If scientists cannot explain past global climate, why do they think they can predict the future?

Question

For the past 65 million years since the dinosaurs died off, the earth's climate has changed constantly. For the past 1.8 million years known as the Pleistocene, there has been at least 17 ice ages. Not a single scientist on the planet can explain what caused these weather patterns, yet, now all these same scientists claim to know the future. What gives?

Answer 1

They know the future because they can tell greenhouse gases are causing climate change.  They know that these fluctuations happened constantly in the past, so of course they can tell that they will happen in the future too.

Everyone knows that an increase in greenhouse gases will cause the earth to heat up - so an increase in greenhouse gases (which is what we are seeing - believe that it's done by humans burning stuff and having it pumped into the atmosphere, or that it's appearing there by magic, either way it is increasing) will change the climate in ways scientists can predict.

EDIT:  To Foreman '08 - the question isn't, "why do scientists think they can control future weather", it's "why do scientists think they can preduct the future".  Predict does not mean Control.

Answer 2

They can't, and anyone who knows 3rd grade science knows this fact.

It turns out that all of the climate models used to predict climate changes were purposely loaded with exaggerated data by the IPCC at the UN to the degree of 2000%.  We all know the UN is the most corrupt organization on earth, so it wasn't a surprise they were cooking the books - no pun intended.  :)

All these lies were done to create panic as well as lots of money for advocates of the global warming hoax and the scientists who played along.  Grant money speaks loud.

Hundreds are getting together to sue Al Gore for the thousands of lies he's made to get people to invest in his alternate energy companies.

I think we should make it a class action suit and each get paid back for all the taxes and other price increases this hoax has caused.  And he should give back the Nobel Peace Prize money immediately, but that's probably not going to happen.

Answer 3

Actually they cant predict EXACTLY whats going to happen, BUT they can predict the various possibilities......The theory that because of global warming, the earth is gona get hotter and ice caps will melt and the sea capacity increase is true, but still a theory because there is also the possibility that we could face another ice age. It has happened in the past when the earth became hot and just like that the world froze again, with no explanation. And you correct with your question!

So its just a PREDICTION, and scientist must not claim to know the future....

Answer 4

Maybe they're just predicting their future, full of cash, control and convenience.  Al Gore told them.

Answer 5

because...they can entirely recognize the whole given of factores results from the activities man do or will do,they understand the boundries of our life so they can predict what they touch now now.......

Answer 6

The believe they can predict the future because of all the Sample they been collecting from the poles and how old they really are.

Also predicting these weather change is probably proof that humans are accelerating the world worst climate change.

Answer 7

arrogence.

Humans can't control the weather.

Answer 8

You haven't been listening or reading...i hope you're not really so lazy or stupid. Those previous weather patterns are actually pretty well understood.  And you should note that today's scientists NEVER speak of things to come in absolute terms - but only a fool would ignore their warnings about the current situation with global warming.  You're not one of those fools, are you?  No? Good - glad to hear it.

Answer 9

"So its just a PREDICTION, and scientist must not claim to know the future...."

Actually, they aren't "predicting" future climate, but are projecting what the future climate might look like in various scenarios.

Answer 10

This is an interesting question.  During the Cambrian CO2 levels were between 4500ppm and 7000ppm, and global temperatures never got over 73 degrees (F) or so.

Clearly the goal of Al Gore and the IPCC is not environmental stewardship.  Some folks caught in the middle of the swindle, yes, but not the guys running the show.

Answer 11

Sure, we can explain all those past warmings and coolings, if you'd just give us access to all the data from the satellites, rawinsondes, cooperative observing networks, solar observatories, buoys, current profilers, reanalyses, etc. from those times.  Oh, they didn't exist back then?

Well maybe that's one difference from today. We have millions of times more data available about our present climate than the Earth's past climate.  If we had that data about the past climate we could explain what was going on then.  Even without them people have a pretty good idea.

Answer 12

Actually they do have explanations for past climates.  Perhaps you need to do more research.

"Scientists believe the formation of the Isthmus of Panama is one of the most important geologic events in the last 60 million years. Even though only a small sliver of land relative to the sizes of continents, the Isthmus of Panama had an enormous impact on Earth's climate and its environment. By shutting down the flow of water between the two oceans, the land bridge re-routed ocean currents in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Atlantic currents were forced northward, and eventually settled into a new current pattern that we call the Gulf Stream today. With warm Caribbean waters flowing toward the northeast Atlantic, the climate of northwestern Europe grew warmer. (Winters there would be as much as 10 °C colder in winter without the transport of heat from the Gulf Stream.) The Atlantic, no longer mingling with the Pacific, grew saltier. Each of these changes helped establish the global ocean circulation pattern in place today. In short, the Isthmus of Panama directly and indirectly influenced ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns, which regulated patterns of rainfall, which in turn sculpted landscapes.[1]

Evidence also suggests that the creation of this land mass and the subsequent, warm wet weather over northern Europe resulted in the formation of an Arctic ice cap and contributed to the current ice age."

Answer 13

For starters, they've hindcasted the climate changes of the 20th century to high accuracy:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

Scientists also know the major causes of past and current climate change, as I summarized here:

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...

In short, climate scientists know a lot more than you give them credit for.

Answer 14

You don't even need to go back that far - - we're not completely certain of what caused similar warm periods since the last Ice Age.

They can claim the MWP wasn't warmer than today all they want - it's disingenuous for them to do so without explaining a single example of things that happened then that cannot happen now because it's not warm enough - but even most of the warmers now acknowledge a global MWP during which for two centuries we had temperatures just under the 1990s temps - - and the world didn't end, the methane wasn't released from the bogs to cause runaway warming, etc..... - - and we don't understand how it came about.

There was a prolonged warm period during the rise of the Roman empire - not as warm as today but warmer than it would be for the next several hundred years until the MWP.

That's just the last 2000 years.

This HAPPENS.    It happens with us or without us.  It has happened plenty of times without us, and the world didn't end.  It could be us this time but there's no direct PROOF of that.

I believe what I can prove.

EDIT - the problem with the "various possibilities" argument is that they have named off enough such possibilities to cover every eventuality - - no matter what happens, somebody has written that that will happen and that it will result from global warming.    

Yes, CO2 traps heat - but we've increased atmospheric CO2 by 1/11,000th of the atmosphere.

It's like saying mercury is poisonous and then comparing sucking on a thermometer with eating a single tuna sandwich.