How did scientists get climate change so wrong?

For decades, most scientists saw climate change as a distant prospect. We now know that thinking was wrong. This summer, for instance, a heat wave in Europe penetrated the Arctic, pushing temperatures into the 80s across much of the Far North and, according to the Belgian climate scientist Xavier Fettweis, melting some 40 billion tons of Greenland’s ice sheet.

Had a scientist in the early 1990s suggested that within 25 years a single heat wave would measurably raise sea levels, at an estimated two one-hundredths of an inch, bake the Arctic and produce Sahara-like temperatures in Paris and Berlin, the prediction would have been dismissed as alarmist. But many worst-case scenarios from that time are now realities.

Science is a process of discovery. It can move slowly as the pieces of a puzzle fall together and scientists refine their investigative tools. But in the case of climate, this deliberation has been accompanied by inertia born of bureaucratic caution and politics. A recent essay in Scientific American argued that scientists “tend to underestimate the severity of threats and the rapidity with which they might unfold” and said one of the reasons was “the perceived need for consensus.” This has had severe consequences, diluting what should have been a sense of urgency and vastly understating the looming costs of adaptation and dislocation as the planet continues to warm.

In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group of thousands of scientists representing 195 countries, said in its first report that climate change would arrive at a stately pace, that the methane-laden Arctic permafrost was not in danger of thawing, and that the Antarctic ice sheets were stable.

Sign Up for Debatable
Agree to disagree, or disagree better? We'll help you understand the sharpest arguments on the most pressing issues of the week, from new and familiar voices.

SIGN UP
Relying on the climate change panel’s assessment, economists estimated that the economic hit would be small, providing further ammunition against an aggressive approach to reducing emissions and to building resilience to climate change.

As we now know, all of those predictions turned out to be completely wrong. Which makes you wonder whether the projected risks of further warming, dire as they are, might still be understated. How bad will things get?

So far, the costs of underestimation have been enormous. New York City’s subway system did not flood in its first 108 years, but Hurricane Sandy’s 2012 storm surge caused nearly $5 billion in water damage, much of which is still not repaired. In 2017, Hurricane Harvey gave Houston and the surrounding region a $125 billion lesson about the costs of misjudging the potential for floods.

Tommy Monk wrote:


https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

nicko wrote:The above post is why so many posters are leaving
If you can't have an opinion without some foul mouthed yob insulting you, what's the point of posting ?

nicko wrote:The above post is why so many posters are leaving
If you can't have an opinion without some foul mouthed yob insulting you, what's the point of posting ?

Ben Reilly wrote:It turns out, none of the predictions were "alarmist" enough:

For decades, most scientists saw climate change as a distant prospect. We now know that thinking was wrong. This summer, for instance, a heat wave in Europe penetrated the Arctic, pushing temperatures into the 80s across much of the Far North and, according to the Belgian climate scientist Xavier Fettweis, melting some 40 billion tons of Greenland’s ice sheet.

Had a scientist in the early 1990s suggested that within 25 years a single heat wave would measurably raise sea levels, at an estimated two one-hundredths of an inch, bake the Arctic and produce Sahara-like temperatures in Paris and Berlin, the prediction would have been dismissed as alarmist. But many worst-case scenarios from that time are now realities.

Science is a process of discovery. It can move slowly as the pieces of a puzzle fall together and scientists refine their investigative tools. But in the case of climate, this deliberation has been accompanied by inertia born of bureaucratic caution and politics. A recent essay in Scientific American argued that scientists “tend to underestimate the severity of threats and the rapidity with which they might unfold” and said one of the reasons was “the perceived need for consensus.” This has had severe consequences, diluting what should have been a sense of urgency and vastly understating the looming costs of adaptation and dislocation as the planet continues to warm.

In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group of thousands of scientists representing 195 countries, said in its first report that climate change would arrive at a stately pace, that the methane-laden Arctic permafrost was not in danger of thawing, and that the Antarctic ice sheets were stable.

Sign Up for Debatable
Agree to disagree, or disagree better? We'll help you understand the sharpest arguments on the most pressing issues of the week, from new and familiar voices.

SIGN UP
Relying on the climate change panel’s assessment, economists estimated that the economic hit would be small, providing further ammunition against an aggressive approach to reducing emissions and to building resilience to climate change.

As we now know, all of those predictions turned out to be completely wrong. Which makes you wonder whether the projected risks of further warming, dire as they are, might still be understated. How bad will things get?

So far, the costs of underestimation have been enormous. New York City’s subway system did not flood in its first 108 years, but Hurricane Sandy’s 2012 storm surge caused nearly $5 billion in water damage, much of which is still not repaired. In 2017, Hurricane Harvey gave Houston and the surrounding region a $125 billion lesson about the costs of misjudging the potential for floods.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/opinion/sunday/science-climate-change.html

nicko wrote:The above post is why so many posters are leaving
If you can't have an opinion without some foul mouthed yob insulting you, what's the point of posting ?

Maddog wrote:

nicko wrote:The above post is why so many posters are leaving
If you can't have an opinion without some foul mouthed yob insulting you, what's the point of posting ?

The forum isn't bad when he's blocked.

'Wolfie wrote:

nicko wrote:The above post is why so many posters are leaving
If you can't have an opinion without some foul mouthed yob insulting you, what's the point of posting ?

Tommy  didn't "have an opinion.." there though,  nicko...

All he did was post a link to a propaganda/lobbying blogsite  --  not even a news source or someone elses 'opinions', but merely a lying propaganda puff piece --  with zero comment on his part..


As for any 'lefties' the likes of me, Andy, Quill, veya or Eilzel chasing your bullying fascist mates away (as you have falsely claimed several times in recent weeks..) -- just name one, you jumped up little turd --   and yet I can name plenty of people you have been insulting on here over the years.  Including a veteran (sassy's father), an ex-'serviceman' (Korben Dallas), and an Army Reservist in just three incidences I've seen --  where you showed us just what a horrible and nasty little hypocrite you are at heart..  

Plus I actually know of people naming you, Victor and co. as the reasons they don't post here much any more -- more than you have been able to substantiate your rancid lies with...

Andy wrote:But Rambo is permitted by biased mod to call me  a geranium and a wanker.
He wondered why so many have deserted here.
All us horrid left wing Marxist commie reds under the beds scared off the likes of Allakaka, Stormee Major, Smelly Bandit, the mean girl squad.
Fuck me, we did this place a massive favour.
He was right though, it is dying more every day, the Brexit and left / right differences will kill it further.
Great own goal Vic.

Andy wrote:

nicko wrote:The above post is why so many posters are leaving
If you can't have an opinion without some foul mouthed yob insulting you, what's the point of posting ?

Because Monkey wasn't voicing an opinion, but spreading lies and propaganda from a site with a vested interest in discounting climate change.

Tommy Monk wrote:
Read the predictions on the link...


And didn't Al Gore predict that there wouldn't be any ice at the arctic by now...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:

Maybe andy can show where any of the predictions weren't actually made when claimed on the article...!?