Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[jacee]

Scarier than we thought:

Our leaders fiddle as our planet burns

The weird weather has come much faster and much weirder than expected. The Arctic ice cap was supposed to last until late in this century but now appears nearly certain to be gone by 2030 or maybe 2020. It hit a record low last week —with three more weeks of melting still expected. Greenland is also showing unprecedented melting,and sea levels are rising much quicker than anticipated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) even in its most recent report.

The droughts and extreme rainstorms have even shown up to some extent in Hamilton. Local farmers have been clobbered by a lack of rain,and hundreds of homes were flooded in the July 22 deluge that dumped sixinches of rain in three hours on Binbrook and upper Stoney Creek. That was the 18th time in the last 100 months that Hamilton homes have been inundated by storms. All of this was predicted by mainstream climate science —but not so quickly and dramatically. It was supposed to be a problem for our grandchildren,not us.

...

Have the elites already decided not to act,and instead hope their personal wealth or status will protect them and their loved ones from the worst effects of the climatic catastrophes coming at us? There seems no doubt that the federal Conservative party has decided exporting tar sands bitumen is the top priority.

...

But at this point,only a handful are in the streets demanding real climate action. That has to change —very fast!

I don't blame our leaders. We elect them and they are accountable to us, and it's up to us to tell them if changes are necessary.

Are we fiddling while our planet burns?

Do we care?

Edited September 9, 2012 by jacee

[TimG]

There is NO evidence that the weather is weirder/extreme that in the past.

All we see here are CAGW fanatics desperate to shore up their endless narrative of doom looking for patterns in random events.

Climate prediction is no better than astrology. But like astrology there are plenty of deluded people who really want to believe in it. That does not mean it has an merit.

Edited September 9, 2012 by TimG

[wyly]

There is NO evidence that the weather is weirder/extreme that in the past.

All we see here are CAGW fanatics desperate to shore up their endless narrative of doom looking for patterns in random events.

Climate prediction is no better than astrology. But like astrology there are plenty of deluded people who really want to believe in it. That does not mean it has an merit.

apparently you haven't noticed but the world has moved on, the CC denialist camp has been reduced to conspiracy theorists, scientific illiterates and contrarians who live in a delusional world where they imagine themselves as smarter than the experts... Edited September 9, 2012 by wyly

[waldo]

There is NO evidence that the weather is weirder/extreme that in the past.

Extreme Weather & Climate Events 2012 - Timeline:

but c'mon... I'm sure you just want to go here, right?: IPCC - SREX --- Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation..... (please sir, could we have some more TimG channeling Judy... or the Pielkesphere, hey! )

All we see here are CAGW fanatics desperate to shore up their endless narrative of doom looking for patterns in random events.

random events? Like the 2012 record Arctic Sea Ice Loss... in all 3 measurable aspects, extent, volume and area? Just another... random event, hey?

Climate prediction is no better than astrology.

citation request

[eyeball]

I don't blame our leaders. We elect them and they are accountable to us, and it's up to us to tell them if changes are necessary.

I blame them, but it is fundamentally our own fault that we've let our governance get out of our control.

So why are our leaders doing so little? The public may still be unclear because of the confusion-mongering financed by big oil and other fossil fuel corporations to protect their obscene profits, but our governments should know all about that kind of corporate lobbying, and should assume those companies have no more ethics than the tobacco magnates demonstrated in the past.

Have the elites already decided not to act, and instead hope their personal wealth or status will protect them and their loved ones from the worst effects of the climatic catastrophes coming at us?

The elites are the lobbyists and they've never stopped acting. The public also knows damn well the result of letting governments and lobbyists do whatever it is they do in the secrecy of their smoke-filled back-rooms. The ethics in these places are probably on par with what you'd find at a NAMBLA meeting.

[wyly]

random events? Like the 2012 record Arctic Sea Ice Loss... in all 3 measurable aspects, extent, volume and area? Just another... random event, hey?

add frequency to that, it's repeating year after year...

Professor Chris Rapley of UCL said: "With the temperature gradient between the Arctic and equator dropping, as is happening now, it is also possible that the jet stream in the upper atmosphere could become more unstable. That could mean increasing volatility in weather in lower latitudes, similar to that experienced this year."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/11/arctic-sea-ice-vanishing

[wyly]

I blame them, but it is fundamentally our own fault that we've let our governance get out of our control.

I blame the media for letting them get away with it...by allowing the political parties to call the shots during election process letting politicians get away with not answering the hard questions... the wildrose party payed a huge price when their cc denier leader publicly stated that cc was an unsettled issue!...

[TimG]

you haven't noticed but the world has moved on

Yep. Anti-CO2 regulation is a dead political issue in most countries. The only people paying any attention to the endless drumbeat of climate doom are the activists. It is largely because people are realizing that it is largely a scam driven left wing political activists and companies looking to cash in on government regulations. Edited September 9, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

add frequency to that, it's repeating year after year...

Professor Chris Rapley of UCL said: "With the temperature gradient between the Arctic and equator dropping, as is happening now, it is also possible that the jet stream in the upper atmosphere could become more unstable. That could mean increasing volatility in weather in lower latitudes, similar to that experienced this year."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/11/arctic-sea-ice-vanishing

yes, most certainly... add in frequency: extent graphed /// extent visual

[TimG]

the wildrose party payed a huge price when their cc denier leader publicly stated that cc was an unsettled issue!

The CAGW addicted media like to play this up but I don't think this was as a big as factor as the the anti-gay and racist comments by candidates and the leader's refusal to condemn them. In any case Canadians have consistently voted for parties that say the right "code words" when it comes to climate change but also promise to do absolutely nothing about it.

[Tilter]

Extreme Weather & Climate Events 2012 - Timeline:

but c'mon... I'm sure you just want to go here, right?: IPCC - SREX --- Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation..... (please sir, could we have some more TimG channeling Judy... or the Pielkesphere, hey! )

random events? Like the 2012 record Arctic Sea Ice Loss... in all 3 measurable aspects, extent, volume and area? Just another... random event, hey?

citation request

This has, happened without the help of Man, many times before.

Are you going to next blame the earthquakes on Global Warming?

[bleeding heart]

apparently you haven't noticed but the world has moved on, the CC denialist camp has been reduced to conspiracy theorists, scientific illiterates and contrarians who live in a delusional world where they imagine themselves as smarter than the experts...

It's true that they are increasingly perceived as fringe lunatics, and not without some justice..

"Only 97% of climate scientists agree! The scientific bias is a result of a leftwing hoax! Listen to the local weatherman, he'll tell us what's what!"

[Michael Hardner]

This has, happened without the help of Man, many times before.

Are you going to next blame the earthquakes on Global Warming?

So ? The experts say man is doing this now.

[WWWTT]

This has, happened without the help of Man, many times before.

Are you going to next blame the earthquakes on Global Warming?

I agree.

This is called climate change.

I believe that it would be more odd if the Earth did not ever go through climate change again.

WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

Since the West has made the decision to not take preventative measures, I expect that this means we will accept responsibility for the results when they hit the poorest of our brothers & citizens on earth.

That is a decision, although it is a risky one.

[TimG]

"Only 97% of climate scientists agree! The scientific bias is a result of a leftwing hoax! Listen to the local weatherman, he'll tell us what's what!"

If you looked into the basis for this oft quoted stat you would find that the question asked was:

Do you agree that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years

The question does not any way imply that man is responsible or that warming will be a catastrophe yet you wish to imply that is what scientists believe.

The fact that your contribution of this thread is an deliberating misleading stat is great illustration of how untrust worthy alarmists are and why anything they say must be taken with a great deal of skepticism.

[TimG]

Since the West has made the decision to not take preventative measures, I expect that this means we will accept responsibility for the results when they hit the poorest of our brothers & citizens on earth.

Such nonsense is why many people feel that CAGW is nothing but an income redistribution scheme invented by leftists that can't get enough political support via regular channels.

[bleeding heart]

If you looked into the basis for this oft quoted stat you would find that the question asked was:

I think you'rte aware of the consensus. I don't know why you deny pretend it doesn't exist.

The question does not any way imply that man is responsible or that warming will be a catastrophe yet you wish to imply that is what scientists believe.

First of all, scientists do believe the former...as you have repeatedly and unequivocally conceded (except when yoiu haven't, as here...the contradiction is a little baffling.)

The latter point, which undoubtedly does not have the same overwhelming consensus, is an entirely different point.

The fact that your contribution of this thread is an deliberating misleading stat is great illustration of how untrust worthy alarmists are and why anything they say must be taken with a great deal of skepticism.

So, your employment of the debate "method" in which you continually take on two opposing beliefs: man does/doesn't have a primary position in climate change--means that you are untrustworthy?

If that's your contention, colour me convinced.

[cybercoma]

Such nonsense is why many people feel that CAGW is nothing but an income redistribution scheme invented by leftists that can't get enough political support via regular channels.

And those people would be stupid.

[TimG]

First of all, scientists do believe the former...as you have repeatedly and unequivocally conceded

Not 97% of them. Also even among those that agree that man has contributed there are different opinions on how much contribution.

The latter point, which undoubtedly does not have the same overwhelming consensus, is an entirely different point.

Yet you bring the 97% stat into this thread in attempt to imply that anyone who disagrees with anything said about the CAGW activities is going against the overwhelming consensus. The issue I raised was about the endless attempts to link "extreme weather" to AGW - attempts which are rejected by many in the scientific community. What does the the 97% have to with that? Edited September 9, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

And those people would be stupid.

Hardly. It is perfectly justified given Michael's nonsense suggestion that people in the west should be held financially responsible for whatever bad things happen in the future because they refused to endorse completely ineffective anti-CO2 policies today. Edited September 9, 2012 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

The issue I raised was about the endless attempts to link "extreme weather" to AGW - attempts which are rejected by many in the scientific community.

Um, you also raised the issue that climate change might not be affected by human beings at all...a genuine scientific opinion, but a radical fringe one.

But as I said, you sometimes disagree with yourself on this point.

Still, you raised it, not me.

[gunrutz]

Remember all those extreme Hurricanes we are going to have?

http://policlimate.com/tropical/global_major_freq.png

How about all the severe Tornadoes we should be having? Even with better than ever detection...

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/ef3-ef5-t.png

Could you imagine if the sun (the sun, impossible) had an impact on our climate? Strange but..

http://media.washtimes.com/media/image/2012/09/06/radiation_s640x466.jpg?4180073ee5adc95ed997f421cfad488a40196023

Btw, some of the arctic sea ice sensing data is showing the decrease leveling out and maybe starting to increase which if true is actually early. Of course in the Antarctic there is more ice than normal, no doubt you fine people already knew that.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

Edited September 9, 2012 by gunrutz

[TimG]

Um, you also raised the issue that climate change might not be affected by human beings at all...a genuine scientific opinion, but a radical fringe one.

I suggest you re-read what I wrote. I said no such thing.

[CPCFTW]

Hardly. It is perfectly justified given Michael's nonsense suggestion that people in the west should be held financially responsible for whatever bad things happen in the future because they refused to endorse completely ineffective anti-CO2 policies today.

Of course they should! I mean they cause what is it now? 2% of the GHG emissions? If they took measures now, they may have reduced that to 1.9%!! Think of all the lives that could be saved from extreme weather if the people of the west voted to contribute 0.1% less to global GHG emissions!!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go fly around Europe and absorb the culture with all these sick days that I've banked!! I hope my tickets aren't too expensive given the rising cost of oil! Woo socialism!! Obama!! Change!!!

Edited September 9, 2012 by CPCFTW