Warmist experts wrong over and over

[Newtonian]

Same people telling you not to wear masks are the ones telling you not to care about climate change

You are off topic....., you have anything to say about WARMISTS prediction failures?

Who said I am not caring about climate change...., you?

On that we agree. Some of the posts here are really off topic! Thankfully some are on topic.

Predictions by humans are fallible - I think we can agree on that as well.

Current events are another matter. Take the Tuvalu Islands for example. From our literature:

Signs of Trouble? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"“Veu Lesa, a 73-year-old villager in Tuvalu, does not need scientific reports to tell him that the sea is rising,” says The New Zealand Herald. “The beaches of his childhood are vanishing. The crops that used to feed his family have been poisoned by salt water. In April [2007], he had to leave his home when a spring tide flooded it, and the waves showered it with rocks and debris.”

FOR the people of Tuvalu, a group of islands no more than 13 feet [4 m] above sea level, global warming is, not abstract science, but “a daily reality,” says the Herald.* Thousands have already left the islands, and many more are preparing to go."

Signs of Trouble? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"Rising Sea Levels and Deforestation

According to an editorial in the journal Science, “sea levels have risen 10 to 20 centimeters [four to eight inches] in the past century, and more is in store for us.” How might this be related to global warming? Researchers point to two possible mechanisms. One is the prospect of the melting of land-based polar ice and glaciers, which would add to the volume of the oceans. The other factor is thermal expansion—as oceans become warmer, their volume increases.

The tiny Pacific islands of Tuvalu may already be experiencing the effects of rising sea levels. Smithsonian magazine notes that data collected on the atoll of Funafuti shows that the sea level there has risen “an average of 0.22 inches [5.6 mm] annually over the past decade.”

... This is from IPCC AR5 ...

IPCC AR5 is five times longer than the Bible ... could you be a little more specific as to where I could see this chart in context ...

Woof!

 

[Newtonian]

Some PNAS links:

Global warming has increased global economic inequality

We find that global warming has very likely exacerbated global economic inequality, including ∼25% increase in population-weighted between-country inequality over the past half century. This increase results from the impact of warming on annual economic growth, which over the course of decades...

www.pnas.org

The scientific challenge of understanding and estimating climate change

Given the slow unfolding of what may become catastrophic changes to Earth’s climate, many are understandably distraught by failures of public policy to rise to the magnitude of the challenge. Few in the science community would think to question the scientific response to the unfolding changes...

www.pnas.org

Excerpt showing what is known (global warming is real) but where science is slowed by political bias:

"The idea that the science of climate change is largely “settled,” common among policy makers and environmentalists but not among the climate science community, has congealed into the view that the outlines and dimension of anthropogenic climate change are understood and that incremental improvement to and application of the tools used to establish this outline are sufficient to provide society with the scientific basis for dealing with climate change. For certain, some things are settled. We know that greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of human activity and that they are largely responsible for warming of surface temperatures globally. We also are confident in our understanding as to why this warming is expected to be amplified over land masses and the Arctic. Likewise, we are confident in our understanding of how the hydrological cycle amplifies the effects of this warming and how warming amplifies the hydrological cycle. For these and other broad brush strokes of the climate change picture, we are also increasingly confident in our ability to usefully bound the magnitude of the effects. From this certainty stems the conviction that additional warming is best avoided by reducing or reversing emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases.

As climate scientists, we are rightfully proud of, and eager to talk about, our contribution to settling important and long-standing scientific questions of great societal relevance. What we find more difficult to talk about is our deep dissatisfaction with the ability of our models to inform society about the pace of warming, how this warming plays out regionally, and what it implies for the likelihood of surprises. In our view, the political situation, whereby some influential people and institutions misrepresent doubt about anything to insinuate doubt about everything, certainly contributes to a reluctance to be too openly critical of our models. Unfortunately, circling the wagons leads to false impressions about the source of our confidence and about our ability to meet the scientific challenges posed by a world that we know is warming globally."

The article goes on to show how to reconcile failed model predictions with the true extent of global warming - see the article.

I am still researching, but what I have found so far confirms much of what Greta Thunberg reported in her speech to the UN despite the personal attacks on her by some posters.

 

[mamooth]

Thank you for the chart. Can you link to it? I would like to study the context.

This website has a good discussion of the history of the chart, and it will link you to the IPCC AR5 report which is the source of the chart.

RealClimate: The evolution of radiative forcing bar-charts

RealClimate: As part of the IPCC WG1 SPM (pdf) released last Friday, there was a subtle, but important, change in one of the key figures - the radiative forcing bar-chart (Fig. SPM.4). The concept for this figure has been a mainstay of summaries of climate change science for decades, and the...

www.realclimate.org

 

[Sunsettommy]

Thank you for the chart. Can you link to it? I would like to study the context.

This website has a good discussion of the history of the chart, and it will link you to the IPCC AR5 report which is the source of the chart.

RealClimate: The evolution of radiative forcing bar-charts

RealClimate: As part of the IPCC WG1 SPM (pdf) released last Friday, there was a subtle, but important, change in one of the key figures - the radiative forcing bar-chart (Fig. SPM.4). The concept for this figure has been a mainstay of summaries of climate change science for decades, and the...

www.realclimate.org

Did you even read your link at all?

ALL of the charts are based on climate models, Emission estimates and Scenarios, you would know that if your read the references at the bottom of the link.

It is also 7 years old with most of the IPCC links in the article are broken since the IPCC deliberately changed the format to make it hard for skeptics you use their baloney against them. I am sure you didn't know that.

There have been a lot of Solar research papers released since then, that the IPCC ignores showing a much greater effect than accounted for by the IPCC.

 

[mamooth]

ALL of the charts are based on climate models,

It's a combination of observation and models. Given how good the models have been proven to be, why would you think that's a problem?

And let's remember what you're deflecting from here. You made a wacky claim that CFCs had no significant warming effect, I showed the claim was wrong, so you're flinging out another senseless conspiracy theory.

It is also 7 years old with most of the IPCC links in the article are broken

The first link to the most recent IPCC AR5 paper with the image works just fine, and that's the one that matters.

since the IPCC deliberately changed the format to make it hard for skeptics you use their baloney against them. I am sure you didn't know that.

I think we were all unaware that dead links and charts evolving for clarity are a great conspiracy. Thank you educating us about that.

There have been a lot of Solar research papers released since then, that the IPCC ignores showing a much greater effect than accounted for by the IPCC.

Are they the same papers that 5 years ago predicted immediately strong cooling?[/QUOTE]

 

[Sunsettommy]

Page 12

"Figure SPM.5 | Radiative forcing estimates in 2011 relative to 1750 and aggregated uncertainties for the main drivers of climate change. Values are global average radiative forcing (RF14), partitioned according to the emitted compounds or processes that result in a combination of drivers. The best estimates of the net radiative forcing are shown as black diamonds with corresponding uncertainty intervals; the numerical values are provided on the right of the figure, together with the confidence level in the net forcing (VH – very high, H – high, M – medium, L – low, VL – very low). Albedo forcing due to black carbon on snow and ice is included in the black carbon aerosol bar. Small forcings due to contrails (0.05 W m–2, including contrail induced cirrus), and HFCs, PFCs and SF6 (total 0.03 W m–2) are not shown. Concentration-based RFs for gases can be obtained by summing the like-coloured bars. Volcanic forcing is not included as its episodic nature makes is difficult to compare to other forcing mechanisms. Total anthropogenic radiative forcing is provided for three different years relative to 1750. For further technical details, including uncertainty ranges associated with individual components and processes, see the Technical Summary Supplementary Material. {8.5; Figures 8.14–8.18; Figures TS.6 and TS.7} "

9 years old.....

Confidence level claims are absurd, which is why you swallow that bullshit so deeply.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Here are a sampling of their prediction failures, keep in mind they are the clods who thinks a trace gas with a trace IR window, can so easily disturb the weather/climate set up, what a mighty Molecule!

2004

Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live - literally

"Antarctica is likely to be the world's only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week."

David King is that stupid...… the stupid turd thinks that it will warm up around 50-75F within the next 80 years from now.
===

2013

The End of the Arctic? Ocean Could be Ice Free by 2015

"Say goodbye to polar bears and a whole lot of ice. New research suggests the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer by 2015, with devastating consequences for the world. Can it be stopped?"

Wadhams wrong... one of several different times

New research was a total failure..... obviously.
===

2007

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

"Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years. Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss."

They were wrong by a lot...…. obviously.
===

2008

View attachment 333806

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole/

Ice free in THAT year 2008...… bzzzzzz! WRONG!

"First time in history"....

Have to add some of this to theglobalwarmingfraud

There is so much Climate Change stupidity going around that it's getting unwieldy.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Flacaltenn post 64 from thread HERE on November 27, 2018

in Reply to Johnlaw,

You seem to have missed the entire point entirely. The theory about "being a model for the GW movement" is secondary to the SCIENCE and the data telling us that the "Ozone hole" fright was NEVER REALLY FIXED. The leadership of the world went on a wild goose chase with brand new satellite toys in the 70s and 80s and created a WORLD WIDE CRISIS where the CFC production went to ZERO -- but the ozone hole never DECREASED.

They just declared victory and moved on. All the lemmings and the lemming leaders. Because THAT science was FAR from settled as well. STILL IS.. All because we suddenly (35 yrs) was able to measure something for the FIRST TIME from space and saw it INCREASING and thought we should "fix it"....

Does that look "fixed" to you? With no ZERO CFCs being released and a 2 yr transit time from storage in the troposphere into the "hole"????

 

[cnm]

Sure. The actual consensus predictions have been excellent, which is why you've been reduced to cherrypicking predictions from random people.

So, it's just more of your ongoing fraud and propaganda campaign.

In contrast to the stellar record of the rational people, your cult has failed with every prediction. That's why climate scientists have credibility, and why you're considered the fanatical acolyte of a liars' cult.

Needed repeating.

 

[cnm]

There is so much Climate Change stupidity going around that it's getting unwieldy.

Sure is.

Global Temperature

 

[ChemEngineer]

"They just declared victory and moved on. "

That's the solution to global warming/climate change!!!!
DECLARE VICTORY.

Leftists said to do that in Vietnam, so let's do it for Climate Change Sharia. WE WON.
DRIVE YOUR CARS. PROBLEM SOLVED.

 

[Sunsettommy]

There is so much Climate Change stupidity going around that it's getting unwieldy.

Sure is.

Global Temperature

Ha ha ha, you use the worst possible temperature data set, they have changed the data so many times it doesn't even match older charts at all anymore, note where they changed the starting point, which used to be well below the 0 mark and that they nearly erased the well known and documented cooling trend from the 1940's to the 1970's.