regard me not only with respect and awe, but with love.
Well just a few decades ago, nobody was even talking about global warming.
Therefore I conclude that the 5.2 degrees is INFINITELY greater than scientists believed just 40 years ago.
You need to add volcanic activity too!
That’s a big weather changer!
Okay. Good, then since I will be 149 years old in 2100 and we are seeing temperatures continue to be below normal at this time, that must mean that temperatures should actually be back to normal/average temperatures by 2100. Whew, so actually I won’t have anything to worry about when that time comes. GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ.
How good are its predictions for today using data from 1900?
Are these the same "scientists" that can't predict hurricanes with much accuracy, can't predict tornadoes with any accuracy at all, are wrong in close-in forecasting over 45% of the time, and have a very hard time telling when high and low tides are?
Are these those same folk??
Or do I have to go out and search for a different bunch of "weather scientists"??
OH...excuse me....not "weather scientists", I meant "snake oil salesmen"!
Naw, that's not the answer. The answer is taxes to fund lifelong research for the researchers. That's the cure.
There is an engineering saying: “garbage in..garbage out.”
The so called “peer review” is “fellow travelers” and is meaningless.
All these assertions are garbage. The fact is we are far more likely to enter a cooling period (ice age) as the earth has done for the last 2 million years with some regularity.
To those that buy into man caused global warming... think about this, just for once second.
If we were capable of capturing and using just 1/10,000 of the energy the sun delivers to earths surface every day, we would never have to ever have to split another atom, burn another drop of gasoline, damn another river, or use any other form of power to provide power for all mankind, worldwide at a level at which everyone was living in a first world nation.
Global Warming by human action is laughable on its very face.
You'll be able to bask in the 80 degree heat in February, play tennis in the 90 degree heat in July, and enjoy a balmy Fall season where the temprature will average 89 degress each day!
I'll lease you lakefront footage at $90,000 per foot increasing every 10 years by 5%...or sell you the entire acre fee simple for only $3.1MM!
Today...??
Well....er.....if you can clear the ice and snow away from the land so you can see where the land goes into the water...the acre itself would sell for $19.99....if I could find a buyer!
The acre is solid (and I mean ice solid) dirt...no bushes, no trees...nothing.
But think how nice algore and the "weather scientists" are going to make your little piece of heaven in just a few short years!!??
Call me @BR-549 and leave your bid!
No...I don't do e-bay!
Strikes me that if a climate prediction wanted to be made for say, 2050....then it would be simple enough to grab climate data from 1969, plug it into the computer model, and see if it matches current settings. If not, then the model is flawed.
Just sayin'.
Of course, these are largely the same group of people that can't precisely predict the local temp tomorrow.....never mind globally 91 years from now. The hubris of liberals is never ending.
I have been noticing lately that the sun is shining longer and the weather is getting hotter. Dang, it must all be true. AAAHHHH!!!
“Of course, these are largely the same group of people that can’t precisely predict the local temp tomorrow.....never mind globally 91 years from now.”
I always point this out too and get blank stares from people when I say it. It never occurs to them. Science could not accurately predict what the weather will be like next week if its future depended on it.
Does anybody else think that these computers have something against us?
“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 hyperbole quota is met for this week.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.