Failed 2020 Climate Predictions

That's right. You have a whole page of links to crankery mixed with papers that don't say what you claim, so that beats everythig!

Good luck with that.

So, what's it like being laughed at by the whole planet for over a decade running now? I can see why that would leave you so cranky. All those years of effort, and for what? You seem to stuck in a sunk cost fallacy. Instead of cutting your losses, you keep on accumulating them.

 

Two peer-reviewed papers. Name-calling won't save you from the science.

The papers are Mitchell et al. (2020) “The vertical profile of recent tropical temperature trends: Persistent model biases in the context of internal variability” Environmental Research Letters, and McKitrick and Christy (2020) “Pervasive warming bias in CMIP6 tropospheric layers” Earth and Space Science.

 

He ignores this all the time:



Diagram showing observed linear decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20oN and 20oS, since January 1979. Data source: HadAT and HadCRUT4. Click here to compare with modelled altitudinal temperature change pattern for doubling atmospheric CO2. Last month included in analysis: December 2012. Last diagram update: 4 May 2013.

LINK

 

I refuted it. 'Nuff said.

Classic projection.

 

I don't see how getting the timetable wrong is not also...getting it wrong.

If you have a climate model that predicts x temperature/event/condition, by y date, then something is wrong is wrong with either the model, the data, or the hypothesis. Given the long string of ridiculously bad prediction from the Climate Warming gang, shouldn't that be the basis of some amount of skepticism?

 

Hansen’s 1988 global-warming prediction was thrice observation
Guest Blogger
Hansen’s business-as-usual scenario A is now universally recognized, even among the Thermageddonites, to have been a baseless and absurd exaggeration. It predicts two or three times as much warming as…

 

But the predictions have been excellent. If someone told you otherwise, they lied to you.

Now the deniers, they've been faceplanting with every prediction for over 40 years running now. While the competent scientists were predicting warming back to the 1970s, the deniers were been predicting "NEW ICE AGE TOMORROW", and they're _still_ predicting it. Their HolyIceAge never arrives, but that doesn't dim their religious zeal. After all, these are TrueBelievers. As is the case with any doomsday cult, each time their icy armageddon fails to arrive as predicted, they simply push back the date some more.

That's why deniers are considered cranks and clowns, because of their unblemished failure record. And conversedly, the record of success from the real scientists is why they have such credibility.

 

You edited my response a bit too much for my liking, totally altering the context of my reply. Why would I trust anything you say about climate change when you are being deceptive on a rather simple point of quoting me accurately?

 

No, the folks who claim the predictions have been accurate have been lying to you:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty...lobal-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442

https://www.thegwpf.com/ten-climate-predictions-for-2020-that-went-horribly-wrong/

etc.

Right: the deniers who deny that the natural processes that caused all previous century-scale warming episodes could still be operative.

Classic projection.

It's the warmist oven that always fails to materialize, and I will thank you to remember it.

The failure record of disappearing arctic sea ice, millions of climate refugees, disappearing island nations, etc., etc.? That failure record?

Right: the real scientists who have never climbed on the CO2-governs-temperature bandwagon.

 

This post is, quite simply, not true.

 

Daniel, this is a very productive video for you to watch.

Believe me, it will calm your soul as few can calm it.
Fear will vanish from your life.

 

Jack all alarmists need to watch this very productive video.
They live in fear. This can calm that fear.

 

When the argument is about posters, the author has lost his debate and it's only his own fault.

 

OKAY, you live in mortal fear. We do not live in mortal fear. Why would you want to keep living in mortal fear?

 

I understand you actually believe that, but that's because a cult has spent years deliberately misinforming you.

It's similar to how flat earthers actually believe the earth is flat. No matter how fervently they believe it, it's still not true, because the evidence says it's not true.

 

First you give us a loony denier op-ed from serial fraud Patrick Michaels that just lies about Hansen. I'm sure the fossil fuel industry paid him well for that, as they always do. Michaels does love those bribes. Do you have anyone on your side who isn't a paid shill?

The other was vague predictions from non-climate scientists, some of which actually came true.

And why did you have to evade like that? Because all the actual predictions were so good. You had to avoid addressing that somehow.

The natural processses were causing slow cooling. That's why the sane people point out that the fast warming is the opposite of the nautral processes, meaning it's not part of the natural processes.

Can you tell us exactly what your "natural processes" are? Be specific. Don't just wave you hands around and yell "recovery from the LIA!". That's an evasion, not a process. Tell us specifically what factors are driving the fast warming now.

It's easy for us to do, present an actual theory, because all of the data backs us up. Not surprisingly, it's very difficult for you to do. Impossible, in fact, because the data all contradicts you.

Oh, but first, make up your mind. You've told us before that there's no warming, and the data is all faked. Now you're telling us there is warming, but it's all natural. You're contradicting yourself. You seem to take whatever position is convenient at any given instance .Can you please select one position and stick to it?

 

Nope. Documented fact.

You made that up.

Jack has posted dozens of references to peer-reviewed papers by reputable scientists, and you know it.

If we believe falsified data instead of our own lying eyes...

I have not evaded anything and you know it.

Garbage. I am old enough to remember clearly what the actual predictions were when they were made. I am also old enough to remember what the climate was like compared to now. The actual predictions by anti-CO2 cultists (not by genuine climate scientists) were laughable scaremongering that turned out wildly wrong.

Nonsense. How could a natural return to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years possibly have been "slow cooling"?? Your claims are just absurd, anti-scientific garbage.

Which was confined to the 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 periods, until the data were retroactively altered to agree with anti-CO2 hysteria.

No, that's simply more nonscience you have made up. How could the highest sustained solar activity in thousands of years have caused slow cooling when we know high solar activity causes warming?

No, and neither can you. But you and your anti-CO2 cult insist that they cannot possibly be operative any more despite not even being able to identify them!

You mean the LIA that Lyin' Michael Mann had to erase to fabricate his hockey stick fraud? That LIA?

Garbage. I have identified the relevant facts and logic. You are the one who is evading by falsely claiming they were just hand waving and yelling. You have to do that because you cannot refute them.

There is no fast warming now, and hasn't been for 20 years. The fast warming of 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 was probably caused by the combination of sustained high solar activity overlaid on the 60-year ocean circulation cycle.

No, only the systematically falsified data do. That is why actual physical events have proved you wrong and will continue to do so.

That is nothing but a bald fabrication on your part, as Jack's many posts of references to peer-reviewed science prove.

Which there hasn't been since 2016:

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

Why do you falsely claim that there is fast warming when the global temperature is more than half a degree C lower now than it was five years ago??

You constantly make that false claim about what I have plainly written. I just referenced data that are not faked, and have done so many times before. And you know it.

No, that is just another bald fabrication on your part. I have stated many times that there WAS warming in the 20th century, and there is likely some modest anthropogenic warming effect overlaid on the various natural cycles.

No, that is another fabrication on your part.

Another fabrication.

I have taken the position that CO2 is not a principal driver of global surface temperatures, and have stuck to it.

 

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

 

The claim that "deniers" promoted belief in global cooling in the 1970's is a lie and easily shown to be so. There were no "deniers" or warmists in the 1970's. Global cooling was simply part of the climate discussion. It was after the political triumph of the warming advocates in the mid-1990's that there arose an effort to airbrush global cooling out of history. This was perpetrated most infamously by William Connolley. The attraction of global cooling for skeptics today has nothing to do with belief in cooling per se, but with its illustrative power to show the fickleness of climate science fashion. Please see Searching for the Catastrophe Signal by Bernie Lewin.

 

The data are against you.

An Earth Day Reminder: “Global Warming” is Only ~50% of What Models Predict
April 22nd, 2021
The claim by the Biden Administration that climate change has placed us in a moment of “profound crisis” ignores the fact that the energy policy changes being promoted are based upon computer model simulations which have produced average warming rates at least DOUBLE those observed in the last 40+ years.

Just about every climate claim made by politicians, and even many vocal scientists, has been either an exaggeration or a lie.

While it is easy for detractors of what I will show to claim I am in the scientific minority (true), or that I am a climate denier (not true; I do not deny some level of human-caused warming), the fact is that the “official” observations in recent decades are in disagreement with the “official” climate models being promoted for the purposes of implementing expensive, economically-damaging, and poverty-worsening energy policies. . . .

 

Mamooth ignored the well documented facts such as this from Hansen in 1987 LINK:

A PHD make stupid predictions..... it was a lot warmer in the Eemian interglacial time that Humans lived through without factories and SUV's in play.

It warms around .6C total (POINT 6C)



LINK

Hansen wasn't even close.....

and,

That was from 2001 LINK

Still a lot of snow left on it.........

Mamooth never cares about the evidence and doesn't post any arguments against it either, he just babbles a lot.

 

You mistyped "mid-1970s". And it was a scientific triumph, not a political one.

No, we like to point out the media failure here, along with the science success.

Is that the wiki editor who underwent political attacks from a denier mob? That's not an example I'd want to bring up if I were you.

Who was pushing cooling in the 1970s?

Dr. George Kukla. He pushed cooling until his death.

Dr. Reid Bryson. He pushed cooling until his death.

Dr. Hubert Lamb. He originally predicted cooling, due to aerosol loading, but by the mid-80s, he accepted the idea of warming.

Everyone else was pushing warming the whole time.

So, one guy was swayed by evidence in the 1980s, and everyone else was consistent. That's not "fickleness". Nobody shifted to the idea of warming in the 1990s, what you say was the political era.

 

Nonsense. Models predicted 0.20C/decade, and we've seen 0.19C/decande. That's a stellar success for the models.

 

You're actually denying that Patrick Micheals is paid by the fossil fuel industry? Oh, I forget. Unless your masters choose to inform you of something, you don't know it.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/02/pat-michaels-climate-skeptic/

You constantly fail at the most basic things. See here? 6000 - 8000 years of slow cooling.

So you're implying that solar activity is the only thing affecting climate. You're throwing orbital factors right out the window.

Our theory explains the observed data extremely well. Your doesn't, so you alter reality to make it match your theory.

Delusional.



Since your theory doesn't explain the current fast warming, your theory is garbage. Denying the current fast warming won't change that, nor will retreating to a SafeSpace.

Your theory is also garbage becuase solar output has been dropping since the 1970s, yet the warming has increased, and ... this is the big part ... the oceans are _warming_, and at an increasing rate. If higher solar activity in the past had warmed the oceans, and those oceans were now warming the air, that wouldn't be happening. The oceans would be, at best, warming at a slowing rate, at that isn't happening. The hard data says your theory is wrong, so your theory is wrong.

 

Pointing out that your claim was false is not misrepresenting it.

So why are you switching from the topic of how you made a false claim to your supposed outrage?