“The
Web's most influential climate-change blogger” — Time
MagazineA Project of Center
for American Progress Action Fund

Climate Progress: An insider's view of climate science, politics, and
solutions

M.I.T.
joins climate realists, doubles its projection of global warming by 2100 to
5.1°C
February 23, 2009

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and
Policy of Climate Change has joined the climate realists. The realists are the
growing group of scientists who understand that the business as usual emissions
path leads to unmitigated catastrophe (see, for instance, “Hadley Center: “Catastrophic” 5-7°C warming by 2100 on current
emissions path” and below).

The Program issued a remarkable, though little-remarked-on, report in
January, “Probabilistic
Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without
Policy) and Climate Parameters,” by over a dozen leading experts. They
reanalyzed their model’s 2003 projections model using the latest data, and
concluded:

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.

[Note:  That rise is compared to 1990 levels.  So you can add
at least 0.5 °C and 1.0 °F for comparison with pre-industrial
temperatures.]

Their median projection for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide
in 2095 is a jaw-dropping 866 ppm.

Projected decadal mean concentrations of CO2. Red solid lines are median,
5% and 95% percentiles for present study: dashed blue line the same from their
2003 projection.

Why the change? The Program’s website explains:

There is no single revision that is responsible for this change. In our
more recent global model simulatations, the ocean heat-uptake is
slower than previously estimated, the ocean uptake of carbon is weaker,
feedbacks from the land system as temperature rises are stronger,
cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases over the century are higher, and
offsetting cooling from aerosol emissions is lower. No one of these effects is
very strong on its own, and even adding each separately together would not
fully explain the higher temperatures. Rather than interacting additively,
these different affects appear to interact multiplicatively, with
feedbacks among the contributing factors, leading to the surprisingly large
increase in the chance of much higher temperatures.

The carbon sinks are saturating, and the amplifying feedbacks are worse than
previously thought — that, of course, is a central understanding of all climate
realists (see Study: Water-vapor feedback is “strong and positive,” so we face
“warming of several degrees Celsius” for links to the various feedbacks that
have been ignored by most climate models).
Andrew Freedman at washingtonpost.com
has one of the very few stories on this important study and reprints this useful
figure from MIT:

He explains:

Results of the studies are depicted online in MIT’s “Greenhouse
Gamble” exercise that conveys the “range of probability of potential
global warming” via roulette wheel graphics (shown above). The modeling output
showed that under both a “no policy” scenario and one in which nations took
action beginning in the next few years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the
odds have shifted in favor of larger temperature increases.

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).

To repeat, on our current emissions path, we have a 9% chance of an
incomprehensibly catastrophic warming of 7°C by century’s end, but less than a
1% chance of under 3°C warming.

“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.”

The time to act is now.

Related Posts:

Stabilize at 350 ppm or risk ice-free planet, warn NASA,
Yale, Sheffield, Versailles, Boston et al

Must-read IEA report explains what must be done to avoid 6°C
warming

Nobel laureate Rowland agrees we are headed to 1000
ppm

AAAS: Climate change is coming much harder, much faster than
predicted

Share

Print

This entry was posted by Joe
on Monday, February 23rd, 2009 at 8:00 pm and is filed under
Science, Uncharacteristically Blunt Scientists. You can
follow any responses to this entry through the RSS
2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

33 Responses to “M.I.T. joins climate realists, doubles its
projection of global warming by 2100 to 5.1°C”

Richard Pauli says:

February
23, 2009 at 8:30 pm

So the big unknowns are slowly starting to come into view: How bad? And
how soon?

Given that the predictions for 4 and 5 degrees are so dire, I would expect
MIT to become a little more vocal. How much longer do they plan to be a
viable university?

Gail says:

February
23, 2009 at 8:43 pm

I know you are all sick of hearing this from me.

I’m sick of thinking it!

But I’m telling you.

The vegetation is dying. It is a RAPIDLY ACCELERATING MASS EXTINCTION.

Maybe, we can figure out ways to grow food.

But, there is no question in my mind, that there are going to be horrid
dislocations.

I hope we can, as humans, band together to help each other through a very
threatening and traumatic time.

If we don’t and we turn towards war, combat, and competitiveness, we face a
Mad Max future.

UGH.

Richard Pauli says:

February
23, 2009 at 8:47 pm

I have to correct my unfair comment … this is an excellent report. MIT did
a terrific job of visualizing both the danger and the opportunity.

And thank you Joe for making this better known.

Gail says:

February
23, 2009 at 9:01 pm

Yes and I would add my voice to you Richard Pauli, THANK YOU JOE. You
seriously have the best blog, the most lucid comments, the best readers and
responses.

Actually, you keep me sane, sort of.

Thanks.

Bill says:

February
23, 2009 at 9:01 pm

Please take this message beyond the blog world to the real world ASAP.

Nigel says:

February
23, 2009 at 9:37 pm

Who you gonna call?

CapitalClimate says:

February
23, 2009 at 11:44 pm

Joe,
If you went to your MIT Seminar Series, you would have heard Peter
Stone give the preliminary results for this as early as Nov. ‘07.

[JR: Actually, I heard this back in January, but I dawdled blogging.
I boycotted the MIT Seminar Series since they invited deniers to
speak.]

paulm says:

February
24, 2009 at 12:13 am

The report is still obfuscating. You don’t need sophisticated models to
tell us that were going to be in for 3C or more, what ever we do now. Every
report turns out to be an under-estimate.

I am afraid it really is catastrophic, what ever we do. We are at 0.854321C
higher and look at the extreme events occuring. At 2C, I cant see global
civilization surviving.

But we cant take this thing lying down.

Jonathan Doig says:

February
24, 2009 at 2:40 am

Thank you MIT for this contribution to estimating and visualising our
future.

I would like to see a “best-case” wheel, assuming action is taken worldwide
at emergency speed to reduce emissions to near-zero as soon as possible and
draw down atmospheric carbon to restore a safe climate (~300 ppmv).

Sort of a global implementation of Al Gore’s “100% renewables in 10 years”
challenge to America. Of course this would need a global social movement and
international cooperation on a scale barely imaginable now, but
technologically I believe it is within our grasp.

paulm says:

February
24, 2009 at 2:44 am

Talk of the devil….

Lower increases in global temps could lead to greater impacts than
previously thought, study finds
http://www.eurekalert.org/
pub_releases/ 2009-02/
su-lii022309.php
Princeton, NJ – February 23, 2009 – A new
study by scientists updating some of the findings of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 Third Assessment Report finds that even a
lower level of increase in average global temperatures due to greenhouse gas
emissions could cause significant problems in five key areas of global
concern.
….
Joel B. Smith, a Vice-President at Stratus Consulting in
Boulder Colorado, said, “Based on observed impacts and new research, the risks
from climate change in general now appear to be greater than they did a few
years ago.

["...a few years ago." - I think he meant to say a few weeks ago!]

Anthony, rabid
doomsayer says:

February
24, 2009 at 4:25 am

866ppm we won’t even need the kool aide. I though I was the doomsayer.

Mass extictions will become a certainty. James Hansen’s 5 meter rise by
2107 is now looking conservative, and the sea level rise will not stop there.
Would the East Antarctic Ice Shelf survive the resultant warming?

Where are the paleo climatologists going to compare that to. Talk about
levels that are out of the box.

RevDoug says:

February
24, 2009 at 10:15 am

“We’re standing at the precipice of hell. If everybody else was to live
like an American, then the planet is doomed.”

SUNITA NARAIN, Ctr. for Science and Environment, New Delhi:

Mark says:

February
24, 2009 at 10:35 am

@RevDoug:

Wow. Insulting an entire country! You sound just like the neocons in
America! You’d fit right in. After all India doesn’t have CO2 emissions,
right?

OO says:

February
24, 2009 at 11:32 am

Mark: India has 17 times lower emisions!

GreenPRGuy says:

February
24, 2009 at 11:39 am

New Rule:

If you want to talk to ordinary Americans, do the conversion to Fahrenheit.
Always.

Sasparilla says:

February
24, 2009 at 11:58 am

Its good to see consensus building around these updated estimates – at
least it makes it easier, with the projections moving to the same page, to get
started trying to fix the mess we’re building for ourselves.

Something to keep in mind, a large group of scientist believe the items
that would lead to runaway feedbacks (methane release, tropical forests drying
and burning with massive CO2 releases – Amazon etc.) are out there lurking in
the ~ 2 – 3 degree range – we need to get moving.

paulm says:

February
24, 2009 at 2:44 pm

Anecdotal evidence of a changing world….

Rats spark Bangladesh plague fear
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7907772.stm

….bamboo forests, which are blossoming for the first time in decades.

Grizzlies wake early from winter slumber
http://www2.canada.com/
vancouversun/ news/
westcoastnews/
story.html?id=550cc9d2-4a29-45f4-87c8-1388266a4ab8&k=2759

…The extraordinary sight of four grizzlies walking around out of hibernation
has perplexed the Wuikinuxv people living in the isolated aboriginal community
of Rivers Inlet on the B.C. coast.
…
She said elders in the community of
about 75 have never seen anything like it.
…
Morris said the first
grizzly appeared in the village in mid-January,

Gail says:

February
24, 2009 at 7:00 pm

Even my beloved significant other, who has been subjected to my Cassandra
calls for months now, still says silly things like:

But those Australia fires were set by arsonists!

Yes, I say, but the 117 degree (Farenheit, I agree Green PRGuy, otherwise
Americans just don’t get it!) days that preceded the fire, and the tinder dry
trees, and the winds, THOSE are predicted by climate change! (And apparently,
they’re starting up again).

And then he said well, maybe all those trees are just set biologically to
die at a certain time and they’ll come back to which I said,

So HOW COME 5 year old trees and 20 year old trees and 3 year old shrubs
and 250 year old trees are all at death’s door within the space of one
year???

The capacity of humans to ignore their own self-destructive behavior is
infinite.

Mike Davis says:

February
24, 2009 at 7:26 pm

This has got to be one of the funniest sites on the web.
This is comedy
Right?

[JR: Huh? Ain't nothing funny about 5C or 7C warming.]

Gail says:

February
24, 2009 at 7:54 pm

Mike Davis, aka Troll,

Yeah, it’s really really funny.

Har har har.

Where are you? Anywhere around NJ?

Come on over for a visit and I will show you enough dying trees and other
plants that it will scare your pants off.

Have you ever been in New Jersey when a large snowstorm is forecast? The
grocery stores are MOBBED!

Just wait until people notice next April that the trees only have half the
leaves they should, and the evergreens are bare, and fields stay brown.

Can you imagine the run on stores? The food trucks overturned?

No of course not! That doesn’t happen in America! And who could have
predicted 9/11 (Osama determined to attack inside America) or airplanes being
used as weapons or the financial crisis??

Sorry. I am getting less patient with morons than I used to be.

paulm says:

February
24, 2009 at 9:04 pm

@Mike Davis, hope that means you’ll be back.

caerbannog says:

February
24, 2009 at 11:09 pm

Mike Davis Says:
February 24th, 2009 at 7:26 pm

This has got to be one of the funniest sites on the web.
This is comedy
Right?

Do you know why the current interglacial period will last at least
10,000-20,000 more years?

cait says:

February
25, 2009 at 8:17 am

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

Gail says:

February
25, 2009 at 9:17 am

Cait,

I think we should all scream that from the rooftops!

David B. Benson
says:

March
1, 2009 at 9:56 pm

James Annan disses the report here:

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

Sam says:

March
2, 2009 at 12:09 am

I wonder what Richard Lindzen says about this, lol.

Norman Dale says:

March
8, 2009 at 1:42 pm

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.

BBHY says:

March
29, 2009 at 5:18 pm

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

Dr Peter Carter
says:

April
11, 2009 at 1:05 am

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.

Patrick Meaney says:

April
29, 2009 at 12:33 am

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 )

Will Anderson says:

May
23, 2009 at 1:14 pm

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

Gary Herstein says:

October
30, 2009 at 11:21 pm

“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

Wm b says:

December
20, 2009 at 11:54 am

To a child what is Global Warming?

I think it’s something about the world getting hotter and
the smart
grownup people keep arguing an Stuff.

About
Climate Progress

Subscribe

RSS
— 35491 Readers

Subscribe
by Email

Follow
Climate Progress on Twitter

Advertisement

Buy Joe Romm's Latest Book

Recognition

"...this is the art of blogging at its best." —
Treehugger 2010 Award for Best Politics Website

Most Popular Posts

An
Introduction to Climate Progress

An
introduction to the core climate solutions

Debunking
Breakthrough Institute's attacks on Obama, Gore, top climate scientists,
progressives, and environmentalists

Introduction
to climate economics: Why even strong climate action has such a low total
cost

How
the world can stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming
solution

Is
the global economy a Ponzi scheme?

Climate Science Posts

A
stunning year in climate science reveals that human civilization is on the
precipice

An
illustrated guide to the latest climate science

A
detailed look at climate sensitivity

An
introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water

Recent Comments

Winning
climate messages combine dire scientific threat with solutions for a just
world

Anna Haynes: And
it inappropriately measures the effectiveness of…

James Newberry: Sorry
for the double post. It did…

James Newberry: In
a just world, living sustainably, the…

Farmer
in the Times: "Climate change, I believe, may eventually pose an
existential threat to my way of life."

JCH: Recently
I was reading a blog and…

Rabid Doomsayer: All
this while the sun is still…

Wit's End: Another
story about the looming food crisis:…

Met
Office finds "evidence for man-made warming has grown even stronger in the
last year."

waynemac3: I
know that this is off topic,…

Reviews

"The
indispensable blog" — Tom Friedman, New York Times

U.S. News & World Report call Joe Romm "one
of the most influential energy and environmental policymakers in the Obama
era"

"I
trust Joe Romm on climate" — Paul Krugman, New York Times

Rolling Stone: "America's
fiercest climate-change activist-blogger lets it rip"

Categories

Adaptation (9)

Best PPTs (7)

BP Oil
Disaster (232)

California (58)

China (24)

Clean
Energy Jobs Bill (213)

Climate
Progress (1389)

Copenhagen (57)

disinformers
and confusionists (2)

Economics (243)

energy
efficiency (6)

EPA (4)

ethics (1)

Extreme
Weather (252)

Geoengineering
(25)

Going Green (21)

Greenwashing
(103)

Hackergate (10)

health impacts
(10)

Humor (305)

International
(249)

IPCC (8)

Media (461)

National
Security (20)

natural gas (6)

Not Too Late (3)

nuclear power
(5)

oceans (6)

Offsets (49)

Peak Oil (31)

Politics (1113)

polling (23)

Ponzi Scheme (22)

Reviews (9)

Rhetoric (54)

Science (670)

Solutions (714)

SwiftHack (40)

Tea Party
extremists (21)

Uncharacteristically
Blunt Scientists (15)

War Against
Carbon (2)

Archives

November 2010

October
2010

September 2010

August
2010

July
2010

June
2010

May
2010

April
2010

March
2010

February 2010

January
2010

December 2009

November 2009

October
2009

September 2009

August
2009

July
2009

June
2009

May
2009

April
2009

March
2009

February 2009

January
2009

December 2008

November 2008

October
2008

September 2008

August
2008

July
2008

June
2008

May
2008

April
2008

March
2008

February 2008

January
2008

December 2007

November 2007

October
2007

September 2007

August
2007

July
2007

June
2007

May
2007

April
2007

March
2007

February 2007

January
2007

December 2006

November 2006

October
2006

September 2006

August
2006

News from ClimateArk.org

Environmental
rules could be rolled back in NM

Malaysia:
A coal plant in paradise

Developed
countries key to success at Cancun climate conference

Power
Line Project Faces Challenges in California Valley

Use
the profit motive to fight climate change

David
Cameron: UK is prepared to act on its own over climate change

Don't
let us down: UN climate change talks in Cancun

Clean Energy Links

Celsias

Clean Break

Get Energy Smart Now

Green Options

Sustainable Style

The Energy Blog

WattHead

WorldChanging

Links

A Few Things Ill
Considered

Climate Science Watch

Climate.org

ClimateWire

DeSmogBlog

Eco-Compass

Greenfyre's

Gristmill

It’s
Getting Hot In Here

RealClimate

Solve Climate

Think
Progress

TreeHugger

About
Climate Progress | Terms of
Use | Re-use policy | Privacy
Policy (off-site)
© 2010 CAP
Action | 1333 H Street NW, 10th Floor | Washington, DC 20005