Since the IPCC's 2007 assessment, numerous studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts.
Image: Flickr/ilovegreenland
More In This Article
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic.
This conservative bias, say some scientists, could have significant political implications, as reports from the group – the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – influence policy and planning decisions worldwide, from national governments down to local town councils.
As the latest round of United Nations climate talks in Doha wrap up this week, climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.
"We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for."
Underplaying the intensity
A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990.
The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years.
Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection.
Some climate researchers also worry that recent institutional changes could accentuate the organization's conservative bias in the fifth IPCC assessment, to be released in parts starting in September 2013.
The tendency to underplay climate impacts needs to be recognized, conclude the authors of a recent paper exploring this bias. Failure to do so, they wrote in their study published last month in the journal Global Environmental Change, "could prevent the full recognition, articulation and acknowledgement of dramatic natural phenomena that may in fact be occurring."
Conservative bias
The conservative bias stems from several sources, scientists say. Part can be attributed to science's aversion to drama and dramatic conclusions: So-called outlier events – results at far ends of the spectrum – are often pruned. Such controversial findings require years of painstaking, independent verification.
Yet some events in nature are dramatic, conclude University of California, San Diego, history and science professor Naomi Oreskes and Princeton University geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer, co-authors of the study looking at the IPCC's bias. "If the drama arises primarily from social, political or economic impacts," they wrote, "then it is crucial that the associated risk be understood fully, and not discounted.”
See what we're tweeting about
43 Comments
Add CommentThe writer of this article; Glenn Scherer, seems to promote the spreading of inaccurate propaganda and untrue statements which seems typical of this publication. He writes “scientists believe” vs. accurately writing that some individual person or scientist believes without acknowledging that there are many, many other scientists who view the situation differently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet’s review some of the claims in this propaganda piece by Scherer
He wrote- “The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.”
My response- Idiots try to claim that any recent bad weather has been caused by cAGW but when you look at the actual long term data trends you find that there is not any significant change from the long term data. Notice how Scherer did not post the link to any data that supported the claimed increase in flooding, extreme storms, drought, etc. in any particular area.
He wrote: “Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection.”
My response- We have had measurements of sea level rise since late 1992 and that data has shown a consistent rate of rise of about 3mm per year. It has not increased in the entire time we have had reasonably accurate measurements. The rate of rise will have to more than double to reach the lower end of the IPCC predicted rise of approximately .6 meters by 2100. There being ZERO evidence of a change in the rate of rise from the non threatening 1 foot per century rate we are seeing.
He wrote- “In November, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., took a closer look at the computer models underpinning most climate predictions and concluded future warming is likely to be on the high side of climate projections.”
My response- This one is the spreading of untruth. The fact is that the computer models the IPCC used have overstated the rate of temperature rise and not understated it has been reported. I have attached the link to the actual analysis. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/trends-relative-to-models/
Mr. Sisko (if that is your real name):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author of this report did extensive research, interviewed many of the relevant climate scientists involved, and wrote a balanced review - hardly deserving of your label of propaganda. If at some point you want to check on the propaganda you have filled your mind with, you might check out the following report prepared by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/98458016/Climate-Change-Lines-of-Evidence). We all need to debate what to do about climate change, but as the above report will indicate if you choose to read it, the existence of climate change is not a matter to debate, it's a matter of evidence, which is very clear. To suggest otherwise is to mislead, misrepresent, and misinform, with the simple goal of creating doubt, so you and your cohorts can win the policy debate before it even begins. That is dishonest, and dangerous to our democracy. Stop it!
How about this peer-reviewed data,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisexploding/exposing the 20th Century modelling
of "Hansen, et al."?
--plus, that of very-biased Mr. Mann--
with some 21 Century discoveries?
[Including actually looking at
the NASA-GISS website Chart and
Hansen's DISMAL TRACK RECORD,
which has not manifested
anything more "CATASTROPHIC!"
than a plateau in Global Land-Ocean,
--Can't leave out 71% of the Earth's surface!--
5-year running mean
TEMPERATURE'S Changes
ever since Y2K?]
“Abstract/Summary” by Researcher
Richard P. Allan @ University of Reading,
7/4/2012
“Assessment of changes in precipitation (P) as a function of percentiles of surface temperature (T) and 500 hPa vertical velocity (ω) are presented, considering present-day simulations and observational estimates from the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) combined with the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts Interim reanalysis (ERA Interim).
There is a tendency for models to OVERESTIMATE P in the warm, subsiding regimes compared to GPCP, in some cases by MORE THAN 100%, while many models underestimate P in the moderate temperature regimes.
Considering climate change projections between 1980–1999 and 2080–2099, responses in P are characterised by dP/dT ≥ 4%/K over the coldest 10–20% of land points and over warm, ascending ocean points while P declines over the warmest, descending regimes (dP/dT ∼ − 4%/K for model ensemble means).
The reduced Walker circulation limits this contrasting dP/dT response in the tropical wet and dry regimes only marginally.
Around 70% of the global surface area exhibits a consistent sign for dP/dT in at least 6 out of a 7-member model ensemble when considering P composites in terms of dynamic regime.”
WHAT DOES ALL THAT GOBBLEDEEGOOK MEAN?
MODELS HAVE IGNORED A HUGE COOLING EFFECT.
It means a vetted paper
was published on Sept. 20, 2012,
--THIS MILLENNIUM, USING THE LATEST SATELLITE READINGS--
in the “Journal of Geophysical Research” doi:10.1029/2012JD017557
found current
Global Climate Prediction Models made/make
"VERY LARGE” ERRORS in determining
solar radiation at Earth’s surface!
WHY?
"Due to IGNORING the effects of clouds."
(Emphases are mine.)
Researchers found,
these can exceed 800 Watts/m.²!
By comparison, this is about
216 TIMES MORE THAN THE ALLEGED EFFECT
of “doubling CO2 concentrations” [3.7 W/M.²]!
The sad part is
how "Hansen, et al."
make the rest of the
Scientific Community's credibility
suffer.
That predictions have been far too conservative is no news to us who live close to the Arctic Circle. I made a bet with myself more than a year ago that the Arctic Ocean would be basically ice free by the summer of 2015. It looks now as if I may just win this bet. In the meantime, the buckling of the Arctic Front continues to worsen, resulting in ever-increasing "weird weather". I hold with the scientists who think shrinking Arctic ice is a major cause.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs early as 1969, a general public magazine, "Popular Mechanics" if I remember it well, besides a report on the california "Chemical smogs", today an already solved problem, warned about increased atmosphere CO2 concentrations due to human activities would generate a global warming, and pointed some of the consequences we are dealing with today. The reason why no actions were undertaken, besides the self-triggered OPEC oil crisis that increased crude prices, thus reinforcing the fuel saving-measures, remains a mistery.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDenis
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because you or others wish to spread propaganda does not mean everyone else has to believe you are correct in your analysis or that your fears are based upon valid science.
I do not question the basic premise that additional CO2 will warm the planet slightly if all other things in the system remain constant. Unfortunately, the system is very complex and we do not fully understand how all the variables interact and the system does not remain constant except for CO2 changes.
What that results in is that we do not know within a reasonably tight margin of error how much it will warm as a result of a doubling of CO2. There is no scientific consensus on the rate of warming tied to a doubling of CO2 within .5C. The ranges of estimates vary from estimates that would be benign to estimates that would be a significant concern.
What we also do not know is what will happen to the climate and ultimately to the weather around the world as a result of it getting warmer. Will it lead to net benefits or net harms? We do not know. The models are inconsistent with each other and have done very poorly in matching observed conditions. Neither you nor anyone else can tell me they know that any particular area will get more or less rain in the future that it gets today. If you say you know, you are being untruthful.
The link you posted is an example not of true science but of propaganda being spread. Take ocean acidification as an example. Did the link happen to mention that the PH at any location varies naturally more every month than it would change over decades due to atmospheric CO2 increases? How do you justify claiming that sea life will be harmed due to a lower PH when it lives in those conditions regularly now?
The propaganda that the world is at great risk due to additional atmospheric CO2 is not being accepted by those that actually do science.
I think the fact that science is subjected to peer review is why we tend to be conservative in predictions. We don't want to overestimate and potentially look a little silly. This maybe one of the reasons that the general public tend to dismiss climate change as a major issue. However now as we are starting to feel the impacts of climate change, and the fact that these impacts are bigger than early predictions stated, people are starting to become concerned. Economics will always over ride environmental concerns untill the environment starts to negatively impact on the economy....we are just starting to enter that phase.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh I see the loonies are out early.
I would think that as soon as our ships navigate northern passages above Canada and Russia, which our ships have never done in all human history, the doubt should be over.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResearchers found,
these can exceed 800 Watts/m.²!
By comparison, this is about
216 TIMES MORE THAN THE ALLEGED EFFECT
of “doubling CO2 concentrations” [3.7 W/M.²]!
-------------------
The paper you referred to and, specifically, the “800 Watts”, was explaining the difference in energy absorption between instances of clear skies and cloudy skies on the same day at a specific geographic point. The math that you then use is completely incongruous, as you are dividing the supposed general global effect of an increase in CO2 per unit of area into a number that does not represent the same mathematical parameters. The two are apples and oranges. Also, the paper refers to an error margin of 800 Watts per square DECIMETER, not meter (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_metre). That little minus sign is of importance.
Not only did you misquote, but you failed to use a proper calculation in your math because of it. I hope that it was a simple error on your part, but I suspect that it was a purposeful attempt to mislead those that are not versed on mathematical symbols.
In your refutation, you will attempt to disprove my summary by writing that a decimeter is a much smaller unit of area, so you are even MORE correct. The fact is, you are still attempting to match walnuts with eggplants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo not be embarrased. Your ignorance is no greater than many of the other warmist believers.
http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-amundsen.htmRoald Amundsen: Navigates Northwest Passage
His little 47 ton fishing boat, Gjøa (pronounced "y-eu-a") was finally able to leave his Arctic base at Gjøahaven (today - Gjoa Haven, Nunavut), and on August 26, 1905 he and his 6-man crew encountered a ship bearing down on them from the west. They were through the Northwest Passage!
Nice cut and paste; you should be cited for plagiarism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisplswinford is correct in writing that "our ships (have not) navigate(d) northern passages above Canada and Russia.
You may want to look at the route that Amundsen took:
From your own post:
http://www.athropolis.com/map6.htm
This is for 5. Koltrast: Years ago I took a university class about plate tectonics and a lot of what was just then being proved and kind of newly accepted in science. I seem to remember something about the currents/rivers that move within the oceans and whose movement like a conveyor belt is driven to a great degree by the significant differences in the water temps as driven by the ice at either pole....I know I'm not being elegant in describing this but bear with me...I now wonder how the ice melts will affect these ocean currents/rivers and be a force-multiplier in global climate change? Can you talk about this? Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=deep-water-ocean-currents-climate
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Sea_Route#History
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe possibility of navigation of the whole length of the passage was proved by the mid-19th century.
However, it was only in 1878 that Finnish-Swedish explorer Nordenskiöld made the first complete passage of the North East Passage from west to east, in the Vega expedition. The ship's captain on this expedition was Lieutenant Louis Palander of the Swedish Royal Navy.
One year before Nordenskiöld's voyage, commercial exploitation of a section of the route started with the so-called Kara expeditions, exporting Siberian agricultural produce via the Kara Sea. Of 122 convoys between 1877 and 1919 only 75 succeeded, transporting as little as 55 tons of cargo. From 1911 the Kolyma steamboats ran from Vladivostok to the Kolyma once a year.
Early navigators did not have the advantage of satellite mapping or photos of ice extent or weather forecasting yet some still made it through. There is evidence of substantial exploration of these waters going back hundreds of years. There is certainly no proof that these water have never been navigable before.
My prediction
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe weather will be chaotic for 2013 and then we will have an ice age. Expect temperatures to go above 150 C during the solar event.
happy long count
Given that global warming (and sea level rise) started in 1825 and since that time human population has grown by 2 orders of magnitude wouldn't you conclude that it is has had most beneficial of any environmental factor bar none?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...since that time human population has grown by 2 orders of magnitude wouldn't you conclude that it is has had most beneficial of any environmental factor bar none?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjabailo, you are applying logic and observations to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. This is strictly prohibited under the sacraments of the gaia religion. As any gaia climate priest will tell you "It's worse than we thought". Your heresy will not be forgiven. GK
The thesis of this author seems to be because scientists in this field have been just plain wrong in the past (by his own assessment) we should have more faith in them in the future. A somewhat non-intuitive take on the situation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"you are applying logic and observations to arrive at a reasonable conclusion" ... that's one way of looking at it. The other is that he must have been joking because it's such an obviously flawed argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInteresting... if the flaws are so obvious to you, maybe you should have mentioned them,so the rest of us could be as certain. So let's try a different tack.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that there has been no statistically-significant global warming for 16 years is described as a “myth”. Yet the least-squares linear-regression trend on the Hadley Center/CRU data-set favored by the IPCC indeed shows no statistically-significant warming for 16 years. The minuscule warming over the period is within the margin of uncertainty in the measurements and is, therefore, statistically indistinguishable from zero.
In its “State of the Climate in 2008″ report, the NOAA said about climate computer models “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more. Since then, the goal posts have been moved back to 17 years by Ben Santer but 17 years is now rapidly running out without the warming eagerly anticipated by the warmist crowd.
So the very least, we can conclude, is it is NOT worse than we thought. GK
GK:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is plausible, as jabailo somehow made the ludicrous assertion (I hope it was a joke) that climate change and sea level rise started in a specific year, and that the increase in human population is directly correlated to these phenomena?
Wow. . . . Thought the three may be linked, but in a somewhat opposite manner.
Nice change of subject, though, when writing about Leroy's post. I bet you couldn't wait to spout denialist BS. (BTW: your BS is lacking in flavor and freshness; It may be expired.)
Moss,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyes, the BS from Karst is lacking in flavor and freshness, but it sure provides for a good laugh. You can tell he is not a scientist (and definitely not a statistician). An educated person does not say "least-squares linear-regression trend." They just say trend.
yes, Wow... I'm still laughing. Not to mention his data dredging.
Thx, bro. Karst must be paid by an oil lobby. If he is not, then he is an embarrassment to himself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt the very best one can say there is not an absolute understanding of a very complex system. These predictions are not exactly right so let's ignore them and pretend it's not happening. If the deniers are right they will get to say I told you so later on. If the deniers are wrong well while that probably means the collapse of society at least they will escape the blame. Hope we are not beyond the tipping point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo when the NOAA's declaration of 15 yrs, was exceeded, another goalpost was required. High priest Santer stepped up to the plate, eager to supply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature. ”
Here is Santer's paper:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml
Your desperation to keep myths afloat are shown for what they are. When 17 yrs of no detectable GW is passed (in a few months) does anyone doubt a new improved paper will evolve, stating categorically that 20yrs, than 30 yrs will be required.
Folks, this is the problem debating climate with true BELIEVERS. Lack of data merely causes them to continuously move the goal posts. Of course, that is what happens, when the gaia religion and fervor replaces careful observations. GK
BTW:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNearly one third of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions occured since 1998, and it resulted in flat temperatures... some even calculate a slight cooling depending on data-set used.
Here are the CO2 numbers:
CO2 emissions by years, million metric tonnes – data CDIAC
1998 6644
1999 6611
2000 6766
2001 6929
2002 6998
2003 7421
2004 7812
2005 8106
2006 8372
2007 8572
2008 8769
2009 8738
The resultant hadcrut temp curve:
http://3000quads.com/2012/12/04/it-is-when-you-combine-the-analysis-of-different-data-sources/hadcrut-3-global-mean-1998-to-2012/
None of this disproves AGW definitively, but better illustrates the unsettled science and highlights the lack of clear correlation. Covering your ears and eyes accomplishes nothing. GK
Again, Karst is cracking me up. He seems not to understand implications of the 2011 Santer's paper (I guess that's what happens when you live in a bubble at WUWT). And his argument is not consistent with most denialist beliefs including his own -- you can't have things both ways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's Santer's most recent paper on signal-to-noise ratios:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf
Глобальное изменение окружающей среды происходит из-за изменения альбедо Земли а антропогенный фактор и увеличение количества CO2 и метана в атмосфере Земли это ускорители этого процесса.Дальнейшее изменение формы Земли (изменение климата показатель этого изменения)нарушит равновесие в системе Земля-Луна.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was 48 years ago today, 1964, when "Popular Mechanics" published an article entitled "The air we breath" that included photochemical smogs, transport of air contamination to places far away by weather systems, and the impending global warming induced by the increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, CO2 released by human activities. How many times must the men do wrong, before you chase them from politics?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I suggest that alan6302 try getting some therapy at Rutgers University's excellent graduate psychology program, and that he avoid neurologists when seeking treatment for his obvious psychiatric disorders, because neurologists almost always have no clue what they're talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGive us your 'solutions'. I quiver in anticipation of enlightenment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEasy. Institute a one-child policy all over the world until our population is below 10 million, ban coal and oil use, use solar power and other renewable energy for everything, and start sequestering carbon, no matter what the cost. Also, ban the use of HCFCs in air conditioners.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf that's too fast or not politically palatable enough for your conservative tastes, I suggest starting with the last solution and going from there. Now, I will not respond to your childish insults, as I have better things to do.
Well I did not quiver. I shuddered. Of course you or your offspring would be amongst the 10 million? Perhaps you are a nonbreeder.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI totally agree with sisko that science is a liberal conspiracy created to brain wash children into becoming godless evolution believing environmentalist. the liberal media should be ashamed of themselves for spreading all of their science propaganda and promoting conservation of the environment and our natural resources. I say, drill baby drill. Let's burn our limited amount of fossil fuels as fast as humanly possible. Who cares if the planet is uninhabitable in 100 years. We'll all be dead anyways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy thanks to Sisko for his rebuttal of this article. I'm more inclined to agree with Prof.Bob Carter,James Cook University, Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI, http://bit.ly/11t5KDh, http://bit.ly/11IKUyF, http://bit.ly/RxiWF8 .also, Mr. Bert Rutan,gives a flight engineer's view of Global Warming,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://bit.ly/Vs4j3s
Finally, Roy W. Spencer, climatologist whose new book, The Great Global Warming Blunder,
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594036020 describes how the IPCC top scientists ignored evidence of the effect of clouds
Spencer is on the Board of Directors for the Marshall Institute and an advisor for the Cornwall Institute. He also believes in "Intelligent Design".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarter is a paid promoter of the Hartland Institute, and his biggest argument against AGW is that global temperatures have only risen slightly over the last 13 years.
If you are not familiar with the institutes that these two work for, shame on you for bringing it up; your ignorance, on more than one level, has been revealed. If you are familiar, then troll elsewhere.
It's not hard to see how this happened. They were focusing on changes they thought were brought about by human activity and failed to take into account natural processes like increases in solar activity, which is the primary driver of climate change (volcanos and meteor strikes aside). If they hadn't been influenced by the AGW cult and had been paying more attention to past rapid climate changes they would have been far more realistic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is, of course, that scientists have a bias for things that they think they can "predict" and not things that are essentially unpredictable, either because they simply are or because not nearly enough is known or the technology simply isn't available. Once this filter of egocentricity is factored out it will become more like science should be and not the driver of AGW fanatics.
How do you explain, in your infinite wisdom, an increase in temp over the last 30 years coinciding with a decrease in solar output over the same time period?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLaird, you follow in the ranks of Prid, Carlyle, Sisco, and the GK. Let them welcome you to the denialist club.
9. plswinford
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this04:38 PM 12/6/12 writes....
....I would think that as soon as our ships navigate northern passages above Canada and Russia, which our ships have never done in all human history, the doubt should be over........
On what basis do you claim that never in all human history have boats been able to navigate freely in the northern passages?
I agree that it has never happened in your lifetime but that is definitely not all of human history. It is quite likely it was never navigated by people using European rooted languages but again that is not all of human history.
We do know that the Vikings navigated rather freely around Greenland because they set up colonies there. They called it Greenland because much of it was green.
We know that the Chinese have records showing Admiral Zheng He navigated the Arctic on one of his legendary voyages. We accept the validity of Zheng He's other voyages but the western world dismisses his arctic voyage since the last few hundred years show the north to be ice blocked.
Just because there are no records of something in English language history that doesn't mean it could never have happened.
I just came upon this article and posting thread. I expected to see some cogent, interesting and contemplative commentary. Instead, I find a childish, shallow, and utterly ignorant exchange. It deeply saddens me that this type of discussion ensues from Scientific American followers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a simple decision to be made: Should the world invest some relatively trivial amount of money to further investigate the probabilities of negative events, or should we simply ignore all of the scientists and continue to search for and use more fossil fuels?
It seems to me that it would be prudent to invest a little more money to better understand the situation. A more aggressive investigation will provide more clarity. The wasted expense of 10-20 million Pounds will be unfortunate if we discover we are seeing only normal cyclical events. It will be money well spent if it provides us some lead time to better prepare for our future.
It is not millions, it is billions & many of the actions being advocated & implemented will do nothing but exacerbate the situation. If you were advocating nuclear power to reduce fossil fuel consumption your argument would have some integrity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this10/31/2012 @ 4:00PM |13,694 views
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs Hurricane Sandy prepared to strike the Northeast, climate scientists from alarmist and skeptical camps alike reported the storm had little if anything to do with global warming.
Martin Hoerling, who chairs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) climate variability research program, and who oversees NOAA’s Climate Scene Investigators, observed, “neither the frequency of tropical or extratropical cyclones over the North Atlantic are projected to appreciably change due to climate change, nor have there been indications of a change in their statistical behavior over this region in recent decades.”
Global warming models project no appreciable change in North Atlantic storm behavior, yet global warming alarmists now say global warming caused Hurricane Sandy.
Hoerling further explained, “In this case, the immediate cause is most likely little more that the coincidental alignment of a tropical storm with an extratropical storm. Both frequent the west Atlantic in October…nothing unusual with that. On rare occasions their timing is such as to result in an interaction which can lead to an extreme event along the eastern seaboard.”
So global warming models say global warming has little or no impact on North Atlantic storms and meteorologists report a convergence of natural factors that made Sandy especially powerful. To objective scientists not trying to sell global warming snake oil, this is yet another example of the very strong storms that always have – and always will – occur on our planet.
Scientists, moreover, report a striking decline in hurricane activity during recent years. National Hurricane Center data show a dramatic decline in major hurricanes striking the United States during the past half century. As the earth gradually recovers from the Little Ice Age (which lasted from approximately 1300 to 1900 A.D.), the frequency of major hurricane strikes is declining rather than increasing.
Sure, there will still be hurricanes and strong storms as the planet warms. But when the frequency of hurricanes and strong storms declines in a warming world, it defies common sense to claim that global warming is causing the increasingly rare hurricanes and strong storms that do still occur.
Far too many prominent global warming alarmists are ignoring these facts in their rush to exploit the victims of Hurricane Sandy.
You wonder why the public is skeptical.
It is my belief that although the IPCC's statements are on the conservative side, that is not the only reason that the vast majority of the general public is distinctly unaware of global warming. As the article mentioned, policy-makers are also responsible for heightening awareness of the issue. The concerns that the sense of urgency is being somehow diffused are undeniably accurate, regardless of who is 'at fault' for this lack of knowledge. Our current apprehension to admit either the severity of global warming, or its existence in the first place, is a psychological phenomenon. Denial, a main defense mechanism detailed by Freud in the psychoanalytic perspective on personality, is a fairly plausible reason for the fact that we have trouble admitting global warming's severity even though we are faced with hard facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this