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.
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.
That’s after they contaminated RSS with non-satellite data and ignored UAH satellite data.
Roger Knights
As mentioned above, the rate in UAH since 2007 is the same in UAH as it is in RSS, +0.3C per decade warming: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2007/plot/uah6/from:2007/trend
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
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.
All such denialist criticisms are answered by climate scientists in a youtube video called
“Climate Change the Facts”
https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/04/19/facts/
So, that link is a presentation of a bunch of alarmist ‘fail’ statements, right? For some non-sarc commentary, I had to link to https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/27/spurious/ , say.
Say, can I just read the title of the first link as,
“[to worry about] Climate, [just] Change the Facts” .
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?
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.
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]