Eight Botched Environmental Forecasts

[Amused]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Hansen_2006_temperature_comparison.jpg

Context, please?

 

[Blackjack200]

Context, please?

James Hansen's GISS model. It wasn't perfect, but like actual scientists, Hansen and his team have worked to improve it, and have never claimed it was perfect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

 

[shiner]

Just to be safe I have an awesome collection of cold weather gear and sunscreen.

 

[Amused]

James Hansen's GISS model. It wasn't perfect, but like actual scientists, Hansen and his team have worked to improve it, and have never claimed it was perfect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

After looking at it, have you ever heard of the "shotgun approach?"

He made many, widely varying predictions. His most catastrophic was used for publicity, and his most conservative turned out to be true.

That's the shotgun approach. If you predict one thing can have a wide varity of outcomes, of course one is likely to be correct.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hey, you provide me with funding, I'll come up with "science" to come to any conclusion you'd like to see.

Well science proves the world is flat, that continents can't move, and that whites are the superior race.

 

[Blackjack200]

After looking at it, have you ever heard of the "shotgun approach?"

He made many, widely varying predictions. His most catastrophic was used for publicity, and his most conservative turned out to be true.

That's the shotgun approach. If you predict one thing can have a wide varity of outcomes, of course one is likely to be correct.

Actually they made three predictions, an agressive, a conservative, and an intermediate. They said that the intermediate most closely matched the observations.

 

[Amused]

Actually they made three predictions, an agressive, a conservative, and an intermediate. They said that the intermediate most closely matched the observations.

It's a shotgun approach.

Not to mention the guy is a loon activist with an obvious bias (and an arrest record).

It's not an accurate model. It's guessing game and one guess happened to be close.

There has, to date, been no accurate model of our climate.

 

[Blackjack200]

It's a shotgun approach.

Not to mention the guy is a loon activist with an obvious bias (and an arrest record).

It's not an accurate model. It's guessing game and one guess happened to be close.

There has, to date, been no accurate model of our climate.

Whatever. You asked for an accurate climate model and I provided it. The fact that you're pissy because it controverts what you said eariler in the thread changes nothing. It's not at all uncommon to provide a range of possible outcomes when doing this kind of modelling. The three scenarios are within half a degree of each other through 40 years, and the best one turned out to be right smack in the middle. That's pretty damn good.

And an ad hominum attack to boot. Good job.

 

[Lemon law]

What may not amuse our OP is that each of the eight forecast he ridicules is basically coming true, but at rate far slower than the most cherry picked examples initially predicted.

But the science of MMGW is much better now than it was 40 years ago, its not just about CO2 anymore, but there is still much work needed to be done regarding how all the various factors interact. But still, its now basically proven, MMGW is very real, and mankind is playing Russian roulette with our climate.

And for the edification of Amused and other doubters, the main dangers of MMGW is that we will hit an irreversible tipping point with Ocean currents or underseas methane hydrates, and then climate change will become incredibly rapid.

 

[brencat]

And for the edification of Amused and other doubters, the main dangers of MMGW is that we will hit an irreversible tipping point with Ocean currents or underseas methane hydrates, and then climate change will become incredibly rapid.

Yes, but by then I, along with my great great grandchildren will be much older, richer, or long dead. So who gives a fvck?

<gets up, goes back to shoveling out from the recent NY blizzard>

 

[OCGuy]

Somewhere, Al Gore is shedding a tear.

 

[MovingTarget]

Wow, there certainly is a lot of ignorance about Science and the Scientific Method in this thread. I can make predictions about climate all I want, but that doesn't mean that such predictions will be scientific in nature. Sure, those predictions were "wrong" in only the binary sense, but that doesn't mean that they are not useful from a scientific standpoint. We may have learned quite a bit from these models even if their results weren't 100% accurate. New variables and data are taken into account, new models and predictions made, retested, etc, etc. The overall trends in the global climate are still reappearing in both observed data and in the new models even more strongly than before. To simply deny climate change on these models alone is laughable/ignorant at best, disingenuous at worst.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

[PeshakJang]

Wow, there certainly is a lot of ignorance about Science and the Scientific Method in this thread. I can make predictions about climate all I want, but that doesn't mean that such predictions will be scientific in nature. Sure, those predictions were "wrong" in only the binary sense, but that doesn't mean that they are not useful from a scientific standpoint. We may have learned quite a bit from these models even if their results weren't 100% accurate. New variables and data are taken into account, new models and predictions made, retested, etc, etc. The overall trends in the global climate are still reappearing in both observed data and in the new models even more strongly than before. To simply deny climate change on these models alone is laughable/ignorant at best, disingenuous at worst.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

So you think that we should base massive, sweeping economic changes on whichever model's predictions are current? In the span of about 30-40 years we went from certain global cooling to certain global warming to "climate change" based on the most recent model, and every time it changes, somebody says we need to take drastic steps or we will face dire
consequences in very short order.

You make it seem like you know enough about the scientific method, yet you have no problem with using a laughably small relative sample size with constantly evolving models to reach a society-altering conclusion... which could quite possibly do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to improve whichever conclusion you've reached.

 

[Ronstang]

Something tells me the main reason these fools are so outlandish in their predictions is just in case there is enough collective craziness to buy into it and thus anything done in the name of stopping it is automatically claimed a huge success when the dire consequences of inaction do not manifest.

 

[Blackjack200]

So you think that we should base massive, sweeping economic changes on whichever model's predictions are current? In the span of about 30-40 years we went from certain global cooling to certain global warming to "climate change" based on the most recent model, and every time it changes, somebody says we need to take drastic steps or we will face dire
consequences in very short order.

lol, "climate change" actually came from your camp.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/1/mqMunulJU7w

 

[ElFenix]

So you think that we should base massive, sweeping economic changes on whichever model's predictions are current? In the span of about 30-40 years we went from certain global cooling to certain global warming to "climate change" based on the most recent model, and every time it changes, somebody says we need to take drastic steps or we will face dire
consequences in very short order.

You make it seem like you know enough about the scientific method, yet you have no problem with using a laughably small relative sample size with constantly evolving models to reach a society-altering conclusion... which could quite possibly do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to improve whichever conclusion you've reached.

the post you quoted said nothing of the sort.

 

[monovillage]

Anyone claiming that Hansen's scientific predictions made in 1988 were accurate is spewing bullshit. He made 3 predictions (A,B and C), A was his prediction if we continued releasing the same amount of CO2, B was the prediction if we conservatively reduced our CO2 emissions and C was if we drastically reduced CO2 emissions by 1990. In reality the worlds CO2 emissions drastically increased and his prediction C still showed more warming then actually happened. Remember that his C prediction is based on the the idea that the world reduced it's CO2 levels to 368 ppb, we're at 389 ppb. If Hansen had been accurate his prediction C should be lower then the actual temps. They're not.

http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/16/thoughts-on-hansen-et-al-1988/

 

[Throckmorton]

So you think that we should base massive, sweeping economic changes on whichever model's predictions are current? In the span of about 30-40 years we went from certain global cooling to certain global warming to "climate change" based on the most recent model, and every time it changes, somebody says we need to take drastic steps or we will face dire
consequences in very short order.

You make it seem like you know enough about the scientific method, yet you have no problem with using a laughably small relative sample size with constantly evolving models to reach a society-altering conclusion... which could quite possibly do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to improve whichever conclusion you've reached.

Apply some common sense. Old predictions didn't take into account the absorption of half our CO2 emission by the oceans. There was no reason to think the oceans would act as such a big sink.

The reaction you've chosen is the exact opposite of what it should be. We should be thanking our lucky stars for that, not saying "na na na boo boo you were wrong!!".

Remember when you were a child and your mother told you not to play with fire? Well you probably did anyway. I know I did. So because we got lucky and didn't burn the house down, does that mean we should keep playing with fire?

 

[Amused]

Anyone claiming that Hansen's scientific predictions made in 1988 were accurate is spewing bullshit. He made 3 predictions (A,B and C), A was his prediction if we continued releasing the same amount of CO2, B was the prediction if we conservatively reduced our CO2 emissions and C was if we drastically reduced CO2 emissions by 1990. In reality the worlds CO2 emissions drastically increased and his prediction C still showed more warming then actually happened. Remember that his C prediction is based on the the idea that the world reduced it's CO2 levels to 368 ppb, we're at 389 ppb. If Hansen had been accurate his prediction C should be lower then the actual temps. They're not.

http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/16/thoughts-on-hansen-et-al-1988/

Exactly. But the shotgun approached worked, and people are buying it, even though it is now taken completely out of context.

The fact remains that no one has yet come even remotely close to accurately modeling and thus predicting the earth's climate. And that fact alone means that no drastic action should be taken until they can.

 

[Amused]

Apply some common sense. Old predictions didn't take into account the absorption of half our CO2 emission by the oceans. There was no reason to think the oceans would act as such a big sink.

The reaction you've chosen is the exact opposite of what it should be. We should be thanking our lucky stars for that, not saying "na na na boo boo you were wrong!!".

Remember when you were a child and your mother told you not to play with fire? Well you probably did anyway. I know I did. So because we got lucky and didn't burn the house down, does that mean we should keep playing with fire?

Are you listening to yourself???

Seriously???

You make the VERY same arguments theists make in the "you should believe just in case" argument.

Energy costs are skyrocketing because of this pseudo religious facade. The end results are: the climate is going to chug along doing what it's always done, the poor of the world suffer more, and the middle classes have a lower standard of living. All because you think we should pass sweeping legislation that ends up making energy far more expensive "just in case."

 

[PeshakJang]

lol, "climate change" actually came from your camp.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/1/mqMunulJU7w

I don't understand... you reject the OP because it is on Fox News, seemingly without even giving it a glance, but you want to use some 19-year-old's propagandist YouTube video to prove your point?

To the point of the video though, I don't see how you are making the claim that climate change came from, "my camp". The article from 1939, which you can find in archives, claims that one of the first uses of the term came from an AP story.

So ignoring that idiot's video, which doesn't really do anything but massage his own ego, it was termed global warming for a while in the early to mid 1900s, then come 1970, the term is "global cooling." Then in the last couple decades, we heard "global warming", and then once everyone realized that we didn't have enough information to conclude one way or the other, it was termed "climate change" to avoid any further need to explain inconsistencies. We could get evidence tomorrow that shows we are in a global downtrend in temperatures, and those who espouse this ACC crap will say it proves them right.

 

[ElFenix]

Energy costs are skyrocketing because of this pseudo religious facade.

which energy costs? natural gas is at nearly all time lows due hydro fracturing and big fields. oil is way up because the dollar is down and due to increasing demand from china, etc. none of this 'pseudo religious facade' has been implemented.

 

[Amused]

which energy costs? natural gas is at nearly all time lows due hydro fracturing and big fields. oil is way up because the dollar is down and due to increasing demand from china, etc. none of this 'pseudo religious facade' has been implemented.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm

 

[Hacp]

which energy costs? natural gas is at nearly all time lows due hydro fracturing and big fields. oil is way up because the dollar is down and due to increasing demand from china, etc. none of this 'pseudo religious facade' has been implemented.

The one you get when you pay your utility bill.

 

[Amused]

The one you get when you pay your utility bill.

I don't know how anyone who has been paying utility bills over the last 10-20 years could not notice the skyrocketing costs.