Climate change predictions from 20 years ago, How accurate were they?

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Seems they were pretty much spot on

What the models correctly told us 20 years ago is that if we continued to add fossil fuels at an increasing rate to the atmosphere, we'd see an increasing range of consequences, including a decline in Arctic sea ice, a rise in sea levels and shifts in precipitation patterns,"

Climate change predictions 2020: Carbon dioxide, weather disasters

serious question: let’s assume that man made global warming has us in the dire predicament everyone is talking about. If that is the case and it’s an existential threat, then aren’t democrats to blame just as much as republicans for not doing anything about it? I mean I would think saving the world should be of utmost priority.

They buy $15M mansions at sea level instead.

That stuff is well documented , but not only that, they want healthcare for everyone, reparations, free college, free this free that, etc.. If the world is going to end the responsible thing would be focusing all energy on saving it and putting the other stuff to the side.

The increases in smog here are very visible since the 1990's.

My guess is about 4X more smog here than in the 1990's.

Often times you can hardly even see the Stars anymore.

In the 90's sometimes I could see the Milkyway, that doesn't happen anymore.


PS.
We spend the #1 costs on healthcare in the World.

Countries which have Universal Healthcare spend about half of what the USA does.

You're not making much sense.

 

[SSDD]

Actually, they were miles off. The frequency and severity of the storms we have now are much less than they were 50 years ago. What is also funny is you still don't understand what a real prediction is. The vague "coulds "mights" and "suggests" that they all use, are the same language that the palm readers use. So no, in actual fact, even their incredibly vague predictions were laughably off.

the predictions were completely off target...we didn’t even come close to the amount of warming predicted in the business as usual scenario...even though our actual emissions have been almost 20% higher than the assumptions the business as usual scenario was based upon...then there were not one but two el Niño events Thad had Hansen known about would have driven his predictions even higher.

the list of failed predictions is lying and tedious....almost as tedious as the list of claims of events happening due to climate that have nothing to do with climate..

 

[flacaltenn]

Seems they were pretty much spot on

What the models correctly told us 20 years ago is that if we continued to add fossil fuels at an increasing rate to the atmosphere, we'd see an increasing range of consequences, including a decline in Arctic sea ice, a rise in sea levels and shifts in precipitation patterns,"

Climate change predictions 2020: Carbon dioxide, weather disasters

That's a cop-out of an article.. With a lot of hype attached to a title they didn't support....

Anywhere in that article where numbers are used, they PURPOSELY did not give the PREDICTED NUMBERS from 30 years ago... Like with their CO2 section...

Since the early 1990s, the carbon dioxide level in the Earth's atmosphere has jumped from about 358 parts per million to nearly 412 ppm, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. That’s a 15% rise in 27 years.

You didn't notice the lack of WHAT WAS PREDICTED in that section did ya??? That's journalistic and scientific malpractice right there. Going for the man on the street level analysis rather than REVEALING the drastic and sometimes CATASTROPHIC NUMERICAL predictions ----- that have NOT happened....

So you lose for getting your scientific briefs from AOC or USToday... I'll GIVE you the prediction for CO2 from back in the 90s, but I aint wasting anymore time on this...

THe UN IPCC is so embarrassed by the utter failure of ALL their models for numerical values of CO2, temperature, and sea level that they STOPPED holding their semi-annual biased conferences and pressers.. Used to be that a NEW dire graph came out every month.. You don't see that anymore.... For example, the bottom line on older temperature predictions...

NOTE where the hype and hysteria crept into the GW crazy train... Back in the 80s, the media and politicians were given the WORST NUMBERS from the models that you see in the graphs above... What was predicted back in the 80s with the models as they were predicted that by 2018, we'd be more than a FULL DEGREE Centigrade (worst case numbers) above where we ACTUALLY ARE today..

THAT's the hype that started the crazy train.. It was NEVER a "science consensus" about actual numbers. And that's why AOC and all the other loonies believe the world is ending in 10 years.. Because they've been punked by 30 year old disastrous predictions that NO ONE --- even the IPCC --- is making today....

 

[sparky]

You don't see that anymore.... For example, the bottom line on older temperature predictions.

I still see it progressing 'up'....

~S~

 

[flacaltenn]

You don't see that anymore.... For example, the bottom line on older temperature predictions.

I still see it progressing 'up'....

~S~

Sure.. The rate of up from those satellite numbers are about 0.13DegC per DECADE... At that rate, it's about 1.3DegC per CENTURY... Which is SCADS less than the earlier predictions of 4 or even 8DegC by 2100 that lit everyone pants on fire.. But NOT the folks following this circus train for 30 years.....

So all the CATASTROPHIC parts of GW theory have not manifest in 3 decades and the train has gone off the tracks and is now commandeered by the fringes of leftist lunacy.....

 

[flacaltenn]

And in addition, we've only had the ability to study CC from SPACE for about 3 decades.. Before that, "global" estimates had more uncertainty than the ACTUAL warming... So 30 years is NOT enough to see the 60 and 100 and 1000 yr NATURAL cycles of CC change that evidence tells us exist..

So between 20 and 50% of that "rise" may be natural cyclical cycles that collide and create variability in the long term climate record...

 

[SSDD]

You don't see that anymore.... For example, the bottom line on older temperature predictions.

I still see it progressing 'up'....

~S~

When you look at those global temperature charts, you should keep in mind that it is only in those global charts which reflect heavily massaged, manipulated, and infilled data that you see "global" warming. If you take the time to look at regional records across the world, you don't see global anything happening. You see a couple of regions warming...a few more regions cooling...and great swaths of not much of any trend at all making itself evident.

 

[ReinyDays]

And in addition, we've only had the ability to study CC from SPACE for about 3 decades.. Before that, "global" estimates had more uncertainty than the ACTUAL warming... So 30 years is NOT enough to see the 60 and 100 and 1000 yr NATURAL cycles of CC change that evidence tells us exist.

What truths we state for CC in 30 year time intervals must also be true for CC in 10,000 year time intervals ... CC in 10 million year time intervals paints us a completely different picture ... it's cold right now ... bitter cold, as cold as it's been since the Cambrian ...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Countries which have Universal Healthcare spend about half of what the USA does.

And you forgot they have substandard healthcare, long lines, and death panels who deny care...

 

[MAGAman]

Seems they were pretty much spot on

What the models correctly told us 20 years ago is that if we continued to add fossil fuels at an increasing rate to the atmosphere, we'd see an increasing range of consequences, including a decline in Arctic sea ice, a rise in sea levels and shifts in precipitation patterns,"

Climate change predictions 2020: Carbon dioxide, weather disasters

The polar ice caps melted away? Odd nobody reported it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Seems they were pretty much spot on

What the models correctly told us 20 years ago is that if we continued to add fossil fuels at an increasing rate to the atmosphere, we'd see an increasing range of consequences, including a decline in Arctic sea ice, a rise in sea levels and shifts in precipitation patterns,"

Climate change predictions 2020: Carbon dioxide, weather disasters

Snow is a thing of the past. The Arctic is ice free.

And there is still not one single lab experiment linking a 120PPM increase in CO2 to temperature

 

[flacaltenn]

And in addition, we've only had the ability to study CC from SPACE for about 3 decades.. Before that, "global" estimates had more uncertainty than the ACTUAL warming... So 30 years is NOT enough to see the 60 and 100 and 1000 yr NATURAL cycles of CC change that evidence tells us exist.

What truths we state for CC in 30 year time intervals must also be true for CC in 10,000 year time intervals ... CC in 10 million year time intervals paints us a completely different picture ... it's cold right now ... bitter cold, as cold as it's been since the Cambrian ...

One of the misrepresentations about GW science is that the paleo record studies show variance for periods shorter than a couple 100 years. , therefore our little 100 year blip is unique and scary.. These studies dont have the time or spatial resolution to show variance under about 400 yr periods..

We're not very accurate at finding ancient climate variance on a century or two scale.. Especially estimating temperature variance on a GLOBAL scale milennia in the past.. All the proxy studies of 4,000 yrs past or higher are basically just running means with all the shorter term variance missing..

 

[flacaltenn]

You don't see that anymore.... For example, the bottom line on older temperature predictions.

I still see it progressing 'up'....

~S~

When you look at those global temperature charts, you should keep in mind that it is only in those global charts which reflect heavily massaged, manipulated, and infilled data that you see "global" warming. If you take the time to look at regional records across the world, you don't see global anything happening. You see a couple of regions warming...a few more regions cooling...and great swaths of not much of any trend at all making itself evident.

Probably because the Earth is not one big uniform climate zone as some of the models assume... The whole idea of ONE silly "global number", just trivializes the complexity of modeling something like this..

Forcing from either CO2 or the Sun or other climate drivers is gonna have monumentally different effects in different climate zones..

And ICE is the WORST thermometer you could use as a "warming proxy"....