After 30 years of data global warming alarmism is proven false

MindWars

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2016
42,227
10,743
2,040
While there has been a modest increase in world temperature, the alarmist predictions have failed.

It has been 30 years since the specter of global warming began to loom before the world. It was 1988 when James Hansen, a scientist at NASA, first testified before Congress about the supposed link between the greenhouse effect and observed global warming. Al Gore was late to the party when he released his Oscar-winning movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” in 2006. With three decades of predictions about warming to look back on, we can now assess the accuracy of those early claims about global warming.
After 30 Years Of Data, Global Warming Alarmism Is Proven False - TheResurgent.com
----------------------------------------

This one was a tought one to get through the heads of morons who fell victim of this global warming scam if idiots knew more about agenda 21 and were dumb enough ot fall for the " It's a conspiracy" well then we would have os many victims of stupidity.
 
Interesting. The experts were wrong. Shocking.

Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?

"Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.

What about Mr. Hansen’s other claims? Outside the warming models, his only explicit claim in the testimony was that the late ’80s and ’90s would see “greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.” No such spike has been measured in these regions.

As observed temperatures diverged over the years from his predictions, Mr. Hansen doubled down. In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenland’s ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible. Much of Greenland’s surface melts every summer, meaning rapid melting might reasonably be expected to occur in a dramatically warming world. But not in the one we live in. The Nature study found only modest ice loss after 6,000 years of much warmer temperatures than human activity could ever sustain.

Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious.
 
Interesting use of alarmist. The author conflate the alarmist, like Gore, who often use the worst case scenarios from an experts report, with the expert analysis itself. Fact of the matter is the consensus of most scientist is that extreme events caused by global warming will not take place till the end of this century and beyond. they urge us to do something now while it can make a difference.
 
These climate change liars also claimed the increase in forest and wild fire intensity and size was caused by climate change. Scientists have already proven that's not true, it was caused by human interference.

Nature frequently burns off layers of dry dead debris, the fires are low intensity and healthy for the environment. It burns off the debris, kills off pest infestations, leaves the trees and environment alive and healthy.

Then humans got the bright idea to run around stamping out all of natures fires. Decades of this practice resulted in FEET of dry dead debris building up that would normally have been burned off. Now when a fire starts there's so much dry fuel it burns so hot that it kills the trees and everything in its path, burns fast and over a larger area. Human stupidity caused this not climate change.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
Interesting. The experts were wrong. Shocking.

Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?

"Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.

What about Mr. Hansen’s other claims? Outside the warming models, his only explicit claim in the testimony was that the late ’80s and ’90s would see “greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.” No such spike has been measured in these regions.

As observed temperatures diverged over the years from his predictions, Mr. Hansen doubled down. In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenland’s ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible. Much of Greenland’s surface melts every summer, meaning rapid melting might reasonably be expected to occur in a dramatically warming world. But not in the one we live in. The Nature study found only modest ice loss after 6,000 years of much warmer temperatures than human activity could ever sustain.

Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious.

Guess yah never heard the term RIGGED TO FK YOU OVER.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
upload_2018-6-22_11-17-51.png


Climate Depot
 
Interesting use of alarmist. The author conflate the alarmist, like Gore, who often use the worst case scenarios from an experts report, with the expert analysis itself. Fact of the matter is the consensus of most scientist is that extreme events caused by global warming will not take place till the end of this century and beyond. they urge us to do something now while it can make a difference.
He testified in front of Congress as an expert and policy was created based on his testimony. Too bad he was a shitty scientist.
 
Interesting use of alarmist. The author conflate the alarmist, like Gore, who often use the worst case scenarios from an experts report, with the expert analysis itself. Fact of the matter is the consensus of most scientist is that extreme events caused by global warming will not take place till the end of this century and beyond. they urge us to do something now while it can make a difference.
He testified in front of Congress as an expert and policy was created based on his testimony. Too bad he was a shitty scientist.

Actually the experts responded to his testimony.

"I saw Al Gore give a talk at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco last December. He was cheered by this enormous audience of scientists, who were really excited to hear his message that it's time to take global warming seriously.

But after the talk, a couple of [the scientists] came up to me and said, you know, "He didn't exactly get the science right."

Gore said that Arctic ice could be gone entirely in 34 years, and he made it seem like a really precise prediction. There are certainly scary predictions about what's going to happen to Arctic sea ice in the summertime, but no one can say "34 years." That just implies a degree of certainty that's not there. And that made a few scientists a bit uncomfortable to hear him making it sound so precise.

There are also questions about Al Gore's estimates as to how much the sea levels will rise.

Yes, in fact, in his documentary he talks about what the world will look like – Florida and New York – when the sea level rises by 20 feet. But he deftly avoids mentioning the time frame for which that might happen. When you look at the forecast of sea-level rise, no one's expecting 20 feet of sea-level rise in the next couple of centuries, at least. So that's another thing that makes scientists a little bit uneasy; true, we have to be worried about global sea-level rise, but it's probably not going to happen as fast as Gore implies in his movie."

Al Gore Testifies Before Congress on Global Warming
 
Interesting use of alarmist. The author conflate the alarmist, like Gore, who often use the worst case scenarios from an experts report, with the expert analysis itself. Fact of the matter is the consensus of most scientist is that extreme events caused by global warming will not take place till the end of this century and beyond. they urge us to do something now while it can make a difference.
He testified in front of Congress as an expert and policy was created based on his testimony. Too bad he was a shitty scientist.

Actually the experts responded to his testimony.

"I saw Al Gore give a talk at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco last December. He was cheered by this enormous audience of scientists, who were really excited to hear his message that it's time to take global warming seriously.

But after the talk, a couple of [the scientists] came up to me and said, you know, "He didn't exactly get the science right."

Gore said that Arctic ice could be gone entirely in 34 years, and he made it seem like a really precise prediction. There are certainly scary predictions about what's going to happen to Arctic sea ice in the summertime, but no one can say "34 years." That just implies a degree of certainty that's not there. And that made a few scientists a bit uncomfortable to hear him making it sound so precise.

There are also questions about Al Gore's estimates as to how much the sea levels will rise.

Yes, in fact, in his documentary he talks about what the world will look like – Florida and New York – when the sea level rises by 20 feet. But he deftly avoids mentioning the time frame for which that might happen. When you look at the forecast of sea-level rise, no one's expecting 20 feet of sea-level rise in the next couple of centuries, at least. So that's another thing that makes scientists a little bit uneasy; true, we have to be worried about global sea-level rise, but it's probably not going to happen as fast as Gore implies in his movie."

Al Gore Testifies Before Congress on Global Warming

The article I posted was about the congressional testimony of James Hansen, not the charlatan, Al Gore. Hansen was a poor excuse of a scientist.
 
Interesting use of alarmist. The author conflate the alarmist, like Gore, who often use the worst case scenarios from an experts report, with the expert analysis itself. Fact of the matter is the consensus of most scientist is that extreme events caused by global warming will not take place till the end of this century and beyond. they urge us to do something now while it can make a difference.
He testified in front of Congress as an expert and policy was created based on his testimony. Too bad he was a shitty scientist.

Actually the experts responded to his testimony.

"I saw Al Gore give a talk at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco last December. He was cheered by this enormous audience of scientists, who were really excited to hear his message that it's time to take global warming seriously.

But after the talk, a couple of [the scientists] came up to me and said, you know, "He didn't exactly get the science right."

Gore said that Arctic ice could be gone entirely in 34 years, and he made it seem like a really precise prediction. There are certainly scary predictions about what's going to happen to Arctic sea ice in the summertime, but no one can say "34 years." That just implies a degree of certainty that's not there. And that made a few scientists a bit uncomfortable to hear him making it sound so precise.

There are also questions about Al Gore's estimates as to how much the sea levels will rise.

Yes, in fact, in his documentary he talks about what the world will look like – Florida and New York – when the sea level rises by 20 feet. But he deftly avoids mentioning the time frame for which that might happen. When you look at the forecast of sea-level rise, no one's expecting 20 feet of sea-level rise in the next couple of centuries, at least. So that's another thing that makes scientists a little bit uneasy; true, we have to be worried about global sea-level rise, but it's probably not going to happen as fast as Gore implies in his movie."

Al Gore Testifies Before Congress on Global Warming

The article I posted was about the congressional testimony of James Hansen, not the charlatan, Al Gore. Hansen was a poor excuse of a scientist.

Can't read the WSJ. But here is what Hansen said in 88. His conclusions then were not alarmist Al quality.

https://climatechange.procon.org/sourcefiles/1988_Hansen_Senate_Testimony.pdf
 
Interesting use of alarmist. The author conflate the alarmist, like Gore, who often use the worst case scenarios from an experts report, with the expert analysis itself. Fact of the matter is the consensus of most scientist is that extreme events caused by global warming will not take place till the end of this century and beyond. they urge us to do something now while it can make a difference.

Prove it!
 
Interesting use of alarmist. The author conflate the alarmist, like Gore, who often use the worst case scenarios from an experts report, with the expert analysis itself. Fact of the matter is the consensus of most scientist is that extreme events caused by global warming will not take place till the end of this century and beyond. they urge us to do something now while it can make a difference.
He testified in front of Congress as an expert and policy was created based on his testimony. Too bad he was a shitty scientist.

The SETTING for that testimony was politically calculated to promote a lie. A lie that has been exposed many times, but warmists ignore them to continue their climate doom delusion.
 
Interesting use of alarmist. The author conflate the alarmist, like Gore, who often use the worst case scenarios from an experts report, with the expert analysis itself. Fact of the matter is the consensus of most scientist is that extreme events caused by global warming will not take place till the end of this century and beyond. they urge us to do something now while it can make a difference.

Prove it!

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
 
But wait! What are they going to use now to redistribute wealth, and income? How will they advance Statism, and Globalism? Remember all their solutions are economy, and job killing taxes, surcharges and fees designed to further erode the standard of living of the middle income earner.
 
Interesting use of alarmist. The author conflate the alarmist, like Gore, who often use the worst case scenarios from an experts report, with the expert analysis itself. Fact of the matter is the consensus of most scientist is that extreme events caused by global warming will not take place till the end of this century and beyond. they urge us to do something now while it can make a difference.

Prove it!

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
Global Tropical Cyclone Activity | Ryan Maue
 
Interesting use of alarmist. The author conflate the alarmist, like Gore, who often use the worst case scenarios from an experts report, with the expert analysis itself. Fact of the matter is the consensus of most scientist is that extreme events caused by global warming will not take place till the end of this century and beyond. they urge us to do something now while it can make a difference.

Prove it!

Global Warming and Hurricanes – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Its models all the way down!

You didn't prove anything. Here is the mark of pseudoscience crappola, where the Scientific Method and Null hypothesis doesn't exist in.

"The IPCC AR5 presents a strong body of scientific evidence that most of the global warming observed over the past half century is very likely due to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. But what does this change mean for hurricane activity? Here, we address these questions, starting with those conclusions where we have relatively more confidence. The main text then gives more background discussion. “Detectable” change here will refer to a change that is large enough to be clearly distinguishable from the variability due to natural causes. Our main conclusions are:"
 
But wait! What are they going to use now to redistribute wealth, and income? How will they advance Statism, and Globalism? Remember all their solutions are economy, and job killing taxes, surcharges and fees designed to further erode the standard of living of the middle income earner.

That is exactly right....its all in Saul Alinsky's writings. Controlling the energy is a cornerstone of accelerating trickle-up poverty economics. Only a total bozo can't see it.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top