Where was the *SUPER EL NINO*, or can anyone predict the future Dr. Hansen?

Question

In April 2006, Dr. James Hansen, a leader in global warming predicted that there would be a good chance for a 'super el nino' for 2006 - 2007 winter. His predictions that the climate would "wreak weather havoc worldwide, from deep drought in Australia to flooding in California"

Well, this didn't happen. Australia and California survived.

And again a climatologist misses a prediction, and no one remembers. But the next time they predict dire consequences, the people will be whipped up in a frenzy, as planed.

Instead of being scared of the unknown, we should just look back on those who are making the prediction and see just how many times they were right. We'll discover that they are as right as anyone else, and we all have an equal chance of predicting the future.

And that's all "global warming" is. One person trying to convince you that they can predict the future better than someone else.

Answer 1

Yes, I agree.

As I’ve said many, many times, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

If a drugs company comes up with a new drug and claims that it will do “this”, “this” and “this”, they get told “prove it”. The new drug then undergoes many years of comprehensive testing, included blind and double-blind trials. Only if the results show a conclusive benefit does the drug get accepted.

This is what we need in the climate change debate.

We are regularly told by the global warming alarmists that they know exactly, or at least well enough, how the climate works, so let them prove it. Let them tell us what the climate will be doing in 10 or 20 years and then we’ll wait and see what happens. When the climate behaves exactly as they predicted, then we can have a lot more confidence in the science.

Sadly, I suspect that their prediction will be way off the mark, as they have been in the past. Hansen 1988, anyone? And how many forecasts predicted that the warming would stop in 2002, as satellite data suggests?

Anders…

“I don’t think they are stating that today's climate is perfect” – Well then why prevent the climate warming then? One assumes it’s because they think we’ll be worse off – as they also thought in the 70’s during the bogus cooling scare. So if warmer will be bad and colder will be bad, then what we have now is best. Yes? So this *is* what they are, in effect, stating.

“Many species will die” – Possibly, but warmer is generally better for life than colder. Where is there more life? The Amazon, or Antarctica? Cooling kills far more species than warming does.

“crops will fail” – Some may, but generally crops will flourish in a warmer, CO2 enriched world. Warmer climate means longer growing seasons, so more food, and CO2 is plant food, so crops will grow faster. All in all, more food.

“there will be severe droughts” – Studies have shown that the occurrence of severe drought has *reduced* in a warming world. A warmer world, may well be a wetter world, which means….

“flooding” – May be a significant possibility, but a lot of that is down to land use. Here in the UK, for example, the government has built millions of houses on flood plains and is planning millions more, despite the recent floods we’ve had here.

“which leads to famine” – Unlikely, given the above.

“In the same way it can be said what the trends will lead to over longer periods.” – Playing cards is not really a good analogy. It’s a simple random system, not a hugely complex, chaotic system that we don’t fully understand. A better analogy would be to ask how well you could predict the overall trend in card playing if I was allowed to introduce my own “doctored” pack whenever I liked.

Gwenilynd…

“If you really want to make a valid argument against Global Warming you need to fight science with science.” – I disagree. The default position in science, and indeed in life in general, is scepticism. It is not for the sceptics to prove the alarmists wrong; rather, the onus is on the alarmists to convince the sceptics. A prediction that did not happen is not going to convince anyone. If the alarmists are right, then they *should* be able to predict correctly. How should we react to the fact that they cannot? Personally, it forces me to remain sceptical.

As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.

Answer 2

Climate change is a fact, I dont think anyone can deny that. BUT the Earth's climate has been changing since day 1, so why should it stop now? These environmentalist that make the assumption that the climate today is the PERFECT climate for this world are just foolish and need a cause to latch on to. Yes I wish we did things cleaner and we made more of an effort to protect the environment but the Al Gore's are just out of control.

Anyone who actualy speaks out are nothing but corporate stoogies or paid off by big oil. I just don't get it.

They can't predict tomorrow's weather with accuracy, how are they going to predict 50 years from now?

Answer 3

The problem with Hansen is that he has made his political stripes painfully clear, and continues to fight the AGW fight despite Mother Nature proving his predictions wrong time and again. Science is not on his side, and he is no longer just irrelevant – he is becoming a buffoon. So how did he get it so wrong? Simple: he is such a proponent of global warming that he can’t tell the difference between science and science fiction.

Answer 4

You cannot use a prediction that did not happen as proof that global warming is not real. If you really want to make a valid argument against Global Warming you need to fight science with science. Basically you cannot take one specific event and then apply the results to a much broader topic. That's like saying "In my neighborhood there are no red flowers, therefore there are no red flowers anywhere."

Hey Amancalledchuck- You missed my point completely. It's not my job to convince anyone of anything. I'm not the one who posted a question proclaiming proof positive that global warming is not real.
Besides, making the ignorant understand is about as effective as teaching a fish to fly.

Answer 5

missed predictions are a part of the package any time someone ventures an idea. political analysts are frequently surprised by election results. auto mechanics sometimes need several 'predictions' before they find the problem. and the best trained doctors?

i find dr hansen's geography off just a bit, but overall the extreme weather patterns he predicted seem eerily accurate. even diehard skeptics like yourself likely carry an umbrella.

the future is unknown to all of us. but by studying trends and instances of what's happening around us today, educated opinions as to what might happen tomorrow serve as warnings to us all.
and it's good to have a warning.

Answer 6

Facts
*The summer 06/07 in Australia was the Hottest ever recorded
*Aug 06 to Jul 07 was the lowest recorded rainfall for many parts of Australia esp those affected by 'el nino'
*In Adelaide 10 days in February were over 36 deg celcius making it the hottest February ever. Three Days were 43+!
*Rain did not fall on some arable lands for over 8 months.

view this fact!
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/drought.shtml

So in my opinion the situation is dire, it may be raining in Australia now but its only back to normal levels, some dams might be filling but others are not. Australia survived of course, but predictions seem to be correct......

I don't know much about the situation in California but if Arnie is running around signing environmental pacts with bordering states, B.C and Ontario then they too must be concerned about their position.

Answer 7

Yea, Australia is certainly not experiencing a drought.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,1941942,00.html

Valid points, =^_^=

Matt c:
I don't think they are stating that today's climate is perfect. What I do know is that the transition to a new climate will be tough. Many species will die, crops will fail, there will be severe droughts and flooding which leads to famine. That's why it is so important to act now, so we can mitigate these effects.

Regarding when you say that scientists can't predict future climate since they can't give short-term weather forecasts:
There is a difference between predicting specific weather events compared to the probabilities that such events will occur. Compare with playing cards in Las Vegas. The house won't be able to predict which hand you will get or who will win in a certain hand. However, the probabilities is on their side and they ensure that they( the House) will win in the long-term. In the same way it can be said what the trends will lead to over longer periods.


amancalledchud,
"“I don’t think they are stating that today's climate is perfect” – Well then why prevent the climate warming then? One assumes it’s because they think we’ll be worse off – as they also thought in the 70’s during the bogus cooling scare. So if warmer will be bad and colder will be bad, then what we have now is best. Yes? So this *is* what they are, in effect, stating."
As I clearly stated, just below the line you cited, it is the transition that will be bad for humans and other species, not necessarily the end result.

"“Many species will die” – Possibly, but warmer is generally better for life than colder. Where is there more life? The Amazon, or Antarctica? Cooling kills far more species than warming does."
Where is there more species - the Amazon, or the Sahara? For your information, the small number of species in the Arctic is mainly due to the small amounts of fresh water available. There is fresh water, it is just frozen. So it is like a cold desert. There is a band where life flourishes the most. This has hugely to do with what they have evolved in and it can't change quickly enough (in many cases) to adapt to the changing climate. If you knew anything regarding the food web you'd know that if even on species die (or subside) it may offset the entire eco-system.

"“crops will fail” – Some may, but generally crops will flourish in a warmer, CO2 enriched world. Warmer climate means longer growing seasons, so more food, and CO2 is plant food, so crops will grow faster. All in all, more food."
Actually, a warmer climate puts more heat stress on plants then before. Dry and hot climate reduces the amount of CO2 that plants absorb and is therefore negative on them. Humidity is generally a positive thing when it comes to growth in plants, and will, together with increased CO2 levels, yield an increase in growth (domesticated species). The lowered soil moisture, and increased temperature balances out the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-06/2006-06-30-voa64.cfm?CFID=179710663&CFTOKEN=72084835

"“there will be severe droughts” – Studies have shown that the occurrence of severe drought has *reduced* in a warming world. A warmer world, may well be a wetter world, which means…."
The occurrence of severe droughts will not increase in a warmer world. As moisture evaporation from soils increase so will the need for water. So, there will be greater precipitation due to a higher humidity. There will also be greater evaporation due to increased temperatures. Together, the effect will vary. Some areas will experience a greatly increased downfall which may lead to flooding, while others will experience droughts.
http://www.physorg.com/news2671.html
Here is an excerpt from an interview between Washington post and Stephen Schneider, editor of the journal Climatic Change and a lead author for the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
""As the air gets warmer, there will be more water in the atmosphere. That's settled science," he said. But where, and when, it comes down is the big uncertainty.

"You are going to intensify the hydrologic cycle. Where the atmosphere is configured to have high pressure and droughts, global warming will mean long, dry periods. Where the atmosphere is configured to be wet, you will get more rain, more gully washers.

"Global warming will intensify drought," he says. "And it will intensify floods."

According to the IPCC, that means a drying out of areas such as southern Europe, the Mideast, North Africa, South Australia, Patagonia and the U.S. Southwest."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/19/AR2007081900967.html

"“flooding” – May be a significant possibility, but a lot of that is down to land use. Here in the UK, for example, the government has built millions of houses on flood plains and is planning millions more, despite the recent floods we’ve had here."
We agree here then. More flooding will occur as a result of global warming. Added heating where it is dry increases the drought. Added heating with much moisture increases evaporation which turns in to rain.

"“which leads to famine” – Unlikely, given the above."
See above.

"“In the same way it can be said what the trends will lead to over longer periods.” – Playing cards is not really a good analogy. It’s a simple random system, not a hugely complex, chaotic system that we don’t fully understand. A better analogy would be to ask how well you could predict the overall trend in card playing if I was allowed to introduce my own “doctored” pack whenever I liked."

Playing cards is a very good analogy. A 'doctored' deck, which is analogies witch anthropogenic effects on the climate, clearly shows that there will be a different outcome when introducing such an element in to the equation. Thus, humans have an effect on global warming.

Answer 8

i'm suprised not one of the "warm-mongers" used excuse #4. this question is a softball for them...

"it was just one scientst, not a consenus, so it doesn't count".

the same excuse they use to trivialize global cooling.

(which was a lie, it was mainstream science in the 60's and 70's)

Answer 9

Of course no one can predict the future and I'm sure Dr. Hansen is aware of that. Speculations are only speculations. I get tired of hearing "alarmists" freak out about these types of reports, then when it doesn't happen the "deniers" move in with the I-told-you-so's.

Answer 10

Thank You Mr. Jello, I couldn't have said it better.