Why are Climate "Scientists" Predictions Always Wrong?

[SwingVoter]

In the 70s, they said the world would cool. It didn't. In the late 80s, they said we'd see an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. We haven't. In the 90s, they said we'd see less snow. We haven't.

Now, I found this one - Barrow, Alaska will be gone within a few decades. But talk is cheap, especially when their track record is so bad. But I don't expect anyone from the global warming cult will offer to take a dip in the Arctic if proven wrong. Rather, they'll rename it again, and blame "skeptics" for not joining their misguided religion.

from The inmates are in charge of the asylum | Institute for Social Ecology

The melting ice cap, which is predicted to raise sea levels by 4 feet world-wide over the next several decades, will translate into a 14 foot rise in sea levels on the North Slope of Alaska, putting Barrow and five other Inupiak communities under water, effectively bringing to an end a unique culture that has survived for six thousand years.

 

[westwall]

Because they aren't interested in being correct. They are interested in political power and making money.

 

[william the wie]

Get the book "Chaos" by James Gleick. Back in 1961 Edward Lorentz in work on long range forecasting at MIT proved that measurement rounding error compounded over space and time to make long range weather forecasting (climatology) impossible. While it is possible to make predictions longer and more accurate at much greater marginal cost those marginal costs have yet to be paid to make 90+ day forecasts more useful than a farmer's almanac. ("The Essence of Chaos" by Lorentz explains this better but I found it pretty heavy slogging as in apparent global warming can cause an almost instantaneous switch to an ice age, if I read it right. The appropriate model is an old style pinball machine seems to be the argument.) There is also fractal latency due to the Oceans and icepacks acting as heat sinks and variation in solar radiation has major effects. Any and all predictions more than 90 days out are simply guesswork so while cleaning up the air is a good idea the effect of climate is unknowable.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The earth is a complex system in which we have only started to figure it out. We're learning every day and that is why the theory's and idea's change a lot. Who ever that thought that a warming world would in the short term(next 30 years) would just uniformally warm and end all cold weather was short sighted. Period. Putting energy into system with extra moisture can change storm tracks and make the weather extra extreme. If global warming is occurring you need to avg up the global avg over months, years, decades to get a idea...If the world avg above normal and each decade is warming then we have a warming world...Later on as the temperature difference between pole and equator grows smaller then in the other ways the weather pattern will become weaker as temperature change through lat becomes less....But for now it has not warmed enough and the extra punch of energy is leaning things in over drive...hehehe.

But of course this could all be bs.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Because they aren't interested in being correct. They are interested in political power and making money.

Quite possible, but if so we're in serious trouble and things are about ready to get bad. I imagine that if this was found to be true that the outrage would spark war that would make world war 1 and 2 look like nothing.

 

[rdean]

Why are Climate "Scientists" Predictions Always Wrong?

6% isn't always wrong.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why are Climate "Scientists" Predictions Always Wrong?

6% isn't always wrong.

 

[westwall]

Why are Climate "Scientists" Predictions Always Wrong?

6% isn't always wrong.

No, but that other 94% allmost allways is wrong! Gotchya!

 

[Old Rocks]

Hansen's predictions from 1988 for 2000 were dead on. But he missed after that. The melting of the Arctic Ice has far outpaced predictions. We are where we were predicted to be in 2050.

 

[Old Rocks]

In the 70s, they said the world would cool. It didn't. In the late 80s, they said we'd see an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. We haven't. In the 90s, they said we'd see less snow. We haven't.

Now, I found this one - Barrow, Alaska will be gone within a few decades. But talk is cheap, especially when their track record is so bad. But I don't expect anyone from the global warming cult will offer to take a dip in the Arctic if proven wrong. Rather, they'll rename it again, and blame "skeptics" for not joining their misguided religion.

from The inmates are in charge of the asylum | Institute for Social Ecology

The melting ice cap, which is predicted to raise sea levels by 4 feet world-wide over the next several decades, will translate into a 14 foot rise in sea levels on the North Slope of Alaska, putting Barrow and five other Inupiak communities under water, effectively bringing to an end a unique culture that has survived for six thousand years.

Just once, it would be nice to see people like you actually do the research. In the '70s, the majority of predictions was for warming.

Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hansen's predictions from 1988 for 2000 were dead on. But he missed after that. The melting of the Arctic Ice has far outpaced predictions. We are where we were predicted to be in 2050.

Is it true that our emissions are following A1F1 projections, but global temperature has so far followed a much lower route? Being the increase in global temperature is a good amount slower then A1F1 would implie with the increase of temperatures...?

 

[westwall]

Hansen's predictions from 1988 for 2000 were dead on. But he missed after that. The melting of the Arctic Ice has far outpaced predictions. We are where we were predicted to be in 2050.

Sure they were olfraud. Let's see Hansen made three different projections. The first two (which he felt were the most likely) havn't ahppened yet. they predicted the temps would be at least 1C highe than actually happened. Scenario C his least likely is still warmer than what has actually occured and to top it off the amount of CO2 more than doubled his estimate. Yeah sure he was accurate. In a pigs eye he was.

Also in 1988 he claimed the Hudson river would be under ten or more feet of water by now. That classifies as an epic fail.

 

[westwall]

In the 70s, they said the world would cool. It didn't. In the late 80s, they said we'd see an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise. We haven't. In the 90s, they said we'd see less snow. We haven't.

Now, I found this one - Barrow, Alaska will be gone within a few decades. But talk is cheap, especially when their track record is so bad. But I don't expect anyone from the global warming cult will offer to take a dip in the Arctic if proven wrong. Rather, they'll rename it again, and blame "skeptics" for not joining their misguided religion.

from The inmates are in charge of the asylum | Institute for Social Ecology

The melting ice cap, which is predicted to raise sea levels by 4 feet world-wide over the next several decades, will translate into a 14 foot rise in sea levels on the North Slope of Alaska, putting Barrow and five other Inupiak communities under water, effectively bringing to an end a unique culture that has survived for six thousand years.

Just once, it would be nice to see people like you actually do the research. In the '70s, the majority of predictions was for warming.

Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

Update: A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.

Bullshit. I can find three different articles from the 1970's warning us about the upcoming ice age. You had to go all the way back to the 1950's to find an article saying it was going to get warm. Epic Fail.

 

[Zander]

"Climate science" is to science

------ as --------

Astrology is to Astronomy

 

[Old Rocks]

Mathew, as you have pointed out, not only do we not know all the factors, but weather and climate are also more chaotic than linier. In this years lectures at the AGU Conferance, there is a presentation that addresses this.

A42A

 

[Old Rocks]

Hansen's predictions from 1988 for 2000 were dead on. But he missed after that. The melting of the Arctic Ice has far outpaced predictions. We are where we were predicted to be in 2050.

Sure they were olfraud. Let's see Hansen made three different projections. The first two (which he felt were the most likely) havn't ahppened yet. they predicted the temps would be at least 1C highe than actually happened. Scenario C his least likely is still warmer than what has actually occured and to top it off the amount of CO2 more than doubled his estimate. Yeah sure he was accurate. In a pigs eye he was.

Also in 1988 he claimed the Hudson river would be under ten or more feet of water by now. That classifies as an epic fail.

More lies with absolutely no backing.

 

[westwall]

Hansen's predictions from 1988 for 2000 were dead on. But he missed after that. The melting of the Arctic Ice has far outpaced predictions. We are where we were predicted to be in 2050.

Sure they were olfraud. Let's see Hansen made three different projections. The first two (which he felt were the most likely) havn't ahppened yet. they predicted the temps would be at least 1C highe than actually happened. Scenario C his least likely is still warmer than what has actually occured and to top it off the amount of CO2 more than doubled his estimate. Yeah sure he was accurate. In a pigs eye he was.

Also in 1988 he claimed the Hudson river would be under ten or more feet of water by now. That classifies as an epic fail.

More lies with absolutely no backing.

Just another broken record from you olfraud. You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the ass.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/HansensPredictions1988.htm

http://www.lesjones.com/2009/01/15/james-hansens-1988-global-warming-predictions-vs-reality/

"While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?" He looked for a while and was quiet and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, "Well, there will be more traffic." I, of course, didn't think he heard the question right. Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said, "There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up."

And so far, over the last 10 years, we've had 10 of the hottest years on record."

Stormy weather - Salon.com

Last time I checked the West Side Highway was doing just fine. As I said before...EPIC FAIL!

 

[Old Rocks]

So, a liar tells a lie about Hansen and you fall all over yourself to believe it? Of course you do.

Come on, self proclaimed geologist, how come I am posting the lectures from the AGU? How come Mathew is posting the presentations by the scientists of the Royal Society? And why are you posting from people like Watts?

Real scientists are weighing in on this subject. They may not be correct in their conclusions, but if they present corrupted data or poor methodology, they will be exposed by other scientists in the manner than Singer has been.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong

Scenario B, which was the closest to reality, slightly overestimated how much the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases would increase (particularly methane and chlorofluorocarbons [CFCs]).
Hansen's climate model had a rather high climate sensitivity parameter. Climate sensitivity describes how sensitive the global climate is to a change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere (a.k.a. a radiative forcing).
If we take into account the slightly lower atmospheric greenhouse gas increases and compare the observed versus projected global temperature warming rates, as shown in the Advanced version of this rebuttal, we find that in order to accurately predict the global warming of the past 22 years, Hansen's climate model would have needed a climate sensitivity of about 3.4°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. This is within the likely range of climate sensitivity values listed as 2-4.5°C by the IPCC for a doubling of CO2, and even a bit higher than the most likely value currently widely accepted as 3°C.

In short, the main reason Hansen's 1988 warming projections were too high is that he used a climate model with a high climate sensitivity, and his results are actually evidence that the true climate sensitivity parameter is within the range accepted by the IPCC

 

[westwall]

So, a liar tells a lie about Hansen and you fall all over yourself to believe it? Of course you do.

Come on, self proclaimed geologist, how come I am posting the lectures from the AGU? How come Mathew is posting the presentations by the scientists of the Royal Society? And why are you posting from people like Watts?

Real scientists are weighing in on this subject. They may not be correct in their conclusions, but if they present corrupted data or poor methodology, they will be exposed by other scientists in the manner than Singer has been.

You mean like your boys in New Zealand? What about that claim on the Hudsons rise. Hansen made the claims and they have all failed. Good job following a loser.