Climate Prediction Swings and Misses: A Decade of Alarmist Strike Outs, 2010-2019

Climate alarmists think they are always right, and when they aren’t…they just move the goalposts ahead 10 years. Our friend Willis Eschenbach calls it “serial doomcasting“.

Some perspective:

“What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.” ~ Richard Lindzen

What follows are climate predictions forecast to come true during the 2010s – one for each year. A few timely missed predictions for 2020 are also added as a bonus feature.

Advertisements

118 thoughts on “Climate Prediction Swings and Misses: A Decade of Alarmist Strike Outs, 2010-2019

  1. one prediction no one made….is that China would increase it’s emissions 5X more….after the UN/IPCC was formed……………………..and we would still be blamed for it……/snark

    • We are somewhat responsible for China’s emissions growth. We exported a lot of manufacturing (and technology) to China because meeting emission standards in the US was prohibitively expensive. China has few emission standards compared to the US.

      • that is total BS….what you’re saying is China does not believe in global warming at all…which is true

        When we moved our manf….the entire world…including China was well aware of global warming

    • That Yogi Berra quote needs a qualifier. I make predictions all the time, every time I bet on a football game, horse race, or place a bet at poker,

      “It’s tough to make ACCURATE predictions,,,,,”

      • I’d say the qualifier is already implied in the quote with the reference to “about the future”. The only predictions about the future people care about are the ones that will be accurate. The failed ones quickly get forgotten about.

        • If failed prediction grow to religion it won´t get forgotten. CAGW is very strong religion because without blind faith it can´t live.

    • It all depends on the prediction.

      I predict that I can drive to the mall and back and live to tell the tale.

      I predict that my buddy’s bridge design will stand for its designed life span.

      All of us make predictions and bet our life on them.

  2. My prediction is that an argument will ensue between those who believe the last year of a decade ends in 9 and those who believe it ends with 0.

        • Astronomers do use a year zero. The astronomers’ year 0 is the same as the year called 1 B.C. by the historians.

          • “Astronomical year numbering
            From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
            Jump to navigationJump to search
            Astronomical year numbering is based on AD/CE year numbering, but follows normal decimal integer numbering more strictly. Thus, it has a year 0; the years before that are designated with negative numbers and the years after that are designated with positive numbers.[1] Astronomers use the Julian calendar for years before 1582, including the year 0, and the Gregorian calendar for years after 1582, as exemplified by Jacques Cassini (1740),[2] Simon Newcomb (1898)[3] and Fred Espenak (2007).[”

            Apples to oranges….

        • Since no-one from that time is left alive to tell us, how can you be sure? They might not have written it down, but they could have been happily saying “Isn’t it great to live in 0?”

        • Very true. Mathematicians will generally count from zero, but historians will count from one.
          Arthur C Clarke and Stanley Kubrick got it right: they called the film 2001.
          Just as well, as “2000: A Space Odyssey” doesn’t sound quite right!
          Chris

        • Well, but the year before 1 AD can be thought of being 0. There never was 1AD either, or I. It was only defined afterwards.

          Stupid argument based on stupid Roman numbers.

        • Kevin
          No, but December 31st of the first year CE was the end of year one, which started at zero. Prior to December 31st, any month was a fraction of the first year. Zero is the demarcation between year one and minus one.

          • I am pretty sure that December 31st of the first year “CE” [sic] was NOT the end of year one. More likely, it was only the end of the tenth month of the year. (December derives from the Latin word for ten.) January 1st is New Year’s Day for Christians of the Western rite because it is the feast of the Lord’s circumcision, but that feast had not yet been instituted during the reign of Augustus. (For Eastern rite Christians, the liturgical new year is still September 1st – in many countries still observed on the Julian calendar, in which case it would be September 14th on the Gregorian calendar – roughly the same general time of year that Jewish new year is observed, which is probably not a coincidence.) Since the symbol for zero was not widely used or even known in the West at the time that the BC/AD dating system was devised, there is no year zero, but we go straight from 1 BC to AD 1, a distance of only one year rather than two. (When the Messiah did not appear as he had calculated in 1843, William Miller announced that this was the reason why. When Christ did not come in 1844 either, it became known among his followers as The Great Disappointment, but that did not end his movement. Instead, it spun off various sects such as the Seventh Day Adventists, the Dawn Bible Students who became the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the now infamous Branch Davidians.) In eastern Christendom, the years continued to be numbered until the end of Tsarist rule during World War One, and a little later in Greece, “from the foundation of the world,” which was calculated based on datable events in the Septuagint, resulting a somewhat older calculation for “the foundation of the world” than England’s Bishop Ussher arrived at using a Masoretic-based text. Happy New Year.

      • What was the year number on the day when JC was born in Bethlehem (you can use BC or AD, whichever you prefer)

        • In science all the time x-axis have zero in the middle separating negative and positive numbers, however the historic x-axis has no zero, at the midnight at that particular year was BC=AD=1, or -1=+1, no surprise the system of the years counting was invented by a bloke called Denis SHORT.

          • Gunga Din. You are close to the time. However, there were no years numbered BC at that time. I am not a historian so do not know what calendar was in use. When was the Julian calendar put in place? There was also no year marked as “0”. It is a reference point. Historic events have been calculated to BC or AD. There is a religious calendar kept by the Jews as well.

          • “However, there were no years numbered BC at that time.”

            But our days are numbered now. That is, our years are numbered like a countdown.
            They say we are at T minus 12 now. Using the Greta calendar, or is that the AOC calendar?

            End of times. Just like Y2K. Everyday there is a news item about an asteroid just missing the earth. But they cannot hit, they are just a bad omen, because we still have 12 years left. Party like it’s 1999!

            As JC said, I told you once; don’t make me come back again!

          • Which is why Methuselah, the oldest man to live in the Old Testament, was 969 years old. When dividing by 13 lunar cycles per solar year, he lived to a ripe old age of 74-75 years.

          • Earthling2
            “But, who calls that livin’, when no gal will give in, to no man who’s 900 years?” — Gershwin

            And, it probably wouldn’t make any difference if he said he was only 74!

        • From -40 weeks a human child is in utero. They are born on a specific date, at a specific time, this is their zero point. From this point their age is positive and are in their first year of life with the first birthday marking the end of their first year and entering their second year. Anno Domini means year of our Lord, thus 1 AD is the start of the Western calendar., the preceding this was 1BC. Thus the 21st century started 1/1/2001; the first decade 2001-2010, the second decade 2011-2020.

          • I think that’s perfectly correct, but still misses the point. We can talk about the decade of the twenty-teens, by which it is understood as those years fitting the pattern 201x.

            If we said the 202nd decade of the current calendar, that would be AD 2011 through 2020. But when people speak colloquially about the “2010s” or the “1960s”, it’s not the same thing as the 202nd or 197th decade, nor is it the same as the second decade of the twenty-first century or the seventh decade of the twentieth century.

            We could just as validly refer to the decade from 1996 through 2005. Decade just means a period of ten years.

            The same applies to the twentieth century (1901-2000). It’s not the same thing as the 1900s (1900-1999).

          • 4 BC is the latest possible date because it was the last year that Herod the Great was still alive. However, it is untenable because Quirinius was not governor of Syria at that time. In fact, Quirinius only became governor well after the death of Herod, but a few years before Herod’s death he had served as sort of an acting governor, which might put the birth of Christ about 7 BC. Since Jesus’s second cousin, John the Baptist, is estimated by historians to have been born circa 8 BC, and since Jesus is reported by St. Luke to have been conceived about 6 months after John was conceived, the dates fit well. There were also three conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn that same year in Pisces, which was regarded by ancient astrologers, such as the Persian Magi, as the sign of the Jews. Jesus is recorded to have begun preaching when he was “about” 30, but perhaps he was a young-looking 39. The age of 30 may have been assumed as well for quasi-legal reasons. Since Numbers 4:3 required that priests have attained the age of 30 before they could serve in office, if might have been regarded as unseemly for Jesus to have begun preaching much before that age, and therefore it was easy to reason that he must have been around 30.

      • Nope – the last year of the 20th century was 1999. The first year of the Common Era was 0. Of course, the Common Era was not defined until many decades after it began.

        Just as the first year of a child’s life is year zero. A child’s second year of life that are called one years old.

        • Duane, You are thinking of the 1900s which began on January 1, 1900, and ended on December 31, 1999. The 20th (twentieth) century, on the other hand, began on January 1, 1901, so declared the “newspaper of record”:
          https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1901/01/01/118459054.pdf
          thus it ended on December 31, 2000

          Remember, there was no year 0 AD. The first century goes from Jan 1st, 1 to Dec 31st 100AD, this the 20th ran from Jan 1st 1901 to Dec 31st 2000AD

        • The first year of a child’s life is not “Zero”, it is 1 day, or 6 weeks, or 7 months etc.. until he/she reaches the 1 year mark and is then considered One year old.

    • A decade ends every day. You just have to not be pedantic in believing that decades only start on 1st January x000 or x001.

  3. Hansen’s 1988 prediction of Manhattan highways being under water by 2019 wasn’t just Wrong…it was off by a factor of over 100.

    That kind of blunder should make a scientist the laughingstock of the profession. On the contrary he remains in good standing amongst his peers…which says all that needs to be said about his peers.

    • Factor of 100 Doc? …….. That’s nothing. His prediction of boiling oceans due to back radiation of carbon dioxide and positive feedbacks is probably off by 10+ orders of magnitude, maybe even 100+. It could even represent the most incorrect prediction ever in the history of science. It’s no wonder that that presentation was disappeared from the internet.

    • GISS has as much to do with NASA as welfare recipients have to do with keeping the economy going. Heartland should make the distinction between the real NASA and GISS in the video.

    • Hansen is not in good standing among his peers anymore. He has said things like these and has earned the enmity of the AGW crowd because he doesn’t buy into their renewable energy scams. He’s still a True Believer but is all in on nuclear as the only way to reduce CO2. His (former) supporters are not happy with him.
      “Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.” – James Hansen
      …James Hansen, the undisputed hero of the climate-change movement, called the Paris deal “a fraud really, a fake. … It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises.”
      *
      * GODFATHER Of Global Warming Alarmism James Hansen Admits Renewable Energy Is A “Nice Idea” Though Useless
      * http://bit.ly/2P5L6Y1
      James Hansen ON NULCEAR VIA YOUTUBE

  4. Climate-alarm, of course, is not the only sphere where this phenomenon is happening. Whole segments of the global, human population are being swung in one direction or the other to take up fanatically held opinions of all sorts – probably only made possible by the new electronic mass-communication means. It is mob-rule, lynch-mood atmosphere, being created on the flimsiest of logical reasons and with science and common sense missing. In the U.S. I believe the Republican versus the Democrat craze is an extreme example of this. Mass hysteria takes place instead of quiet, sensible debate – political correctness becomes the guide for opining rather than intelligent introspection. It is weird – and it is in fact a counter-enlightenment sort of phenomenon. By this I mean a reaction against that amazing wave of rational, intellectual and humanistic understanding of our human condition which swept over Europe from the mid-18th century – the cornerstone of which was freedom of thought and speech and which has been in the forefront of human thinking ever since then.. Human beings are naturally irrational – and happiest when having clear-cut, easily understood causes to fight for.
    Yes, this whole period will indeed become a source of wonder and amusement among people in the not-so-far future. This weird behaviour cannot and will not last, I am sure.

    • Food for thought but please try and use paragraphs for easier reading.

      Dorothy Sayers spoke in 1947 and clearly critical of English politicians:
      “Have you ever in listening to a debate among adult and presumably responsible people, been fretted by the extraordinary inability of the average debater to speak to the question or to meet and refute the arguments of speakers on the other side. . . . ”

      The new generation of young adults is far more knowledgeable on so many things compared to their grandparents but there has been a real “dumbing down” which goes far beyond explaining complexity in simple language. Having discovered how stupid students could be in the sixties, it shocks me that the explosion of knowledge has not helped and that adults believe they need to listen to today’s stupid student views.

      • If you get a chance find some high school textbooks from the 1950’s…the whole gambit from math to history to biology. The subject depth and comprehensiveness is seen today only in college undergraduate tomes. None but the best of today’s students could pass the quizzes and tests within these texts.

        Accelerated High School course work today is actually very good -to – excellent. The rest of the student body gets appallingly unsatisfactory instruction…and that’s not all on the teaching staff…dealing with the ‘dross’ and their parents is not exactly rewarding work.

        Appallingly, the students today never hear about the 100’s of Millions of souls murdered by their socialist comrades during the 20th century. They do hear about the impending climate crisis.

    • Hey, Andy–looks like you’re spending WAAAAAAY too much time on Twitter. In the real world, sorry, I don’t see “mass hysteria” anywhere. Most of us are too busy making and spending our money.

        • Patrick,
          A lot.

          Last updated: 9/5/19

          Twitter Demographics

          34% of Twitter users are females and 66% are males.
          22% of US adults use Twitter.
          24% of All Internet male users use Twitter, whereas 21% of All Internet Female users use Twitter.
          There are 262 million International Twitter users (users outside the US) which make up 79% of all Twitter accounts.
          There are 68 million monthly active Twitter users in the US.
          Roughly 42% of Twitter users are on the platform daily.
          The total number of Twitter users in the UK is 14.1 million.
          37% of Twitter users are between the ages of 18 and 29, 25% users are 30-49 years old.
          56% of Twitter users $50,000 and more in a year.
          80% of Twitter users are affluent millennials.
          The top three countries by user count outside the U.S. are Japan (36.7 million users), Saudi Arabia (9.9 million), and Turkey (8.6 million).
          38% of Americans aged 18 to 29 years old use Twitter.
          80% of Twitter users accessing the platform on a mobile device, and 93% of video views are on mobile.
          https://www.omnicoreagency.com/twitter-statistics/

      • Gunga Din. You are close to the time. However, there were no years numbered BC at that time. I am not a historian so do not know what calendar was in use. When was the Julian calendar put in place? There was also no year marked as “0”. It is a reference point. Historic events have been calculated to BC or AD. There is a religious calendar kept by the Jews as well.

      • You do not see “mass hysteria” anywhere?
        Where are you looking?
        I see it in the media, politics, and pseudo-scientists. They seized the “climate” scam and made it an emergency. Check University of British Columbia, for example.
        Next, look at the hysteria following delinquent Greta.

      • “In the real world, sorry, I don’t see “mass hysteria” anywhere. Most of us are too busy making and spending our money.”

        Goldrider,
        I take it you did not watch the Democrats debates, then.

        • I think that was his point Kc. Same with the Brexit crisis, Brexit turmoil and any other Brexit BS that was exhorted by the UK media, primarily the British Bullsh!t Corporation and associated toadies. It only exists/existed in politician’s heads and the media and, worse still, it’s/it was all fake too.

        • KcTaz, That’s rather the point. He’s talking about the real world of everyday people, not the world of talking head elites who think they know better how to run your life than you do.

    • I don’t see “mass hysteria” anywhere, either, unless you want to count the demonstrations and protests going on in Hong Kong about now – but that’s about an overbearing government that now controls a once-free British Crown colony.

      It is mob-rule, lynch-mood atmosphere – Where, exactly, is this going on ? I watch for such things, which were lionized by the US media and find that those protests from 2017/2017 seem to have slacked off quite a bit. I see no point in including so-called “protest” marches, because they are simply marches, so where is the mass hysteria, now?

      • Once Free ?

        I’d suggest that the levels of ‘Freedom’ experienced by the man on the Kowloon Omnibus probably dont feel too much different from either the time of British rule or now ? Its worth remembering that we Brits did not get too concerned about Hong Kongers having representation until it was clear that we’d be giving the place back.

        It would also be worth looking up the HK riots of 67, much worse than those of today, albeit for pro China rather than anti reasons. The authorities of the day (UK) used a very much tougher approach in quelling the unrest.

        I’m wondering if the real reason behind the protests in HK, is more to do with HK’ers realising that they will be subsumed by Mandarin speaking Chinese, and that their level of prosperity which was in large part due to being Chinas window to the west, and captive cheap labour within the territory, has now evaporated ? In essence the whole of China has now become what HK once was, leaving the Hong Kong residents with nothing more than some vague sense that they ought to be better than the vast mass of the Chinese population.

        • Spot on, Fanakapan : “Hong Kong’s importance to China has evaporated”. And very, very soon we will see China’s patience evaporating also. True, it will be expensive to close the whole shebang down; but China can now afford it. And the protesters there can rant and rave till they are blue in the face – nobody in the West will come to their rescue.

        • Freedom doesn’t end with whether you get representation in government or not.
          Freedom has to do with how much ability you have to plan your day to day activities without government interference.

        • Britain knew HK would be returned to China after 99 years. That’s what a 99 year lease is all about. China has a 99 year lease on Port Darwin here in Australia. In 99 years time, Australia will be a province of China.

  5. I commented in November about Cape Town running out of water:

    Notice how the media were in panic about Day Zero in Cape Town in March 2018. National Geographic also hyped the alarm. There certainly had been a terrible drought and the dams were very low but no one mentioned that the rainy season was in winter beginning around April. By the end of winter 2018 the dams were over 74% full. This year after another good winter the dams are over 84%. Of course the reader is not informed that the biggest dam which holds over 53% of the water was completed in 1979 and only one dam, a quarter the size, completed in 2009 . But the population has more than doubled since 1979. The water crisis is actually not a climate crisis but the failure of people to plan and adapt.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2018/02/cape-town-running-out-of-water-drought-taps-shutoff-other-cities/

    Blaming climate change for the problems of water and drought in South Africa is simply a smoke screen to cover the mismanagement, incompetence and corruption of those governing. Another drought is around the corner. I predict Cape Town will be in a worse situation because the population keeps growing but nothing substantial is being done about capturing and storing the rain during the wet years.

    • Exactly the same thing is happening in Sydney, Australia. Population is expanding 100,000 residents every year for the last who knows how long and basic infrastructure building, like water, hasn’t kept up. But, I laugh whenever I fly in to Sydney and see the number of domestic private pools full of fresh water.

      • I do not know how local governance works in Sydney but both Cape Town and the province (Western Cape) are governed by the main opposition to the party in control of central government. The latter have the responsibility for “water affairs” including dam building in the country. If this were to be devolved to the provincial government – with a percentage of tax collected there for this purpose – I believe they may well have remedied this shortage successfully. I am all for a limited central government with strong local authorities – not political appointees – because this offers more benefits with less corruption.

  6. Climate science went off the rails in 1989 when Dr. Stephen Schneider gave his colleagues/co-conspirators permission to lie and become propagandists. In science and engineering there is never a legitimate choice to be made between “being effective” and “being honest” as Schneider famously asserted. You can now sort climate scientists into two distinct groups — activists who have chosen to be “effective” and skeptics who have chosen to be honest.

  7. Inaccurate predictions made by “scientists” should be labeled as lies since most people assume that “scientists” have more credibility than your average person.

    • “Inaccurate predictions made by “scientists” should be labeled as lies”

      In that case, ALL scientists are liars, since they have all made, most likely, at least one inaccurate prediction. Fail.

      • I put scientists in quotes. On this site, we are talking about climate scientists and of those, there are a large percentage that care more about politics and/or money than science. They are put in a special category.

      • In my book lies are things told KNOWING them to be wrong.
        A prediction or in the case of AGW projections (as we cannot know what FF will be burnt into the future) is not told in any way KNOWING it to be wrong.

        So are Weather forecast services “liars”.

        • If you know that you cannot predict the future climate and consequences (you’ve been wrong every time so far), and you still insist on predicting the future, then it’s so close to a lie that I’m going ahead and calling it such

        • They are not predicting the future climate !
          They have predicted a range of possible outcomes depending upon a carbon pathway into the future…. which cannot be known ahead of time.

          From that range of projected temperature rises outcomes can be inferred/modelled.

          But, OK, if you say so.
          You local weather forecaster is lying to you when he gets it wrong.

          • Anthony
            You said, “They have predicted a range of possible outcomes depending upon a carbon pathway into the future…. which cannot be known ahead of time.

            Then why are alarmists demanding changes in life style and economic systems if they cannot know what scenario of the future will come to pass?

  8. California’s brain trust has failed to create new water impoundments because endless drought preculded the effort. Why make new reservoir capacity if significant rain was a thing of the past?

    2017 set records for precipitation but the state failed to capture trillions of gallons due to its brain dead lack of planning.

    It is apparent certain groups are determined that humanity is doomed to suffer climate related suffering. Especially if those certain groups sabotage inteligent efforts to avert such misery. This being the case because it is all mankind’s fault and we deserve it no matter what!

  9. No matter how many they get WRONG they still think they are right – noble cause corruption on crack and steroids.

  10. “What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests

    This is classic Mercantilsm, a system of economic policy which the wealthy elite use government to keep the poor in their place and further enrich themselves. It has often been mischaracterized as Capitalist economic practice (crony capitalism) thanks to the intellectual frauds like Marx et al. The true definitions of Capitalism, Mercantilism, and Socialism/Communism have been obscured by the same people that have white washed the education system with hogwash such as the Civil War was not caused by slavery, that the American Revolution did not encourage the surge of freedom and liberty in the western world, that race is merely a social construct, that it remains a mystery as to what caused the Great Depression, etc. etc.

    Future generations will only remember this as the greatest mass delusion in human history IF realists can retake the education system.

  11. Inaccurate predictions ” ….

    Harsh and wrong headed.
    The world is probabilistic.
    If you are betting on a sports event, you take a WAG.
    A scientist’s WAG is called a scenario. It may be wrong and dumb, and not a lie.
    Recall:
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/italian-scientists-get/

    Six Italian scientists and a government official have been sentenced to six years in prison over statements they made prior to a 2009 earthquake that killed 309 in the town of L’Aquila.

  12. IMO a far more influential way of presenting the argument would be to run a score card with failed predictions on one side and successful predictions on the other.

  13. It’s important to share videos and/or reports like these. When students are convinced to say “In 11 years the earth won’t exist because of climate change…”, or when Prince Charles or some UN agency (clamoring for more money) claims that “We’ve only got one more year to make critical changes before we pass the point of no return….” we’ve gotta call bull$hit. It’s important to remind folks of the claims made countless times previously. By all means treat the environment with respect, as we always should, but not to the point of banning logical conveniences and redistributing trillions of dollars because some climate alarmist says so. Or in Greta’s case, is promoted relentlessly to say so.

  14. How then do we know that the universe started with a big Bang 13.7 billion years ago if the earth only started circum-perambulating the sun 4.5 billion years ago… to establish the first chronological measure of time: the Year?
    Any how Happy New Year to all (assuming there’s still another one in inventory)
    Cheers
    Mike

  15. Here food for thought: I just read an article about now some universities are tracking student’s class attendants by Blue Tooth app. You miss class and it lowers your grade. Hmmm, sounds like how China controls it’s mainland population. There if you pissss off the wrong person you have credits deducted from your “bank account”.

  16. “Hansen predicted in 1988 that by 2020 global temps would be 4 to 6 degrees higher than on 1958.”
    (I’ll assume that the degrees are in Fahrenheit).

    Well, no, he didn’t.
    He Projected 3 scenarios depending upon the emissions pathway that the planet took.
    His highest, which was a accelerating path projected a rise to ~ 1.5C
    The middle was assuming a slowing rate of emissions growth that came out at ~ 1.1C.
    The third assumed a rapid reduction in emissions, that came out at ~ 0.6C.

    Now bearing mide that he was/is not a psychic, then it cannot be a prediction, as well, even here it should be obvious that he could not have known what carbon pathway the Earth would follow.
    So converting to degrees F.
    1.5C is 2.7F, that for the non-applicable accelerating scenario.
    1.1C is ~ 2F.
    So then we have Hansen’s projections at between 2 and (being generous) 3 deg F.
    So now, on Earth does the author make that to be 4 to 6 deg F?

    The vid then says that that temps have increased by ~ 1.8 deg F.
    LOL
    Well at least that is correct.

    https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf

    From Nick Stokes Blog …
    https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2018/06/hansens-1988-predictions-30-year.html

  17. You’re missing the point that actual emissions/atmospheric CO2 have grown faster than in Hansen’s most “pessimistic” scenario.

    The video says temperatures have increased by about 1.8F since 1958. Presumably that should be 1850, though even that seems a bit steep.

    It’s amazing to me that people will go to the trouble of making a thing like this video, and then not take an hour or two to go over it to catch obvious gaffes and infelicities.

    Of course, the general gist of the video is absolutely correct!

    • “Of course, the general gist of the video is absolutely correct!”

      “Of course, the general gist of the video is absolutely correct!”

      “Of course, the general gist of the video is absolutely correct!”

      Certainly for Hansen it isn’t.
      4 to 6 deg F is a blatant lie.
      It was 2 to 3 deg F.

      “You’re missing the point that actual emissions/atmospheric CO2 have grown faster than in Hansen’s most “pessimistic” scenario.”

      No that’s not true (read the Nick Stokes link), his scenario (a) was more pessimistic than actuality.
      And his job was not to “predict” carbon emissions but to priject a temperature along that pathway. Which he did remarkably well when considering against the forcing from FF burning that happened.

      The rest are stupid comments from individuals.
      Just like the models are an average of an ensemble of answers – then so any one idividuals opinion dos not amount to the consensus science as published by the IPCC.
      Come up with something in the ARs that was a “fail” for that.
      You never do here.
      Must be because there aren’t any.

  18. I have said over: “give them enough rope and they will hang themselves”

    Take a further step: Invite their predictions in all innocence . The more predictions we get the better. Then, don’t argue. Just step back and wait.

    M

      • Actually it depends on how you count it, if you go from same point to same point (IE Jan to Jan or Dec to Dec) it’s 9:
        1) Jan 2010 to Jan 2011

        9) Jan 2018 to Jan 2019
        The problem being, you are actually ignoring parts of the first and/or last years by counting that way (in the above example all the rest of 2019 isn’t being counted). So not the best way to be counting.

        if, on the other hand, you count from begin to end (IE Jan 1 to Dec 31) than it is, as stated, 10:
        1) Jan 1 2010 to Dec 31 2010

        10) Jan 1 2019 to Dec 21 2019

  19. In AR4, released 2007, the IPCC ‘projected’ the following:

    “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.” [WGI, SPM, page 12; summarising IPCC WGI main report chapter 10.3 & 10.7, IPCC, 2007]

    The best estimate linear rate of warming since January 2007 according to both the RSS & UAH_TLT data sets is currently 0.32°C per decade. According to GISS it’s 0.39°C per decade and HadCRUT4 has it at 0.28 °C per decade.

    So far the 2007 IPCC rate of global temperature increase projection appears to be another miss – they have underestimated it.

    • TFN, silly cherry picking. What do you get when you correct for ENSO? I know you know that the entire warming over those years is based on ENSO noise. When you choose to be dishonest you make it obvious you don’t have any legitimate arguments.

      • Richard M

        I know you know that the entire warming over those years is based on ENSO noise.

        If we’re saying that periods as long as13-years aren’t sufficient to determine climate trends (and I would agree with that) then we might ask what’s the point in judging the merit of forecasts covering as little as 10 years, as the above video does?

        If the IPCC’s 2007 projection had been too high instead of too low as of now, 13 years later, I doubt many folks here would be pointing to the nuances of ENSO as a possible explanation.

        • then we might ask what’s the point in judging the merit of forecasts covering as little as 10 years, as the above video does?

          Except that’s not what the video does, which suggest you didn’t watch (or else didn’t understand) the video. The video was about prediction whose *end date* was supposed to take place in the past 10 years. When the prediction was made is irrelevant (some of the predictions were made as far back as the 1980s, others a mere few years prior to the predicted date), the relevant part is whether or not the prediction came true as predicted (none of them did).

          If anything a shorter time between making a prediction and the end date for the prediction should result in a better hit ratio as the further out in time your prediction is the greater the chance of unexpected variables preventing your prediction from taking place as predicted. For example I have a better shot at predicting what the weather will be like half an hour from now (likely not too much changed from now) than I do a predicting what it will be like half a month from now (could be colder, could be warmer, could be drier, could be wetter, etc. anywhere from slightly to significantly so)

        • Final Nail writes: “If we’re saying that periods as long as13-years aren’t sufficient to determine climate trends (and I would agree with that) then we might ask what’s the point in judging the merit of forecasts covering as little as 10 years, as the above video does?”

          Judging such forecasts makes at least as much sense as making such forecasts in the first place, especially when such dubious forecasts (predictions, projections, scenarios, the public and politicians interpret all four words as predictions, and I am certain that is what the scenario spinners hope for) are being used in an attempt to stampede the herd.

    • Chaamjamal

      How can one take seriously a piece (“Climate Change the Facts”) that states as the second “fact”?

      “Before we started to burn coal, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm. It is now over 400 ppm. And the planet gets warmer and warmer. If you are a climate scientist that flunked statistics in college, these data provide scientific evidence that burning coal caused atmospheric CO2 to rise and that rising atmospheric CO2 caused the planet to become warmer. ”

      Coal has been used as a fuel for more than 3,500 years. How accurate are the retrospective measures of global CO2? What evidence is there that for all of more than 3,300 years CO2 represented almost exactly 0.028% of the earth’s atmosphere?

  20. They merely dance to the tune of the tribe. And yearn for the “good old days” of their Messiahs – Lenin and Stalin.
    “A lie told frequently enough becomes the truth!” is their motto.

  21. Thank you, Richard, for the cherry picking lesson.

    Between April, 1998 and April, 2018, there were 250 monthly data points. You ignored all of them.

    • Oops, posted in the wrong spot. I was replying to Richard’s comment here:

      [Richard M December 30, 2019 at 2:57 pm
      Anyone can cherry pick.

      UAH April 2018 = .21
      UAH April 1998= .74

      Trend -.26 C / decade]

Comments are closed.