Global Warming Could Be Double Previous Estimates - MIT

New modeling carried out by MIT 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 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 compares with a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees.

MIT says 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.

The least-cost option to lower the risk is to start now and steadily transform the global energy system over the coming decades to low or zero greenhouse gas-emitting technologies.

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.

While the projected outcomes where there are no policies in place that specifically induce reductions in greenhouse gas emissions now look much worse than before, there is less change from previous work in the projected outcomes if strong policies are put in place now to drastically curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Comments

[Valley Boy:]

jmmx, I read your rebuttal and it sounds more in line with my
thinking and less far-out. To elaborate:
It is okay if certain scientists feel insulted if, to judge by the results,
the final outcomes of the scientific studies are more demands on the public treasuries for who knows what. We taxpayers feel insulted and maligned when our wallets get depleted after we square accounts with the tax man.
That is sweet of President Obama if he really wants to balance the
budget.
I opposed the war on the grounds that it was just more money
being dumped into a Third World rathole. I turned out to be right,
not my Republican leadership. However, I would be supportive
of our military if they would set up a Star Wars type of defense
in the western desert of Iraq where there are three airfields and
a lack of population. This area is situated halfway between Iran
and Israel; we can warn both parties not to lob missiles at each
other and provide conference settings for negotiations.
Large projects such as the TVA, Hoover Dam, Bay Bridge, etc.
were worthwhile to construct during depressed times while being
paid for later in more prosperous times.
I think the public subsidies for the various energy strategies, green or not, should be brought into line with trimmed down government budgets. Utilities, energy companies and investors should be
responsible for which strategies are best for the locales given the economics and practicalities of each situation.
Polluters should be face tax penalties because we all bear the
burden of the pollution. Both government and business should
share the costs because both cause pollution. Rather than getting
worked up about the possibility of global warming or the inevitable
natural climatic changes, I would concentrate on cleaning up the
rest of the brownfields, polluted streams and superfund sites.
If polluters are having issues with the economics of cleaning up,
they can be given loans for doing so but not in a corporate welfare
kind of sense.
The forest fires have raged out of control primarily because of the
buildup of underbrush and non- native plant species over the past
century. I support that portion of the administration's stimulus package which tackles the undergrowth problem and restoring our
forests to health.
Yes, there will always be some businesses that would want to
externalize their costs onto the public. There should be more
bipartisan discussion on this matter on how to deal with them in
an effective but not punitive way.

May 22 01:59 PM

[harammph:]

The two of you get a thumbs up.

My Harammph was for anyone who believes that Biased Grant giving donors will receive anything other than the Results they PrePaid for.

May 24 12:01 AM

[Valley Boy:]

That is generally how it works.


On May 24 12:01 AM harammph wrote:

> The two of you get a thumbs up.
>
> My Harammph was for anyone who believes that Biased Grant giving
> donors will receive anything other than the Results they PrePaid
> for.

May 24 08:31 AM

[jmmx:]

Greetings again Valley Boy

To continue on the AGW points here...

You wrote:
"It is okay if certain scientists feel insulted if, to judge by the results,
the final outcomes of the scientific studies are more demands on the public treasuries for who knows what. We taxpayers feel insulted and maligned when our wallets get depleted after we square accounts with the tax man."

I certainly agree that we should not shrink from insulting scientists IFF their findings are wrong and especially if they are wrong and have been influenced by personal gain.

If, however, one believes that the work of the scientists is honest, then we should not criticize them because the call for public policy changes. When, 50 years ago military analysts said the USSR was building more missiles, we did not castigate them because we then needed to spend more building up our own military. No, when went and did what we deemed necessary for our defense.

We are now in a similar situation. IF what the scientists are saying is indeed true, then - assuming that we want a viable environment for our children - then we need to do something about AWG.

So now, in terms of policy decisions, it comes down to the this very
Basic Question:

- Is global warming real AND is it due to human activity (AGW) AND is it to a level that is potentially dangerous (or even disastrous)?

I do not want to argue this issue here - only one particular point. Again, in discussing this one point I will specify an assumption.

- Even among scientists there are at times genuine disagreements, based on real differing points of view. In fact, the whole scientific system is based on a the thorough presentation of alternative hypotheses in order to eventually discover the truth of a concept.

Back a-ways I raised the issue that I found it rather incredible that thousands of scientists around the world would all be promoting AGW solely to get U.S. taxpayer money to fund their projects, and that institutions such as the American Academy of Scientists would also back the reality of AGW solely for their own avarice. You appear to have agreed with this, at least somewhat.

NOW - the political propagandists know that if you can attack the credibility of a person, then you can get your audience to DISREGARD WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. So, the Republican-Industrialist point-men set out on a conscious and concerted attempt to disparage the scientist who believe in AGW. Their objective was to give their followers a rationale for dismissing all the findings of said scientists without ever looking at the evidence.

This brigs me to my point:
Now that we have decided that this attack on the scientists is suspect, it now is important - for the honest, responsible citizen - to look at the evidence objectively, to evaluate what I called above the Basic Question, and to seriously question if perhaps we do really need to address this in an urgent manner.

Thanks again for your participation in this discussion.

May 25 01:27 PM

[Valley Boy:]

jmmx, I feel propagandized by the the global warmers and not by
the industrialists on this issue even if I regard them both as being
special interests.
No, it is not okay to insult scientists for their beliefs but it is okay if they feel insulted that someone disagrees with their agenda. A person can believe anything they want to since this is a free country. The basic question here, since we are on this blog to seek alpha in addition to wellness, is that our industries, economy and fiscal strengths are being undermined by various agendas by special interest groups.
The problems with the global warming proponents revolve around
the decimation of resource extraction industries, the decline of
our manufacturing industries, the over- regulation of most businesses, and the stresses put on needed government services.
How much more pressure would you care to apply to those four categories with your calls for change in the mix of air molecules?
The people need answers to those kinds of questions, jmmx,
because most of them have jobs to hold, families to feed and
nurture, and bills to pay. Answers will become very urgent if the supposed anti-warming measures take precedence in our institutions and society.
Since the time of the November 1956 Inaja Forest Fire here in California, to use as a arbitrary time reference, there has been a discernable decline in ozone, smog, cigarette smoke, and wood smoke coming out of chimneys. There has been an increase
in smoke from forest fires and brush fires. There are efforts
currently underway to reduce the dust kicked up from agricultural
operations with better tillage and irrigation practices. These efforts
are being offset by more fields being plowed into a fallow state due to a lack of irrigation allotments. Travellers on Interstate 5 between
Los Angeles and San Francisco can judge for themselves when
glancing out their car windows. But life has gone on despite
changes in air quality and mixtures.
It sounds like the reference to the USSR must involve the 1960
campaign charges about a missile gap occuring between our
country and theirs. This was used as an excuse to increase the
the defense budget at the time. This is yet another example about
why we as honest, responsible citizens need to be cautious about what expensive policy positions we buy into.

May 26 02:23 PM

[jmmx:]

Valley Boy

I really appreciate the way you present your case in a concerned and respectful manner. I certainly sympathize with your concern:
"How much more pressure would you care to apply to those four categories with your calls for change in the mix of air molecules?
The people need answers to those kinds of questions, jmmx,
because most of them have jobs to hold, families to feed and
nurture, and bills to pay."

And:
"is that our industries, economy and fiscal strengths are being undermined by various agendas by special interest groups."

But I see one problem at the base of your thinking. You regard the environmentalists as a "Special Interest Group." (SIG) I see a big problem here and it is based on a serious issue of semantics.

Clearly the *denotation* of SIG is exactly what is says: " a group of people with a special, or particular interest." Clearly, environmentalists would fall into this definition. The problem that I see is with the CONNOTATION of the phrase. The connotation always seems to imply a SELF-interest in the phrase. Such as the defense industry naturally is a SIG which is interested in promoting ever greater defense spending. While it's rationale is always the best for the country, its reasoning is always skewed by the fact that it will gain by from the spending.

I do not see the environmentalist in quite the same light. Particularly in the area of AGW gas regulation, most of us have nothing particular to gain from advancing AGW agenda. Most of us are not CEOs of FSLR, etc. We are simply people who fear that we are heading into a potentially disastrous situation. Our abiding interest is essentially the interest of everybody.

We do not see this as regulation for regulation's sake, we see this as a dire need to minimize an impending catastrophe. NOW - granted we may be wrong in this. But still, I do not see where most environmentalists have anything significant to gain.

So my point here is that we need to move away from the side-tracking political rhetoric and *** Look at the evidence *** We each need to look at the evidence as objectively as we can and try to judge what the potential threat really is.

Because one thing is certain - IF the worst case scenario presented in this article (the MIT research) were to come to pass - people would no longer be worrying about their jobs - we all would be worrying about our very survival.

Now - given that the melting of glaciers at the poles and elsewhere around the globe is preceding at a rate far faster than anyone had anticipated, I personally believe that everybody has a responsibility to our children to look at the evidence seriously, and give a little credence to these researchers - not dismiss them out of hand.

May 26 09:29 PM

[jmmx:]

Thank you again for your attention to my long-winded polemics!

:)

May 26 09:32 PM

[Valley Boy:]

I usually have time to offer a rebuttal. I'm headed out of town
today so I'll wait until tomorrow to make time for this issue.


On May 26 09:32 PM jmmx wrote:

> Thank you again for your attention to my long-winded polemics!<br/>
>
> :)

May 27 08:43 AM

[jmmx:]

VB - Have a good trip!

May 27 09:27 AM

[Valley Boy:]

OK, jmmx, I took some time out to catch up on the pros and cons
of this issue. The last time I took a good look at it was during the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina with the decision by the authorities
to rebuild New Orleans come hell or high water, rising seas or not.
It certainly is an interesting and complex controversy.
I hadn't realized that I was putting down the environmentalists as
a special interest group. I thought I was referring to the global
warmers. Are you implying that the global warmers have taken over
the environmental movement? Is that why real work requiring
real solutions involving getting one's hands dirty cleaning up streams, brownfields, and superfund sites are not progressing
enough because of this interesting and controversial distraction?
I don't think I'm dismissing the MIT findings out of hand but you
can regard me as being a skeptic. I definitely feel scammed due to the end political results. I fear the political results much more
than the we-are-all-going-to-di...
scenario. Yes, more needs to be done about deforestration and
technical energy improvements with conservation being a factor.
Much work has already been done with the Clean Air Act, waste-
to-energy efforts, the curbing of aerosols, scrubbers put in to
reduce acid rain, and various efforts in fight smog.
I am a little puzzled that you think my comments were side-tracking
political rhetoric. It is a given that this controversy is political since
it has the potential to undermine our economic well-being. Potential
solutions are discussed in open political channels as well as the blogs. Would you rather have discussions be made behind closed doors?
Yes, it is a good idea to consider all the technical evidence with an
open mind. But it is also a good idea to ponder the socioeconomic ramifications of giving into any alarmist over-reactions about
environmental change. It is also worthwhile to pay attention to the
political maneuverings about it starting with what happens with
H.R. 2454 coming out of the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce.

May 29 12:14 AM

[jmmx:]

V.B.

Interesting reply.

I was not accusing YOU of rhetorical side tracking. But I DO see it in the "conservative" reaction to AGW advocates. In fact, it is one of their primary modus operendi.

I think this is how we began this discussion long ago -- Some of the people here were trashing the researchers, and I come to their defense stating that it is really hard for me to conceive all of them as conspiratorial scammers. You agreed - much to your credit.

You write: "I definitely feel scammed due to the end political results."

It seems to me, that if those presenting evidence for AGW are acting out of genuine concern and not out of self gain, then I do not see how one should feel scammed.

It seems to me that there are really just a few options here (once we assume that the scientists are acting with integrity).

1- AGW is real, these studies are valid and if we stand around denying it any longer then our children will suffer very dire consequences.

2- AGW Scientist may be sincere, but they are just wrong. We are just at the end of a little warming cycle that will reverse and all the alarm is for nothing. OR even if it does not reverse, the warming is not the result of human activity and therefore out of our control.

3- Somewhere in between. AGW is real, but not nearly as serious as most proponents proclaim. We are getting carried away here and, while some changes are necessary, others will be much more costly than we really want to see.

========

Now...
It seems to me that these are the only logical possibilities. Evaluating them is what individuals need to do. I am pleased that you have agreed that it is NOT fair to dismiss the AGW scientists' reports out of hand. It is only from here that we can proceed with any possibility of agreement on even the questions.

(Obviously, I believe that #1 is the case - or at least very possible.)

I would like to draw your attention to a CNN article that starts:

> LONDON, England (CNN) -- The first comprehensive report into the
> human cost of climate change warns the world is in the throes of a
> "silent crisis" that is killing 300,000 people each year.

It goes on to claim that this would get even worse as warming continues.

edition.cnn.com/2009/W...

Once again, if we dismiss a huge world-wide AGW conspiracy, then we need to at least LOOK at this claim seriously. Once again, if the MIT study is correct, then we almost certainly do face really dire consequences.

What a cheerful note for the weekend! Here we have unusually warm and sunny weather (Portland OR). I hope you enjoy yours.

May 29 07:05 PM

[jmmx:]

NOTE:

Where I said "... then I do not see how one should feel scammed."

I meant to add:

Perhaps "pushed down the wrong path by over-zealous people with erroneous view of reality", but not really "scammed."

May 29 07:11 PM

[Valley Boy:]

jmmx, I meant that I felt scammed in the sense that the governmental actions and rhetoric about anthropogenic global warming don't seem to match coherently. The research studies
turning into legal mandates seem to contribute to the expansion of too much high-handed legislation such as H.R. 2454. We need to craft approaches to common problems without backing the tax-paying populace into a financial wall. I'm for letting the private sector make most of the decisions about it and hire people to do the work. Government can provide financial incentives and technical assistance.
I'm positive the researchers just call them as they see them,
letting the chips fall as they may. My conservative reflexes act up
when the end result of certain research studies include layoffs in the resource extraction industry, for instance, hitting the logging towns especially hard.
As far as the fear of global warming going on at the gut psychological level, I can think of other issues to worry more about: nuclear proliferation, the spread of bankruptcies, the decline of manufacturing, among others.
I understand you are espousing a cause. There are so many
causes that are at various degrees of deserving needed support. The difference of opinions about supporting them usually derive from different perceptions on how those causes fit into the larger picture of societal needs, the ways and means of tackling the issues, and the philosophical biases we all have based on experience and what we were taught.
I had heard that Governor McCall was courageous in cleaning up
the industrial messes up there and setting aside much land for conservation purposes. I was moved to California when a
schoolboy in the time of Governor Hatfield so I missed out on his way of working things.

May 29 11:29 PM

[jmmx:]

VB

"As far as the fear of global warming going on at the gut psychological level, I can think of other issues to worry more about: nuclear proliferation, the spread of bankruptcies, the decline of manufacturing, among others. "

This is indeed the crux of the matter. I too am concerned about nuclear proliferation, etc. The question remains, however, if option #1 above is the true case, and if the research from MIT reported in this article is also true, then (assuming we care about the future of our children) AGW is the most important issue of all.

This really is all I can say on this issue. I don't care to go into a discussion of the evidence for AGW. My objective here was only to present the options clearly, and to try to counter some of the irrational attacks of those who I believe are trying to discredit the scientific claims not with serious counter arguments but by purely rhetorical maneuvering. As I said above, these people (to my mind) try to get their followers to ignore scientific evidence simply by claiming that the scientists are all "scammers."

One last thing here regarding your statement: "I'm for letting the private sector make most of the decisions about it and hire people to do the work."

A few years ago, news was made when a few executives of some energy companies came out and backed the imposition of regulations on CO2 admissions. They pointed out a few things. First, they said it was becoming clear that AGW was real, and that sooner or later we were going to have to deal with it. Additionally, they said that if we waited, then the need to act would become so dire that the regulation would be both stronger and more urgent, as opposed to know when we have the opportunity to phase them in gradually.

A very interesting point was this: he said that action had to come from the government as ONLY THIS would put all companies on an equal footing. That is, if he wanted his own company to lead on its own, then the additional costs would put him at a competitive disadvantage. So he wanted the government to initiate what he thought would be inevitable regulations so all would be on the same playing field. (Sorry I cannot give you his name and specific references to this. I am hoping you heard of it already.)

May 31 03:09 AM

[Valley Boy:]

jmmx, I follow your line of thinking about the energy hearings on
their industry regulations of several years ago. Some regulations
have to be put into place so long as they are palatable to the industry and the rate payers. If the industry has a hard time catching up to the regulations, then chances are that the energy prices will spike. We saw that down here starting in San Diego in 1999. The public clamor reached a point in 2003 to where there was a recall election to replace the governor.
The energy industry in California by now is giving every indication
they are adjusting to the green energy iniatives. I'm sure progress
will continue to be made in the private sector about this. I just
hope there won't be massive layoffs in the carbon-based energy
sector and that energy prices won't zoom during this recession
because of the switch to green energy. There is a long history of production personnel taking the hits whenever a radical industry changeover occurs.
I respect your opinion that global warming trumps other concerns.
I would just choose to emphasize the other concerns. I believe
we have been warming in fits and starts since the mid-1800s in
progressing out of the cool period known as the Little Ice Age. It
then follows that society has time to adjust to climate change in
ways that make economic and technological sense.
I agree with that part of the AGW line of argument when it comes
to describing heat islands in urban areas and warming at areas of
forest clearing. More work needs to be done in those categories
and it would be great if the private sector finds a way to improve
those conditions. I think the rest of the argument is an interesting
speculation. We need to be careful about the economic impositions placed on society in addressing those scientific claims.
The various websites describing the AGW issue certainly have some plausible arguments pro and con. I'm sure both sides use
some rhetorical maneuvers and hyperbole mixed into their debates.
Does it seem warmer than usual up there to you? I've read that
the Biscuit Fire of 2002 was the worst fire up there since the
Tillamook Burn of 1933.

May 31 01:07 PM

[jmmx:]

Hey VB

Long time no see. Not sure if you will see this or not :)

I have been in Oregon 35 years and this May was unusually hot. (I assume you are aware of our notorious rain that typically lasts from Oct - July 4.) It is not unusual to get 85F for a few days, but we had 3+ weeks of uninterrupted sun, and that is very unusual. I am not sure if we broke any records or not - I have not seen the statistics for May - but still it is quite unusual. My garden dried out at least 6 inches down - until I finally got the drip system hooked up again yesterday. (So today it is drizzling - go figure).

Of course I understand that we cannot judge a real long term trend from a single (or even several) isolated incidents. That said, it DOES seem to me that a lot more extreme weather is happening now. You mentioned the Biscuit Fire, look at Calif! I heard one fire chief comment "We used to have on and off fire seasons; now we only have hi and low seasons!"

To my mind, however, the big thing is the spectacular melting of the glaciers and ice sheets. This is happening much faster than anyone had either predicted or thought possible. Now I do not want to say that there is no alternative possible explanation, but it does seem particularly dramatic. It seems to me that research into this is telling us:
1- Global ice is melting at a rate unprecedented in the time frame of human existence, and
2- Possibly more rapidly than any time in the history of the planet.

To me, this is disturbing.

One thing that bothers me about the anti-AGW arguments, is that they never admit to one simple thing. The greenhouse effect is real, physical science. That is to say, greenhouse gases do reflect/absorb heat radiation and this is due the physical nature of their molecular structure. NOW - that said - the earth is not a simple system, so we cannot simply move to the conclusion that increase in CO2 => increase in temp. I understand that.

Yet it still remains that if we do increase GHG in the atmosphere, then we have to expect some kind of warming to occur. There is a balance of heat in - heat out, and if we change that balance then we need to account for that heat somehow.

To my mind, if you put 2 + 2 together you get 4. Well, if you are unsure about the second 2 (let's call it 2* now) then you are unsure about the result. But if you add 2 + 2* + 2* + 2* +2* and you then observe something like (10 +/- 2), then you have to begin to think that the evidence is mounting up.

The alternative is the "big hoax" theory, and I am not very fond of grand conspiracy theories. So this leaves me with the very strong feeling that yes indeed we are in a very grave situation.

I mean - MIT has some serious thinkers there!

Jun 10 01:35 PM

[jmmx:]

One more thought here.

I could never understand why the religious right are so adamantly anti-environment. I mean, I can understand why the really radical fundamentalists want to see us usher in Armageddon (though I am not sure why they feel that God needs our help). But for the more realistic people, I don't see their objections.

In Genesis it is written:
---
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.
*** And God saw that it was good. ***
---

My thinking has always been this: If God saw that it was good, then who are we to destroy it?

But then, I am an old hippie so I don't know nothing about these things.

Regards

jmmx

Jun 10 01:44 PM

[Valley Boy:]

jmmx, This gets to the heart of the matter regarding my Oregon
connections. My father had a hard time dealing with his asthma
and hay fever while we were living in the Willamette Valley at the
far ends of the Portland metro area. There was plenty of smog from car exhaust, forest fires in the distance, chimney smoke in the winter, and grass fires for preventing excessive insect infestation in the fields. So we moved down here in 1961 partly in hopes of living in drier, cleaner air.
Yes, it is an observable fact that the glaciers are receding, the ice caps are cracking, and the deserts are spreading. This could very
well be due to the Earth having a recorded history of long cycles and short cycles in global and regional warming and cooling. For
instance, the beginning of the Medieval Warm Period coincided with
the end of the Pax Romana. The warming trend meant that there
was less opportunity to grow nonirrigated wheat in what is now Libya, Tunisia and Palestine. The main consequence was that there was less bread available for Rome's bread and circuses;
the decline in wheat stocks had to made up in what is now Hungary
and Bulgaria, areas less defensible to tribal invasion. Conversely, the beginning of the Little Ice Age coincided with the High Middle Ages. That meant that when the Black Death bubonic plague hit Europe, the winters were more severe, thereby aggravating the death rates from the plague.
We just need to be careful how we go about addressing these deleterious environmental effects so as not to undermine our economies and crimp our freedoms. America will be of less help
to the world if we are in decline. We need the best minds, not just the scientists and researchers, to weigh in on this topic.
I'll be in favor of having the private sector devote its inventive capabilities to encourage societal well-being in helping to mitigate any hardships. Governments can help out by granting loans and putting more thought and flexibility into regulations.
I took some time to review the pro and con arguments about the
AGW issue. The websites are certainly interesting even if some of
them are a bit vociferous in getting their points across. I had answered most of your previous arguments without doing so. I'm used to independent, not just conservative, thought so it was easy enough for me to offer a different view.
I think the religious folk consider environmental change as simply being God's Will so therefore we should not argue will it. I don't hold that view. I think that environmental changes occur all the time and humankind is smart enough to deal with them in a 3 steps forward, 2 steps backward, kind of way.
I have ex-hippie or hippie friends. We get along pretty well. Its funny when we reach agreement while looking at things from different angles.

Jun 10 03:10 PM

[jmmx:]

:)

Great talking with you VB. Perhaps we will meet in another forum. We have about beat this old horse to death!

Good luck to you in all your endeavors. Let's hope that my more pessimistic moods are overdone! :)

Regards to you and all your family.

JMMX

Jun 15 04:30 PM

[Valley Boy:]

That's allright. Take care.


On Jun 15 04:30 PM jmmx wrote:

> :)
>
> Great talking with you VB. Perhaps we will meet in another forum.
> We have about beat this old horse to death!
>
> Good luck to you in all your endeavors. Let's hope that my more pessimistic
> moods are overdone! :)
>
> Regards to you and all your family.
>
> JMMX

Jun 15 10:34 PM