50 Years of Failed Climate Change Predictions

[Paratus]

Problem is you guys are pitching this all wrong. Saying "climate change is bad" because supposedly it will primarily hurt the poor and flood places like NYC gets a big "so?" from the Republicans you want to convince. Come up with a new angle that doesn't involve spending money on progressive wish-list items like mass transit in cities and and transfer/welfare payments and then perhaps you won't continue to languish with your policies never passing for decades in a row. You'd think that after the "Green New Deal" was defeated with zero votes in the Senate that you'd change strategy but it looks like the same old reruns of Al Gore and manbearpig.

How’s this as an appeal to conservatives

If we address climate change by reducing poverty which reduces population then scary poor brown people won’t try and emigrate here anymore.

We can then sell them American made wind turbines, nuclear reactor designs, solar cells, batteries, and carbon neutral fuels to a 1st world market 6 times what it is now.

There you go two of the pillars of conservative thought, reducing immigration and money.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think we need to look at the worst case scenarios.

If climate change science is wrong & we implement suggested policy, the worst thing that will happen is that we'll prepare our descendants to better cope in a world where fossil fuel resources are much scarcer & more difficult to extract. Higher efficiency in their use will also stretch out the time line. I don't think many people will go broke from it in the meanwhile.

OTOH if climate science is right & we fail to move effectively to counter that then we leave the world in a much worse place than we found it. By "we" I mean the whole of humanity. We may have already done so.

 

[Muse]

I don't know what shit SS has up his sleeve but...

Right now:

the glaciers are melting like crazy, the permafrost is melting.

500 year weather events are happening every few years or sooner.

The wildfire season has expanded to 365 days/year in CA from ~6 months.

Soon:

Much of the planet will be uninhabitable by 2100 at the rate we're going, i.e. daytime temperatures 125-135 or higher.

Where we're growing crops in the northern hemisphere won't grow nearly as much in 50 years and more optimal growing temperatures will have moved north to areas where the soil sucks... so, famine will be a huge issue.

SS will be dead and forgotten by then.

 

[cytg111]

You didn't watch the video. All they did was post some indoctrinated "climate activist" talking to congress. Complain about their right leaning all you want, but that story is perfectly legit.

What do you think is wrong in that speech?

 

[glenn1]

I think we need to look at the worst case scenarios.

If climate change science is wrong & we implement suggested policy, the worst thing that will happen is that we'll prepare our descendants to better cope in a world where fossil fuel resources are much scarcer & more difficult to extract. Higher efficiency in their use will also stretch out the time line. I don't think many people will go broke from it in the meanwhile.

OTOH if climate science is right & we fail to move effectively to counter that then we leave the world in a much worse place than we found it. By "we" I mean the whole of humanity. We may have already done so.

I honestly hope you get your way and waste money on trying to achieve 100% "renewable energy" solutions. It's about as efficient a way of transferring money from the poors to the wealthy as could be imagined.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I honestly hope you get your way and waste money on trying to achieve 100% "renewable energy" solutions. It's about as efficient a way of transferring money from the poors to the wealthy as could be imagined.

And I hope you get your way and we all do nothing for fear of it negatively impacting someone, it's about as efficient way as can be found to wipe out humanity on this rock so nature can get back in balance.

 

[glenn1]

And I hope you get your way and we all do nothing for fear of it negatively impacting someone, it's about as efficient way as can be found to wipe out humanity on this rock so nature can get back in balance.

Yep, unless we can have taxpayers subsidize a rich guy getting a Tesla or solar panels installed on their roof we'll all gonna die. Probably better anyway, it will keep the poors off the road with once you outlaw ICE cars so at least while NYC gets submerged I can get around on the freeway with less traffic.

 

[SlowSpyder]

To highlight my previous post.

Timeline.com

timeline.com

Climate change denial is the exact same misinformation campaign that tobacco disease denial was.

And look at the predictable sheep denying scientific consensus to maintain belief in their cult.

Science denial is science denial. Denying climate change is identical to anti-vax, flat Earth, chemtrailers, etc. All the same.

I don't think anyone here denies that we have the ability to impact the our planet, even alter the climate. What I'm saying is that's where the science stops and the FUD and big business begins, though. The crystal ball future predictions have been laughably bad.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I don't carry water. I don't think climate change is a hoax, but that the dire FUD predictions are science fiction and crystal ball stuff.

What a good little propaganda puppy you are. Now do something useful and go chase a squirrel.

 

[Muse]

Those dystopian movies are making more sense every day... the ones with windswept scenes with no humans.

We're never going to move the human race to a new planet. This is it. We save the planet or perish. Pretty fair chance the next millenium will have human population = zero.

 

[Muse]

The crystal ball future predictions have been laughably bad.

It's odd what makes you laugh. What does it take to make you cry?

 

[ivwshane]

It's odd what makes you laugh. What does it take to make you cry?

People being mean to trump.

 

[cytg111]

Those dystopian movies are making more sense every day... the ones with windswept scenes with no humans.

We're never going to move the human race to a new planet. This is it. We save the planet or perish. Pretty fair chance the next millenium will have human population = zero.

some of us will make it... question is will we ever repopulate. right now we have criticalass, its actually feasable to leave this rock... wonder how long that window is open cause we sure do like to fuck things up. Slow is in a cult. You may as well try to convince Tom Cruise that scientology is a cult..

 

[Amused]

I don't think anyone here denies that we have the ability to impact the our planet, even alter the climate. What I'm saying is that's where the science stops and the FUD and big business begins, though. The crystal ball future predictions have been laughably bad.

The "big business" is in climate change denial, just as it was with tobacco disease denial.

And you've been duped into thinking the scientists are the "big business."

Dude, seriously.

 

[dank69]

How’s this as an appeal to conservatives

If we address climate change by reducing poverty which reduces population then scary poor brown people won’t try and emigrate here anymore.

We can then sell them American made wind turbines, nuclear reactor designs, solar cells, batteries, and carbon neutral fuels to a 1st world market 6 times what it is now.

There you go two of the pillars of conservative thought, reducing immigration and money.

You are getting close but do we have any options that don't help brown people at all?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

lol you dumb bastard.

YOu fell for this circus nonsense.

May God remove your ability to reproduce, and your spawn, so that the simple, craven idiocy of your seed dies with you. This is laughably pathetic.

Do you even try to give a dick about internet forwards that are sent to you? Especially the ones that are targeted at you because your non-critical, dumbrained response is guaranteed?

How about you try to abide by the rules for this forum for a change?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The problem is that you need an AC. If US would properly insulate their houses, you wouldn't need an AC in most places. And a little warmer in the summer you will get used to. Almost nobody here has AC and I had low 80s temps inside (outisde high 90ties, Europe, heat wave. In winter it snows.). Yeah 80 for sleeping is a little warm but you get used to it.

HAHAHAHAHAHA lol Welcome to Texas.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

In other words "yes Taj, your were right about what Hansen, the then director of NASA said, and the claim he made. I then say " Thanks Paratus"

The rest is drivel

Let’s see what Mr Hansen’s prediction was:
“Hansen, echoing work by other scientists said that within five to 10 years the Arctic will be free of summer ice.”

Ok to answer your original question, obviously there is still year round sea ice extent in the summer in the arctic. That answer should be enough to keep you happy in your bubble.

For those still playing along at home let’s see how far off his prediction was.

Here was the observed level of summer Arctic ice extent in 2008

Notice that the observation is actually quite far under the models. The IPCC models in this case predicted less melting than actually happend.

So what did the summer Arctic sea ice extent look like 5-10 years later?

So September of 2012, 4-5 years, later ice extent bottomed out at 3.41M Km^2 a 30% reduction. That would support his prediction roughly in the time frame.

By 2019 while sea ice extent has been at or slightly below the 2012 monthly minimums for a good part of the year, no year has met or exceed the absolute minimum for 2012 yet.

So Hansen’s predicted timing is wrong. He did however get the direction correct as sea ice extent has on average continued to decline since 2008.

Now since we shouldn’t be basing our understanding of the climate off anecdotes in news papers what did the IPCC climate models predict.

The AR5 runs from 2013 have us around 4.5M Km^2 for the average of the worst case RCP8.5 (red line) models in 2019. We are currently at 4.28M Km^2....

So the models are under predicting how bad sea ice extent is.

I can understand why the article, the OP and Tajy didn’t want to point out how the IPCC models are less apocalyptic than they should be.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

To highlight my previous post.

Timeline.com

timeline.com

Climate change denial is the exact same misinformation campaign that tobacco disease denial was.

And look at the predictable sheep denying scientific consensus to maintain belief in their cult.

Science denial is science denial. Denying climate change is identical to anti-vax, flat Earth, chemtrailers, etc. All the same.

An essay by Robert Tracinski published in Dr. Curry's blog just for you.

Why I don't 'believe' in 'science' - Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry ” ‘I believe in science’ is an homage given to science by people who generally don’t understand much about it. Science is used here not to describe specific methods or theories, but to provide a badge of … Continue reading →

judithcurry.com

" ‘I believe in science’ is an homage given to science by people who generally don’t understand much about it. Science is used here not to describe specific methods or theories, but to provide a badge of tribal identity. Which serves, ironically, to demonstrate a lack of interest in the guiding principles of actual science.” – Robert Tracinski



Robert Tracinski has published a superb essay entitled Why I don’t ‘believe’ in ‘science’. Excerpts:

begin quote:
For some years now, one of the left’s favorite tropes has been the phrase “I believe in science.” Elizabeth Warren stated it recently in a pretty typical form: “I believe in science. And anyone who doesn’t has no business making decisions about our environment.” This was in response to news that scientists who are skeptical of global warming might be allowed to have a voice in shaping public policy.
t captures a lot of what annoys the rest of us about the “I believe in science” crowd. It reduces a serious intellectual issue—a whole worldview and method of thought—to a signifier of social group identity."

 

[MrSquished]

I don't carry water. I don't think climate change is a hoax, but that the dire FUD predictions are science fiction and crystal ball stuff.

of course some things are going to be crystal ball-ish in predictive nature, we haven't destroyed a planet yet to know exactly how it works. but we do know it's happening. you worship the side that wants to do nothing about it.

 

[glenn1]

of course some things are going to be crystal ball-ish in predictive nature, we haven't destroyed a planet yet to know exactly how it works. but we do know it's happening. you worship the side that wants to do nothing about it.

Jeez haven't all you progressives drowned yet from sea level increase? Let's get on with this climate change stuff already so the rest of us can have some peace and quiet.

 

[Amused]

An essay by Robert Tracinski published in Dr. Curry's blog just for you.

Why I don't 'believe' in 'science' - Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry ” ‘I believe in science’ is an homage given to science by people who generally don’t understand much about it. Science is used here not to describe specific methods or theories, but to provide a badge of … Continue reading →

judithcurry.com

" ‘I believe in science’ is an homage given to science by people who generally don’t understand much about it. Science is used here not to describe specific methods or theories, but to provide a badge of tribal identity. Which serves, ironically, to demonstrate a lack of interest in the guiding principles of actual science.” – Robert Tracinski



Robert Tracinski has published a superb essay entitled Why I don’t ‘believe’ in ‘science’. Excerpts:

begin quote:
For some years now, one of the left’s favorite tropes has been the phrase “I believe in science.” Elizabeth Warren stated it recently in a pretty typical form: “I believe in science. And anyone who doesn’t has no business making decisions about our environment.” This was in response to news that scientists who are skeptical of global warming might be allowed to have a voice in shaping public policy.
t captures a lot of what annoys the rest of us about the “I believe in science” crowd. It reduces a serious intellectual issue—a whole worldview and method of thought—to a signifier of social group identity."

There you go. Science is not a belief system. Therefore a denial of scientific consensus is a denial of reality itself.

Thank you for making my point for me.

 

[Jaskalas]

How’s this as an appeal to conservatives

If we address climate change by reducing poverty which reduces population then scary poor brown people won’t try and emigrate here anymore.

Reduce poverty... for the rest of the world? How are we supposed to help others when we cannot even help ourselves?

Our economic situation is in decline in so many ways.

 

[Paratus]

In other words "yes Taj, your were right about what Hansen, the then director of NASA said, and the claim he made. I then say " Thanks Paratus"

The rest is drivel

I have no problem admitting facts when evidence is presented. What was presented was technically correct and like I said I knew that would keep you happy in your little bubble.

I also knew you’d pussy out on addressing anything else. As usual, if the argument (usually incorrect) hasn’t been thought up by some else, (a blog post at Judith Curry’s site for example) you’ve got nothing to say.

Although I’m glad you said you were a geologist living in Texas because that means your willful ignorance is likely monetarily based, (got all your retirement in oil and gas? ). With your hatred for NASA and all things global I was starting to think you were a flat earther on top of being a climate denier.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not a scientist, i'm a Geologist (retired) that finds politics and science enjoyable. I also do my due diligence on the subject. I have no problem accepting climate change and the science behind it, what I have a problem with are the people and groups that exaggerate the issue for power, control and profit.

Sometimes people will talk about how the 8 inches of sea level rise in the last 120 years is impacting cities like Miami, but won't add that the X feet of soil subsidence is what is really driving the problem.

I can't imagine an actual geologist claiming to not be a scientist. It's absurd.