http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/01/claim-climate-change-is-10x-faster-than-ever-before/
It has to be science fiction.
I have just posted these details in another question here. What I would like to know is how they can reconcile the current pause in warming with the end of the Younger Dryas period when the rate of temperature increase was 10°C per decade.
Presumably, we will now get a 100°C rise this decade. Or will it be 10°C this year?
EDIT: Paul Ehrlich!! I did not realise that this prediction came from the Stanford University Paul R Ehrlich Forecasting Group. I am sure pegminer is right, though:
Claims: In 1968, Paul R. Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb and declared that the battle to feed humanity had been lost and that there would be a major food shortage in the US. “In the 1970s … hundreds of millions are going to starve to death,” and by the 1980s most of the world’s important resources would be depleted. He forecast that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980-1989 and that by 1999, the US population would decline to 22.6 million. The problems in the US would be relatively minor compared to those in the rest of the world. (Ehrlich, Paul R. The Population Bomb. New York, Ballantine Books, 1968.) New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled “In Praise of Prophets.”
Claim: “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
You know that I am anti-AGW, but there is a difference between anthropogenic climate change and just plain old climate change. This is where the AGW theorists have the advantage. Climate scientists don't know enough to tell the difference between anthropogenic and natural sources of climate change.
They most all agree that the temperature spike of the entire Planet of 1997-1998 (1C) was natural, yet many still hang onto the AGW theory. The real possibility of the planet naturally warming by 2C in 4 years is now there. They will always be able to try and attach CO2 increases to almost any additional warming, but the laws of physics doesn't compute that high of a figure with the current levels of CO2. There's just no other reason for it so they attach CO2 to the warming with a "preponderance of the evidence".
I actually think the Stanford scientists watched "The Day After Tomorrow" 1000 times and wrote a report on it. (tic)
It all goes to show. A degree does not make you smart.
Coming from an accredited college, one would think these idiots would be a little more intelligent. Paul Ehrlich is from Stanford and just look at his lousy record of predictions. I wonder if this article was generated by butterfly experts, like Paul is.
Stanford was just ranked the second best university in the world, so I'm sure these guys are hacks compared to you and Anthony Watts.
live in the same world as us, or is this science fiction?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/01/claim-climate-change-is-10x-faster-than-ever-before/
