Does it matter whether past predictions of what global warming would bring have been off-base?

Question

Boston is not moving toward having the climate of Atlanta or Richmond. It has not dried here - quite the opposite. Winter snowfall has been substantial the last few years, and winter cold snaps have been severe.

One could argue that that's different - that perhaps that IS CO2-driven, that "it's really climate change, the earth isn't just going to get warmer, many areas will get rainier or drier, windier or less windy, even colder."

And there's some intuitive logic to that.

But, what about the fact that most of the people saying this now were saying "the planet has a fever" and "the ski industry is dead" just 8-10 years ago?

Is that relevant?

It's pouring now, in late July - it's rained all Spring and Summer. That's not normal. It actually does concern me. But part of the reason I question the attribution to CO2 is that this isn't what the AGW proponents said would happen - they said "Boston would have the climate of Atlanta."

Can you blame me?

Answer 1

first, thanks.  reasoned question.

no, it doesn't matter that past predictions are incorrect.

clearly there is a problem.

there are those who claim that since science has been wrong in the past, it must always be wrong.

by that logic, your, and my computer cannot work.  the science is just wrong.

this is an extremely important argument, because of both money, and the future.

it can well be argued that if it's raining more, that's an indication of global warming.  hotter air and ocean means more evaporation, means more water in the air, means more rain.  additionally, a change in heat distribution could well mean a change in wind patterns, so that where that rain falls changes.

speaking of more rain, Antarctica is, technically a desert.  it gets less than 10" of rain a year.  the air is just too cold to hold a lot of water.  however, just like what happens in Vegas, what falls in Antarctica, stays in Antarctica.  it's just too cold for it to go anywhere.

in any argument, that's important to people, there will be people on both sides that make wild claims.  partly out of frustration.  partly out of misunderstanding.  partly just to get attention.  most of the rest of us will fall somewhere in the middle, often leaning in one direction or the other, but still not rabidly on either side.

my take is, as I'm sure you know, that AGW is a serious problem.  sure mistakes get made.  sure, knowledge increases as time goes on.  however, if you look at the honest science, and where it comes from.  if you look at what sources each side depends on for support, clearly the proponents of AGW have the high ground.

Answer 2

If you believe in global warming, long term cooling is proof of climate change.

If you don't beileve in global warming, long term cooling doesn't matter, it's not climate it's weather.

That's how they think, at least that's what they say here.

Answer 3

Climate.

Weather.

Short-term.

Long-term.

Look these terms up.  That will answer your question.

Answer 4

(Thanks for the reasoned question no thanks for the unreasoned response)(venting)

Incorrect predictions don't tarnish science.  They tarnish alarmists.  Science is about the truth.  Alarmist can cherry pick scientific facts and promote whatever castastrophe is in vogue for that day.  The fact that they were wrong before, as leftist alarmism generally is shown to be, then its history of incorrect predictions does have importance.  It demonstrates that their predictions are not very reliable IMO.

Answer 5

Global warming is indeed real and has been documented with ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years.

What is NOT real is the quackery that humans caused (or can even affect) global warming.

The scare tactics being perpetrated upon us are only a money/power grab scheme by bottom-feeder politicians accompanied by their so-easily-led sheeple who take their prattle, even their movies, as hard science

.

To find that my statement above is true, follow the money. See just who it is who will profit from the carbon offset, carbon tax, & etc.

Here is truth about global warming:

Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.

The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.

This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.

Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is

becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).

As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).

When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.

It's been happening for millions of years.

The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY.

As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to 'predict' chaotic systems such as weather.

Global warming/cooling, AKA 'climate change':

Humans did not cause it.

Humans cannot stop it.

Answer 6

I think you are talking about global warming being falsifiable.  To answer your question, YES, it is important IF AGW wants to keep masquerading as a serious scientific discipline.

Answer 7

Problem is the past predictions are pretty much on base with what was predicted in the 1990 IPCC reports.  The old reports are not on-line because they pre-date the internet (called gopher then and a dos-based text network).

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessmen...

The poles are warming first (both poles).  There is open water there that has never been there before.  Sea level is rising at an increasing rate.  Mean Global temperature has risen by 0.7 degrees C (not much looking at the average, but by definition the average eliminates the variation which can be extreme).  The northern latitudes are greening earlier that they have historically (time-series satellite imagery used to monitor this).   This is caused by anthropogentic global warming.

Can't really say these WEATHER events are caused by AGW, but such events are very consistent with changing climate.  I am trying to paint a broad picture because people often confuse weather and climate (weather is at a specific time and location - like Boston, Richmond or Atlanta while, climate is over a long period  - 30 year averages of weather measure and a broader area - NE, Mid-Atlantic, SE ).

1 - record heat waves in the US and Europe over the past few years

2 - floods in the US midwest and east and sever droughts not that far away in some places (SE US , West and Southwest)

3 - record warm winter temperatures in most of the world

Some of this will happen even if there was no AGW induced climate change (no doubt), and it is not proof that AGW is occurring but it is consistent with AGW.  I realize the American SW and Southern plains are very dry anyway that is why they have very few trees (relatively speaking).  So I concede that is a stretch.

Don't forget the ocean currents - La Nina and El Nino - again it cannot be directly attributed to global warming, but is consistent.  The time period between events may be out of wack - but it will take more time to determine if this is the case.  However, this may have a lot of influence on the drought and flood cycles and where they occur and changing of shifting ocean currents is a possibility with AGW (changing the amount of energy retained in the atmosphere is going to cause major changes in the main energy distribution system - the weather and the current- to maintain balance).

The wildfires in the west and Canada and insect infestations in Canada are very consistent.  Bark beetle infestations in Canada are typically suppressed by cold, but not in the past few years - hasn't been cold enough.

Here are some easy to reads report form a very reputable source (National Academy of Sciences)  so you have some basic concepts straight.

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/climate-change/...