Posted by
Andrews on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:15:37 PM
Best of the Web had some fun today pointing out how rapidly "climate change" changes, and how little the public recalls the last scare in face of the current one:
Climate Change Keeps Changing!
- "Georgia Drought of 'Historical
Proportions': Climate Change Hits the Backyard; Global Warming
'Worst-Case Scenario' Drought Unfolding in Dixie?"--headline and
subheadline, TheDailyGreen.com, Sept. 29, 2007
- "Georgia's 'Historic' Rain Kills 7 as Emergency Issued"--headline, Bloomberg, Sept. 22, 2009
- "North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer"--headline, National Geographic Web site, June 20, 2008
- "Arctic Ice to Last Decades Longer Than Thought?"--headline, National Geographic Web site, Sept. 21, 2009
But there is something even more interesting if you read
the final article:
This year's cooler-than-expected summer means the
Arctic probably won't experience ice-free summers until 2030 or 2040,
scientists say.
Some models had previously predicted that the Arctic could be
ice free in summer by as soon as 2013, due to rising temperatures from global warming.
Of course they followed this with the usual dire prediction:
Meier cautions the new findings do not mean the Arctic is in recovery, or that global warming is slowing down.
"I look at it as a one-year reprieve," he said. "I don't expect that to continue."
For one thing, this year's ice is thinner than in the past, and thus more vulnerable to future melt.
"If we get another really warm summer," Meier said, "we'll probably be back to where we were in 2007."
But that points out the big problem with this sort of article.
Let us spell this out. Model predict that, even with the current cold spell, the arctic will still be ice free in my lifetime. However, the models predicting that are the
SAME MODELS that failed to predict the cooling this year. So, the models which did not predict this cooling are predicting warming, and we should trust them.
Why?
Well, say the expects, the models just need to be recalibrated. As happens almost daily with global warming models, they need to enter the new data and then adjust the formulae so they produce the right results. They are just in need of recalibration. Which is an interesting term. "In need of recalibration." I wish I had thought of that phrase back in high school and college. I didn't fail the test, my answers were just in need of recalibration.
You see, as my title suggests, there is another word for "in need of recalibration" and that is "
WRONG".
So, in short, the article is saying, yes the models were wrong, but those same wrong models say things will still get worse, and we better believe them. Strangely many politicians and even otherwise normal people think we should base national policy on arguments such as this.
POSTSCRIPT
This does make me rather glad that we didn't enact any hasty laws to save the poor polar bears, as it seems they will have more ice than they know what to do with. So, had we enacted all those polar bear protection measures we probably would have had a surplus of bears and would have had to protect the poor caribou form them next year. Somehow I doubt anyone will mention the polar bear panic now that the great melting ice caps have not come to pass. As Best of the Web suggests, we have a remarkable ability to forget the many mistakes of our profeessional eco-Cassandras, even as they continue to make absurdly hyperbolic predictions of doom.