Comments on: M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C

By: Gary Herstein

Gary Herstein — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:21:00 +0000

“Poppy cock” — this from the fellow who does not know the difference between a “metalurgist” and a “meteorologist.” Do please see Chris’s previous comedy styling at:

http://climateprogress.org/ 2009/ 03/ 09/ richard-lindzen-heartland-denier/ comment-page-1/ #comment-173834

By: Will Anderson

Will Anderson — Sat, 23 May 2009 18:14:37 +0000

Would everyone please send this to your politicians, a corporate president and to one of the mass media. We need action.

By: Patrick Meaney

Patrick Meaney — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 05:33:36 +0000

I CALL UPON EVERYONE
TO CALL YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES
in the subcommittee on Energy & ENvironment,
who are DRAFTING THE WAXMAN-MARKEY BILL, FOR A CARBON CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM.

TELL THEM WE NEED TO AUCTION 100% OF ALL POLLUTION!

http://votesmart.org/committee.php?comm_id=12730
Click their names, then it will send you to their page. Call their DC office.

(Read this if you don’t know whats going on: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21781.html )

By: Dr Peter Carter

Dr Peter Carter — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 06:05:13 +0000

Re. your report on the MIT integrated model result of Jan 2009 the A1F1 global warming median is 5.1oC and 95%tile to 7.4oC from year 2000.
That makes 5.5oC from pre-industrial.
The IPCC AR4 projections were also from year 2000 (1980-1999).
That makes MIT the same as the latest Hadley business as usual model global warming from pre-industrial.
So at current BAU (above A1F1) we are looking at over 5.5oC.
Both models omit carbon feedback from permafrost (0.8oC CSIRO) and methane hydrate (possible 1.5oC by a Hadley model)
So our fossil fuel economy has today’s kids on the way to well over a 6oC warming in their life time.
That’s human extinction warming and runaway Venus hot house warming.
It’s far beyond time nations pushed the panic button.

By: BBHY

BBHY — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:18:09 +0000

I don’t think replacing our lightbulbs is going to be enough.

By: Norman Dale

Norman Dale — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:42:31 +0000

Regarding R. Pauli comment: What is the connection between the rhetorical (I hope) question about MIT’s viability and the fact that one program within it is publishing information and views on climate change? I congratulate MIT for being clear without being “more vocal”. What we need most at this time is measured voices from science, leaving to others (e.g. Al Gore) to get the word out.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 05:09:45 +0000

I wonder what Richard Lindzen says about this, lol.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 02:56:26 +0000

James Annan disses the report here:

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 03/ that-mit-report-in-full.html

By: Gail

Gail — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:17:51 +0000

Cait,

I think we should all scream that from the rooftops!

By: cait

cait — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:17:40 +0000

I fight hard to retain a feeling that fighting for change will make some difference, and that it’s not just fighting to stop the destruction of nearly every species on the planet that might be able to cope with at least most of the changes (with humans prety much already screwed). It might still be fighting for my kids to be able to choose to have kids, even – as if that doesn’t already sound far fetched.

THe thought I have debated with my husband is, and I would love any feedback from anyone involved with the analysis of data so far given that obviously I am merely a consumer of said analysis: at present we are still in a position where there is an exponential rise, not only due to warming that has already happened, but because carbon emmissions are still actively climbing, and the perverse situation we find ourselves in is that we are fighting to reduce the *increase* currently, and will be for some time to come.

Given that, we have long since passed the point of no return, and it almost doesn’t matter what we do, the extermination of pfffttt…. I mean, I’m amongst friends here aren’t I. I can say that we’re facing the end, basically.

Every model has been revised and revised over the last couple of years. In truth, we can’t really tell how far up it’s going to go given that arguably, any data based analysis will be hopelessly outdated almost at the point of print, given that we don’t really know what effect the change in CO2 absorption by oceans, plus combines increase methane from permafrost, plus an actual increase, still, in emissions *and so on* is going to have. that’s not to say that this latest study isn’t a damn good guess, obviously.

I’d really welcome any discussion from scientists on the front line – do you believe that estimations like these from MIT may be worth pinning to the board as a worthy estimate of change? Or do you think that it’s inevitable that these figures will be revised up within a couple of years / on an ongoing basis?

Thanks for putting up with a bunch of waffly questions and feel free to rip them apart immediately