Why is it that climate scientists have "backed off" catastrophic climate disaster predictions?

To get their funding, bigger and more frightening bogeymen are requred.The scientists have obediently provided them in the past. Now people are becoming less frightened as the predicted disasters fail to happen and the earth fails to warm.They are trying to disengage from their rediculous predictions to maintain some credability. It is time to withdraw funding and get back any we can. that goes for the UN as a whole.

Freedom and Liberty - Though I think this is an odd question your is a false answer. William Gray has a PHD in geophysical science. I suppose that classifies at a climate scientist though it also deals with geology and other earthly sciences. Don Easterbrook is a geologist Khabibullo Abdusamatov is an astrophysicist Ian Plimer is a geologist Ian Clark is a geologist Tim Patterson is a geologist Piers Corbyn isn't much of anything though he does make predictions and is called a 'weatherman'. Anyways, that's what my quick search of those names turned up. Ottawa Mike: Why do you keep posting ignorance in response to me? I listed what each of the individuals did and what they studied. I mentioned that yes, there were more than what was posted but the ones that were posted were false. A geologist does not deal with climate. They went through different studies than a climatologist does. Do you understand that? The question concerned 'climate scientists' a geologist is not a 'climate scientist'. An astrophysicist is not 'a climate scientist'. Once you get it out of your head that virtually anyone can be a climate scientist if they put their mind to it then perhaps you'll learn to differentiate reality from non-reality. Your list is better as they are 'climate scientists'. Stop responding to my posts with stupidity.

Not sure I understand your question, as the additional notes straight under the question sort of answer the head line question (that is the leading scientific authority, IPCC, is not making catastrophic predictions).

I think as booM stated the problem is that the media sensationalise the story (never let the truth get in the way of a story). The media will always try to find someone willing to say something outrageous (as it gets far more media play than someone repeating what is stated in the IPCC reports). Look at Lord Monckton, he has absolutely no knowledge of climate science but gets far more air play than any scientist would ... similarly it took Al Gore to promote global warming before the USA realised what it was (I was studying climate change at high school in the mid 1990's in Australia).

It shows that the masses are far more likely to focus on charismatic presenters than scientists, and the sensational news is more likely to be remembered than the facts.

I suggest you find agencies and organisations that are willing to support these "catastrophic" disasters (most will state that they are a low probability or the like). Don't get your information from the media, but go to the "horses mouth" as it were (i.e. agencies, authorities, education boards etc). A lot more reputable than blogs and the media.

It seems clear that as research and data has progressed, climate science has been able to refine the conclusions that the media and political body (along with activists on both sides including some scientists) have reached. Whether the conclusions were premature or not is hard to say, but there is no doubt media fanned the flames of alarm and denial of the impact mankind is having on the climate, and the public responded to that more than the actual science.

I do believe that it is clear our activities influence global climate, but have been skeptical of the impact and timing of that influence. However, I also believe that the politically-charged and polarized environment we are presently in has stalled any kind of reasonable dialogue, particularly among the public. This is in part because the average person on the street is woefully undereducated when it comes to science and many other related disciplines that would allow them to objectively analyze and interpret the data from the original sources and they rely on what they read or hear in the media and their ideological leadership, which is almost always sensationalized, because if it is not people don't pay attention. This is obviously true with regards to other topics such as economics and domestic/foreign policy, environmental stewardship and any number of issues, so it should come as no surprise that climate is no exception. Heck, a lot of people out there can't even READ well enough to understand what even the headlines are saying, let alone the content of the report that follows. If the words aren't less than three syllables long and the entire story 250 words or less, good luck getting people to understand what is being discussed, and good luck getting anyone to read or listen beyond the first paragraph at all.

Perhaps the IPCC is responding to the developing research, or is responding to the cacaphony of objections that has stalled that organization's efforts to coordinate a global effort to address the issue of climate change and is regrouping to address some of those objections. We can't really say with any certainty any more than we (some people, at least) can claim with any veracity that a hoax is being perpetuated on the public. Perhaps they are backing off earlier efforts to address the issue because of the tenuous global economy and deteriorating geopolitical conditions in many of the world's hot spots...I've certainly believed for a long time that we didn't know enough about the outcome of human influence on climate to devote the trillions upon trillions of dollars being proposed to wage combat on an uncertain target.

Although the public debate has and continues to be raucous and largely uninformed in a lot of respects, it seems that this is the process we go through whenever an issue arises. We fight, we argue, we debate...extremists get their 15 minutes of fame, then we begin to settle down and have a dialogue that leads to a reasonable compromise. The issue, at least in the United States, that there is a no-compromise battle being conducted on several fronts and it is leading us to the brink of several disasters, not just the fiscal cliff we are presently confronted with. And we don't even yet know where the 'brink' is when it comes to climate or if we have already leapt off into the chasm; some have identified 'tipping points.' We have no idea if we have already passed those points, and some claim they don't exist, just as some claim that anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist. Nobody knows, and anyone who claims to on either side of the debate ends up where the UN IPCC has found themselves, trying to clarify, update their positions, and gain the cooperation of a balking public who really doesn't care as much about the long term future as it does about the here and now.

I can't see what your question really is.

you quote from the report where they rightly point out that modeling a chaotic system is difficult and has significant errors.

What you fail to see is that does not mean that the modeling is inappropriate or that it does not give a valid result. In fact the report actually says that more modeling is essential.

No one can predict the future with certainty, but with enough information a probability distribution can be established. That is what the IPCC is saying is possible and desirable. They are not saying the models are useless.

Further they are warning that even with the best models we could be in for some surprises potentially things could get a lot worse a lot faster.

So what exactly is your question? Did you even understand what what you quoted?

The less we know about climate, the worse possible effects of global warming would be. If you could produce a climate model that actually works, and which shows the if we burn all of the oil, gas and coal, that the ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland will still be intact, we would all be able to breath easier. But if you get the same results from a model that has all of the questions that any other climate model has, then you will have failed to prove that the ice sheets will remain intact.

I didn't say it will happen; I said that no one could prove they can't happen without perfect models. But, suppose we switch to new energy sources and they perfect the models? Would that make clean energy a bad thing? If you block me, that means that the answer is "no."

Overall at this point nobody can predict 'how soon' or how bad, only that it will happen and it will be bad. Think in terms of 10,000 paratroopers. We know that in a mass jump of that size the X number of troopers will be hurt and X number killed. What we don't know is the extent of every injury, or how long it will take any individual fated to die to actually expire. All we do know is that if all ten thousand troopers exit the aircraft on a 'normal' day', in good weather and no sudden wind storm comes up and the ground doesn't contain some hidden hazards and all the parachutes were properly packed etc.....X number will be injured and X number will die.

Climate change is similar. We know it will happen, what we don't know is how bad and how soon...though evidence shows it will be sooner then later.

Oh yawn, here we go again,

For years deniers have stated that the IPCC is alarmist or exaggerate or that change is not happening as fast as the IPCC estimated.

The 'reality' (you may need to look up the meaning of that word) is that the IPCC has been conservative and a number of their estimates are below what is now being observed.

e.g. Arctic sea ice, their original estimate was "ice free in summer by 2100" at the current rate of decline this seems likely to happen by 2030 or sooner.

e.g. Permafrost, the IPCC estimated this would start to release extra Co2/methane by 2100, this is starting to happen now.

e.g. Deniers continue to try and claim that warming has stopped and we have fallen below the temperature rise estimates of the IPCC. Yet look at the actual estimates and what the temperature is actually doing now and you find we are (for 2012) near the top of the A2 model (in red)

(which is itself one of the higher estimate models)

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/e...

"catastrophic" is an emotive word prefer by the media and it would seem, deniers as I have seem both you and Ottawa try to reference it in recent questions, some might consider a 1-2m sea level rise "catastrophic" some might not, but most would consider it bad both economically and practically, given the number of cities in the world at sea level and used as sea ports or t low laying islands, or land areas very close to or even below sea level, areas that would have enormous problems when sea level rises.

As far as I can see your only response to such valid points is to constantly block people who challenge your rather twisted view of the world. The hollow retorts really don't hide the fact you have no answer to the science.

What does the science say in terms of the actual word "catastrophic"

NASA don't use it

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/effects

Even if they did, so what, it's a word, this is about as useful and relevant as that other denier fiction of a name change from using "climate change" to "global warming", who such childish nonsense is meant to appeal to escapes me, given the obvious and simple answer of what the 'CC' in 'IPCC' stands for and has since it was formed ~25 years ago.

According to "Inconvenience Truth" the world only had until 2008 to stop global warming. Now it is TOO LATE.

90% of humanity will die HORRIBLE deaths from floods, hurricanes, droughts, blizzards, tsunamis and earthquakes.