Some Failed Climate Predictions

[Sunsettommy]

[

You deniers label all things propaganda that are facts.

The fact that you call people who don't buy into your theory "deniers" tells me that it is a hoax simply because you must try to demonize the opposing argument.

Your deniers because YOU deny the existence of global warming.


And that denial includes all facts to contrary by actual scientists.

Why do you need to lie a lot?

I never dispute the warming trend, it is obvious in many time scales, however I DO dispute the AGW conjecture because of their provable modeling failures. I have posted hard evidence of such failures a number of times already.

All you seem to have are obnoxious one liners to throw around.

You have posted crap.

Modeling by the IPCC has been updated many times since 1990 by faster computers and the data that they utilize.

Scientific consensus has been reached on the issue of AGW, yet you bring cherry picked BS in here and expect to convince people to applaud your idiotic denial.

Sorry not buying it.

Really you are that ignorant of those later IPCC updates?

Here is the 2007 IPCC report that actually says essentially the same Per Decade warming projection, but with one difference, .30C is now the absolute minimum.

"For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected."

From HERE is this chart showing ZERO warming since 2007,

Since 1990 just .40C warming total, LINK

 

[Sunsettommy]

[

You deniers label all things propaganda that are facts.

The fact that you call people who don't buy into your theory "deniers" tells me that it is a hoax simply because you must try to demonize the opposing argument.

Your deniers because YOU deny the existence of global warming.


And that denial includes all facts to contrary by actual scientists.

Why do you need to lie a lot?

I never dispute the warming trend, it is obvious in many time scales, however I DO dispute the AGW conjecture because of their provable modeling failures. I have posted hard evidence of such failures a number of times already.

All you seem to have are obnoxious one liners to throw around.

You have posted crap.

Modeling by the IPCC has been updated many times since 1990 by faster computers and the data that they utilize.

Scientific consensus has been reached on the issue of AGW, yet you bring cherry picked BS in here and expect to convince people to applaud your idiotic denial.

Sorry not buying it.

You still avoid addressing post 82.

 

[abu afak]

You still avoid addressing post 82.

I'll be gald to help out goofy.
What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?

Climate Myth...

"Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong"
'On June 23, 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen testified before the House of Representatives that there was a strong "cause and effect relationship" between observed temperatures and human emissions into the atmosphere. At that time, Hansen also produced a model of the future behavior of the globe’s temperature, which he had turned into a video movie that was heavily shopped in Congress. That model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C (Figure 1). Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11°C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted. The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure, and IPCC’s 1990 statement about the realistic nature of these projections was simply wrong.' (Pat Michaels)​

In 1988, James Hansen projected future warming trends. He used 3 different scenarios, identified as A, B, and C. Each represented different levels of greenhouse gasemissions. Scenario A assumed greenhouse gas emissions would continue to accelerate. Scenario B assumed a slowing and eventually constant rate of growth. Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around the year 2000. The actual greenhouse gas emissions since 1988 have been closest to Scenario B. As shown below, the actual warming has been less than Scenario B.

Figure 1: Global surface temperature computed for scenarios A, B, and C, compared with observational data

More at link above.
`

 

[Pilot1]

Global warming is the joke of the RELIGIOUS LEFT.

 

[Crick]

I don't find it the least bit funny. The world we are leaving our children has some serious problems that we could have dealt with far easier than will they... if they can be dealt with at all. The current predictions for sea level rise will likely force the displacement of more than 650 million people by 2100. God, that sounds like a real lark, doesn't it.

 

[Old Rocks]

There are many climate predictions that were spot on. However, a lot of them happened much sooner than they were supposed to. And the same year that this lecture was given at the American Geophysical Union convention, Dr. Jennifer Francis gave a lecture concerning how the ice in the Arctic was creating weather disasters in the temperate zone. And that is exactly what we have been seeing for the last five years.

 

[Sunsettommy]

After 105 comments, not ONE warmist person actually addressed the content of post 1.

Just a lot of tip toeing and babbling around it went on, but ZERO counterpoint to the CONTENT of Post 1 itself.

It is clear no warmist wants to deal with documented reality of the IPCC prediction/projection failures. I see this in other website I visit too, the same warmist reluctance to deal with scientific reality of IPCC modeling failures.

 

[Crick]

Let's do a post comparison here Tommy. Between you and me over the last couple of weeks, whose posted the most links to peer reviewed scientific studies? And, guess what? WUWT articles just don't make the grade.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Let's do a post comparison here Tommy. Between you and me over the last couple of weeks, whose posted the most links to peer reviewed scientific studies? And, guess what? WUWT articles just don't make the grade.

Ha ha, another warmist comment that doesn't address post one at all.

If you were not so scared to look there, it showed the links to the IPCC and the links to ALL of the datasets.

The real reason why you people are chicken Little warmists is because you can't address it.

 

[Crick]

There is no need to address crap like WUWT and your other sources. You fail to address the peer reviewed data that has convinced more than 97% of the world's climate scientists that the world is warming AND that humans are the primary cause AND that it is a threat that needs to be dealt with immediately and dramatically.

When you have all the science in the world behind you, why bother with ignorant, dishonest crap?

 

[skookerasbil]

There is no need to address crap like WUWT and your other sources. You fail to address the peer reviewed data that has convinced more than 97% of the world's climate scientists that the world is warming AND that humans are the primary cause AND that it is a threat that needs to be dealt with immediately and dramatically.

When you have all the science in the world behind you, why bother with ignorant, dishonest crap?

If you really think that climate change is going to be addressed immediately and dramatically, then s0n, I highly suggest you get to work on your emergency ark. This stuff might be high on your priority list in life but it's very low on the priority list for most people.... like so far down it's completely off the radar. As in you might as well be standing naked on a stool shaking a banana at people in the middle of Siberia and screaming, "Do something!!"

C'mon now.... you and Old Rocks have been posting up the same nonsense for years now and what has changed? Would you really like me to answer that?

 

[skookerasbil]

Sunset.... these morons and their Arctic obsessions. You can't make it up. I really do think they're not aware that the cold has shifted Southward and Eastward.

These idiots think it's disappeared!!

 

[Sunsettommy]

There is no need to address crap like WUWT and your other sources. You fail to address the peer reviewed data that has convinced more than 97% of the world's climate scientists that the world is warming AND that humans are the primary cause AND that it is a threat that needs to be dealt with immediately and dramatically.

When you have all the science in the world behind you, why bother with ignorant, dishonest crap?

Like I said before, you are too chicken to just answer the content of post #1.

111 postings, not a single counterpoints shows up. It means warmists has FAILED to produce an argument.

Cheers

 

[Crick]

Here you go. Refutes every piece of crap you've posted on this thread.

Happy now?

 

[skookerasbil]

Here you go. Refutes every piece of crap you've posted on this thread.

Happy now?

Not colorful enough s0n!!

Guys like you have been posting up these same subflouous graphs for years now! But what has come of it for your side?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here you go. Refutes every piece of crap you've posted on this thread.

Happy now?

Hardly...

You posted up a model run that has been trained to remove any deviation because there is no predictive phase. So you son have posted up deception and bull shit.. Now lets look at the real data vs your modeling...

Dr Spencer doesn't "train away" the failure like you and you crayola kid graph does... Your graph was done for one purpose and that was to keep the fraud from becoming so exposed that everyone laughs at the lying pieces of shit promoting the lie.

And the ballon data sets expose your bullshit lies!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Modeling by the IPCC has been updated many times since 1990 by faster computers and the data that they utilize.

'Train' away the divergence...

We know this game and we are no longer falling for the bull shit.

 

[Crick]

You posted up a model run that has been trained to remove any deviation because there is no predictive phase. So you son have posted up deception and bull shit..

Do you have a link re this "removing deviation?

And I've got a reality check for you. Data to 2040 is "predictive"

Now lets look at the real data vs your modeling...
View attachment 194757

1) Neither balloon nor satellite are the optimum manner in which to characterize global temperatures and Spencer and Christy's data are famous for being faulty and they, for being resistant to admit it.
2) Spencer's manipulations of the model data in this particular graph were so egregious it effectively ended his career. No one in the field has paid the slightest attention to the man since he cast away his morals and published this piece of shit. I will assume you're already seen "Hot Whoppers"

And the ballon data sets expose your bullshit lies!

Rather, it exposes your ignorance as to what constitutes an accurate measure of the planet's temperature. It sure the fuck ain't from balloons. Nor from Spencer's faulty satellite data.