Some Failed Climate Predictions

[Sunsettommy]

Watts Up With That?

Some Failed Climate Predictions

October 30,2017

by Javier

EXCERPT:

"Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.

To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.

A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious."

LINK

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Sunset..... a great link to pop into the Skeptics are Winning thread.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Hey Sunset..... a great link to pop into the Skeptics are Winning thread.

I have a reason to make this a thread of its own, to make additional compilation of failures.

 

[westwall]

Watts Up With That?

Some Failed Climate Predictions

October 30,2017

by Javier

EXCERPT:

"Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.

To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.

A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious."

LINK

Their record of failure is so complete that they no longer give anything but the most vague predictions. Even more vague than palm readers. Hell, the well known charlatan sylvia browne had a better prediction rate than the climate change high priests. That's pathetic!

 

[skookerasbil]

I cant count the amount of times I have posed the following question to the alarmist k00ks......

"Where is the consensus science mattering in the real world?" ( outside the internet babble and the little science club )

Asked for links.

To date, not a single one of these bozo's has responded. Not a single time.

 

[Mousterian]

As we all know, predicting the future is always going to be difficult.
Seeing what has happened in the past, and is happening right now is a lot easier.

 

[westwall]

As we all know, predicting the future is always going to be difficult.
Seeing what has happened in the past, and is happening right now is a lot easier.

How old is the perma frost?

 

[fncceo]

 

[westwall]

As we all know, predicting the future is always going to be difficult.
Seeing what has happened in the past, and is happening right now is a lot easier.

Here's some help for you. Clearly your research capabilities are limited.



Evolution of permafrost on the Qinghai‐Xizang (Tibet) Plateau since the end of the late Pleistocene
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006JF000521

 

[Sunsettommy]

As we all know, predicting the future is always going to be difficult.
Seeing what has happened in the past, and is happening right now is a lot easier.

So you avoid the listed few prediction failures in the link with this silly deflection?

Does this mean you admit the AGW conjecture is a colossal failure?

Waiting.........................................................................

 

[francoHFW]

Watts Up With That?

Some Failed Climate Predictions

October 30,2017

by Javier

EXCERPT:

"Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.

To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.

A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious."

LINK

There is no doubt in the minds of all climatologists who are not bought off or the the temperatures around the world or the destruction of environment. Only the brainwashed bought off GOP in the world holds off.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Really like this part, because warmists continually make a fool of themselves over it:

"9. Arctic sea ice predictions"

They are not just wrong, they are hilariously wrong with silly worries over what a summer ice free ocean would do to the planet, not realizing that it was similar conditions for THOUSANDS of years in the early part of the Holocene.

Yet the world is still here, Polar Bears are still here and golly even Humans are still here.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Watts Up With That?

Some Failed Climate Predictions

October 30,2017

by Javier

EXCERPT:

"Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.

To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.

A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious."

LINK

There is no doubt in the minds of all climatologists who are not bought off or the the temperatures around the world or the destruction of environment. Only the brainwashed bought off GOP in the world holds off.

Huh?

 

[cnm]

I like the way it shows observed temperature increases are within predicted ranges. Not bad, modellers, take a bow.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I like the way it shows observed temperature increases are within predicted ranges. Not bad, modellers, take a bow.

You are as usual ignoring the documented failure, to post a model here that you don't understand..

Do you know what RCP 4.5 means?

I talked about this 4 days ago which got ignored by YOU,

Post 222 you didn't reply:

He is so duped that he doesn't realize that RCP 8.5 needs a lot higher per decade warming rate than what HadCrut4 shows in his own chart.

" However, when matching the HadCRUT4 methods for measuring sea surface temperatures, the modeled trend is reduced to 0.196°C per decade. The observed HadCRUT4 trend is 0.170°C per decade."

bolding is mine

It is why I posted those HINTS, to see if they can see the gaping hole in Nutterboys insultingly STUPID article!

But RCP 8.5 needs a LOT higher per decade rate than what ..... he he...... ha ha ha.... HadCrut4 is showing to make it work. Do they have a clue how much higher it needs to be.....?

I already know, but do they have the brains to figure it out?

That is how easily duped he is, beware reading anything Nutterboy writes.

Gawad, the stupid BURNS!

======================================================

and this POST you made 4 days ago, where you thought RCP 8.5 was good, now today you are on record of saying that RCP 4.5 is good and that both of them match HadCrut4 temperature warming trend, which is IMPOSSIBLE!

You are one very confused boy!

Following Nutterboy is bad for your mental health.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Watts Up With That?

Some Failed Climate Predictions

October 30,2017

by Javier

EXCERPT:

"Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.

To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.

A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious."

LINK

There is no doubt in the minds of all climatologists who are not bought off or the the temperatures around the world or the destruction of environment. Only the brainwashed bought off GOP in the world holds off.

So you have empirical evidence you wish to share that is scientifically sound, the science is open and methods/data are present and repeatable?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Really like this part, because warmists continually make a fool of themselves over it:

"9. Arctic sea ice predictions"

They are not just wrong, they are hilariously wrong with silly worries over what a summer ice free ocean would do to the planet, not realizing that it was similar conditions for THOUSANDS of years in the early part of the Holocene.

Yet the world is still here, Polar Bears are still here and golly even Humans are still here.

The Arctic has been ice free 5 times this interglacial alone... Those are proven by multiple proxies and growths that have been found.

 

[Wyatt earp]

 

[skookerasbil]

As we all know, predicting the future is always going to be difficult.
Seeing what has happened in the past, and is happening right now is a lot easier.

The implication being?

 

[skookerasbil]

Watts Up With That?

Some Failed Climate Predictions

October 30,2017

by Javier

EXCERPT:

"Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.

To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.

A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious."

LINK

There is no doubt in the minds of all climatologists who are not bought off or the the temperatures around the world or the destruction of environment. Only the brainwashed bought off GOP in the world holds off.

Who cares s0n.....

Nobody is caring what all the climatologist think. Please show us where their opinion on the climate is mattering in the real world?

Links would be a good idea......