The Dernogalizer

March 12, 2009

MIT: Do you want to gamble here?

Filed under: Climate Change — Matt Dernoga @ 12:50 am
Tags:

There is never a shortage of articles and reports being released regarding climate change. Here are some very recent pieces of news which I think you would be interested to take a look at and be made aware of. Excerpts provided for each. I see a barrage of this stuff every week, but I usually withhold a lot of it for the sake of not sounding too recurrent.

Check out the second half for a new release by MIT

Population growth, climate change sparking water crisis: UN

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090312/sc_afp/unenvironmentwater

“Unless their links with water are addressed and water crises around the world are resolved, these other crises may intensify and local water crises may worsen, converging into a global water crisis and leading to political insecurity at various levels.”

Prince Charles in Brazil to deliver eco-warning

article

“Prince Charles has arrived in Brazil with a warning that time was running out for the world to come up with a coordinated plan to combat climate change.The heir to the throne was expected to make a passionate plea in Rio de Janeiro on Thursday for action. We have only “100 months left” to save the planet from irreversible damage, he is to argue, according to excerpts given in advance to media.”

Kerry: Climate change delay is ‘suicide pact’

article

“A leading US senator warned on Wednesday that deferring potentially costly actions to combat climate change because of the global economic slump amounted to “a mutual suicide pact.”

“Climate change is not governed by a recession, it’s governed by scientific facts about what’s happening to Earth. And you either accept the realities of the science or you don’t,” said Democratic Senator John Kerry.”

US senators attack cap-and-trade for climate change

article

“The United States should not impose a cap-and-trade system to battle climate change this year because it amounts to a painful tax during a deep recession, senators argued Wednesday.

“Now is not the time to put a national sales tax on every electric bill and every gasoline purchase,” Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, who sits on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told reporters.”

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Now to put this all into context, how about a recent report issued by MIT double its previous projections for the temperature increase humanity faces if there is no action to curb emissions.

http://globalchange.mit.edu/pubs/abstract.php?publication_id=990

Here is the 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 warming 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.”

Do you want to gamble??

“For the no policy scenario, the researchers concluded that there is now a nine percent chance (about one in 11 odds) that the global average surface temperature would increase by more than 7°C (12.6°F) by the end of this century, compared with only a less than one percent chance (one in 100 odds) that warming would be limited to below 3°C (5.4°F).”

MIT’s conclusion?

“The take home message from the new greenhouse gamble wheels is that if we do little or nothing about lowering greenhouse gas emissions that the dangers are much greater than we thought three or four years ago,” said Ronald G. Prinn, professor of atmospheric chemistry at MIT. “It is making the impetus for serious policy much more urgent than we previously thought.”

**Update 5/20/09**  Their report was just officially released.  There is an article on it.  And another stark one here.

Advertisements

5 Comments »

  1. Continuing a decade-long trend of declining global temperatures, the year 2008 was significantly colder than 2007, and global temperatures for the year were below the average over the past 30 years.

    The global temperature data, reported by NASA satellite-based temperature measurements, refuted predictions 2008 would be one of the warmest on record.

    http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/24739/Global_Cooling_Continues.html

    Comment by disinter — March 15, 2009 @ 6:39 pm | Reply

    • Thanks for the comment disinter.

      The problem with your source is that the Heartland Institute is a conservative think tank, not a reputable scientific source. They like to manipulate the numbers and how you interpret them for ideology’s sake.

      A sounder scientific source, for example would be the World Meteorological Organization, which shows that this most recent decade has been the warmest on record of any previous decade. They also put the year of 2008 in appropriate context. I’d encourage you to check it out, and use sounder sources before jumping to conclusions.

      http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html

      Comment by Matt Dernoga — March 15, 2009 @ 6:48 pm | Reply

  2. Umm, the Met Office is publicly funded. It has an obvious agenda.

    More on the credibility of the Met Office:

    http://climaterealists.com/news.php?id=2327

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/06/uks-met-office-blows-another-summer-forecast/

    Comment by disinter — March 15, 2009 @ 10:34 pm | Reply

    • Well I know we aren’t going to agree on any of this, but the links you are providing me are once again denier-based websites and blogs. They have no legitimate credibility. It would be the equivalent of me giving you sources from the Sierra Club webpage. The “MET” office and MIT are respected scientific bodies made up of hundreds of people with degrees in the fields they are writing on and researching. If you think all the major scientific organizations and bodies that push this have “obvious agendas” which aren’t so obvious, only hypothetical, there’s nothing I can do or say to convince you of my point of view.

      In fact the link I provided you on the MET’s data isn’t actually refuted by your “climate realists” site. They say exactly what the MET says. I’m taking this right from your website you gave me.

      “They glibly state – vainly hoping to prove man made global warming – that the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) preliminary report puts mean temperature for 2008 at 14.3°C, making it ‘the tenth warmest year on a record that dates back to 1850’. “What they don’t say is that 2008 is the COLDEST of those ten years, that 2008 is the coldest since 2000, that 9 of the last 12 years have been warmer than 2008”.

      Your “source” doesn’t refute what I gave you. Both your source and my source however, are contrary to the first comment you made which was…

      “Continuing a decade-long trend of declining global temperatures, the year 2008 was significantly colder than 2007, and global temperatures for the year were below the average over the past 30 years.”

      2008 was NOT below the avg of the past 30 years, it was the coldest of the last 10, which was what the source I gave you said(and which your source tried to explain in a fancy fashion). You’re cherrypicking a year(2008) which was still warmer than all but 2 of the years in the 1990’s, and all of the 1980’s and 1970’s…and calling it cold!? You and your source are calling the 10th warmest year on record since 1850 colder than average. That shouldn’t even pass the laugh test. In a minute I was able to sniff out the propaganda from that source.

      The other piece of propaganda these sites feed is that “every year has been colder since 1998”. Well 1998 is recorded as the warmest year on record because of El Nino. Every year since 1998 has not been AS warm, but they have still been considerably warmer than the norm. The data is staring you dead in the face on both the site I gave you AND the site you gave me. The only difference is your site spins it.

      Comment by Matt Dernoga — March 15, 2009 @ 11:11 pm | Reply

  3. […] Allegedly?  Yeah, alledgedly by these guys, and them.  What was that about the WMO?  It’s too bad you didn’t count 1998 as a statistical […]

    Pingback by George Will won’t Quit Lying « The Dernogalizer — April 2, 2009 @ 11:53 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: