Failed Climate Predictions – Willie Soon, PhD

Doctors for Disaster Preparedness Published August 19, 2022

Presentation by Willie Soon, PhD, Independent Scientist, CERES https://www.ceres-science.comhttps://parler.com/williesoon DDP, Las Vegas August 15, 2022

Also available on our Vdeo page.

4.9 25 votes
Article Rating
95 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scissor
August 20, 2022 6:02 am

I’m not sure if we have ten years to counter the censorship and propaganda.

leitmotif
Reply to  Scissor
August 20, 2022 4:48 pm

Wrong. We have 10.176 years left. I still have my old Casio calculator.

Reply to  Scissor
August 20, 2022 5:49 pm

Excellent work by my friend Willie Soon. More on failed predictions by warmist fraudsters:

https://www.worldcommercereview.com/html/macrae-no-evidence-of-a-climate-crisis.html

“To conclude, the alleged fossil-fuel-caused Global Warming Crisis does not exist in reality. The only real, measurable impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations is improved crop yields – which are hugely beneficial.”
(excerpt)
Note the abysmal failure of the global warming alarmists’ predictive track record:
“Rode and Fischbeck, professor of Social & Decision Sciences and Engineering & Public Policy, collected 79 predictions of climate-caused apocalypse going back to the first Earth Day in 1970. With the passage of time, many of these forecasts have since expired; the dates have come and gone uneventfully. In fact, 48 (61%) of the predictions have already expired as of the end of 2020.”
For 60:40 predictions, the odds of being this wrong for this wrong are 1 in 13 quintillion; for 70:30 predictions, the odds are 1 in 13 septillion.
It’s not just climate scientists being randomly mistaken – they must have known they were not telling the truth.
________________________

Four barrels of oil is energy-equivalent to a lifetime of hard labor. That is what modern primary energy does for us, and ~85% of modern primary energy is fossil fuels – oil, coal, and natural gas. Most of the rest is hydro and nuclear, and only a few percent is wind and solar, despite trillions of dollars of squandered subsidies. Green energy schemes and the alleged fossil-fuel-driven global warming crisis are scientific and technical falsehoods. See https://CorrectPredictions.ca/

The promotion of green energy in the developed world has hugely increased costs and destabilized electrical grids – it is a proven green energy debacle, as we correctly predicted 20 years ago, Germany, Britain and others are now paying the price for their climate-and-energy foolishness.

The deliberate curtailment of fossil fuels in the developing nations was even more criminal, denying modern energy to poor nations and thus keeping them poor. The greens are guilty of deliberate crimes against humanity. The IPCC’s climate falsehoods have cost trillions of squandered dollars and millions of wasted lives.
Wolves stampeding the sheep. Crimes against humanity!

observa
Reply to  Allan MacRae
August 20, 2022 10:24 pm

Four barrels of oil is energy-equivalent to a lifetime of hard labor. 

Pol Pot et al that ran the definitive practical proof for those university skeptic types wasn’t it?

bwegher
Reply to  Allan MacRae
August 20, 2022 10:36 pm

4 barrels of oil is about 640 liters, with a combustion energy of 40MJ/liter.
That’s 25600 Megajoules. Based on the barrel being diesel fuel.

A human can sustain about 75 watts of work for 10 hours/day.
That’s 750 watthours, or about 2.7 MJ per day.
A lifetime of working at 360 days per year for 40 years is 14400 days.
14400 times 2.7 is about 39000 Megajoules.
Rounding off, about 6 barrels of oil is needed to reach 39000 MJ.

However, a diesel IC engine has only converts about 1/3 of combustion energy to mechanical work, so that means 18 barrels of diesel will produce the mechanical work of one lifetime of human work.
Probably why the construction of the pyramids of Egypt took years of moving blocks into position using thousands of workers. Maybe if they had a couple bulldozers and a crane they could have done the same amount of work in a tenth of the time.

Reply to  bwegher
August 20, 2022 11:50 pm

Thank you – Your calculation of 18 bbl vs 4 bbl is caused by:

  • Inserting diesel engine efficiency of 1/3;
  • 10 hours/day vs 8?

The important conclusion remains unchanged.
Having worked hard labor in an explosives plant from age 15, I can attest that the absence of machines is great exercise for a young man – but you would not want to do it past age ~30. And yet that is the fate of many people in the developing world – hard labor and poverty.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Allan MacRae
August 21, 2022 7:10 am

That’s why the average lifetime was less than 40 years of age for much of the past.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bwegher
August 21, 2022 7:18 am

I knew someone that worked in Mexico City for several months on a new telephone system On his daily travels from his hotel to the work site he saw several buildings (stone?, brick?, adobe? – I don’t remember) being torn down by a group of men using picks, shovels, and a mule-powered wagon. They were working on them when he arrived and were still working on them when he left.

He asked his driver why they didn’t just bring in a bulldozer and a dump truck and do it all in a few days. Answer? “Then what would the men and mule do?”

Reply to  Tim Gorman
August 21, 2022 9:05 am

Millton Friedman told a similar story from China.

He was being shown a new canal project, where thousands of men were digging with shovels and hauling with wheel barrows.

Friedman asked why the job wasn’t mechanized. He was told it was a make-work project.

Friednam’s response was, why not make them then dig with spoons?

MarkW
Reply to  bwegher
August 21, 2022 9:21 am

What do you consider to be a “lifetime of working”? How many years?

Reply to  Scissor
August 20, 2022 6:37 pm

See Willie’s presentation at 27:08 for this image:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah6/from:1979/scale:0.18/offset:0.17

My Jan2008 paper shows the close correlation of the rate-of-change dCO2/dt vs Lower Tropospheric air temperature T.
The integral of dCO2/dt is CO2 change, which lags temperature change by approximately 9 months in modern data.

I thought I had something new when I discovered this close correlation of dCO2/dt vs T in December 2007 and published in January 2008.
I later learned that Kuo et al had published this observation in Nature (1990)  and Humlum et al published it again in 2013 – and we were all carefully ignored by the warmist fraudsters.

This observation is a strong disproof of the CO2-drives-dangerous- warming mantra – because the future cannot cause the past. [Cart-before-horse!]

See CorrectPredictions.com for references.

AZeeman
August 20, 2022 7:38 am

It’s been over ten years since Al Gore stated that the Arctic ice will have melted completely away. This message is so important that it bears repeating. In ten years all the Arctic ice will have melted away!!!
Unless we take action now, ten years from now this message will need to be repeated with even greater urgency.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  AZeeman
August 20, 2022 8:37 am

Babylon Bee: “Experts Warn We Have Only 12 Years Left Until They
Change The Timeline On Global Warming Again”

Gretahyp.jpg
Old Man Winter
Reply to  Old Man Winter
August 20, 2022 3:17 pm

“go protest in Tiananmen Square & see what happens”

H2Omelo1.jpg
Reply to  Old Man Winter
August 21, 2022 3:08 am

8 years or 100 months is the usual timeline. Now they’ve upped it to twelve? Maybe the warmists are grudgingly admitting that their ‘crisis’ isn’t as bad as they want us to believe.

griff
Reply to  AZeeman
August 20, 2022 8:58 am

since he said it would all melt if every year it melted at the same rate as 2007

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 9:04 am

Not what he said. Also not what AZeeman said. He said, from the video I saw, was that summer ice would be completely gone in 5 years. And that was 2008 I believe.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
August 20, 2022 4:01 pm

What did Professor Wadhams predict?

Redge
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 9:17 am

Al “I took the initiative in creating the Internet” Gore quite clearly stated in 2009, “The Arctic polar ice cap could disappear entirely in the summer months in as little as five years”

He was wrong as have all green predictions about everything climate-related (unless you count the prediction of lots of dosh in green pockets – except for the useful idiots of course)

Last edited 1 month ago by Redge
anthropocene
Reply to  Redge
August 20, 2022 10:03 am

Please look up in a dictionary what ‘could’ means.

Redge
Reply to  anthropocene
August 20, 2022 10:11 am

I know what “could” means to people like Al Gore.

It means let’s scare the bejesus out of the sheeple while we make lots of money out of the poor schmucks.

Either way, Al Gore was wrong, so wrong he wasn’t in the same ballpark

Made a lot of money though

Last edited 1 month ago by Redge
DrEd
Reply to  Redge
August 20, 2022 5:18 pm

Look it up here
extinctionclock.com

DrEd
Reply to  DrEd
August 20, 2022 5:19 pm

Sorry, it’sdot-org
https://extinctionclock.org/

Redge
Reply to  DrEd
August 20, 2022 11:31 pm

Handy website

Yooper
Reply to  DrEd
August 21, 2022 4:51 am

Here’s an “Almost”:

Hoover dam to be a ‘dry hole by 2021’.

From the MSNBC documentary, Future Earth 2025, quote: “As water levels drop, by 2017 hoover dam will no longer provide drinking water to Las Vegas, Tucson, and San Diego. And it stops generating electricity to Los Angeles. And if nothing is done, the reservoir will be a dry hole by 2021”.

Related: Lake Mead Water Level at December 31, 2020.

MarkW
Reply to  anthropocene
August 20, 2022 3:02 pm

Space aliens could destroy Washington next year.
What are you willing to give up in order to prevent this?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  MarkW
August 20, 2022 4:03 pm

If you mean the State or Our Nation”a Capital …

MarkW
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
August 21, 2022 9:24 am

Whichever is least likely to destroy itself before the space aliens get to it.

Redge
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 9:21 am

And another thing in 2009

Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.

We’re almost 2/3rds of the way there with no signs of os sea ice disappearing

anthropocene
Reply to  Redge
August 20, 2022 11:02 am

PIOMAS minimum volume 2009: 6,843 km^3
PIOMAS minimum volume 2021: 4,643 km^3

In 12 years 32% loss – so ice-free in September in 24 years.
Arctic sea will really be ice-free at 1,000 km^3 which at current rate is reached in 20 years time. A burst of accelerated melting or below average year (like 2012) will pull the date in of course. So pretty much on course I would say.
See here for September (average of month) trend http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png

Climate believer
Reply to  anthropocene
August 20, 2022 12:53 pm

Cry me a river…

ARCTIC ICE EXTENT AUGUST 18TH                               &nbs.png
Coeur de Lion
Reply to  anthropocene
August 20, 2022 1:42 pm

When it bottoms out above five this equinox?

John Tillman
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
August 20, 2022 5:47 pm

It’s tracking 2009, 2013 and 2014 at the moment, the highest three years since 2006, so should bottom out above 5 M. Yesterday, extent was over 2013 and 2014, and fixing to cross over 2009 as well. Will see.

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

It’s well over the 2011-20 average. Last year was higher, too, so this decade is shaping up to beat the last one, as would be expected from the natural cycle of Arctic sea ice waxing and waning.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
Redge
Reply to  anthropocene
August 20, 2022 11:36 pm

 so ice-free in September in 24 years

Setting aside the comments below, which are spot on, even if all the ice melted, there is still no empirical evidence proving beyond doubt that the rise in man-made CO2 is the cause.

John Tillman
Reply to  anthropocene
August 21, 2022 2:59 pm

Last year’s Arctic sea ice minimum set on September 16 was 1.33 million square kilometers (514,000 square miles) above the record minimum extent in the satellite era, 3.387 million sq km, set on September 17, 2012.

This year’s is liable to be higher still, ie above 5 million square kilometers. It might be the highest minimum since 2006, which record currently belongs to 2009, at 5.119 million sq km on September 13..

We’ll see next month. In any case, the trend has been up since 2012.

Last edited 1 month ago by John Tillman
MarkW
Reply to  Redge
August 20, 2022 3:03 pm

Most climate scientists wouldn’t know real science, or real data if it bit them in the butt.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 11:28 am

griff,
You’re making that up. This is what Gore actually stated:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/02/facebook-posts/fact-checking-claims-al-gore-said-all-arctic-ice-w/

Al Gore said in 2009 that “the North Pole will be ice-free in the summer by 2013 because of man-made global warming.”

Screenshot 2022-08-20 at 13-27-32 PolitiFact - Fact-checking claims that Al Gore said all Arctic ice will be gone in the summer by 2013.png
MarkW
Reply to  Mike Maguire
August 21, 2022 9:25 am

Politifact has always worked hard to protect Democrat lies.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 3:11 pm

You really ought to stop lying, Griff, it’s bad for your soul. If you have one.

MarkW
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
August 21, 2022 9:26 am

He sold his to the party years ago.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 3:56 pm

A prime example of Climate Science De-Jour being foisted on an assumed ignorant hoi polloi populace by a snake oil salesman and passed as fact to be trumpeted by ignorant parrot Yes Men in an effort to add credence to an otherwise idiotic notion

Reply to  AZeeman
August 20, 2022 12:05 pm

the problem is that people listen to Al Gore, who took two science courseS in college and could not even get a C grade on either of them. GORE is A DOOFUS, NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. A RICH DOOFUS.

DrEd
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 20, 2022 5:21 pm

Flunked out of Divinity school and dropped out of law school. No fixing stupid.

alexei
Reply to  DrEd
August 20, 2022 8:32 pm

There seems to be very little of the divine in his behaviour.

mal
Reply to  alexei
August 20, 2022 10:36 pm

PT Barnum would be proud of Al Gore. Giff if you don’t understand it, it still remains you are the sucker.

rho
August 20, 2022 8:22 am

So, for the past 50 years we’ve been having “The world will in end in 10 years if we don’t do….what ever the cause of the day is”. Amazing, we’ve been destroyed five times already!

Bryan A
Reply to  rho
August 20, 2022 8:35 am

For the past 50 years or so, cold fusion has also been 10 years away.
Perpetual predictions … YES
Perpetual doom … NO
Perpetual energy…NO
Perpetual Insanity … DEFINITELY

Reply to  Bryan A
August 20, 2022 1:53 pm

And downunder in the Wide Brown Land we have at least 2 readily checkable examples of continuing decade after decade of mass insanity.
[A] On eastern Oz coast since ~1960’s councils have been approving residential subdivision in proximity to or in fire prone native forest.
[B] On eastern Oz coast since forevah councils have been approving residential subdivisions on flood prone land. Now State Pollies are ruminating about land swaps or buybacks – the cost could be in hundreds of $Bns
Remembering the great Hawkesbury flood tragedy of 1867 22Jun2017 
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-22/eather-family-remember-the-great-hawkesbury-flood-of-1867/8641634
The 1867 flood height is still unsurpassed I think. But of course Warragamba Dam has existed since circa 1930’s.
Quote – “It was the largest recorded flood in history,” Hawkesbury council historian Michelle Nichols said.

Old Cocky
Reply to  wazz
August 20, 2022 2:48 pm

Warragamba dam was completed in 1960. Apparently construction was delayed by a series of floods in the 1950s.

Being a dedicated water supply dam, any flood mitigation is mostly good luck, and only covers one of the major tributaries.

Reply to  Old Cocky
August 20, 2022 8:52 pm

1950 was a big rain year for NSW
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/?ref=ftr#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ=graph%3Drranom%26area%3Dnsw%26season%3D0112%26ave_yr%3D0
Then post WWII we had surplus aircraft and crews and there was a series of cloud seeding experiments carried out.

Old Cocky
Reply to  wazz
August 20, 2022 10:09 pm

’55 was wet as well.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  rho
August 20, 2022 3:31 pm

Claiming climate crises to promote the Communists desire to destroy the West by banning ICE & “sacrificing democracy” goes back > 50 yrs to the Glow-Bull Cooling Scare. It’s amazing how as much as things change they still stay the same- using fear porn to scare people into doing what they
want them to do!

H2Omelon.png
Last edited 1 month ago by Old Man Winter
fretslider
August 20, 2022 8:32 am

An honest loony has a sandwich board with “The End is Nigh” on it

Harold Camping only failed twice

griff
August 20, 2022 8:58 am

Soon is not a reliable source of information.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 9:03 am

Name one thing he’s said that’s not reliable? On the other hand, nothing you’ve said has been reliable, unless you mean reliably wrong.

Redge
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 9:22 am

Examples, not assertions?

Editor
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 9:23 am

Griff is reliable in being incorrect on anything and not a reliable source of information.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 9:26 am

Pot? There’s a Kettle for you on line one!

Janice Moore
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
August 20, 2022 9:40 am

Except, here, it is the pot calling the fine bone china teapot “black.” (<– Note: this is NOT at all to mean ANYTHING about the color of ANYONE’S skin).

Walter
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 10:04 am

Why are you always trolling? Are you friends with Michael Mann?

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Walter
August 20, 2022 3:19 pm

It appears insane.

fretslider
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 10:09 am

“ a reliable source of information”

Ie not the Grauniad, the waffen BBC or the msm in general

Politico says the weather station report by our host is false news

As if

Mark BLR
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 10:15 am

Soon is not a reliable source of information.

Neither are anonymous Internet (/ WUWT) posters.

At least I have sufficient self-awareness to know that the above observation also applies to me.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mark BLR
Climate believer
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 1:16 pm

Willie Soon is a hoot, guy’s a legend.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 3:05 pm

Translation: Soon isn’t being controlled by the climate goon squad.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 3:18 pm

Says Griff, the one poster who will not debate or accept any evidence. You are a liar.

aussiecol
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 3:55 pm

”Soon is not a reliable source of information.”

Says who?… You?
LOL, joke of the day.

H.R.
Reply to  aussiecol
August 20, 2022 5:01 pm

Dang! griff is a day late posting the Friday Funny. Missed it by |–| that much.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 4:11 pm

Yamal trees are not a reliable source for temperature proxy data
Mann is not a reliable source for Climate Graphs
Cook is not a reliable source for unaltered raw data storage
Lewandowski is not a reliable source for unbiased psychology

leitmotif
Reply to  griff
August 20, 2022 4:18 pm

griff is the most reliable source of information. Ask any Guardian reader.

The next best is Putin. Nice Russian boy.

Reply to  griff
August 21, 2022 2:56 pm

Willie Soon is the first author on (2001) “Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertaintiesClimate Res. 18(3 ), 259-275, which destroyed the entire global warming industry.

Which is why the charlatans running Climate Crock Inc.™ studiedly ignored the paper.

The Soon, et al., paper is as relevant today as it was in 2001, because climate physics has advanced zero inches forward since then. Thank-you modelers.

Here’s the Abstract: A likelihood of disastrous global environmental consequences has been surmised as a result of projected increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. These estimates are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy despite recent substantial strides in knowledge.

Because the expected anthropogenic climate forcings are relatively small compared to other background and forcing factors (internal and external), the credibility of the modeled global and regional responses rests on the validity of the models.

We focus on this important question of climate model validation. Specifically, we review common deficiencies in general circulation model (GCM) calculations of atmospheric temperature, surface temperature, precipitation and their spatial and temporal variability. These deficiencies arise from complex problems associated with parameterization of multiply interacting climate components, forcings and feedbacks, involving especially clouds and oceans.

We also review examples of expected climatic impacts from anthropogenic CO₂ forcing. Given the host of uncertainties and unknowns in the difficult but important task of climate modeling, the unique attribution of observed current climate change to increased atmospheric CO₂ concentration, including the relatively well-observed latest 20 yr, is not possible.

We further conclude that the incautious use of GCMs to make future climate projections from incomplete or unknown forcing scenarios is antithetical to the intrinsically heuristic value of models. Such uncritical application of climate models has led to the commonly held but erroneous impression that modeling has proven or substantiated the hypothesis that CO₂ added to the air has caused or will cause significant global warming.

An assessment of the merits of GCMs and their use in suggesting a discernible human influence on global climate can be found in the joint World Meteorological Organisation and United Nations Environmental Programme’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports (1990, 1995 and the upcoming 2001 report).

Our review highlights only the enormous scientific difficulties facing the calculation of climatic effects of added atmospheric CO₂ in a GCM. The purpose of such a limited review of the deficiencies of climate model physics and the use of GCMs is to illuminate areas for improvement. Our review does not disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate.

The fact of the matter is, you’re being dishonest griff. Declaring from ignorance. Ideologically outspoken absent understanding. That’s you.

The last sentence of the abstract was probably the added sop to get the paper published.

Brad-DXT
August 20, 2022 10:25 am

Willie Soon is a fantastic speaker. He is interesting with a great sense of humor – much funnier than most comedians. He is able to take scientific data and bring it into a presentation that the layman can understand.

I certainly hope he can get CERES-Science listed as a 401 C3 or C4 charity. It would greatly increase his funding. I generally don’t give money to programs that I can’t get a tax write off but this will be an exception.

Bruce Cobb
August 20, 2022 10:30 am

They can’t get get the present right, let alone the future.

J.R.
August 20, 2022 10:31 am

“Not just bad science but anti-science!”

This should be the rallying cry for climate realists.

Reply to  J.R.
August 20, 2022 12:14 pm

THE RALLY CRY SHOULD BE
Always wrong predictions of climate doom are not science
They are climate astrology

H.R.
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 20, 2022 7:01 pm

Worse, Richard. Even astrologers make a lucky guess here and there.

DMacKenzie
August 20, 2022 10:49 am

One simply must watch the first 50 minutes…contains the best CC reality graphics ever shown in one presentation !

Last edited 1 month ago by DMacKenzie
August 20, 2022 12:03 pm

I wish I had a good one page summary of failed predictions by scientists.
Any prediction of environmental doom, not just science
And no predictions by politicians — who cares what they think?

“Climate change” currently means a prediction of CAGW
That prediction has been wrong for over 50 years.

The people who make those always wrong predictions must be ridiculed
That’s how you break apart the appeal to authority logical fallacy
Attack the credibility of the “authorities”
Show how consistently wrong their past predictions have been
And maybe their current predictions will be ignored?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 20, 2022 1:43 pm

Here is your summary in one image:

comment image

The tendency of climate models to overstate warming in the tropical troposphere has long been noted. Here we examine individual runs from 38 newly released Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6 (CMIP6) models and show that the warm bias is now observable globally as well.

(“Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layers,” R. McKitrick and J. Christy, 15 July 2020, Abstract, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EA001281 )

Last edited 1 month ago by Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 20, 2022 2:20 pm

Thanks, but I was looking for completely wrong predictions
The climate models are just predictions of a much faster rate of warming than actually happened. The Russian INM model is in the ballpark of reality.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 20, 2022 2:23 pm

The climate models are unskilled, unfit for purpose, i.e., “failed.” How much more wrong can one get?

Best wishes compiling your list.

Climate believer
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 21, 2022 12:28 am
Janice Moore
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 20, 2022 1:55 pm

As for the list you requested:

Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.

David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, March 20, 2000

Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward instead. … There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before Christmas. It is nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a real problem with spring because so much is flowering so early year to year.

“Express,” Dr. Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, February 8, 2008

The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.

Dr. James Hansen, 1988, when asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years. Interview with author Rob Reiss.

(Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/ )

The reason there are so few on this list is:

1.    I felt I’d spent enough time on this.

2.    While there were many wildly inaccurate predictions by non-scientists, most of the credentialed scientists (unlike the 3 listed above) were much more careful to say such and such “could” happen or “would be expected to if” and to use other, similar, qualifications. 

They intended to promote AGW, nevertheless. Thus, their quotes really should be on the list, but, they crafted their statements with big loopholes to dive through if confronted with the clear implication of their remarks.

Last edited 1 month ago by Janice Moore
John Tillman
Reply to  Janice Moore
August 20, 2022 6:08 pm

SEP 8, 2006 – 10:09 PM EDT
Arctic – the last refuge from climate changeBy NUNATSIAQ NEWS
By 2100, “billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic, where the climate remains tolerable.”
“We have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realize how little time is left to act, and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilization for as long as they can.”
These predictions are from Dr. James Lovelock, the scientist best known for the Gaia theory, which says the Earth is a super-organism, now totally out of whack.
Lovelock is a fellow of the Royal Society of England and the inventor of the Electron Capture Detector, which assisted in discoveries about the persistence of chlorofluorocarbons and their role in ozone depletion.
Lovelock believes that average temperatures will increase 5 C in the tropics and an 8 C in the temperate areas.
“Our global furnace is out of control. By 2020, 2025, you will be able to sail a sailboat to the North Pole. The Amazon will become a desert, and the forests of Siberia will burn and release more methane and plagues will return.”
Lovelock says he isn’t convinced it’s possible to fix the problem of global warming before it gets out of control.
“There’s no realization of how quickly and irreversibly the planet is changing. Maybe 200 million people will migrate close to the Arctic and survive this. Even if we took extraordinary steps, it would take the world 1,000 years to recover,” Lovelock says.
“I have children, I have grandchildren, I wish none of this. But it’s our fate; we need to recognize it’s another wartime. We desperately need a Moses to take us to the Arctic and preserve civilization. It’s too late to turn back.”
In a report published on Aug. 18, the World Meteorological Organization said the ozone situation will be back to normal by 2060 to 2075 above the Antarctica and a bit sooner for middle latitudes and the Arctic.
And some of the world’s top climate scientists now appear to be less concerned about global warming. A draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says temperature increases can be held to two degrees Celsius by 2100 by just holding greenhouse gas emissions at the current levels.

Lovelock died last month on his 103rd birthday, from complications after a fall.

Recent plagues have nothing at all to do with global warming.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
August 20, 2022 6:12 pm

Six years later, he walked back his alarmism (from Wiki):

Statements from 2012 portrayed Lovelock as continuing his concern over global warming while at the same time criticising extremism and suggesting alternatives to oil, coal and the green solutions he did not support.[41]
In a 2012 interview, aired on MSNBC, Lovelock stated that he had been “alarmist”, using the words “All right, I made a mistake,” about the timing of climate change and noted the documentary An Inconvenient Truth and the book The Weather Makers as examples of the same kind of alarmism. Lovelock still believed the climate to be warming although not at the rate of change that he once thought, he admitted that he had been “extrapolating too far.” He believed that climate change is still happening, but it will be felt farther in the future.[41] Of the claims “the science is settled” on global warming he stated:[54]

One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.[54]

He criticised environmentalists for treating global warming like a religion.[54]

It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion.

I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.[54]

In this 2012 MSNBC article Lovelock is quoted as saying:[41]

The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.

The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.

The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time … it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising – carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.[41]

In a follow up interview also in 2012 Lovelock stated his support for natural gas; he favoured fracking as a low-polluting alternative to coal.[28][54] He opposed the concept of “sustainable development“, where modern economies might be powered by wind turbines, calling it meaningless drivel.[54][55] He kept a poster of a wind turbine to remind himself how much he detested them.[28]
In Novacene (2019) Lovelock proposed that benevolent superintelligence may take over and save the ecosystem, and stated that the machines will need to keep organic life around to keep the planet’s temperature habitable for electronic life.[56] On the other hand, if instead life becomes entirely electronic, “so be it: we played our part and newer, younger actors are already appearing on stage”.[57]

Dave Andrews
Reply to  John Tillman
August 21, 2022 8:48 am

In his book The Vanishing Face of Gaia 2009 Lovelock is pretty apocalyptic but he is also scathing about so called ‘renewable’ energy and in particular wind power.

“Europe’s massive use of wind as a supplement to baseload electricity will probably be remembered as one of the great follies of the twenty – first century – an example of impressive engineering misused by ideology and as inappropriate as passenger transport by hydrogen filled air ships”

As for nuclear –

“It is sad that so many of the green movement and their intellectual followers still oppose nuclear on grounds as insubstantial as a fear of hellfire and Satan”

Reply to  Richard Greene
August 20, 2022 1:58 pm

John Brignell has had his great www page but I do not think he is updating it now. Obviously links tend to die with age too. But very entertaining.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

John Hultquist
Reply to  wazz
August 20, 2022 2:20 pm

 If you go to that link and scroll to the end you will find the explanation of why the “list” is not growing nor kept up to-date.
The time it takes to process a new entry increases approximately with the square of the list length, after checking for duplications, spoofs etc. Starting it was based on the naïve assumption that the rate of appearances would decline as opposing evidence accumulated, but the reverse happened. That’s the difference between science and religion. It was taking over my life, which I did not want to end as a garbage collector. There have since been hundreds more claims of an increasingly ludicrous nature.”

Yooper
Reply to  Richard Greene
August 21, 2022 5:02 am

Try here, it’s a hoot:

https://extinctionclock.org/

RevJay4
August 20, 2022 4:00 pm

The list could be shorter of climate predictions which came true. I think that number is somewhere around zero.

Steve Oregon
August 20, 2022 5:06 pm

This 1992 advise is far more prudent today as severely foolish steps are about to be taken.

What To Do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap

by S. Fred Singer, Roger Revelle and Chauncey Starr

Cosmos: A Journal of Emerging Issues Vol. 5, No. 2, Summer 1992 

Conclusion

Drastic, precipitous and, especially, unilateral–steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective. Stringent controls enacted now would be economically devastating particularly for developing countries for whom reduced energy consumption would mean slower rates of economic growth without being able to delay greatly the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Yale economist William Nordhaus, one of the few who have been trying to deal quantitatively with the economics of the greenhouse effect, has pointed out that “. . . those who argue for strong measures to slow greenhouse warming have reached their conclusion without any discernible analysis of the costs and benefits. . . .” It would be prudent to complete the ongoing and recently expanded research so that we will know what we are doing before we act. “Look before you leap” may still be good advice. 

http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/COSMOS1992.pdf

Last edited 1 month ago by Steve Oregon
Ulric Lyons
August 21, 2022 9:04 am

PHONEY PHYSICS

According to the way climate scientists calculate Earth’s mean surface temperature, it is 5.45°C without clouds (and without surface reflections), and -18.3°C with clouds etc. They attribute the difference between the -18.3°C and the measured temperature of around 15°C, to an atmospheric greenhouse effect of around +33­­°C in total.

And they have violated the physics twice, firstly by discounting night time and modeling the Earth as being heated from all directions all of the time, which results an equivalent black body planetary temperature 113°C too warm. And secondly by neglecting the massive heat capacity of the oceans, which keep Earth’s surface so warm during the night.

According to their method, the Lunar global mean surface temperature, including 11% surface albedo, would be close to -3°C, but it is actually around -70°C.

The sunlit Lunar surface at any given time is much warmer than on Earth, but the global mean temperature of Earth is far higher, primarily due to the oceans which barely cool at the surface at night because convection sets in and sinking colder water is replaced by warmer water from below. The largest green house gas, water vapour, keeps Earth’s daytime maximum surface temperatures lower, as it absorbs considerable amounts of solar near infrared, it only keeps Earth’s night time surface warmer, like low clouds do.

The orthodox method, solar irradiance is spread over the whole spheroid, which is called the divide ‘by four method’:

394K x 0.25^0.25 = 278.6K (Kelvin) or 5.45°C

minus the 30% albedo from cloud and surface reflection:

278.6K x 0.7^0.25 = 254.833K or -18.3°C

The correct ‘divide by two’ method for the mean temperature of the actual heated hemisphere, applied to the Moon:

394K x 0.5^0.25 = 331.313K

minus 11% surface albedo:

331.313K x 0.89^0.25 = 321.8K

and averaged with a lunar dark side mean temperature of 90K, which is dependent on the heat capacity of the Lunar regolith:

(321.8 + 90) / 2 = 205.9K or -67.25°C.

———————————————

394K or around 121°C is the maximum temperature which most materials can reach at Earth’s distance from the Sun. Some metals with poor emission can get hotter. The Lunar surface is roughly in equilibrium with solar irradiance, so midday equatorial surface temperatures get close to that maximum. Doubling or halving it’s rotation rate won’t affect that, but it would affect the dawn and dusk terminator surface temperatures, in opposite directions.
If the Lunar regolith had less heat capacity, its dark side at any given time would be colder, but the sunlit side would be almost the same temperature.

The divide by two method for Earth, after 6% Rayleigh scattering losses by oxygen, 16% solar near infrared absorbed by water vapour, and 30% albedo reflections, and without including any longwave radiation from the atmosphere, the mean surface temperature for the sunlit side at any given time would be 285.67K, or 12.52°C. Which is just 4.5°C less than the global mean sea surface temperature. That does not leave much room for a radiative greenhouse effect.
PHONEY PHYSICS

According to the way climate scientists calculate Earth’s mean surface temperature, it is 5.45°C without clouds (and without surface reflections), and -18.3°C with clouds etc. They attribute the difference between the -18.3°C and the measured temperature of around 15°C, to an atmospheric greenhouse effect of around +33­­°C in total.

And they have violated the physics twice, firstly by discounting night time and modeling the Earth as being heated from all directions all of the time, which results an equivalent black body planetary temperature 113°C too warm. And secondly by neglecting the massive heat capacity of the oceans, which keep Earth’s surface so warm during the night.

According to their method, the Lunar global mean surface temperature, including 11% surface albedo, would be close to -3°C, but it is actually around -70°C.

The sunlit Lunar surface at any given time is much warmer than on Earth, but the global mean temperature of Earth is far higher, primarily due to the oceans which barely cool at the surface at night because convection sets in and sinking colder water is replaced by warmer water from below. The largest green house gas, water vapour, keeps Earth’s daytime maximum surface temperatures lower, as it absorbs considerable amounts of solar near infrared, it only keeps Earth’s night time surface warmer, like low clouds do.

The orthodox method, solar irradiance is spread over the whole spheroid, which is called the divide ‘by four method’:

394K x 0.25^0.25 = 278.6K (Kelvin) or 5.45°C

minus the 30% albedo from cloud and surface reflection:

278.6K x 0.7^0.25 = 254.833K or -18.3°C

The correct ‘divide by two’ method for the mean temperature of the actual heated hemisphere, applied to the Moon:

394K x 0.5^0.25 = 331.313K

minus 11% surface albedo:

331.313K x 0.89^0.25 = 321.8K

and averaged with a lunar dark side mean temperature of 90K, which is dependent on the heat capacity of the Lunar regolith:

(321.8 + 90) / 2 = 205.9K or -67.25°C.

———————————————

394K or around 121°C is the maximum temperature which most materials can reach at Earth’s distance from the Sun. Some metals with poor emission can get hotter. The Lunar surface is roughly in equilibrium with solar irradiance, so midday equatorial surface temperatures get close to that maximum. Doubling or halving it’s rotation rate won’t affect that, but it would affect the dawn and dusk terminator surface temperatures, in opposite directions.
If the Lunar regolith had less heat capacity, its dark side at any given time would be colder, but the sunlit side would be almost the same temperature.

The divide by two method for Earth, after 6% Rayleigh scattering losses by oxygen, 16% solar near infrared absorbed by water vapour, and 30% albedo reflections, and without including any longwave radiation from the atmosphere, or any evaporative surface cooling, the mean surface temperature for the sunlit side at any given time would be 285.67K, or 12.52°C. Which is just 4.5°C less than the global mean sea surface temperature. That does not leave much room for a radiative greenhouse effect.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ulric Lyons
Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
August 21, 2022 10:37 am

MOD, could you please edit out the duplicate post, and then delete this comment, thanks.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
August 22, 2022 10:44 am

Keep the second copy as it has been edited, thanks.

RoHa
August 22, 2022 11:59 pm

OK, so they’ve got a few things wrong.
OK, so they’ve got nearly everything wrong.
Every time.
But that doesn’t mean they won’t be right soon.

We’re still doomed.

Trust me.

%d bloggers like this: