Discussion:
Enough With The Wild Climate Predictions And Death Or Imprisonment To Those Who Dare Question The Church Of Global Warming
Add Reply
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-09 22:16:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Enough With The Wild Climate Predictions. And Death Or Imprisonment To
Those Who Dare Question The Church Of Global Warming

Climatistas are starting to sound like radical Islamists preaching death
to nonbelievers, winning converts by threats and coercion, not by science
or common sense.

=====

Another Climate Prediction Gone off the Rails
October 9, 2017

Winter started early this year. The first blizzard of the season in
Montana broke a snow record with 30 inches during the first week of
October, barely a few weeks into fall. In my state of Colorado too, with
11 inches of snow in Grand Mesa.

Prompting the local CBS affiliate to proclaim, "The snow season is off to
a big start in western Colorado!" Town and Country magazine, which caters
to one percenters in predominantly blue Northeastern enclaves, had their
own forecast.

Warning readers, "Prepare to Bundle Up: Winter 2017 & 2018 Is Going to
Be Unusually Cold." Predicting for the enlightened #NeverTrump
residents of New York and Boston, "an above average amount of
snowfall" and "a colder winter than last year." I wonder how many
members of the New York Times editorial board or management team have a
copy of Town and Country sitting on the coffee table of their
fashionable Upper East Side coop? Or their Hamptons weekend getaway,
strategically placed alongside the New Yorker or the Atlantic?

Not to read, but to project an entitled sense of sophistication and savoir
faire, so common among liberal elites. Do the smart set at the NY Times
find any irony or contradiction in the Town and Country story about more
snow and their own 2014 article titled, "The End of Snow?" Ski
mountains predicted to be brown rather than white. Calamity for the
Winter Olympics, not having a sufficiently snowy venue to hold the
games, instead having to move them to a small town on the northern coast
of Hudson Bay.

Quite certain is the NY Times asserting, "The facts are
straightforward: The planet is getting hotter." The writer was
nostalgic for a family ski trip to Copper Mountain in Colorado in 1980,
enjoying his first powder run.

Don't worry, Copper still gets plenty of snow. Since 2009, winter snowfall
has ranged from 181 to 406 inches, depending the year, with an average in
the mid-200s. Most years their largest snowfall for the season was at
least a foot, plenty for a good powder run. Hardly the predicted "end of
snow". Such claims are not new.

In 2000, the Independent asserted, "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the
past." Confidently asserting, "snow is starting to
disappear from our lives" due to what else but global warming, "now
accepted as a reality by the international community."

By that I assume the writer means Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio and Jimmy Kimmel.

Seventeen years later, the same paper wrote this past January of the
resurrection of snow in the UK, "Blizzard conditions bring 'real
taste of winter' nationwide." How could that be if snowfalls are a
thing of the past? And that was only January.

Fast forward a month to February and the UK got hit with another reminder
that snowfalls may not quite be a historic relic. The Express, a sister
paper, published, "Britain braced for blizzards and gales as temperatures
plunge to -10C."

Interestingly, the Independent removed their original "Snowfalls are just
a thing of the past" article from their website. As Al Gore would say, it
was an inconvenient truth. But in the Internet age, nothing can be removed
from the web. Rather than just removing the article, the proper approach
would have been a follow-up article explaining why the original piece was
incorrect. That's the scientific method.

Climatology is science, or at least is should be, rather than political
advocacy. Observations are made, a hypothesis is proposed to explain the
observations, then further observations are made to determine whether the
hypothesis is correct. If future predictions turn out to be true, this
bolsters the hypothesis, in this case man-made global warming. If future
observations are not what was expected, it's back to the hypothesis to
rethink and revise. That's how it's done.

Not with a big "never mind" by deep-sixing the original article. And
not by revising the original data, as NOAA did to erase the 15-year
pause in global warming. Science is allowed to get it wrong. The
high-carb, low-fat diets of the 1970s lead to an epidemic in type 2
diabetes.

Current dietary recommendations have been revised accordingly.
Same with coffee, butter, margarine, and a host of other foods. Once
thought to be bad, now thought to be good, or at least not deadly. Or
vice versa.

How much of what we eat or do today will be laughed at in a
few decades when new information comes to light? Climate change science
has exempted itself from such scientific scrutiny. It has become
politicized and monetized to the point that its devotees cannot back
down or question the global warming dogma.

Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledges, "The
climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." That's not
an excuse to not study the climate and try to understand it better.
Perhaps someday it will be understood and predictable. How much of modern
science was once viewed as magic, witchcraft, or the whims of Greek gods?

Yet the predictions continue, doubling down on the last round of failed
prognostications. Anyone who dares to dissent should be thrown in jail,
says Bill Nye the science guy, now a self-proclaimed judge, jury, and
executioner.

The execution can be left to Monty Python's Eric Idle who
wants climate change deniers to be "put down gently." How sporting
of him. One flesh wound at a time. Enough with the wild climate
predictions. And death or imprisonment to those who dare question the
church of global warming. Climatistas are starting to sound like radical
Islamists preaching death to nonbelievers, winning converts by threats
and coercion, not by science or common sense.
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:52:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

1. "Due to global warming, the coming winters in the local regions will
become milder."
Stefan Rahmstorf, Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, University
of Potsdam, February 8, 2006

****

2. "Milder winters, drier summers: Climate study shows a need to adapt in
Saxony Anhalt."
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Press Release, January 10,
2010.

****

3. "More heat waves, no snow in the winter... Climate models... over 20
times more precise than the UN IPCC global models. In no other country do
we have more precise calculations of climate consequences. They should
form the basis for political planning... Temperatures in the wintertime
will rise the most... there will be less cold air coming to Central Europe
from the east...In the Alps winters will be 2°C warmer already between
2021 and 2050."

Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, September 2, 2008.

****

4. "The new Germany will be characterized by dry-hot summers and warm-wet
winters."
Wilhelm Gerstengarbe and Peter Werner, Potsdam Institute for Climate
Impact Research (PIK), March 2, 2007

****

5. "Clear climate trends are seen from the computer simulations. Foremost
the winter months will be warmer all over Germany. Depending of CO2
emissions, temperatures will rise by up to 4°C, in the Alps by up to 5°C."
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 7 Dec 2009.

****

6. "In summer under certain conditions the scientists reckon with a
complete melting of the Arctic sea ice. For Europe we expect an increase
in drier and warmer summers. Winters on the other hand will be warmer and
wetter."
Erich Roeckner, Max Planck Institute, Hamburg, 29 Sept 2005.

****

7. "The more than 'unusually 'warm January weather is yet 'another extreme
event', 'a harbinger of the winters that are ahead of us'. ... The global
temperature will 'increase every year by 0.2°C'"
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of
Environment,
Die Zeit, 15 Jan 2007

****

8. "Harsh winters likely will be more seldom and precipitation in the
wintertime will be heavier everywhere. However, due to the milder
temperatures, it'll fall more often as rain than as snow."
Online-Atlas of the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, 2010

9. "We've mostly had mild winters in which only a few cold months were
scattered about, like January 2009. This winter is a cold outlier, but
that doesn't change the picture as a whole. Generally it's going to get
warmer, also in the wintertime."
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 26 Jan 2010

****

10. "Winters with strong frost and lots of snow like we had 20 years ago
will cease to exist at our latitudes."
Mojib Latif, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 1 April 2000

****

11. "Good bye winter. Never again snow?"
Spiegel, 1 April 2000

****

12. "In the northern part of the continent there likely will be some
benefits in the form of reduced cold periods and higher agricultural
yields. But the continued increase in temperatures will cancel off these
benefits. In some regions up to 60% of the species could die off by 2080."

3Sat, 26 June 2003

****

13. "Although the magnitude of the trends shows large variation among
different models, Miller et al. (2006) find that none of the 14 models
exhibits a trend towards a lower NAM index and higher arctic SLP."
IPCC 2007 4AR, (quoted by Georg Hoffmann)

****

14. "Based on the rising temperature, less snow will be expected
regionally. While currently 1/3 of the precipitation in the Alps falls as
snow, the snow-share of precipitation by the end of the century could end
up being just one sixth."
Germanwatch, Page 7, Feb 2007

****

15. "Assuming there will be a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, as is
projected by the year 2030. The consequences could be hotter and drier
summers, and winters warmer and wetter. Such a warming will be
proportionately higher at higher elevations - and especially will have a
powerful impact on the glaciers of the Firn regions."

and

" The ski areas that reliably have snow will shift from 1200 meters to
1500 meters elevation by the year 2050; because of the climate prognoses
warmer winters have to be anticipated."
Scinexx Wissenschaft Magazin, 26 Mar 2002

****

16. "Yesterday's snow... Because temperatures in the Alps are rising
quickly, there will be more precipitation in many places. But because it
will rain more often than it snows, this will be bad news for tourists.
For many ski lifts this means the end of business."
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 8 Aug 2006

****

17. "Spring will begin in January starting in 2030."
Die Welt, 30 Sept 2010

****

18. "Ice, snow, and frost will disappear, i.e. milder winters" ...
"Unusually warm winters without snow and ice are now being viewed by many
as signs of climate change."
Schleswig Holstein NABU, 10 Feb 2007

****

19. "Good bye winter... In the northern hemisphere the deviations are much
greater according to NOAA calculations, in some areas up to 5°C. That has
consequences says DWD meteorologist Müller-Westermeier: When the snowline
rises over large areas, the bare ground is warmed up even more by
sunlight. This amplifies global warming. A process that is uncontrollable
- and for this reason understandably arouses old childhood fears: First
the snow disappears, and then winter."
Die Zeit, 16 Mar 2007

****

20. "Warm in the winter, dry in the summer ... Long, hard winters in
Germany remain rare: By 2085 large areas of the Alps and Central German
Mountains will be almost free of snow. Because air temperatures in winter
will rise more quickly than in summer, there will be more precipitation.
'However, much of it will fall as rain,' says Daniela Jacob of the Max
Planck Institute for Meteorology."
FOCUS, 24 May 2006

****

21. "Consequences and impacts for regional agriculture: Hotter summers,
milder plus shorter winters (palm trees!). Agriculture: More CO2 in the
air, higher temperatures, foremost in winter."
Dr. Michael Schirmer, University of Bremen, presentation of 2 Feb 2007

****

22. "Winters: wet and mild"
Bavarian State Ministry for Agriculture, presentation 23 Aug 2007

****

23. "The climate model prognoses currently indicate that the following
climate changes will occur: Increase in minimum temperatures in the
winter."
Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Saxony Date: 6 July 2009

****

24. "Both the prognoses for global climate development and the prognoses
for the climatic development of the Fichtel Mountains clearly show a
warming of the average temperature, whereby especially the winter months
will be greatly impacted."
Willi Seifert, University of Bayreuth, diploma thesis, p. 203, 7 July 2004

****

25. "Already in the year 2025 the conditions for winter sports in the
Fichtel Mountains will develop negatively, especially with regards to
'natural' snow conditions and for so-called snow-making potential. A
financially viable ski business operation after about the year 2025
appears under these conditions to be extremely improbable (Seifert,
2004)".
Andreas Matzarakis, University of Freiburg Meteorological Institute, 26
July 2006
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:53:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

26. "Skiing among palm trees? ... For this reason I would advise no one in
the Berchtesgadener Land to invest in a ski-lift. The probability of
earning money with the global warming is getting less and less."
Hartmut Graßl, Director Emeritus,
Max Planck-Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 3, 4 Mar 2006

****

27. "Climate warming leads to an increasingly higher snow line. The number
of future ski resorts that can be expected to have snow is reducing. [...]
Climate change does not only lead to higher temperatures, but also to
changes in the precipitation ratios in summer and winter. [...] In the
wintertime more precipitation is to be anticipated. However, it will fall
more often as rain, and less often as snow, in the future."
Hans Elsasser, Director of the Geographical Institute of the University of
Zurich, 4 Mar 2006

****

28. "All climate simulations - global and regional - were carried out at
the Deutschen Klimarechenzentrum [German Climate Simulation Center]. [...]
In the winter months the temperature rise is from 1.5°C to 2°C and
stretches from Scandinavia to the Mediterranean Sea. Only in regions that
are directly influenced by the Atlantic (Great Britain, Portugal, parts of
Spain) will the winter temperature increase be less (Fig. 1)."
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Press Release, Date: December
2007/January 2013.

****

29. "By the year 2050 ... temperatures will rise 1.5ºC to 2.5°C (summer)
and 3°C (winter). ... in the summer it will rain up to 40% less and in the
winter up to 30% more.
German Federal Department of Highways, 1 Sept 2010

****

30. "We are now at the threshold of making reliable statements about the
future."
Daniela Jacob, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, page 44,
10/2001

****

31. "The scenarios of climate scientists are unanimous about one thing: In
the future in Germany we will have to live with drier and drier summers
and a lot more rain in the winters."
Gerhard Müller-Westermeier, German Weather Service (DWD), 20 May 2010

****

32. "In the wintertime the winds will be more from the west and will bring
storms to Germany. Especially in western and southern Germany there will
be flooding." FOCUS / Mojib Latif, Leibniz Institute for Ocean Sciences of
the University of Kiel, 27 May 2006.

****

33. "While the increases in the springtime appear as rather modest, the
(late)summer and winter months are showing an especially powerful warming
trend."
State Ministry of Environment, Agriculture and Geology, Saxony, p. 133,
Schriftenreihe Heft 25/2009.

****

34. "Warm Winters Result From Greenhouse Effect, Columbia Scientists Find,
Using NASA Model ... Despite appearing as part of a natural climate
oscillation, the large increases in wintertime surface temperatures over
the continents may therefore be attributable in large part to human
activities,"
Science Daily, Dr. Drew Shindell 4 June 1999

****

35. "Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and
exciting event. ... Children just aren't going to know what snow is."
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March
2000

****

36. "This data confirms what many gardeners believe - winters are not as
hard as they used to be. ... And if recent trends continue a white
Christmas in Wales could certainly be a thing of the past."
BBC, Dr Jeremy Williams, Bangor University, Lecturer in Geomatics, 20 Dec
2004

****

37. The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a
general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and
a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover."
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

****

38. "Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue at
that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not reduced,
and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in the
wintertime."
Star News, William K. Stevens, New York Times, 11 Mar 2000

****

39. "In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and the
melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any changes
in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift in peak
river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and autumn."
Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005

*****

40. "We are beginning to approximate the kind of warming you should see in
the winter season."
Star News, Mike Changery, National Climatic Data Center, 11 Mar 2000

****

41. "Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms but could
cause an increase in freezing rain if average daily temperatures fluctuate
about the freezing point."
IPCC Climate Change, 2001

****

42. "Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase in
the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers and
milder winters...9.4.2. Decreased Mortality Resulting from Milder Winters
... One study estimates a decrease in annual cold-related deaths of 20,000
in the UK by the 2050s (a reduction of 25%)"
IPCC Climate Change, 2001

****

43. "The lowest winter temperatures are likely to increase more than
average winter temperature in northern Europe. ...The duration of the snow
season is very likely to shorten in all of Europe, and snow depth is
likely to decrease in at least most of Europe."
IPCC Climate Change, 2007

****

44. "Snowlines are going up in altitude all over the world. The idea that
we will get less snow is absolutely in line with what we expect from
global warming."
WalesOnline, Sir John Houghton - atmospheric physicist, 30 June 2007

****

45. "In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more extreme
rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it is
possible under climate change that there could be an increase of extreme
rainfall even under general drying."
Telegraph, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 24 July 2007

****

46. "Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward
instead. ... There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before
Christmas. It is nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a
real problem with spring because so much is flowering so early year to
year."
Express, Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, 8 Feb 2008

****

47. "The past is no longer a guide to the future. We no longer have a
stationary climate,"...
Independent, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 27 Jul 2007

****

48. "It is consistent with the climate change message. It is exactly what
we expect winters to be like - warmer and wetter, and dryer and hotter
summers. ...the winter we have just seen is consistent with the type of
weather we expect to see more and more in the future."
Wayne Elliott, Met Office meteorologist, BBC, 27 Feb 2007

****

49. " If your decisions depend on what's happening at these very fine
scales of 25 km or even 5 km resolution then you probably shouldn't be
making irreversible investment decisions now."
Myles Allen, "one of the UK's leading climate modellers", Oxford
University, 18 June 2009

****

50. "It's great that the government has decided to put together such a
scientifically robust analysis of the potential impacts of climate change
in the UK."
Keith Allott, WWF-UK, 18 June 2009
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:53:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

51. "The data collected by experts from the university [of Bangor]
suggests that a white Christmas on Snowdon - the tallest mountain in
England and Wales - may one day become no more than a memory."
BBC News, 20 Dec 2004
[BBC 2013: "Snowdon Mountain Railway will be shut over the Easter weekend
after it was hit by 30ft (9.1m) snow drifts."]

****

52. "Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change,
the first 'conclusive proof' that global warming is altering the timing of
the seasons, scientists announced yesterday."
Guardian, 26 Aug 2006.

****

53. "Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious
that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow
remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters
such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once
every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century."
(p. 19), and

"...but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes
Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change ... moreover
an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for
recreation!" (p38)
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix, Greenpeace, 2004

****

54. "Shindell's model predicts that if greenhouse gases continue to
increase, winter in the Northern Hemisphere will continue to warm. 'In our
model, we're seeing a very large signal of global warming and it's not a
naturally occurring thing. It's most likely linked to greenhouse gases,'
he said.
NASA, GISS, 2 June 1999

****

55. "We have seen that in the last years and decades that winters have
become much milder than before and that there isn't nearly as much
snowfall. All simulations show this trend will continue in the future and
that we have to expect an intense warming in the Alps...especially in the
foothills, snow will turn to rain and winter sports will no longer be
possible anymore."
Mojib Latif, Leibnitz Institute for Oceanography, University of Kiel,
February 17, 2005

****

56. Planning for a snowless future: "Our study is already showing that
that there will be a much worse situation in 20 years."
Christopher Krull, Black Forest Tourism Association / Spiegel, 17 Feb 2005

****

57. "Rhineland-Palatinate, as will be the case for all of Central Europe,
will be affected by higher than average warming rates and winters with
snow disappearing increasingly."
Prof. Dr. Hartmut Grassl, "internationally renowned meteorologist",
Director Emeritus, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, 20 Nov
2008

****

58. "With the pace of global warming increasing, some climate change
experts predict that the Scottish ski industry will cease to exist within
20 years."
Guardian, 14 February 2004
[4 January 2013: "Nevis Range, The Lecht, Cairngorm, Glenshee and Glencoe
all remain closed today due to the heavy snow and strong winds."]

****

59. "Unfortunately, it's just getting too hot for the Scottish ski
industry."
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 14 Feb
2004

****

60. "For the Baltic ringed seal, climate change could mean its demise"
warned a team of scientists at the Baltic Sea Experiment (Baltex)
conference in Goteborg. "This is because the warming leads to the ice on
the Baltic Sea to melt earlier and earlier every year."
Spiegel, 3 June 2006
[The Local 2013: "Late-season freeze sets Baltic ice record ... I've never
seen this much ice this late in the season."]

****

61. Forecasters Predict More Mild Winter for Europe

Reuters, Nov 09, 2012

FRANKFURT - European weather in the coming winter now looks more likely to
be mild than in previous studies, German meteorologist Georg Mueller said
in a monthly report.

"The latest runs are generally in favor of a milder than normal winter,
especially over northern Europe."

****

62. "Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change,
the first 'conclusive proof' that global warming is altering the timing of
the seasons, scientists announced yesterday."
Guardian, 26 August 2006.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/aug/26/climatechange.climatecha
ngeenvironment

****

63. "Given the increase in the average winter temperature it is obvious
that the number of frost days and the number of days that the snow
remains, will decline. For Europe the models indicate that cold winters
such as at the end of the 20th century, that happened at an average once
every ten years, will gradually disappear in the course of the century."
(p19)

"...but it might well be that nothing remains of the snowjoy in the Hautes
Fagnes but some yellowed photos because of the climate change ... moreover
an increase in winter precipitation would certainly not be favorable for
recreation!" (p38)

Impact of the climate change in Belgium (translated from Dutch).
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004

****

64. "The hottest year since 1659 spells global doom"
Telegraph December 14, 2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1536852/The-hottest-year-since-
1659-spells-global-doom.html

****

65. "Jay Wynne from the BBC Weather Centre presents reports for typical
days in 2020, 2050 and 2080 as predicted by our experiment."
BBCs Climate Change Experiment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/whattheymean/theuk.shtml

****

66. "Cold winters would gradually disappear." (p.4)
67. "In Belgium, snow on the ground could become increasingly rare but
there would be plenty of grey sky and rain in winter.." (p.6)
The Greenpeace report "Impacts of climate change in Belgium" is available
in an abbreviated version in English:
http://www.greenpeace.org/belgium/PageFiles/19049/SumIB_uk.pdf
Impacts of climate change in Belgium
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele and Philippe Marbaix for Greenpeace, 2004
Climate scientist van Ypersele is Vice Chair of the IPCC.

****

68. "Warmer and Wetter Winters in Europe and Western North America Linked
to Increasing Greenhouse Gases."
NASA, June 2, 1999
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990602/

****

69. "The global temperature will increase every year by 0.2°C"
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of
Environment, in Die Zeit, January 15, 2007

****

70. "Unfortunately, it's just getting too hot for the Scottish ski
industry. It is very vulnerable to climate change; the resorts have always
been marginal in terms of snow and, as the rate of climate change
increases, it is hard to see a long-term future."
David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East
Anglia.
February 14, 2004
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/14/climatechange.scotland

****

71. "Climate change will have the effect of pushing more and more winter
sports higher and higher up mountains,..."
Rolf Burki and his colleagues at the University of Zurich
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/03/research.sciencenews

****

72. " In the future, snowdrops will be out in January, primroses in
February, mayflowers and lilac in April and wild roses in May, the ponds
will be full of tadpoles in March and a month later even the oaks will be
in full leaf. If that isn't enough, autumn probably won't begin until
October."
Geraint Smith, Science Correspondent, Standard
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/british-seasons-start-to-shift-6358532.html

****

73. "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be
under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street
because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the
median strip will change....There will be more police cars....[since] you
know what happens to crime when the heat goes up."
Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss.
Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the
neighborhood below Hansen's office in NYC in the next 20 years.

****

74. March 20, 2000, from The Independent, According to Dr David Viner of
the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, snowfall in Britain
would become "a very rare and exciting event" and "children just aren't
going to know what snow is."

****

75. September 2006, Arnold Schwarzenegger signing California's anti-
emissions law, "We simply must do everything in our power to slow down
global warming before it is too late...The science is clear. The global
warming debate is over."
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:53:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
76. 1990 Actress Meryl Streep "By the year 2000 - that's less than ten
years away-earth's climate will be warmer than it's been in over 100,000
years. If we don't do something, there'll be enormous calamities in a very
short time."

****

77. April 2008, Media Mogul Ted Turner on Charlie Rose (On not taking
drastic action to correct global warming) "Not doing it will be
catastrophic. We'll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40
years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will
have died and the rest of us will be cannibals."
[Strictly speaking, this is not a failed prediction. It won't be until at
least 2048 that our church-going and pie-baking neighbors come after us
for their noonday meal. But the prediction is so bizarre that it is
included it here.]

****

78. January 1970 Life Magazine "Scientists have solid experimental and
theoretical evidence to support ...the following predictions: In a decade,
urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by
1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth
by one half..."

****

79. "Earth Day" 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: "At the present rate of
nitrogen build-up, it's only a matter of time before light will be
filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable."

****

80. "Earth Day" 1970 Kenneth Watt, ecologist: "The world has been chilling
sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will
be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but
eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would
take to put us into an ice age."

****

81. April 28, 1975 Newsweek "There are ominous signs that Earth's weather
patterns have begun to change dramatically....The evidence in support of
these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that
meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it....The central fact is
that...the earth's climate seems to be cooling down...If the climate
change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting
famines could be catastrophic."

****

82. 1976 Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling,": "This cooling has already killed
hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is
taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this
could all come about before the year 2000."

****

83. July 9, 1971, Washington Post: "In the next 50 years fine dust that
humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen
out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could
fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to ten years, could be
sufficient to trigger an ice age."

****

84. June, 1975, Nigel Calder in International Wildlife: "The continued
rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in
global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization,
urbanization and exploding population."

****

85. June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS
GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP-entire nations could be
wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is
not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would
create an exodus of 'eco-refugees,' threatening political chaos," said
Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He
added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the
greenhouse effect.

****

86. Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "New York will probably be
like Florida 15 years from now."

****

87. December 5, 1989, Dallas Morning News: "Some predictions for the next
decade are not difficult to make...Americans may see the '80s migration to
the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in
cooler climates."

-****

88. Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: "By 1995,
the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America
and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food
riots..."(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a
continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on
interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers...The Mexican
police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking
work as field hands."

****

89. April 18, 1990, Denver Post: "Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to
desert-huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado's Front Range may be
on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America's
rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand
dunes discovered by NASA satellite photos are expected to re-emerge over
the next 20 t0 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise
from the suspected 'greenhouse effect' scientists believe."

****

90. Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): "By 2000,
British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle....Ozone
depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy
North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the
South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will
be contained by the North's greater military might. A bleak future indeed,
but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live...At present rates
of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures
are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12
to 15 years."

****

91. April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet: "I think we're in trouble.
When you realize how little time we have left-we are now given not 10
years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar
will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing
is happening."

****

92. February 1993, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Smithsonian Institution: "Most of
the great environmental struggles will be either won or lost in the 1990s
and by the next century it will be too late."

****

93. November 7, 1997, (BBC commentator): "It appears that we have a very
good case for suggesting that the El Niños are going to become more
frequent, and they're going to become more intense and in a few years, or
a decade or so, we'll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having
cool water periods for a year or two, we'll have El Niño upon El Niño, and
that will become the norm. And you'll have an El Niño, that instead of
lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years."

****

94. July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post: "Scientists are warning that some
of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global
warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which
could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of
people."

****

95. October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: "The planet could face an 'ecological and
agricultural catastrophe' by the next decade if global warming trends
continue."

****

96. Sept 11, 1999, The Guardian: "A report last week claimed that within a
decade, the disease (malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast.
The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed
world."

****

97. March 29, 2001, CNN: "In ten year's time, most of the low-lying atolls
surrounding Tuvalu's nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be
submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels."

****

98. 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: "It is now pretty clearly agreed
that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could
increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7 degrees
Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet.
Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."

****

99. 2005, Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation:
"Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be
displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up
aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental
changes."

****

100. Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown UK Prime Minister (referring to the
Copenhagen climate conference): "World leaders have 50 days to save the
Earth from irreversible global warming."

****

101. June 2008, Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs: "you could
potentially sail, kayak, or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the
summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic ice...is currently on track
to melt sometime in 2008."
[Shortly after this prediction was made, a Russian icebreaker was trapped
in the ice of the Northwest Passage for a week.]

****

102. May 31, 2006 Al Gore, CBS Early Show: "...the debate among the
scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary
emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who've
looked at the science...Well, I guess in some quarters, there's still a
debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona,
or whether the Earth is flat instead of round."

****

103. January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense
Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York
City: "But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless
winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards
of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as
out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school
is unknown."

****

104. 2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a
visit to Britain: "The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced
are a sign that the climate is changing."
[Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the
coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.]

****

105. June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA)
in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): "Hansen
predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20
years, 'which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000
years.'"

****

106. June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor: "Arctic specialist Bernt
Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the
polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000."

****

107. May 15, 1989, Associated Press: "Using computer models, researchers
concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures
nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010."
Wally W.
2017-10-10 01:35:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hillbilly Davis
77. April 2008, Media Mogul Ted Turner on Charlie Rose (On not taking
drastic action to correct global warming) "Not doing it will be
catastrophic. We'll be eight degrees hotter in ten, not ten but 30 or 40
years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will
have died and the rest of us will be cannibals."
[Strictly speaking, this is not a failed prediction. It won't be until at
least 2048 that our church-going and pie-baking neighbors come after us
for their noonday meal. But the prediction is so bizarre that it is
included it here.]
http://ew.com/tv/2017/08/08/seth-macfarlane-sci-fi-optimism/
“I miss the optimism,” MacFarlane told critics at the Television
Critics Association’s press tour in Beverly Hills on Tuesday. “I’m
tired of being told everything is grim and dystopian and people are
going to be murdered for food. ...”

AGW greenies ... and NASA ... should watch The Orville ... and dump
their doom-ism.
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:54:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Climate Alarmists Have Been Wrong About Virtually Everything
Written by Alex Newman

Not surprisingly, champions of the Paris accord are warning that U.S.
withdrawal will lead to global environmental devastation. Are they
correct? In answering this question, it is worthwhile looking at past
predictions climate doomsayers have made, and to compare their dire
warnings with what has actually happened. This article was originally
published in the Jan. 4, 2016 print issue of The New American magazine.

The 1975 Newsweek article entitled "The Cooling World," which claimed
Earth's temperature had been plunging for decades due to humanity's
activities, opens as follows:

There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to
change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline
in food production - with serious political implications for just about
every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon,
perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact
are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the
North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas -
parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia - where the
growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate
so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In
England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks
since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at
up to 100,000 tons annually.

The article quotes dire statistics from the National Academy of Sciences,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Center for Climatic
and Environmental Assessment, Columbia University, and the University of
Wisconsin at Madison to indicate how dire the global cooling was, and
would be.

Experts suggested grandiose schemes to alleviate the problems, including
"melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting
arctic rivers," Newsweek reported. It added, "The longer the planners
delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change
once the results become grim reality." Sound familiar - except that the
"climate change" alarmists were warning against global cooling?

For decades, climate alarmists have been warning that, without a United
Nations-run global "climate" regime to control human activity, alleged
man-made "climate change" will bring the wrath of "Mother Earth" down upon
humanity.

They did it again from November 30 to December 11, 2015 at the Paris
Summit on Climate Change, and warned, yet again, that it is the "last
chance" to save humanity from itself. But climate alarmists have a long
history of forecasting disaster - and of being wrong about everything.

In fact, stretching back decades, virtually every alarmist prediction that
was testable has been proven embarrassingly wrong. What follows is just a
tiny sampling of those discredited claims.

1) A new ice age and worldwide starvation: In the 1960s and '70s, top
mainstream media outlets, such as Newsweek above, hyped the imminent
global-cooling apocalypse. Even as late as the early 1980s, prominent
voices still warned of potential doomsday scenarios owing to man-made
cooling, ranging from mass starvation caused by cooling-induced crop
failures to another "Ice Age" that would kill most of mankind.

Among the top global-cooling theorists were Obama's current "science
czar" John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, the author of Population Bomb, which
predicted mass starvation worldwide. In the 1971 textbook Global Ecology,
the duo warned that overpopulation and pollution would produce a new ice
age, claiming that human activities are "said to be responsible for the
present world cooling trend." The pair fingered "jet exhausts" and "man-
made changes in the reflectivity of the earth's surface through
urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts" as potential
triggers for his new ice age. They worried that the man-made cooling might
produce an "outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap" and "generate a
tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history."

Holdren predicted that a billion people would die in "carbon-dioxide
induced famines" as part of a new "Ice Age" by the year 2020.

Ehrlich, a professor at Stanford University, similarly claimed in a 1971
speech at the British Institute for Biology, "By the year 2000 the United
Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by
some 70 million hungry people." He added, "If I were a gambler, I would
take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 and give ten
to one that the life of the average Briton would be of distinctly lower
quality than it is today."

To stave off the allegedly impending ecological disasters, the two
alarmists demanded the implementation of "solutions." In the book
Ecoscience, the duo pushed a "planetary regime" to control resources, as
well as forced abortions and sterilization to stop overpopulation,
including drugging water and food supplies with sterilizing agents.

Countless other scientists have offered similar cooling warnings.
Fortunately, the alarmists were dead wrong, and none of their "solutions"
was implemented. Not only did "billions" of people not die from cooling-
linked crop failures, but the globe appears to have warmed slightly since
then, probably naturally, and agricultural productivity is higher than it
ever has been. Now, though, the boogeyman is anthropogenic global warming,
or AGW.

2) Global warming - temperature predictions: Perhaps nowhere has the
stunning failure of climate predictions been better illustrated than in
the "climate models" used by the UN. The UN climate bureaucracy, known as
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), produces periodic
reports on "climate science" - often dubbed the "Bible" of climatology. In
its latest iteration, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the UN featured
73 computer models and their predictions. All of them "predicted" varying
degrees of increased warming as atmospheric concentrations of carbon
dioxide (CO2) increased.

The problem is that every single model was wrong - by a lot. Not only did
temperatures not rise by as much as the models predicted, they have failed
to rise at all since around 1996, according to data collected by five
official temperature datasets. Based just on the laws of probability, a
monkey rolling the dice would have done far better at predicting future
temperatures than the UN's models. That suggests deliberate fraud is
likely at work.

Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the
Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH),
analyzed all 73 UN computer models. "I compared the models with
observations in the key area - the tropics - where the climate models
showed a real impact of greenhouse gases," Christy told CNSNews. "I wanted
to compare the real world temperatures with the models in a place where
the impact would be very clear."

Using datasets of temperatures from NASA, the U.K. Hadley Centre for
Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia, NOAA,
satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a
remote sensor system in California, he found, "All show a lack of warming
over the past 17 years." In other words, global warming has been on
"pause" for almost two decades - a fact that has been acknowledged even by
many of the most zealous UN climate alarmists. "All 73 models' predictions
were on average three to four times what occurred in the real world."

No explanation for what happened to the warming - such as "the oceans ate
my global warming" - has withstood scrutiny.

Almost laughably, in its latest report, the UN IPCC increased its alleged
"confidence" in its theory, an action experts such as Christy could not
rationalize. "I am baffled that the confidence increases when the
performance of your models is conclusively failing," he said. "I cannot
understand that methodology.... It's a very embarrassing result for the
climate models used in the IPCC report." "When 73 out of 73 [climate
models] miss the point and predict temperatures that are significantly
above the real world, they cannot be used as scientific tools, and
definitely not for public policy decision-making," he added.

Other warming predictions have also fallen flat. For instance, for almost
two decades now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon
become a thing of the past.

3) The end of snow: The IPCC has also hyped snowless winters. In its 2001
report, it claimed "milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy
snowstorms." Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The latest
data from Rutgers' Global Snow Lab showed an all-time new record high in
autumn snow cover across the northern hemisphere in 2014, when more than
22 million square kilometers were covered.

And according to data from the National Operational Hydrologic Remote
Sensing Center cited by meteorologist Mike Mogil, "U.S. snow cover on the
morning of Dec. 1, 2015 is the highest on record for this day of the
year." In all, 38.7 percent of the United States was covered in snow,
surpassing the previous record - 36.5 percent - set in 2006. Worldwide,
similar trends have been observed. Global Snow Lab data also shows
Eurasian autumn snow cover has grown by 50 percent since records began in
1979.

After their predictions were proven wrong, alarmists claimed global
warming was actually to blame for the record cold and snow across America
and beyond. Seriously. Among the "experts" making that argument was former
cooling zealot Holdren, Obama's science czar: "A growing body of evidence
suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the
United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with
increasing frequency, as global warming continues."

When asked for the "growing body of evidence" behind his assertions,
Holdren's office refused to provide it, claiming the ramblings were just
his "opinion" and therefore not subject to transparency and accuracy laws.
Still, Holdren's claim directly contradicts the IPCC, which in 2001
predicted "warmer winters and fewer cold spells."

4) The melting ice caps: Another area where the warmists' predictions have
proven incorrect concerns the amount of ice at the Earth's poles. They
predicted a complete melting of the Arctic ice cap in summers that should
have already happened, and even claimed that Antarctic ice was melting
rapidly.

As far as the Antarctic is concerned, in 2007, the UN IPCC claimed the ice
sheets of Antarctica "are very likely shrinking," with Antarctica
"contributing 0.2 ± 0.35 mm yr - 1 to sea level rise over the period 1993
to 2003." The UN also claimed there was "evidence" of "accelerated loss
through 2005." In 2013, the UN doubled down on its false claim, claiming
even greater sea-level rises attributed to the melting in Antarctica: "The
contribution of ... Antarctic ice sheets has increased since the early
1990s, partly from increased outflow induced by warming of the immediately
adjacent ocean." It also claimed Antarctica's "contribution to sea level
rise likely increased from 0.08 [ - 0.10 to 0.27] mm yr - 1 for 1992 -
2001 to .40 [0.20 to 0.61] mm yr - 1 for 2002 - 2011." The reality was
exactly the opposite.

In a statement released in October, NASA dropped the equivalent of a
nuclear bomb on the UN's climate-alarmism machine, noting that ice across
Antarctica has been growing rapidly for decades.

NASA said only that its new study on Antarctic ice "challenges" the
conclusions of the IPCC. In fact, the UN could not have been more wrong.
Rather than melting ice in the southern hemisphere contributing to sea-
level rise, as claimed by the UN, ice in Antarctica is expanding, and the
growing ice is responsible for reducing sea levels by about 0.23
millimeters annually. According to the NASA study, published in the
Journal of Glaciology, satellite data shows the Antarctic ice sheet
featured a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001 -
more than a trillion tons of ice in less than a decade. Between 2003 and
2008, Antarctica gained some 82 billion tons of ice annually.

The UN's inaccurate Antarctic claims were illustrated most comically,
perhaps, when a ship full of alarmists seeking to study "global warming"
was trapped in record Antarctic sea ice in the summer of 2013 and had to
be rescued by ships burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.

In the northern hemisphere, alarmists have fared no better. In 2007, 2008,
and 2009, Al Gore, a man who has made a fortune pushing warmist ideology,
publicly warned that the North Pole would be "ice-free" in the summer by
around 2013 due to AGW. "The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,"
Gore said in 2007. "It could be completely gone in summer in as little as
seven years. Seven years from now." Speaking to an audience in Germany six
years ago, Gore alleged that "the entire North Polarized [sic] cap will
disappear in five years." "Five years," Gore emphasized, is "the period of
time during which it is now expected to disappear."

Contrary to Gore's predictions, satellite data showed that Arctic ice
volume in summer of 2013 had actually expanded more than 50 percent over
2012 levels. In fact, during October 2013, sea-ice levels grew at the
fastest pace since records began in 1979. In 2014, the Arctic ice cap,
apparently oblivious to Gore's hot air, continued its phenomenal rebound,
leaving alarmists struggling for explanations.

Data from the taxpayer-funded National Snow and Ice Data Center's
"Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent" (MASIE) also show Arctic ice
steadily growing over the last decade, with a few minor fluctuations in
the trend. Despite alarmist claims, polar bear populations are thriving
there, too.

Gore, though, was hardly alone. Citing "climate experts," the tax-funded
BBC also ran an article on December 12, 2007, under the headline "Arctic
summers ice-free 'by 2013.'" That piece, which was still online as of
December 2015, highlighted alleged "modeling studies" that supposedly
"indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just
5-6 years." Some of the "experts" even claimed it could happen before
then, citing calculations performed by "super computers" that the BBC
noted have "become a standard part of climate science in recent years."

5) Increased storms, drought, and sea-level rise: The ice sheets have not
cooperated with warmists, and neither have other weather-related
phenomena, such as mass migrations owing to sea-level rise.

On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press ran an article headlined: "UN
Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations
Off Map." In the piece, the director of the UN Environment Programme's
(UNEP) New York office was quoted as claiming that "entire nations could
be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming
is not reversed by the year 2000." He also predicted "coastal flooding and
crop failures" that "would create an exodus of 'eco-refugees,' threatening
political chaos." Of course, 2000 came and went, and none of those things
actually happened. But that didn't stop the warnings.

In 2005, the UNEP warned that imminent sea-level rises, increased
hurricanes, and desertification caused by AGW would lead to massive
population disruptions. In a handy map, the organization highlighted areas
that were supposed to be producing the most "climate refugees." Especially
at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands,
along with coastal areas. The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010,
some 50 million "climate refugees" would be fleeing those areas. However,
not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single "climate
refugee," by 2010, population levels for those regions were still soaring.
In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of
"climate refugees" and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the
fastest-growing places on Earth.

Even the low-lying Pacific islands scare appears to have flopped.
Supposedly on the "front lines" of AGW-caused sea-level rise, the Pacific
atoll island nations don't face imminent submersion and have experienced
the opposite of what was predicted. Consider a paper published in March of
2015 in the journal Geology. According to the study, the Funafuti Atoll
has experienced among "the highest rates of sea-level rise" in the world
over the past six decades. Yet, rather than sinking under the waves, the
islands are growing. "No islands have been lost, the majority have
enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the
past century," the paper says.

Then there are the claims about drought. Some UN alarmists have even
predicted that Americans would become "climate refugees," using imagery
that may be familiar to those who suffered through the infamous (and
natural) "Dust Bowl" drought of the 1930s. Prominent Princeton professor
and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, for instance, made some
dramatic predictions in 1990. By 1995, he said, the "greenhouse effect"
would be "desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with
horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots." By 1996, he
added, the Platte River of Nebraska "would be dry, while a continent-wide
black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip
paint from houses and shut down computers." The situation would get so bad
that "Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into
Mexico seeking work as field hands."

When confronted on his predictions, Oppenheimer, who also served as Gore's
advisor, refused to apologize. "On the whole I would stand by these
predictions - not predictions, sorry, scenarios - as having at least in a
general way actually come true," he claimed. "There's been extensive
drought, devastating drought, in significant parts of the world. The
fraction of the world that's in drought has increased over that period."

Unfortunately for Oppenheimer, even his fellow alarmists debunked that
claim in a 2012 study for Nature, pointing out that there has been "little
change in global drought over the past 60 years."

Countless other claims of AGW doom affecting humans have also been
debunked. Wildfires produced by AGW, for instance, were supposed to be
raging around the world. Yet, as Forbes magazine pointed out recently, the
number of wildfires has plummeted 15 percent since 1950, and according the
National Academy of Sciences, that trend is likely to continue for
decades. On hurricanes and tornadoes, which alarmists assured were going
to get more extreme and more frequent, it probably would have been hard
for "experts" to be more wrong. "When the 2014 hurricane season starts it
will have been 3,142 days since the last Category 3+ storm made landfall
in the U.S., shattering the record for the longest stretch between U.S.
intense hurricanes since 1900," noted professor of environmental studies
Roger Pielke, Jr. at the University of Colorado. On January 8, 2015,
meanwhile, the Weather Channel reported: "In the last three years, there
have never been fewer tornadoes in the United States since record-keeping
began in 1950."
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:55:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
18 Spectacularly Wrong Predictions Made Around The Time Of The First Earth
Day In 1970

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that "civilization will end
within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems
facing mankind."

2. "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this
nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation," wrote
Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of
the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page
warned, "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to
enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and
possible extinction."

4. "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small
increases in food supplies we make," Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in
the April 1970 Mademoiselle. "The death rate will increase until at least
100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next
ten years."

5. "Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in
the history of man have already been born," wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969
essay titled "Eco-Catastrophe! "By...[1975] some experts feel that food
shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and
starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more
optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur
until the decade of the 1980s."

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day
issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989,
some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the
"Great Die-Off."

7. "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," declared Denis
Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The
Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970,
"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by
1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to
include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the
year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist
under famine conditions....By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the
entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and
Australia, will be in famine."

9. In January 1970, Life reported, "Scientists have solid experimental and
theoretical evidence to support...the following predictions: In a decade,
urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by
1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth
by one half...."

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, "At the present rate of
nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered
out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable."

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up
all of the oxygen in America's rivers, causing freshwater fish to
suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that "air
pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in
the next few years alone." Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000
Americans would die in 1973 during "smog disasters" in New York and Los
Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and
other chlorinated hydrocarbons "may have substantially reduced the life
expectancy of people born since 1945." Ehrlich warned that Americans born
since 1946...now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted
that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by
1980, when it might level out.

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, "By the year 2000, if present trends
continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate...that there won't
be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill 'er up,
buddy,' and he'll say, `I am very sorry, there isn't any.'"

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences,
published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and
estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000.
Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, "Dr. S. Dillon Ripley,
secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years,
somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals
will be extinct."

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that "since more than nine-tenths of
the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the
next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these
areas will vanish with it."

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. "The world
has been chilling sharply for about twenty years," he declared. "If
present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for
the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year
2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:55:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

Hansen predicted in the late 80s, that :
"The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under
water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because
of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median
strip will change."" Then he said, ""There will be more police cars.""
Why? ""Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up."" "

"San Jose Mercury News (CA) - June 30, 1989
"A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says
entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea
levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000......... He said
governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse
effect... ""

A look at Hansen's 1988 projections.
"From a warmist website, on Hansen's 1988 projections:

There are two main reasons for Hansen's warming overestimates:"

Hansen predicted that the 1990-2000 period would see a rise of up to 1
deg F. The next decade would se 2-4 deg F rise.

Predictions on when the arctic will be ice free. Years picked are
between 2000 and 2016....

The predictive skill of the Met Office is on the low side, 11 of the
last 12 years.

Predictions made on the "permanent drought". Note that no one said it
would never raiin, but many said that the drought was permmanent.

More on the predictions of the "never ending drought" in Oz. Also, an
explanation of why even the experts have confused causation. Warm
temperatures do not cause drought, but drought causes warmer temperatures.

An update, where the scientist stating that no predictions were made,
says that the predictions made were only to the press, so don't really
count.

"
"Schneider predicting, in the next 5 years:
there will likely be another dramatic upward spike like 1992-2000
This was in 2009."

"Mojib Latif (IPCC) predicted:
"There aren't going to be winters with strong frosts and lots of snow
at our latitudes anymore, like 20 years ago."
"
Scottish ski industry is a thing of the past. In 2009.
"This paper was quoted in AR4. Fig 3 shows that expected Antarctic ice
extent decline is similar to Arctic. From the paper:
In the SH, the models generally overestimate the amplitude of the
seasonal cycle of sea ice extent and display, on average, a negative trend
over 1981-2000. This contrasts with the observations that indicate rather
a slight increase."

The NRDC predicts a reduction in NE snow fall.

"This Sierra Club blogger predicted that the winter of 2012-13 would
be less wintry than 2011-2012, with even less snow. Major fail.

He also predicted that arctic ice would not last through 2013."

The UK will look like the Med, according to the National Trust. Not in
March 2013, it didn't.
"researchers from the Met Office, in 2012, predicted ""in the absence
of volcanic eruptions, global temperature is predicted to continue to
rise, with each year from 2013 onwards having a 50 % chance of exceeding
the current observed record"".

"
Arctic ice to be gone by 2013.

Hansen, in 1986, predicted 2.5 to 5 degrees of warming by 2010.
Ummm...Fail.

Are Cold Winters a Thing of the Past? (2008)
"The Met Office predictions for winter 2013:

For February and March the range of possible outcomes is also very
broad, although above average UK mean temperatures become more likely.
Ooops."

The Met Office warning of a dry spell in 2012; just before the wettest
April on record.

The Met Office predicted in dec 2012, that 2013 would be one of the
warmest on record, with an anomaly of 0.57 deg C

"Snow on England and Wales highest mountain, may one day be no more
than a memory. (2004)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4112137.stm
Fast forward to 2013.
Snowdon Mountain Railway will be shut over the Easter weekend after it
was hit by 30ft (9.1m) snow drifts.
Workers using two excavators tried but failed to clear the 4.7 mile
(7.5km) track.
The railway resumed operations from Llanberis last week after the
winter break but they were suspended within days after heavy snow on the
mountain.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-21969488"
In Feb 2012, the UK Environment secretary said that drought may be the
"new normal". 2012 ended up being one of the wettest on record.

"This site predicted 4.5 billion deaths by 2012. Oddly, the page is no
longer there. Fortunately, a screen cap was caught.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/over-4-5-billion-
people-could-die-from-global-warming-related-causes-by-2012/"

Nearly 60 predictions for winter. Almost all predict less snow, more
warmth.

The EPA predicts reduced snow cover.

The British government predicted a major heat wave by 2012, and up to
10,000 deaths.

The 2001 TAR showed no obvious multi-year (>2 years) period where
there was a cooling or even flat temps. Definitely a monotonic rise on a
decadal scale.

Hubert Lamb's prediction of a Little Ice Age for Britain, in 1964.
Lamb of course, founded the CRU.

"Hansen said temps could rise by 1 degree by 2000, and 2 to 4 degrees
in the following decade.He also said that atmospheric CO2 woudl double by
the late 2020s. Oops.

Another prediction, from Macquire, is that temps would rise 3 to 8
degrees by 2030, and sea levels 4.5 feet. Going to have to hurry, to reach
those numbers.. "

"FOI request pulled these papers from the Met Office. They are much
more circumspect in the briefing papers, then in front of the press.
Basically, they have no idea why its hot, dry, wet or cold. Arctic ice
loss driving weather? very uncertain.... but this is currently an unknown.
"

"FAQ 4.1 - Is the Amount of snow and ice on the earth decreasing?
A - Yes. Snow cover is retreating earlier in the spring"
"The predicton in 2009 was that the Scottish ski industry was doomed.
In 2013, they are thinking they may be open in the summer.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/scottish-ski-resorts-eye-
summer-season-1-2881471
in 2014, the lifts were UNDER the snow.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-26339994"

From 2004 - Polar bears will become so skinny by 2012, that they will
be unable to reproduce.
"Most climate models predicted a reduction in Antarctic ice pack. From
the paper:

average Antarctic sea ice area is not retreating but has slowly
increased since satellite measurements began in 1979. While most climate
models from the CMIP5 archive simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice
area over the recent past..."

Al Gore predicted in 2008, that in 5 years, the arctic ice could be
gone.

John Kerry, echoing the conclusions of scientists who predict arctic
ice to be gone by 2013.
Ms. Fiqueres predicts that 5 billion people will be put into poverty
by 2015, through climate change.

All snow will be gone from Mt Snowdon by 2020.

A number of predictions that have proved false, with references.,

May, 2013, Its predicted that the arctic ice will be gone in two
years.

This article suggests that the peak will not be production, but
demand.

Andrew Dessler predicted in 2011, that for Texas, the rest of the 21st
century would be "very much like the hot and dry weather of 2011."

Hansen predicted in 1986, that temps would rise between 3 and 4
degrees by 2010-2020.

Hansen's seminal 1988 paper, with his 3 scenarios. For 2012, scenario
A and B were over 1 deg C above the long term average. Scenario C was at
0.6 deg C. Global temps have been running under even Scenario C....also
predicts hotter summers for Washington and Omaha, with % chance. His
summary concludes that over 0.4 deg C is the "smoking gun".

Predicts ice free arctic by 2015.
the IPCC predictions in 2007, for temperature, precipitation, tropical
cyclones and extratropical cyclones.

"Nepstad, in 2009 suggested that AGW was drying the Amazon. Of course,
the Amazon has been getting wetter since 1990.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50377/abstract"
The last National Assesment of Climate Change used models that
perfromed, on average, 1/2 as well as RANDOM NUMBERS.

"Dessler precdicted that Texas would endure permanent drought in the
21st century.
Get used to it. The weather of the 21st century will be very much like
the hot and dry weather of 2011.

"
"In 2009, it was predicted that temepratures would increase, over the
next 5 years, and at 150% the rate predicted by the IPCC. Oops. That means
it needs to warm up by nearly 0.5 deg C, in 2014.

As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research
suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the
UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

"Hansen predicted that the world would warm 2 degrees in 20 years.
In 1986."

Sure seems like the MSM and climatologists were predicting an ice age.

First earth day and 15 predictions that never came close to reality.

The Met Office predicted average temperatures for the spring in
England of 2013. Which just happened to be the coldest in over 100 years.

Pope predicted, in 2004, that temperatures would rise 0.3 deg by 2014.
And 1/2 the years after 2009 will hotter than the record set in 1998.

Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013.

Met Office failed predictions. I like the one about overstating the
warmth 11 out of 12 years.

Ledan and Rind predicted, in 2009, that temps would rise 0.15 deg,
which is 50% higher than IPCC rates. With one year to go, both appear to
be wrong.

***********************************************************************
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:55:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

"Then, talking in response to Katrina: ""We're in for a rough ride
over the next 10 years."" - Kerry Emanuel, emphasizing that the current
increase in hurricanes in the Atlantic is part of a natural cycle. US News
& World Report, Aug. 31, 2005

Now, talking about the longest recorded period between major hurricane
landfalls, and also includes the next 7 years in the 10 years in the first
quote: Kerry Emanuel, a meteorology professor at MIT, said the seven-year
gap between major hurricanes in the U.S. is most likely just due to
chance. "Seven years is simply far too short to see global warming signals
in U.S. landfalling hurricane statistics of any kind," he said via email"

"Matthew England said that anyone who says the IPCC projections are
over estimates, is lying. It appears he is lying. The IPCC low end
estimate of warming from 1990 is higher than current temperatures.

From the IPCC 1990 report:
This will result in a likely increase in global mean temperature of
about 1° C above the present value by 2025..."

That should mean we would have over 0.6 deg of warming in 2012. At
best, using HADCRUT 4, its 0.36, or nearly 1/2 the median estimate."


However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters
which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David
Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of
the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will
become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

"This page shows the accuracy of EC seasonal forecasts. As Tim Ball
shows on WUWT, the accuracy is about the same as tossing a coin.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/08/wrong-prediction-wrong-science-
unless-its-government-climate-science/"

The IPCC forecast in 1995 and 2001, that snow cover would decline.

http://observatory.ph/resources/IPCC/TAR/wg2/569.htm#1524123

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/18/world/scientists-say-earth-s-
warming-could-set-off-wide-disruptions.html"

Scientists Viner (CRU), and Parker (Hadley) predicted in 2000 that
"children won't know what snow is".
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:56:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

The MO just changed its long term projection , and it shows no
additional warming 2013-2017, with an average of 0.43 deg C over the 1971-
2000 average. This compares to the prediction they made 2 years ago, with
average temps of 0.7 deg over the average.

"The Met Office predicted that 1/2 the years 2010-2015 will be hotter
than 1998. Fail.
They predicted that 2010 would be hotter than 1998. Fail.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2009/global-warming"
"NASA predicted an increase of global temps of 0.15 deg C over the
period 2009-2014.

Interestingly, they also predict a slowdown in warming, 2014-2019."

The MO predicted a BBQ summer in 2009. Fail.

The EA predicted drought until Christmas, in the UK. Instead, it was a
record year for rain. Fail.
The MO predicted drier than average for April-May-June. Fail.

Environment Canada (EC) has a site that looks at past predictions and
results. Tossing a coin would be as accurate.

"The Met Office, whe they changed the predictions for future
temperature, also jigged the past predictions. Note the wite line in both
charts. It is, as the text says, indicative of past predictions. In the
latest chart, it seems to show that they predicted the downturn in temps
in 2005. In the older chart, its obvious they were predicting much higher
temps.

While this is due to ""hindcasting"", it does show the accuracy of the
models.Also the accuarcy of the descriptions, as the Met should not call
them ""previous predictions"", or even ""retorspective forecasts"".

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-
range/decadal-fc

http://www.webcitation.org/6DWaflh2M"
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:56:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

A list of some of the many failed predictions, regarding resources.

"Hansen predicted that droughts would occur in 1 in 3 years by 2030,
vs 1 in 20 in the 50s. However, if you look at the NCDC (NOAA) drought
index, the 50s were in drought 1 in 2. Also note there is no trend in
droughts over the record.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php?
parameter=pmdi&month=11&year=2012&filter=12&state=110&div=0"

Arctic ice free by 2013.

The met office record of predictions in 2007. Every year from 2005(?)
to 2012 is lower than predicted.

An expert in forescasting principles (he literally wrote the book),
says that global warming forecasts violated 72 of 89 relevant forecasting
principles.

This guy predicted arctic ice will be gone by 2013.

Figure 1.4 of the AR5 draft (Ch. 1, page 39) shows that te
mperatures since 1998 have been in the lower end of all projections of
the IPCC, and that current temperatures are BELOW projections.

Hansen predicted that the largest sea ice reduction would occur near
West Antarctica. In 2013, there was record ice in West Antarctica. In
2012, record ice in the entire Antarctic.

Hansen's seminal 1988 paper, with his 3 scenarios. For 2012, scenario
A and B were over 1 deg C above the long term average. Scenario C was at
0.6 deg C. Global temps have been running under even Scenario C....

"From page 1 of the article:
But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless
winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards
of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as
out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school
is unknown.

Did Oppenheimer state that snow falls would increase in a warming
world? No, he waxed nostaligic on something gone. "

Shepherd, now president of the AMS, predicted that hurricanes would
become more intense.

Instead, the hurricane activity in the US, and globally, fell off a
cliff, both in numbers and intensity.
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:56:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

"Hansen predicted in 1988, that the SE US would see above average
warming:

there is a tendency in the model for greater than average warming in
the southeastern and central U.S. and relatively cooler or less than
average warming in the western U.S. and much of Europe in the late 1980s
and in the 1990s. ...

http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/27/hansen-and-hot-summers-in-the-
southeast/

The south eastern US has COOLED over the last 100 years, in all
seasons."
Arctic ice predictions for 2013, by various groups. Note the Met
Office predicting the lowest level of ice.

Predictions that the UK will get a climate, and vegetation, like that
in Southern France or Portugal.
"I don't think Les was talking about seasons. And yes, the arctic ice
is currently at close to the second lowest level and on track to equal or
exceed last year's record breaking melt!
"

A comparison of 3 successive Met Office predictions for global
temperature. There is a drop from the 2010 forecast of 0.9 deg anomaly, to
the 2011 forecast of 0.6, to the 2012 forecast of 0.3 deg in 2017.

Serreze predicted that arctic ice would be gone in 5 years, in 2007.

Hansen predicted a 10-40% loss in Antartic ice. (fig 2-4)

Hansen predicted in 1986, that temps would rise 2 deg by 2006, and 3-4
degrees by 2010-2020.
In 2011, Maslowski updated his 2007 forecast of an ice free arctic, to
2016, plus or minus 3 years.
"June 20, 2008

"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free
of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University
of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a
Canadian research icebreaker.
"
"Here is a compilation of ice-free Arctic Ocean / North Pole
predictions / projections from scientists for the past, present and
future.

Xinhua News Agency - 1 March 2008
"If Norway's average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the
ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging
from current conditions," Orheim said.
[Dr. Olav Orheim - Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat]
__________________

Canada.com - 16 November 2007
"According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the
summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

"And it's probably going to happen even faster than that," said
Fortier,""
[Professor Louis Fortier - Université Laval, Director ArcticNet]
__________________

National Geographic - 12 December 2007
"NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic
Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster
than previous predictions." "

[Dr. Jay Zwally - NASA]
__________________

BBC - 12 December 2007
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not
accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,"......."So given
that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too
conservative."

[Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
__________________

Independent - 27 June 2008
Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this
summer
".....It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this
summer - it's not happened before," Professor Wadhams said."
[Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]
__________________

Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Vol. 40: 625-654 - May 2012
The Future of Arctic Sea Ice
".....one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more
years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in
summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate,
it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of
seasonal sea ice cover....."
[Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
__________________

Yale Environment360 - 30 August 2012
"If this rate of melting [in 2012] is sustained in 2013, we are
staring down the barrel and looking at a summer Arctic which is
potentially free of sea ice within this decade,"
[Dr. Mark Drinkwater]
__________________

Guardian - 17 September 2012
"This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the
summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final
collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete
by those dates".
[Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]
__________________

Sierra Club - March 23, 2013
"For the record-I do not think that any sea ice will survive this
summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very
moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean...."
[Paul Beckwith - PhD student paleoclimatology and climatology - part-
time professor]
__________________

Financial Times Magazine - 2 August 2013
"It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there
won't be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,"
[Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]

"
Some claim the IPCC does not make predictions. This shows exactly
where they did make predictions.

"CCSM4 models al predict declining Antarctic sea ice.

In twentieth-century integrations, Antarctic sea ice area exhibits
significant decreasing annual trends in all six ensemble members from 1950
to 2005, in apparent contrast to observations that suggest a modest ice
area increase since 1979."

"CMIP5 models predict declining sea ice. This paper balmes the
differenc e between model and real world as ""natural variability"".

http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/polvani+smith-GRL-2013.pdf"
"Predictions made to 2065, with and without ozone forcings.

Sea ice extent declines in both ensembles, as a consequence of
increasing greenhouse gas concentrations"

"Once again, ""natural variability"".

In contrast to Arctic sea ice, average Antarctic sea ice area is not
retreating but has slowly increased since satellite measurements began in
1979. While most climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison
Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) archive simulate a decrease in Antarctic sea ice
area over the recent past, whether these models can be dismissed as being
wrong depends on more than just the sign of change compared to
observations"

"Again, the IPCC models of choice, CMIP5, show different results than
real world.

all of the models have a negative trend in SIE since the mid-
nineteenth century. The negative SIE trends in most of the model runs over
1979-2005 are a continuation of an earlier decline, suggesting that the
processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are
not being simulated correctly.

"
Predictions of arctic ice extent. Use the list at the left, to go back
to different years, 2008 and on.
Hansen predicted in 1986, that temps would rise 1/2 to 1 deg F by
2000, and 2-4 deg F by 2010. Fail.

Jan 4, 2008. "This drought may never break". Over the last 24 months
(to Aug 2013), about 99% of Oz is NOT in drought.

"It was predicted that due to rising sea levels, the Maldives drinking
water would be gone in 4 years, and the islands completely swamped in 30
years.

This prediction was made in 1988."

The UKCIP predicted in 2009, based on Met Office data, that the UK
would get warmer; summers warmer and drier; winters warmer and wetter.
Fail.

Hansens BAU was Scenario A, not the revionist Scenario B.

Maslowski's latest prediction of an ice free arctic is 2016, after his
2013 guess was obviously wrong.
"Oops. Met office could not make an accurate decadal prediction,
nearly 1/2 way through the period....

Our results also suggest that studies of the Arctic climate based on
reanalyses should be undertaken with extreme caution.""

"
The many predictions of food shortages.

Viner again making silly predictions. You would think that someone who
worked for a Climate Research Unit, would know that the UK has tornadoes,
and that per sq mile, it is the most active country on earth for those
storms, albeit weak ones.

Flannery also predicted that the arctic would be ice free by 2013.

Hansen, in 1986, predicted 3 to 4 degrees F of warming, between 2010
and 2020.

Maslowski predicts that ice will disappear by as early as 2016.

Krugman predicted in 1998, that the Internet would turn out to have no
more impact than the fax machine. And that IT jobs would evaporate.

"The TAR had this to say about predictions of climate:

In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate
research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a
coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term
prediction of future climate states is not possible."

The Met Office has been wrong 13 of the last 14 years, in temperture
predictions, and always on the high side. Its also already been shown that
ithe MO prediction that half the years from 2010-2015 would be records, to
be wrong. And with 2 full years to go, and on a 6 year prediction.

Hansen's 1981 paper shows only about 0.1 deg of warming in 1940. The
historfical record in 1997 shows about 0.5, so out by a factor of 5.
Projecting out to 2010, there should be 1 deg of warming. Warming is about
0.6, Fail.

"Skiing is doomed in Scotland. 2009 prediction.
2014 reality, the chair lifts are buried.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-26088292"
Viner again predciting the end, but of the ski industry, in 2004.

"Matt England, explaining less than 2 years ago (2012), that global
warming was right on track with IPCC projections.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3650773.htm

Less than 2 years later, he says temps have remained steady since
2001, due to an increasing trade wind.


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2106.htm
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:56:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

At least we have a date. He says this hiatus could persist till the
end of the decade."
"Once again, the MO screws it up. This is the winter precipitation
forecast from November 2013.

The probability that UK precipitation for December-January-February
will fall into the driest of our five categories is around 25% and the
probability that it will fall into the wettest category is around 15% (the
1981-2010 probability for each of these categories is 20%)."

"This writer uses January Leading Indicators (JLI) to predict the
coming year temps. This is a stock market tool, but looking at past JLI,
the accuracy is not bad, with RSS and UAH coming in at about 80% correct
when using JLI.

Using JLI the temps would come in at 0.231 for UAH, and 0.214 for RSS,
for the average temps for 2014.

The MO predicts between 0.43 and 0.71.

Hansen predicts 2014 to be warmer than 2013, and perhaps the warmest
on record. 2015 will be warmer yet."

Some predictions for ENSO in 2014-2105, and also for record
temperatures.

The NOAA scored -22 on a scale of -50 to 100, with 100 being totally
right, and -50 being monkeys throwing darts. The Sept 2013 forecast for
Oct-Dec was even worse, -23.

The Met Office predicted below average precipitation for DJF. Of
course, they changed the title once the floods hit (see Google cache).
Link to Met Office document is also there.

"One more guy worried about snow fall for the ski industry. I guess he
never looked outside. From a paper 2 weeks later.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/03/02/loveland-ski-area-surpasses-300-
inches-of-snow/"
"In 2009, experts warned that people from the south would soon flood
northern cities, to escape a warming climate. But even warmists like
Krugman know that people like the warmth, and are moving there.

http://www.globalwarming.org/2014/03/04/voting-with-their-feet-warmer-
is-better/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%
3A+globalwarmingorg+%28GlobalWarming.org%29"
More on Tim's amazingly bad predictions. Now apparently, he is trying
to deny that he said what he is recorded as saying.
"One prediction using January Leading Indicators (JLI, a financial
model), and the Met Office predictions.

MO prediction is between 0.43 and 0.71 deg above the 1961-1990
average, with a mean of 0.57 deg C

An average of HadCRUT4, GISS and NOAA, using JLI, gives 0.537

Qualitative JLI gives a warmer 2014, vs 2013. Quantatative JLI gives a
cooler 2014 vs 2013."
Multiple predictions by this scientist on how the reef was doomed.
Then a few months or years later, and he is "surprised" or "overjoyed" at
how it recovered.
"Not only can economists not predict the future, they could not
predict the present.

It is interesting to see that economists also predicted that countries
with more regulations, woul do better in in recovering from the crisis. As
it turned out, the cost of the regulations were greater than any benefit.
In other words, the regulations, rather than helping, hindered the ability
of business to recover.
Bonus quote:
In an autobiographical essay published 20 years ago, the left-leaning
economist Kenneth Arrow recalled entering the Army as a statistician and
weather specialist during World War II. "Some of my colleagues had the
responsibility of preparing long-range weather forecasts, i.e., for the
following month," Arrow wrote. "The statisticians among us subjected these
forecasts to verification and found they differed in no way from chance."

Alarmed, Arrow and his colleagues tried to bring this important
discovery to the attention of the commanding officer. At last the word
came down from a high-ranking aide.
"The Commanding General is well aware that the forecasts are no
good," the aide said haughtily. "However, he needs them for planning
purposes."
"

Mann predicts that temps wil rise above 2 deg C by 2036. If temps were
to up in a linear fashion, the temperature anomaly will be 1 deg C by
2020.

"Hansen predicted in 2006, that a Super el Nino would form, in 2006.
Fail.

He also tries to back out his famous 1988 predictions, where in 1988,
the A scenario was BAU; in 2006 it becomes ""on the high side of
reality"". In his original paper, he calls it the high side of reality,
because of finite resource concerns, even though Scenario A only uses a
1.5% per year increases, vs. the 4% measured in the past century.

In 1988, Scenario B was with some cuts in emissions; in 2006 it
becomes ""most plausible"", even though no cuts occured. But, yes, it is
called ""most plausible"" in the 1988 paper, but again, due to finite
resources.

http://www.klimaskeptiker.info/download/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf"
In 2008, Hansen predicted the arctic would be ice free in 5 to 10
years.
"Arctic ice will be gone by 2015, according to this IPCC review
editor, in 2013.

In 2012, he had it a little later, at 2016.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-
sea-ice"
jauntycyclist
April 2, 2014 at 11:46 am

they fail the prove predict model of science. Which is why they don't
want to talk about the science but about what is to be done to prevent
'catastrophe' .
Les Johnson
April 2, 2014 at 11:48 am

Anthony: I know I had a lot of URLs in the previous post, so it will
get hung up.

If you want I can also give the remaining references I have for those
predictions.
Tim Churchill
April 2, 2014 at 11:49 am

No tadpoles yet, in fact the frogs were late mating this year!
Jimbo
April 2, 2014 at 11:49 am

Here is a tip for anyone creating any long lists pertaining to
challenging 'climate science'. Remember Warmists will take a look and try
to shoot it down by saying "Oh, but they aren't even scientists but
actors" or "but they didn't actually say that as it's not quoted" blah,
blah. This is why, unless it is warranted like weather events / headlines,
I try to stick long lists with exact quotes and / or scientists, peer
reviewed abstracts.

Ordinary references in comments is OK, but if you are going to make
fun of them watch out for the holes. ;-)

Here is a list I made in 2011 on WUWT. I learned a few things too. ;-)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/03/the-big-self-parodying-climate-
change-blame-list/
philjourdan
April 2, 2014 at 11:49 am

Way to go Sasha! Bookmarked!
Bruce Cobb
April 2, 2014 at 11:51 am

#74 is a repeat of #35 - the famous Viner quote.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley
April 2, 2014 at 11:53 am

35 and 74 are the same, but then David Viner was being a complete
arse, so it deserves repeating.
Ray
April 2, 2014 at 11:58 am

Anthony,

it would be great if such a list (complete with references and all)
was in your "Climate FAIL Files" menu up there...
Walt The Physicist
April 2, 2014 at 11:59 am

So, friends, when will we unite and denounce all those predictors as
fake and unprofessional scientists? When we all will force their
dismissal? All of you know, that they continue "teaching" students,
rejecting articles with real scientific content, converting professional
societies into "Hollywood" like environment, drawing huge salaries in
their tenured academic positions, and impeding scientific progress by
overtaking review panels in the science funding agencies...
ScottR
April 2, 2014 at 12:09 pm

The Motl quote should likely by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. See
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/03/moynihan-nixon-global-warming_n_
634526.html
Terry Oldberg
April 2, 2014 at 12:09 pm

Thanks to Sasha for her delightful list. Perhaps some entrepreneur can
be persuaded to establish a climate futures market wherein people on both
sides of the controversy will have the opportunity to put their own skin
in the game. This will have a number of salutary effects.

Warmists will be able to take one side of the futures contracts and
deniers will be able to take the other side. People and institutions who
express strong opinions without being willing to gamble on the outcomes of
climatological events will be exposed as charlatans. The opportunity to
profit from reliable predictions will improve the reliability. The global
warming research program will become self-supporting from the profits on
trades.
JimS
April 2, 2014 at 12:10 pm

Rarely do I side with the AGW point of view, but to call these "failed
predictions" is really stretching it. Some are notable, but very few.
G. Karst
April 2, 2014 at 12:10 pm

Should't these be filed under the "Climate Fail" tab on the site
banner. After all, it is sparsely populated at the moment (2). GK
Mark and two Cats
April 2, 2014 at 12:10 pm

Details, details.

You gotta look at the big picture and not let facts get in the way of
the warmunist agenda.

For every misstatement above, I'm sure the warmunists could provide a
reason why global warming was at fault and validates their position.
Resourceguy
April 2, 2014 at 12:10 pm

Definitely a keep, but the failed predictions after this point will
still grow exponentially anyway because we live in the era of anti-
learning and anti-empirical evidence, right NYT, BBC, and others?
Jimbo
April 2, 2014 at 12:17 pm

Actually, if you think about it, these nut cases are making
predictions right now. Just look at the reactions to the IPCC report in
the media. Never make predictions, especially about the future.

I have been keeping a special file open with quotes from Professor
Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University and continue to look for more. I am
waiting excitedly for an ice free Arctic ocean in September 2015 and 2016
- because he made a flexible and rigid prediction. I suspect he is going
to go under the radar for the next few years or take early retirement. Old
fool. ;-)
Jimbo
April 2, 2014 at 12:22 pm

G. Karst says:
April 2, 2014 at 12:10 pm

Should't these be filed under the "Climate Fail" tab on the site
banner. After all, it is sparsely populated at the moment (2). GK
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:56:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

I think with that page they have to have given a fixed date beyond
which they fail. That's why Wadhams is of interest to me, he gave a last
date of 2016 for an ice free Arctic. The other regarding milder winters
are of course wrong when they said this is exactly the kind of mild winter
the models projected. Now we see they are wrong but no date was given.
They can argue just minor fluctuations and noise.

Viner has kind of given a date. He basically said that we would be
taken by surprise by snow in about 20 years time. We were taken by
surprise after 9 years! But again they can wiggle a bit with that too.
Les Johnson
April 2, 2014 at 12:41 pm

Jimbo: wadhams actually ice being gone by 2013.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

Then 2015.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/4084c8ee-fa36-11e2-98e0-
00144feabdc0.html#axzz2xeqilHwb

Then 2016.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/17/arctic-collapse-
sea-ice
Jimbo
April 2, 2014 at 12:43 pm

Don't forget Ehrlich and his failed predictions.

Don't forget the missing 50 million climate refugees.

Don't forget the Great Moments in Failed Predictions [WUWT]
Les Johnson
April 2, 2014 at 12:46 pm

My favorite prediction story, albeit on economics.

Not only can economists not predict the future, they could not predict
the present.

It is interesting to see that economists also predicted that countries
with more regulations, would do better in in recovering from the crisis.
As it turned out, the cost of the regulations were greater than any
benefit. In other words, the regulations, rather than helping, hindered
the ability of business to recover.

Bonus quote:

In an autobiographical essay published 20 years ago, the left-leaning
economist Kenneth Arrow recalled entering the Army as a statistician and
weather specialist during World War II. "Some of my colleagues had the
responsibility of preparing long-range weather forecasts, i.e., for the
following month," Arrow wrote. "The statisticians among us subjected these
forecasts to verification and found they differed in no way from chance."

Alarmed, Arrow and his colleagues tried to bring this important
discovery to the attention of the commanding officer. At last the word
came down from a high-ranking aide.

"The Commanding General is well aware that the forecasts are no
good," the aide said haughtily. "However, he needs them for planning
purposes."

via Junk Science

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/wrong-again_784910.html
groovyman67
April 2, 2014 at 12:58 pm

This list should be more thoroughly completed, continually updated,
and have the names and employer of each listed. Then nailed on the door of
every high school, college, university, news station, et al as the '107
theses'. If there is no accountability for these predictions there is no
stopping them.

Since there is no desire for accountability, rather a desire to cover
up, among the warmists (formerly coolists) perhaps the route to go is
loud, obnoxious and ongoing predictions of 0 degree temperature change by
2034, ice caps will be almost exactly the same in 2064. This will only
work if the manner in which it is presented draws attention, since it's
not fearmongering it will be considered non-newsworthy.
Jimbo
April 2, 2014 at 1:01 pm

Les Johnson says:
April 2, 2014 at 12:41 pm

Jimbo: wadhams actually ice being gone by 2013.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

Les, I think he was referring to Professor Wieslaw Maslowski's
prediction. He said it was a good model but did not predict the end of
Arctic ice on a given date. The other 2 links I have in my files.

BBC - 2007
Wadhams
"In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly. It might not
be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

As you can see he did not fail as he said 'might'. However, since then
he has given 2 dates beyond which his prediction fails. See below.

Daily Telegraph - 8 November 2011
Arctic sea ice 'to melt by 2015'
Prof Wadhams said: "His [model] is the most extreme but he is also
the best modeller around.

"It is really showing the fall-off in ice volume is so fast that
it is going to bring us to zero very quickly. 2015 is a very serious
prediction and I think I am pretty much persuaded that that's when it will
happen."

Financial Times Magazine - 2 August 2013
"It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015
there won't be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,"
---
The Scotsman - 12 September 2013
Arctic sea ice will vanish within three years, says expert
"The entire ice cover is now on the point of collapse.

"The extra open water already created by the retreating ice allows
bigger waves to be generated by storms, which are sweeping away the
surviving ice. It is truly the case that it will be all gone by 2015. The
consequences are enormous and represent a huge boost to global warming."
--

Guardian - 17 September 2012
"This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time
the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final
collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete
by those dates".
[Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]

PaulH
April 2, 2014 at 1:03 pm

It is important to remember the names and faces of the people who
caused all of this CAGW mayhem.
Jimbo
April 2, 2014 at 1:08 pm

JimS says:
April 2, 2014 at 12:10 pm

Rarely do I side with the AGW point of view, but to call these
"failed predictions" is really stretching it. Some are notable, but very
few.

As long as the weather and climate don't co-operate then each year the
more and more fall into the failed predictions camp. Climate is 30 years.
So anyone who did not give a specific date before a 30 year time span will
extremely likely go into the failed camp. Think about it.
Les Johnson
April 2, 2014 at 1:20 pm

Jimbo: Yes, you are correct. I have corrected my database. It was
Maslowksi, not Wadham.
RoHa
April 2, 2014 at 1:21 pm

What? Nothing from out much beloved Tim Flannery?
stargazer
April 2, 2014 at 1:25 pm

First it was global cooling. Next global warming. Next anthropogenic
global warming. Followed by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming,
which then morphed into .... climate change. Next on the list: CO2 induced
Anthropogenic Globally Local Atmospheric Non-Periodic Variability.

Maybe I should copyright that to prevent it from being used.
Les Johnson
April 2, 2014 at 1:25 pm

RoHa: Go back a bit to my LOOONNNGG posting at 11:46. I have several
Flannery predictions in there.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments
/why_is_flannery_still_climate_commissioner/
Tim and his many failed predictions on Ozzie drought. It should be
noted that it was because of warninsg like Flannery's, that Australia
spent billions on de-salination plants that are no longer needed. Nor was
that money spent on dams for flood control, as it was thought to be wasted
money.


http://web.archive.org/web/20120106132816/http://www.abc.net.au/radionatio
nal/programs/scienceshow/business-leaders-discuss-climate/3273738
Flannery also predicted that the arctic would be ice free by 2013.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments
/flannery_denies_what_he_actually_said/
More on Tim's amazingly bad predictions. Now apparently, he is trying
to deny that he said what he is recorded as saying.
Les Johnson
April 2, 2014 at 1:41 pm

Jimbo: your

Don't forget the missing 50 million climate refugees.

I was involved in that discussion, but here:

http://asiancorrespondent.com/52189/what-happened-to-the-climate-
refugees/

I found one of the original UN documents that was the source of that
claim. Not only that, but I found it was written by Nick Nuttal, who also
in the comments, said he could find no such document.
JohnWho
April 2, 2014 at 1:56 pm

Great information from the OP and other posters.

Question:

Is there a similar list of skeptical failed predictions or are the
climate skeptics too "proper science minded" to make unfounded
predictions?
Fox
April 2, 2014 at 2:09 pm

[SNIP see site policy, you are welcome to resubmit without the
insulting phrase at the end -mod]
Sean P Chatterton
April 2, 2014 at 2:10 pm

My monies on the next turn of the wheel being ocean acidification.

From Global Warming (it didn't) to Climate Change (it does naturally)
to ocean acidification through over increase in CO2 content.

You wont win any argument with any religious zealot. They have FAITH,
you do not.
Terry Oldberg
April 2, 2014 at 2:30 pm

The state of affairs in climatology resembles the state of affairs in
political science that was discovered by Phillip Tetlock of the University
of California Berkeley in the study that was published as the book "Expert
Political Judgement." Tetlock found (p. 236) that the poor performance of
political scientists in forecasting the outcomes of political events was a
consequence of relying on the "...'Rolodex' or prestigeous affiliation or
ideological compatibility heuristics..." in purchasing the services of
scientists rather than statistically demonstrated competency. This was
coupled to "...a strong desire among mass public consumers to believe that
they live in a predictable world and an equally strong desire among more
elite consumers in the media, business and government to appear to be
doing the right thing by ritualistically consulting the usual suspects
from widely recognized interest groups."
rgbatduke
April 2, 2014 at 2:31 pm

It would me much, much more effective to present this list (probably
pruned, as some claims have not yet really been falsified) with the claim,
reference, and then immediately with links to the evidence that refute
them.

Indeed, this should be a permanent page on WUWT, regularly updated.
One could even name it the Bullshit! page or the Climate Prediction Fail
page. This might or might not be useful with respect to all of the science
- real science papers are usually very circumspect in their claims.
However it would be enormously useful in identify, and debunking, runaway
global warming memes by identifying the point where they were released
into the wild and comparing the egregious and terrifying predictions with
reality. Indeed, it could easily be named The Climate Science that Cried
Wolf page or the Chicken Little page.

Here is an example to get it started:

Claim: The oceans will rise by five meters by 2100.

Author: James Hansen, chief of NASA GISS from 1981 to 2013.

Link:
http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climate_c
hange

Evidence (so far):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_le
vel,_1870-2008_%28US_EPA%29.png

(which only goes to 2008, probably because SLR has slowed
significantly in the years in between. The satellite (only) part of the
right hand end up to the present:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:57:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

Summary: The rate is "currently" 3.2 mm/year, according to this
figure, but also according to this figure the rate itself peaked in a
stretch across 2000 to 2006 and has actually dropped slightly since,
although the figure splices together three different satellite measures.
The tide gauge data: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/tide-gauge-sea-
level (as crudely as this presents it) is indicating a slower rate, under
3 mm/year and possibly also slowing.

SLR has been remarkably consistent over the entire 140 years or so of
tide gauge data. Within substantial uncertainties, the rate has been
2mm/year plus or minus about 1 mm/year. We are over 1/8 of the way to
2100, decades later than the time Hansen made his egregious predictions of
SLR doom, and there is little reason to think that the rate of SLR has any
chance of reaching 1 meter by 2100, let alone 5. I suspect most climate
scientists are embarrassed by the claim, since current estimates are well
under a meter by 2100 and falling rapidly as the years without any
significant acceleration add one upon another with CO_2 having increased
already by more than 1/3 since roughly 1950.

Conclusion: Failure Pending

Claim:
(James Hansen,
again).

Summary: The arctic will cool as Greenland melts. Storms will grow far
more violent. Runaway greenhouse warming will occur and the oceans will
(eventually) boil. No kidding.

Evidence: It's difficult to know where to start. The Arctic is warming
(if anything), not cooling. Greenland is not melting. Storms are not more
violent or more frequent. There is no evidence of runaway greenhouse
warming in the longest running climate proxy reconstructions even when
Antarctica was warm and green during the summers and CO_2 levels were as
much as 20 times higher than they are today. The Ordovician-Silurian
transition glacial epoch began with CO_2 levels some 17 times higher than
the present, and peaked with CO_2 levels some 10 times the present. Nobody
knows why (and some very exotic stuff is presented as possible reasons -
the sun passing through an galactic cloud of space dust, that sort of
thing).

Conclusion: Fail so far. In fact, not even a hint of success. Time
frame uncertainty makes it difficult to properly falsify, though, at least
until Greenland melts.

Let's redo a few from up above:

37. The rise in temperature associated with climate change leads to a
general reduction in the proportion of precipitation falling as snow, and
a consequent reduction in many areas in the duration of snow cover."
Global Environmental Change, Nigel W. Arnell, Geographer, 1 Oct 1999

****

38. "Computer models predict that the temperature rise will continue
at that accelerated pace if emissions of heat-trapping gases are not
reduced, and also predict that warming will be especially pronounced in
the wintertime."
Star News, William K. Stevens, New York Times, 11 Mar 2000

****

39. "In a warmer world, less winter precipitation falls as snow and
the melting of winter snow occurs earlier in spring. Even without any
changes in precipitation intensity, both of these effects lead to a shift
in peak river runoff to winter and early spring, away from summer and
autumn."
Nature, T. P. Barnett et. al., 17 Nov 2005

Evidence: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?
ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1

Summary: From 1967 to the present, there is a robust trend towards
increasing NH snow extent. Five of the top six years for snow extent
occurred between 2003 and the present. There is on average rough 1 million
square kilometers greater snow extent now/recently than there was in the
supposedly colder 1960s.

Conclusion: Fail. Fail. Fail. Also, What's Up With That? If one admits
as a general hypothesis the idea that NH snow extent should scale at least
crudely inversely with NH temperature, the slope should be negative!
Monthly anomaly data (also available on this site) are no better - they
(curiously) show that the monthly anomalies were much higher before 1986,
plunged quite suddenly over the three years from 1987 to 1990, and have
been generally recovering ever since with slightly better than neutral
anomalies for the last few years. In addition to just how they compute an
"anomaly" (certainly not relative to the mean of the graph) this raises
consistency issues - just how are the anomalies so anemic compared to the
snow extent that in some sense should sum over the anomalies? Either way,
though, Fail Fail Fail.

97. March 29, 2001, CNN: "In ten year's time, most of the low-lying
atolls surrounding Tuvalu's nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will
be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels."

Evidence: https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=
10773750185851 (view at medium resolution.) Date: April 2, 2014 is 13
years after 2001.

Summary: Count the islands.

Conclusion: Don't be silly.

105. June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute
(NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal):
"Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in
20 years, 'which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last
100,000 years.'"

Evidence:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1986/to:2006 (Hansen's
endpoints, not mine.)

Summary: Let's be generous and assume that Hansen (a scientist) was
using 2 F and not 2 C (which is what he should have meant, but this is
Congress). The direct evidence is for 0.4 C of warming, which is 0.72 F.
His prediction was too high by a factor of almost three. But this doesn't
begin to indicate the depth of the problem.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1986/to:2015 shows that
temperatures have actually decreased since 2006, to where if we actually
use the February endpoint against 1986, there has only been 0.2 C or 0.4 F
rounding up over not a decade, but thirteen years.

Separately, we could consider plots of Holocene temperature
reconstructions, general Pliestocene temperature reconstructions, adjust
for the usual high frequency vs low frequency problem with the proxies,
and conclude that it is probable that temperatures now are lower than they
were in the Holocene optimum (since we're still warming in recovery from
the LIA, the coldest single stretch in the Holocene in 9000 years), or we
could consider more recent non-hockey-stick evidence that suggests that
the Medieval warm period was very likely just about as warm as today.
Either way, Hansen's assertion for highest in 100,000 years - spotting him
the entire Wisconsin and Younger Dryas even though that is just silly - is
probably false, it might be the warmest in 1000 years. Or it might not.
Lots of thumbs on the HADCRUT scales and it is nearly impossible to
precisely determine global average surface temperatures with thermometers.

Conclusion: This is sworn testimony to the US Congress? This is the
man that headed NASA GISS for decades? Why not just put
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind in charge of the National Science
Foundation? How in the world could the United States put a man who so
obviously lacked anything approximating scientific objectivity in charge
of an organization which then unsurprisingly devoted all of its
considerable and growing resources into proving him right by any means
necessary?

Fail.

So please, WUWT members, contribute. It isn't enough to just post
assertions of failure (even if some of them are obvious). Document them.
With sound, unbiased links to third party evidence, journal articles,
graphs, photographs. Is Nebraska blowing away? Post photographs and links
to the true state of Nebraska these days. Is Malaria in Spain running
wild? Post links like this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3375659/ that correctly and
reasonably identify the cause of increased Mediterranean malaria to
increased immigration from malaria rich African countries, who then reseed
existing Anopheles populations with the parasite. Post links to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Canal and quote:

"When the canal reached Montezuma Marsh (at the outlet of Cayuga Lake
west of Syracuse), over 1,000 workers died of "swamp fever" (malaria) and
construction stopped."

Note things such as the fact that this was in the middle of the Dalton
Minimum, a few short years after the Tambora explosion put 38 cubic miles
of pulverized dust into the atmosphere (1815) and the infamous "Year
without a Summer" (1816). This is a few miles away from where I lived
(Skaneateles) in upstate New York, and even now it is as cold as a well-
digger's ass. Malaria was pandemic in Siberia, Canada, the US, Northern
Europe throughout the coldest of times because the Anopheles mosquito is
perfectly happy in any swampy terrain that melts during the summer -
subzero winter temperatures are nearly irrelevant to it except in that
they limit the season it is likely to bite. It wasn't climate change that
ended the threat of malaria in developed countries, it was antibiotics and
DDT and expensive modern medicine that all but eradicated it in the US and
most of Europe.

This should really be a running project, as there are plenty of old
claims and absurdities not on the list (I've added a few) and I'm sure
more are coming in all the time. Some reasonable amount of care should be
taken to put up only objectively verifiable data or peer reviewed
publications (except where the refutation can be reduced to e.g. pictures
of Tuvalu, unsubmerged by an ocean that stubbornly refuses to rise any
faster than the 2-3 mm/year it has risen for a century or more).

rgb
John Whitman
April 2, 2014 at 2:32 pm

Sasha, Les Johnson, Jimbo et al: great lists of failed prediction
stuff

They all can be filed under 'Lest We Forget!'

John
rgbatduke
April 2, 2014 at 2:39 pm

Mod, a tiny bit of help, please. I failed to correctly close a
boldface tag (sigh) and wrote "13 years" where I meant to write "27
years" when addressing Hansen's prediction of 2F warming in 20 years. I
also made several trivial grammar errors, but (double sigh) it probably
isn't worth the effort of correcting them so I'll just have to sound
illiterate. Again. Damn.

rgb

REPLY: Fixed what I could find, the only mention of 13 years seems
correct in context, leave another comment with details if need be -
Anthony
rgbatduke
April 2, 2014 at 2:50 pm

Rarely do I side with the AGW point of view, but to call these "failed
predictions" is really stretching it. Some are notable, but very few.

Well, some haven't failed yet because they make claims about times
that haven't happened yet. In many of those cases, though, the evidence
does not support the claim while it may not yet have technically falsified
it. Who knows, arctic ice could "collapse" next year! A super-ENSO could
cause global temperature to rocket up by 0.6 C and put it back in the
middle or even upper end of the GCM pack. Greenland could melt.

Or, it could stay about the same. Or, it could get colder. That's the
hard thing about predicting the future. So much possibility - until it
happens.

But many, many of the claims above (and many more not yet on the list)
are patently ridiculous and their failure should be documented. US workers
moving to Mexico because of a repeat of the Great Dust Bowl? In the
future, who can say, but within the time frame claimed for the prediction,
no, this is an objective failure.

But I'd like to see the evidence for alpine temperatures compared to
the claims for alpine temperatures, specifically, or the evidence for snow
vs rainfall in Germany, or whatever. See it presented, with a link to an
"official" site or reliable site with the refuting data.
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:57:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

Seriously, this might actually shut up the real nut-jobs out there, if
they were publicly called on each absurdity as it fails. Enough failures
and - well we all know the story of the boy that cried wolf - the key
thing is to publicly identify the people that are doing it because nobody
remembers ten years later, so somehow they retain an aura of
respectability and credibility.

rgb
Neil
April 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm

Sasha and Anthony,

Since I started writing this, I see that rgbatduke has weighed in with
several of the points I make here. But I'll make them, anyway.

Many thanks for the list. But I'm afraid it needs a bit of winnowing
and sub-division.

Some (e.g. no. 3) make predictions that can't be judged yet. It's
incorrect to say they are failed. Flawed, maybe; but not yet failed.

Some (e.g. no. 5) make predictions, but give no specific date by which
events will happen. It's not easy to say when they've failed (or
succeeded).

Some (e.g. no. 99) are (perhaps) literally true statements, though the
predictions they reference are failed. But who made those predictions?

Some (e.g. no. 104) use enough weasel words not to make any specific
prediction, so they can't fail.

Others (e.g. no. 2) don't, if you look at them closer, seem to mean
anything at all.

I skimmed the first 20, and the only ones which passed my (ex-
mathematician's) smell test as actually "failed" were numbers 7 and,
arguably, 10.

Maybe the problem is more failure to furnish falsifiable forecasts
than the falseness of the few falsifiable forecasts?

Cheers,
Neil
George e. conant
April 2, 2014 at 3:13 pm

this thread is the most stunning and damning examination of CAGW
alarmism I have ever seen. It will take me weeks to go through it all.
Wow.
richard
April 2, 2014 at 3:27 pm

I believe a web page is called for for all failed predictions and a
voting system to keep up a top ten of who made the worst predictions,
which newspapers fell for it and the funniest predictions.

This needs serious mockery.
jones
April 2, 2014 at 3:34 pm

Just getting through them...

So far, this one has struck me particularly.... There really should be
an accounting for this one given the (engineered) increase in fuel costs
in recent years....

"42. "Global climate change is likely to be accompanied by an increase
in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, as well as warmer summers
and milder winters...9.4.2. Decreased Mortality Resulting from Milder
Winters ... One study estimates a decrease in annual cold-related deaths
of 20,000 in the UK by the 2050s (a reduction of 25%)"
IPCC Climate Change, 2001"

Presumably we will have to go through a "peak-deaths" in the trend
first then?

Please no-one tell me I need to put a "sarc" after that?

Oh. Angry too......

Especially as it is killing off early the very generation that fought
and died (by the million) to ensure that this crowd of self-haters can
have the comfortable arm-chair pontificating that we are subject to.

All for the greater good of course.

Did I say I was angry?

Now to read the rest.

.
Angry.......I'm sure I'm not alone either....
JohnWho
April 2, 2014 at 3:37 pm

george e. conant says:

April 2, 2014 at 3:13 pm

this thread is the most stunning and damning examination of CAGW
alarmism I have ever seen.

One big problem, George, is that the statements made by the CAGW
alarmists mostly remain floating around as if they were true. The head of
NASA/GISS said warming would continue and the oceans will boil. If that
guy said it, it must be true.

Getting the truth out here and throughout the "skepticosphere" is
easy. Getting it "out there" where the Main Stream Media controls what is
true, is another matter entirely.
Les Johnson
April 2, 2014 at 3:45 pm

Some Earth Day Predictions:

"We have about five more years at the outside to do something."
Kenneth Watt
"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action
is taken against problems facing mankind." George Wald

"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of
this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." o
Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
"Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to
enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and
possible extinction." o New York Times editorial, the day after the first
Earth Day

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small
increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at
least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the
next ten years." o Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

"By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated
the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of
unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the
ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the
1980s." o Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation." o Denis Hayes,
chief organizer for Earth Day

"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim
timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will
spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East,
Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America
will exist under famine conditions....By the year 2000, thirty years from
now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North
America, and Australia, will be in famine." o Peter Gunter, professor,
North Texas State University

"Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to
support...the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have
to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by 1985 air pollution will
have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...." o Life
Magazine, January 1970

"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time
before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land
will be usable." o Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

"Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of
lives in the next few years alone." o Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
biologist

"We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up
the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones."

"By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up
crude oil at such a rate...that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll
drive up to the pump and say, `Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, `I am
very sorry, there isn't any.'" o Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

"Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute,
believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the
species of living animals will be extinct." o Sen. Gaylord Nelson

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If
present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for
the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year
2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." o
Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Jimbo
April 2, 2014 at 3:47 pm

rgbatduke says:
April 2, 2014 at 2:31 pm

It would me much, much more effective to present this list
(probably pruned, as some claims have not yet really been falsified) with
the claim, reference, and then immediately with links to the evidence that
refute them.

Indeed, this should be a permanent page on WUWT, regularly
updated.....

I think it is HERE.
-----------

It is high time we got this thing together via a brainstorm to list
predictions that have clearly failed. Wadhams is the next likely target
for September 2016. He has been very firm with this as a final date for
the Arctic to be ice free without caveat.

On this page Pierre has been clear that some of the predictions have
been pushed forward so we have to wait. A clear date deadline is the key
with no caveats. 50 million climate refugees set a date. Maslowski set a
date.

If I said there may be 50 million climate refugees by 2012, I get
wiggle room. If I said there WILL be 50 million climate refugees by 2012
then I have failed.
Jimbo
April 2, 2014 at 3:56 pm

See my list of Arctic ice free predicitons HERE on WUWT. Now look for
the weasel words and caveats.

Xinhua News Agency - 1 March 2008
"If Norway's average temperature this year equals that in 2007, the
ice cap in the Arctic will all melt away, which is highly possible judging
from current conditions," Orheim said.
[Dr. Olav Orheim - Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat]
__________________

Canada.com - 16 November 2007
"According to these models, there will be no sea ice left in the
summer in the Arctic Ocean somewhere between 2010 and 2015.

"And it's probably going to happen even faster than that," said
Fortier,""
[Professor Louis Fortier - Université Laval, Director ArcticNet]
__________________

National Geographic - 12 December 2007
"NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic
Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster
than previous predictions." "

[Dr. Jay Zwally - NASA]
__________________

BBC - 12 December 2007
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not
accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,"......."So given
that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too
conservative."

[Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
__________________

Independent - 27 June 2008
Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this
summer
".....It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this
summer - it's not happened before," Professor Wadhams said."
[Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]
__________________

Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Vol. 40: 625-654 - May 2012
The Future of Arctic Sea Ice
".....one can project that at this rate it would take only 9 more
years or until 2016 ± 3 years to reach a nearly ice-free Arctic Ocean in
summer. Regardless of high uncertainty associated with such an estimate,
it does provide a lower bound of the time range for projections of
seasonal sea ice cover....."
[Professor Wieslaw Maslowski]
__________________

Yale Environment360 - 30 August 2012
"If this rate of melting [in 2012] is sustained in 2013, we are
staring down the barrel and looking at a summer Arctic which is
potentially free of sea ice within this decade,"
[Dr. Mark Drinkwater]
__________________

Guardian - 17 September 2012
"This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the
summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final
collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete
by those dates".
[Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]
__________________

Sierra Club - March 23, 2013
"For the record-I do not think that any sea ice will survive this
summer. An event unprecedented in human history is today, this very
moment, transpiring in the Arctic Ocean...."
[Paul Beckwith - PhD student paleoclimatology and climatology - part-
time professor]
__________________

Financial Times Magazine - 2 August 2013
"It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there
won't be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,"
[Professor Peter Wadhams - Cambridge University]
jones
April 2, 2014 at 3:59 pm
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:57:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: "The planet could face an 'ecological and
agricultural catastrophe' by the next decade if global warming trends
continue."

.
Bit of a shame this one. Childhood hero of mine.

As an aside wasn't it Sagan who stated on camera that "extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence"?
Les Johnson
April 2, 2014 at 4:01 pm

Crap. Lots more out there, including some of my stuff I had not
documented, like this Oxfam prediction of 75 million refugees by 2050.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-
climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/#comment-643485

Plus in that posting, lots more references from me, Jimbo,
CuriousGeorge and more....
rogerknights
April 2, 2014 at 4:01 pm

rgbatduke says:
April 2, 2014 at 2:31 pm

It would me much, much more effective to present this list
(probably pruned, as some claims have not yet really been falsified) with
the claim, reference, and then immediately with links to the evidence that
refute them.

Indeed, this should be a permanent page on WUWT, regularly
updated. One could even name it the Bullshit! page or the Climate
Prediction Fail page. This might or might not be useful with respect to
all of the science - real science papers are usually very circumspect in
their claims. However it would be enormously useful in identify, and
debunking, runaway global warming memes by identifying the point where
they were released into the wild and comparing the egregious and
terrifying predictions with reality. Indeed, it could easily be named The
Climate Science that Cried Wolf page or the Chicken Little page.

In my guest-thread, Notes from Skull Island: Why Skeptics Aren't Well-
Funded and Well-Organized, at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-
skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/ , I listed 22 things that
would be happening if contrarians were in fact well-organized and well-
funded. Here's item 11:

11. There'd be an extensive online collection of opposition
research, such as warmist predictions waiting to be shot down by contrary
events. Such opposition research is so valuable a tactic (as is now being
shown) that no political or PR consultant would have failed to insist on
it.

$1 million a year devoted to such a research project would deliver
plenty of bang for the buck. Or even $100,000. C'mon, NSF, ante up!
jones
April 2, 2014 at 4:05 pm

Just finished. Thank you very kindly for those.

To paraphrase Oliver, have you got any more?.
Les Johnson
April 2, 2014 at 4:15 pm

Jimbo: I thought I recognized the style. That was some of your sea ice
predictions in my long list.

I looked, and sure enough, it was your name in the "hat tip" column of
the data.
rogerknights
April 2, 2014 at 4:18 pm

PS: The richest vein to mine for their failed predictions is the
printed literature of alarmist organizations, such as their monthly
newsletters. They would have been likely to pick up and document virtually
every alarmist forecast that was printed or, more important, uttered at a
climatist coven but not "in the literature." There are sure to be some
real doozies there, more extreme than what they committed to print.

Libraries must have huge collections of this stuff, as must the
organizations' own archives. Searching and transcribing this material
would be a major effort, especially searching the foreign-language
archives, but it should pay major dividends after only 10% of the job had
been done. Heck, after only 1% of the way to the end.

I don't see how the NSF could rationally turn down a funding request
for such a project. It would do so, of course, but that action would play
poorly in Peoria, and hand us a nice talking point, so our side should try
to provoke them into making it.

The greatest benefit would come from quotes by IPCC authors and
bigshots, as this would suggest prejudice and bias on the organization's
part.

They're sitting ducks! Let's get them in our sights!
Jimbo
April 2, 2014 at 4:18 pm

On WUWT Climate Fail Files there is one entry.

50 million climate refugees

You could add Professor Wieslaw Maslowski's prediction of an ice free
Arctic on or by 2013. He said that date was already too conservative. He
later revised his prediction but that should not get him off the Climate
Fail Files. He failed. Don't let them get away with revision, otherwise
the page would be worthless.
Aletha
April 2, 2014 at 4:20 pm

If you're of a certain age, these quotes function like a time machine
being wonderfully nostalgic. I remember when I first became aware of
global warming: a very non-scientific friend who felt great longing to be
counted among the beau monde told me about a lecture she had attended at a
university; the subject was "global warming." She said that in a decade
the sea-level would rise to an extent that would destroy coastlines along
the United States. I recall that I met this news with considerable
skepticism, by which I'd have you note that my friend was politically hip
before it was cool, and I was similarly a denier before that had even
become a heresy. So we were early adopters, both of us!

Items 73, 85, 95, 98, 99 and 105 are especially resonant for me. If
memory serves my friend attended the lecture around 1987 so Hansen's
remark about the submerged highway provides quite a blast from the past.
Takes me back to my vigorous youth!

Oh, should mention that the United States coastline wasn't devastated
by the way! What a relief! (Didn't want to leave everyone here wondering
what happened ....)

Given the circumstances, I'd say my skepticism has some warrant.

"The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be
under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street
because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the
median strip will change....There will be more police cars....[since] you
know what happens to crime when the heat goes up."
Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss
JimF
April 2, 2014 at 4:33 pm

Well, it COULD happen! /choke...snarf...sarc...gurgle/ What fun! I'm
so glad some of you are so anal or have so much time on your hands (or
else are very organized, have high performance standards, and work very
hard and smart) to debunk these insufferable, murderous idiots. Well done.
Pour it on (and I'll try to contribute content/$/whatever that helps).
Respectfully, JimF
rogerknights
April 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm

PPS: A lot of the richest newsletter material, from before 2000 or so,
isn't online-or isn't easily findable. The good parts may have been edited
out if too ridiculous. That's why a search of the printed literature would
pay big dividends. But an online search of newsletter archives could be an
inexpensive first step.

JohnWho says:
April 2, 2014 at 3:37 pm

Getting the truth out here and throughout the "skepticosphere" is
easy. Getting it "out there" where the Main Stream Media controls what is
true, is another matter entirely.

It won't be necessary. Build it and they will come. Then the media
will be piqued to ask warmists to explain their documented failures.

Our talking points will be: "They were just as sure THEN-and they were
wrong-so why should we let them fool us twice?" Also, "97% of
climatologers were 97% wrong-and still they claim the case is closed?! If
so, it's their side that's lost."
rogerknights
April 2, 2014 at 4:39 pm

PPPS: Another resource to search would be the newspaperarchives (pay)
site.
Chad Jessup
April 2, 2014 at 5:45 pm

"98. 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist:" If that is the Lubos of TRF,
I find that difficult to believe, plus Lubos Motl was born in l973.
Dave Broad
April 2, 2014 at 5:59 pm

Surely the greater challenge is to find a single warmist prediction
that did bear fruit!
bushbunny
April 2, 2014 at 6:23 pm

What about Tim Flannery's prediction of sea level rises. He's been
sacked by the government.
The single warmist prediction that bore fruit. Yes the latest IPPC
correcting their prediction of species extinction was false.
Steven Mosher
April 2, 2014 at 6:55 pm

The sun will not come up tommorrow isnt a failed prediction until
tomorrow.

Climate science may have failed predictions.
But you dont make a strong case by including
Obviously wrong examples.
That is worse than making the failed predictions
Terry Oldberg
April 2, 2014 at 8:55 pm

Steven Mosher:

Your example is a good one for the purpose of exposing
inadequacies of global warming climatology as this discipline is currently
structured. "The sun will not come up tomorrow" is not a prediction but
has some of the features of a prediction. It can be converted to a
prediction through specification of the longitude and latitude of a point
on Earth's surface at which it is observed that the sun comes up or does
not do so. That, at this point, the sun came up today is an example of a
state of nature that is called a "condition." That, at the same point, the
sun will come up tomorrow is an example of a state of nature that is
called an "outcome." A pairing of a condition with an outcome is a
description of an event. A "prediction" is an extrapolation from a
condition to an outcome in which the condition is observed and the outcome
is unobserved but subsequently observable. A prediction is falsified when
the unobserved outcome becomes observed and is not the predicted outcome.

Your example implies the possibility of four possible pairings of
conditions with outcomes hence four possible descriptions of events. These
are:

the sun came up today, the sun comes up tomorrow
the sun came up today, the sun does not come tomorrow
the sun did not come up today, the sun comes up tomorrow
the sun did not come up today, the sun does not come up tomorrow

Given that the sun came up today, that the sun comes up tomorrow
is an example of a prediction. This prediction is falsified if and only if
the sun does not come up tomorrow.

For todays climate models the conditions are undefined and the
outcomes are undefined. The times at which the conditions occur are
undefined and the times at which the outcomes occur are undefined. Were
the missing items to be filled in and the models tested, climatologists
would discover that deterministic predictions of the outcomes were
falsified by the evidence. To avoid falsification, they would have to
revert to making predictions probabilistically. The necessity for
probabilistic predictions would arise from the reality of missing
information for a deductive conclusion about the outcome of an event.
TheLastDemocrat
April 2, 2014 at 7:17 pm
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:57:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
FAILED CLIMATE PREDICTIONS (and some related stupid sayings)

"NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic
Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster
than previous predictions." "

This is not a prediction.

so far this year, I have eaten an apple a month. At this rate by the
end of the year I will have eaten
12 apples.

You guys need to level up your game.

Here's another clue. If natural variability is the cause of climate
change, then you cant make a falsifiable prediction. whatever happens
happens because of natural variability.
Stephen Rasey
April 2, 2014 at 8:38 pm

@Lance Wallace at 11:42 am
Are the quotes accurate? Without links, we can't know.

How many live links do you find in a printed issue of Nature or
Science?
She put her name to those quotes. They are more than you had before
she did it. Thank her for her efforts and verify them on your own dime.

Don't let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good.
Streetcred
April 2, 2014 at 8:44 pm

April 2, 2014 at 11:23 am | LB says:

"In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more
extreme rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it
is possible under climate change that there could be an increase of
extreme rainfall even under general drying."
Telegraph, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 24 July 2007
==============
About the only one correct, for this year at least

Not even close.
Warm, Cold, Dry,Wet? It's All your Fault Anyway!
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/warm-cold-
drywet-its-all-your-fault-anyway/
Streetcred
April 2, 2014 at 9:11 pm

April 2, 2014 at 8:10 pm | Steven Mosher says:

"National Geographic - 12 December 2007
"NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic
Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster
than previous predictions." "

Nyet ! Zwally is the perpetrator of much catastrophic claptrap ... he
is attempting to demonstrate the catastrophe of the rate of warming that
he clearly believes is happening ... therefore, the total loss of the
Arctic ice is a prediction based upon his belief in the rate of warming.
Streetcred
April 2, 2014 at 9:13 pm

... ^ correction "near total loss".
Stephen Rasey
April 2, 2014 at 9:31 pm

The desire to create a repository of quotes of failed predictions has
been discussed before.
It started with A. Watts' I need your help for a short research
project (July 16, 2011) and expanded upon in July 16, 2011 Climate Reality
is Al Gore's Gettysburg

In what may be a related action, Anthony Watts has asked readers
to find quotes for "ice free Arctic by the year xxxx". This is the kind of
preparing the ground and zero-in we need to do now in advance of
September.

We know who the CAGW leaders will be. Find every false,
misleading, scary, idiotic, non-scientific statement they have made in the
past twenty years. Create an index by name with pages listing those
statement with links to the source. Keep it factual. Let their own words
come back to haunt them.

We know the basics of their arguments and lines of "evidence".
Cross reference each of the statements above with the type of evidence.

There was good discussion about issues of design between me,
davidmhoffer. tallbloke, manicbeancounter, MJ, Gary Pearse. The trick was
how to a) efficiently gather the references and tag the key information,
preferably in bulk load, b) make it a crowd source project with vandalism
minimized and managed. The past couple weeks I've been thinking about
taking another crack at this idea. Someone with experience in social media
data capture might find it child's play today.

Once upon a time carbonbrief (I think) had this sort of thing from the
warmist viewpoint, but I don't see it today.
jones
April 2, 2014 at 9:40 pm

Oops, sorry mod. I'll consider that a telling off.

I thought I had. Prof Essex giving an excellent account less of the
science of the climate scene and more of the political/psychological
motivations.

Professor Essex has been involved in modeling of the energy emission
of CO2 molecules since the late seventies.

Mod, do you have the ability to slot that underneath the vid?

Most kind if so.
jones
April 2, 2014 at 9:55 pm

Correction...

?Energy state.....
TImothy Sorenson
April 2, 2014 at 10:24 pm

@Steven Mosher
You carefully point out that the statement wrt to 'prediction' is an
erroneous example. I concur on the most basic of grammatical levels. But I
want to point out that although you are correct, it would appear you
support someone who knows: "tomorrow the chance of snow is 70%, 20% chance
of rain, and only 10% chance of clear weather" who then states "Based on
our model, tomorrow may be a clear day," and makes no further statement. A
perfectly correct statement, designed to mislead. I used this kind of
shenanigans with my parents when I was 15.

The clear implication of a statement like "At this rate.......by
2012" is the following:
a.) We know that some climate warmist believes the rate they are
speaking about is "fact".
b.) We know the scientist saying this is choosing to say it this way
to raise alarm, but not be held responsible for a 'missed prediction".
c.) We also know that technically, what they are saying is not a
prediction.

But it is intended to persuade, influence, cause alarm without an
attempt to take responsibility for they own words, be held accountable for
their half truths, nor be called out as being wrong.

A lot of us feel personally attacked by simply discussing climate
issues and getting asked "You're a denier?"

The game they are playing is petty.

How do you like the following 'technically correct' statement?

"Someday, Steven Mosher will publish something that is correct" ??
bushbunny
April 2, 2014 at 11:40 pm

I like that Timothy. Yes, their ploy follows bullshit artistry we call
it in Aus. Or ignoring your rebuttal as it is stupid and you are a
holocaust denier anyway. But funnily, one of my cheer up sayings is
"Don't worry, it might be raining today, but tomorrow the sun will
come out again.." I used to tell that to my young son when he was
disappointed or depressed over something. Maybe we should send that
message to Michael Mann and cohorts. LOL
rtj1211
April 2, 2014 at 11:49 pm

'45. "In the UK wetter winters are expected which will lead to more
extreme rainfall, whereas summers are expected to get drier. However, it
is possible under climate change that there could be an increase of
extreme rainfall even under general drying."
Telegraph, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 24 July 2007'

Actually for the period April 2013 to March 2014, that story is
remarkably true.

Rather too soon to say whether it is generally true in climatological
time (i.e. over 30 - 300 years).
JohnB
April 3, 2014 at 12:06 am

I have to agree with some others here. If there is a list of "failed"
predictions, then that is what it must be and many on the list do not
qualify.

If you want to claim the prediction "failed" then each must contain as
basic information;
1. Who said it? That it was in a newspaper article is not good enough.
Either the reporter said it or they were quoting somebody. So who made the
prediction?
2. Where did they say it? Publication, Date, Article Title and or
Section. e.g. (Number 13, exactly where in AR4 was the claim made? People
cannot be expected to read the entire report.)
3. When did they say it? Exact dates are needed for "in 10 years...."
to know when they actually "fail".

Only those that meet the 3 criteria can be truly said to be "failed
predictions", any detail less than those 3 puts the prediction into the "A
bloke down the pub said...."

A 4th criteria can be added for those considered "failing".

4. What is the final date of the prediction? A prediction made in 2005
for 2015 has not failed but if it requires a step change in the conditions
to get back on track it can be said to be "failing". For example if
someone predicted in 2000 that "World temps will go up by 1 degree by
2020" the prediction has not yet failed, but since we are in 2014 without
anywhere near that rise the prediction can be reasonably called "failing"
as it would require a minor miracle for it to come to pass.

I'd also make the point that the use of the Ellipsis ( "..." ) should
be avoided as it leaves the way open to claim the prediction or statement
was taken "out of context". It also begs the questions "Why did you choose
to leave part of the comment out? What are you trying to hide from me?".
An entire speech doesn't have to be quoted, but entire sentences should
be.
alanpurus
April 3, 2014 at 12:20 am

The older the prediction, the more outlandish and inaccurate it is. I
wonder if we'll ever learn. I think people should publicise the cooling
prophecies to show how very specious these fanciful scare stories are.
JohnB
April 3, 2014 at 12:41 am

47. "The past is no longer a guide to the future. We no longer have a
stationary climate,"...
Independent, Dr. Peter Stott, Met Office, 27 Jul 2007

That climate was "stationary" before man came along and caused it to
change seems to be an underlying theme for many in the climate AGW camp. A
similar argument is seen in Ecology where many comments about the "balance
of Nature" can be found.

It is an unspoken but deeply held belief that the natural world is "in
balance" and changes occur only over very long periods. This basic
assumption that all natural changes are slow and occur only over long time
frames leads very logically to the conclusion that therefore any rapid
change (unless caused by a meteorite or similar) must be due to
"unnatural" causes, or "Man".

I've found that many in the AGW camp are simply un-accepting when
shown something as simple as the Ice cores showing the Younger Dryas
period. The YD event shows very clearly that world climate can change
much, much faster than the rather mild rate of the last 150 years. (And in
both directions)

I find it interesting that climate is possibly the last major bastion
of this "unchanging" or "slowly changing" mind set. Astronomy made the
move some time ago when the "Steady State Universe" gave way to the "Big
Bang" theory. Geology underwent a similar change when it became obvious to
all that continents really did move and so a "Static" view became a
dynamic one where change was the norm.

There are probably examples from other sciences as well.

The point is that it's not about CO2, it's about a worldview. The
natural world is either static or slowly changing and therefore very
predictable and safe or it is an unpredictable and wild and dangerous
place where man is at the mercy of nature. Note that many of the lights of
the AGW world speak of "stopping" or "reversing" climate change. This
would make it predictable and safe again. It's not belief in the science
that drives some, but the fear of living in an uncertain and unpredictable
world.
Heber Rizzo
April 3, 2014 at 1:08 am
Hillbilly Davis
2017-10-10 00:57:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In order to have credibility, all the quotes should be linked or
otherwise removed.
Earthling
April 3, 2014 at 3:05 am

Amazing, as soon as one fails, they've got two new ones ready to
replace it.
By the time this farce is over, the failed predictions will be
innumerable.
Geoff Sherrington
April 3, 2014 at 3:39 am

There is enough material here to be combined into an ensemble, with an
average.
steveta_uk
April 3, 2014 at 4:00 am

How can you claim failure for a predictions targeting 2050 or later?
Much of this list makes no sense at all.
David Spurgeon
April 3, 2014 at 4:56 am

COOLING:

By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight
reaching earth by one half..." Life magazine, January 1970.
Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters-the worst may
be yet to come. That's the long-long-range weather forecast being given
out by "climatologists." the people who study very long-term world weather
trends.... Washington Post January 11, 1970
Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor "...the planet
will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be
born," Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.
In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.
Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench
of dead fish. - Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action
is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an environmental
crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a
suitable place of human habitation," - Barry Commoner Washington
University Earth Day 1970
"(By 1995) somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of
living animals will be extinct." Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S.
Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.
"By the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western
Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine," Peter Gunter,
North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice
Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age. - Science 1970
"In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the
atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's
rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees.
Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger
an ice age." - Washington Post - July 9, 1971
"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of
impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I
were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the
year 2000." Paul Ehrlich 1971
New Ice Age Coming-It's Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day,
perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down
on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian
steppes.....Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971
Lubos Motl
April 3, 2014 at 7:54 am

I must confess that I, Czech physicist Luboš Motl, have never made a
failed prediction about the climate and I have never made an alarmist
prediction about the climate, especially not 4 years before my birth (in
1973). The name "Lubos Moti" is just a misspelled name of Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, see his prediction at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/03/moynihan-nixon-global-
warming_n_634526.html

Thanks for your understanding. ;-) I guess that someone was linking
the names to the quotes using a computer program and my name was next to
Moynihan's in an alphabetic list so a "plus minus one error" has relinked
the names in this humorous way. Maybe it's a reason to check the other
quotes, too.

[Thank you for the courtesy of your reply to this confusing topic.
Mod]
Lubos Motl
April 3, 2014 at 7:58 am

Just an addition: Maybe my name appeared because I have once written
about that prediction, too (in 2010):

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/07/nixon-was-told-sea-level-would-rise-
by.html?m=1
beng
April 3, 2014 at 8:40 am

98. 1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: "It is now pretty clearly
agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This
could increase the average temperature near the earth's surface by 7
degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10
feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."

Doesn't seem to be the one we know.....
Mike Ozanne
April 3, 2014 at 9:23 am

As far as the Snowless Northern Hemisphere goes, there actually seems
to be more snow in winter (about 1.5M KM2) since 2007, than there used to
be.:

NHWinterSnowChart
Stephen Rasey
April 3, 2014 at 4:54 pm

Re: the past discussions on a database for quotes, references, links,
and rebuttals I mentioned
April 2, 2014 at 9:31 pm.

Transforming lists of references into a multi-table relational
database format while minimizing the human data entry effort demands lists
such as Sasha's and others' be given a minimal markup and then bulk
imported into a database loader.

The point of this comment is that the mark up needs to do the job of
XML, but it needs to be an XML-lite syntax of tags. True XML is
repulsively human-hostile. While researching the topic today I stumbled
upon this gem of a paper:
Soapbox: Humans should not have to grok XML
Answers to the question "When shouldn't you use XML?"

Humans deal especially well with implied structure whereas
computers, which were designed to be good at what we are not, prefer
explicit structure. The closer your computer language is to natural
language, the more natural it will be for a human, but the harder it will
be to implement. A good compromise in this tug-o-war is to use a subset of
natural language possibly with some hints in the form of punctuation,
mathematics being the most obvious and useful example.

One idea I'm considering is a HML (Human Markup Language) that can be
transformed with simple computer code into XML format and then we can
leverage standard XML parsing loaders for relational or NoSQL structures.
The alternative is that we use a simple HML parser to fill table buffers
and write relational records from the buffers as each line is read.
Stephen Rasey
April 3, 2014 at 5:00 pm

[Mods: this is a repost of 4:54 pm to clean up the link tag]
Re: the past discussions on a database for quotes, references, links,
and rebuttals I mentioned
April 2, 2014 at 9:31 pm.

Transforming lists of references into a database format while
minimizing the human data entry effort demands lists such as Sasha's and
others' be imported into a database loader. To make that work the lists
will need some sort of a mark up.

The point of this comment is that the mark up needs to do the job of
XML, but it needs to be an XML-lite syntax of tags. True XML is
repulsively human-hostile. While researching the topic today I stumbled
upon this gem of a paper:
Soapbox: Humans should not have to grok XML
Answers to the question "When shouldn't you use XML?"

Humans deal especially well with implied structure whereas
computers, which were designed to be good at what we are not, prefer
explicit structure. The closer your computer language is to natural
language, the more natural it will be for a human, but the harder it will
be to implement. A good compromise in this tug-o-war is to use a subset of
natural language possibly with some hints in the form of punctuation,
mathematics being the most obvious and useful example.

One idea I'm considering is a HML (Human Markup Language) that can be
simply transformed into XML and then we can leverage XML parsing loaders
into relational or NoSQL structures. The alternative is that we use a
simple HML parser to fill table buffers and write relational records from
the buffers as each line is read.
Rdcii
April 3, 2014 at 6:17 pm

@Mosher...If you insist on viewing Zwally's statement literally, then
I would point out that, in the phrase "much faster than previous
predictions", previous implies that he is making a new prediction. You can
see the difference if he had said instead "much faster than modeled
predictions", or much faster than "our predictions", or "much faster than
anyone has predicted", You can't insist on literalism while ignoring that
word.
While it's debatable whether you are correct even in a literal
interpretation, the whole point of somke kinds of propaganda is that they
have meaning beyond what is literally said. This works, because if the
prediction turns out not to be true, apologists can defend the statement
on "literal" grounds.
If this statement was not literally a prediction, it was intended to
feel like one to less literal readers, and deserves to be called out, both
as propaganda and failed prediction.
Terry Oldberg
April 3, 2014 at 6:45 pm

Beware of the word "predict" when used in making an argument. Without
disambiguation, the word has several meanings. When used in making an
argument, the word makes of thia argument an "equivocation." An
equivocation looks like a syllogism but isn't one. Thus, it is a potent
vehicle for misleading people.
ferdberple
April 3, 2014 at 8:16 pm

Here is some of the list with working links:

http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/04/climate-science-humiliated-earlier-
model-prognoses-of-warmer-winters-now-todays-laughingstocks/
Chris Wright
April 4, 2014 at 3:08 am

I've always wanted to see a comprehensive list of prediction failures,
but this one isn't it.
First, there is a big difference between predictions that are obvious
nonsense and ones that have provably failed.

So, in the final list, each item must meet these two conditions:
1. The prediction has a specific date.
2. The prediction date has been reached and the prediction has been
proven wrong.

One prediction in the list has a date of 2030. It doesn't matter how
ridiculous the prediction, it can't be disproven until 2030.

One example of a prediction that has matured and which turned out
completely wrong: the UN published predictions of waves of climate change
refugees around the world. It published maps showing where this would
occur and it gave a specific date, so the first requirement is met. The
date was several years ago, and the prediction was provably false. In
fact, all countries that had conducted a population census showed
population increases. So the second condition was also met.

As I recall, the UN reacted first by simply making the predictions on
their web pages disappear without a hint that their predictions had turned
out laughably wrong. And then the web pages magically re-appeared, but
with the dates moved into the future. So, when the new predictions
eventually mature, it will be yet another item for the list. But not until
the prediction has actually matured (the date is reached), and that's my
point.

I am completely confident that any list which meets both requirements
could be enormous, and it would grow quite quickly as more of these
mindless predictions reach maturity. I believe that one of Hansen's
predictions about a road in New York being permanently under water due to
sea level rise is close to maturity....
Chris
IGnatius T Foobar (@IGnatiusTFoobar)
April 4, 2014 at 9:39 am

Anyone who still believes in man-made global warming at this point is
an obvious communist.
Jack Hydrazine
April 5, 2014 at 9:41 am

These ill-advised prognosticators of climate and weather need to
become members of C.O.D - the Cult Of Doom.
babo1960
April 5, 2014 at 11:17 am

Hey, they forgot the FIELD MOUSE MOVES 200 YARDS HIGHER UP THE
MOUNTAIN to avoid global warming study. That was the one that swayed me to
believe in climate change.
splooker
April 5, 2014 at 12:55 pm

Whats up with the german disinformation bureau? Is it a new kind,
another type of blitzkrieg from a new kind of Nazi? The "Al and the
Weather Nazi's" and his forced snow shoveling even if they have to Make
the snow with snow machines, get your ass out there and suffer in what you
have caused you scum and your flatulant cows!!!
See what you have done you normal human beings! Now, vee vill have to
vix this!
bushbunny
April 5, 2014 at 10:46 pm

bobo, they failed to add, it was being chased by a cat. LOL.
BruceC
April 10, 2014 at 10:12 pm

Sorry to resurrect an older thread, but, I agree that some of these
predictions are set too far in the future. Maybe some of these are more
in-line;

"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action
is taken against problems facing mankind."
o George Wald, Harvard Biologist

"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of
this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation."
o Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

"By...[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated
the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of
unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the
ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the
1980s."
o Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

"Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim
timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will
spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East,
Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America
will exist under famine conditions....By the year 2000, thirty years from
now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North
America, and Australia, will be in famine."
o Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation."
o Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

"Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to
support...the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have
to wear gas masks to survive air pollution...by 1985 air pollution will
have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...."

"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small
increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at
least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the
next ten years."
o Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

"At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time
before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land
will be usable."
o Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

"Air pollution...is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of
lives in the next few years alone."
o Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

"We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up
the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones."
o Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

"By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up
crude oil at such a rate...that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll
drive up to the pump and say, `Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, `I am
very sorry, there isn't any.'"
o Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

"Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to
enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and
possible extinction."
o New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

"Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute,
believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the
species of living animals will be extinct."
o Sen. Gaylord Nelson

"We have about five more years at the outside to do something."
o Kenneth Watt, ecologist

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If
present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for
the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year
2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."
o Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Most, if not all, of these comments were made around the first Earth
Day in 1970.

We also have these more recent predictions, H/T to Steve Goddard;

Barrack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark
assessment of NASA scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who
last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the
devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that
action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he
added. (17/01/2009)

GRIM FORECAST
A senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown,
says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea
levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal
flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of "eco-refugees,"
threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office
of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window
of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human
control. (June 30, 1989)

and finally;

"I'm scared," the lean, intense scientist (Paul Ehrlich) told an
interviewer. "I have a teenage daughter whom I love very much. I know a
lot of young people, and their world is being destroyed - my world is
being destroyed. I'm 37, and I'd like to live to be 67 in a reasonably
pleasant world, not die in some kind of holocaust in the next decade."
28th July, 1971......Ehrlich is now 81.
Frank
April 15, 2014 at 10:51 pm

Man, I wanna become present. Sick of the past?
Bob F
2017-10-10 03:18:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hillbilly Davis
Enough With The Wild Climate Predictions. And Death Or Imprisonment To
Those Who Dare Question The Church Of Global Warming
Climatistas are starting to sound like radical Islamists preaching death
to nonbelievers, winning converts by threats and coercion, not by science
or common sense.
=====
Another Climate Prediction Gone off the Rails
October 9, 2017
Winter started early this year.
And why does extreme cold weather occur when the world is warming?
Because it is coming from the poles, where it is being displaced by
warmer weather from other parts of the world. The poles get warmer while
the midwest gets colder. The ice therefore melts at the poles, and more
solar heat is absorbed in the arctic oceans, warming the poles, and
ultimately the planet even more.

You are the one sounding like ISIS.
Exeter!
2017-10-10 03:26:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob F
And why does extreme cold weather occur when the world is warming?
Because it is coming from the poles, where it is being displaced by
warmer weather from other parts of the world. The poles get warmer while
the midwest gets colder. The ice therefore melts at the poles, and more
solar heat is absorbed in the arctic oceans, warming the poles, and
ultimately the planet even more.
LOL!

So why is it that the southern hemisphere has been COOLING for the past
17 years?

Hjarf!
Bob F
2017-10-10 20:48:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Exeter!
Post by Bob F
And why does extreme cold weather occur when the world is warming?
Because it is coming from the poles, where it is being displaced by
warmer weather from other parts of the world. The poles get warmer
while the midwest gets colder. The ice therefore melts at the poles,
and more solar heat is absorbed in the arctic oceans, warming the
poles, and ultimately the planet even more.
LOL!
So why is it that the southern hemisphere has been COOLING for the past
17 years?
Simple, it is not.
Exeter!
2017-10-10 21:09:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob F
Post by Exeter!
Post by Bob F
And why does extreme cold weather occur when the world is warming?
Because it is coming from the poles, where it is being displaced by
warmer weather from other parts of the world. The poles get warmer
while the midwest gets colder. The ice therefore melts at the poles,
and more solar heat is absorbed in the arctic oceans, warming the
poles, and ultimately the planet even more.
LOL!
So why is it that the southern hemisphere has been COOLING for the
past 17 years?
Simple, it is not.
Sure it has!


http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/07/the-southern-hemisphere-it-has-not-warmed-in-over-15-years-another-brutal-winter-happens.html

Global Cooling 2011: Southern Hemisphere Has Not Warmed In Over 15 Years
& Another Brutal Winter Happens

In recent years, winters in the Southern Hemisphere have been especially
miserable, and it is happening again in 2011 for multiple countries.
Examples of the brutal winter weather abound, including: Peru, Brazil,
Chile, Bolivia, Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, Argentina and
Paraguay. (Update 7/27/11: More info on Australia autumn/winter weather;
South America here; South Africa here. Update 8/1/11: Australia and more
South Africa)

If global warming is actually happening, how is it that the Southern
Hemisphere (S-H) winters are not becoming more mild as expected? (click
on image to enlarge)

Southern Hemisphere zero global warming In reality, the S-H has not had
any significant warming in over 15 years, and appears to be entering a
cooling phase, which may explain the winter weather becoming worse.

The adjacent chart reveals a flat linear trend (green line) for S-H
temperatures that goes all the way back to March of 1996. That's over 15
years (through May 2011) that the data clearly show no significant and
no material warming for 50% of the world.

The aqua fitted curve indicates the recent cooling trend being experienced.

In contrast to the real-world, hard data of climate science (i.e.
empirical evidence) the alarmist claims of "unprecedented,"
"unequivocal" and "accelerating" global warming are outright false, and
should be immediately dismissed as blatant propaganda. Although the
die-hard cultists will never stop denying the lack of global warming,
the scientific proponents of AGW are now finally admitting that global
warming is not global, nor is it warming.



Southern Hemisphere Cooling the Trend is Now Apparent | Mini Ice Age
2015-2035
Bob F
2017-10-10 21:45:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Exeter!
Post by Bob F
Post by Exeter!
Post by Bob F
And why does extreme cold weather occur when the world is warming?
Because it is coming from the poles, where it is being displaced by
warmer weather from other parts of the world. The poles get warmer
while the midwest gets colder. The ice therefore melts at the poles,
and more solar heat is absorbed in the arctic oceans, warming the
poles, and ultimately the planet even more.
LOL!
So why is it that the southern hemisphere has been COOLING for the
past 17 years?
Simple, it is not.
Sure it has!
Really?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/07/05/this-new-antarctica-study-is-bad-news-for-climate-change-doubters/?utm_term=.68a24d0538e7
Exeter!
2017-10-10 21:48:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob F
Post by Exeter!
Post by Bob F
Post by Exeter!
Post by Bob F
And why does extreme cold weather occur when the world is warming?
Because it is coming from the poles, where it is being displaced by
warmer weather from other parts of the world. The poles get warmer
while the midwest gets colder. The ice therefore melts at the
poles, and more solar heat is absorbed in the arctic oceans,
warming the poles, and ultimately the planet even more.
LOL!
So why is it that the southern hemisphere has been COOLING for the
past 17 years?
Simple, it is not.
Sure it has!
Really?
Yeppers!



http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/07/the-southern-hemisphere-it-has-not-warmed-in-over-15-years-another-brutal-winter-happens.html

Global Cooling 2011: Southern Hemisphere Has Not Warmed In Over 15 Years
& Another Brutal Winter Happens

In recent years, winters in the Southern Hemisphere have been especially
miserable, and it is happening again in 2011 for multiple countries.
Examples of the brutal winter weather abound, including: Peru, Brazil,
Chile, Bolivia, Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand, Argentina and
Paraguay. (Update 7/27/11: More info on Australia autumn/winter weather;
South America here; South Africa here. Update 8/1/11: Australia and more
South Africa)

If global warming is actually happening, how is it that the Southern
Hemisphere (S-H) winters are not becoming more mild as expected? (click
on image to enlarge)

Southern Hemisphere zero global warming In reality, the S-H has not had
any significant warming in over 15 years, and appears to be entering a
cooling phase, which may explain the winter weather becoming worse.

The adjacent chart reveals a flat linear trend (green line) for S-H
temperatures that goes all the way back to March of 1996. That's over 15
years (through May 2011) that the data clearly show no significant and
no material warming for 50% of the world.

The aqua fitted curve indicates the recent cooling trend being experienced.

In contrast to the real-world, hard data of climate science (i.e.
empirical evidence) the alarmist claims of "unprecedented,"
"unequivocal" and "accelerating" global warming are outright false, and
should be immediately dismissed as blatant propaganda. Although the
die-hard cultists will never stop denying the lack of global warming,
the scientific proponents of AGW are now finally admitting that global
warming is not global, nor is it warming.

http://youtu.be/2cxIf7IIXTU

Southern Hemisphere Cooling the Trend is Now Apparent | Mini Ice Age
2015-2035
Bob F
2017-10-11 01:58:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Exeter!
Post by Bob F
Post by Exeter!
Post by Bob F
Post by Exeter!
Post by Bob F
And why does extreme cold weather occur when the world is warming?
Because it is coming from the poles, where it is being displaced
by warmer weather from other parts of the world. The poles get
warmer while the midwest gets colder. The ice therefore melts at
the poles, and more solar heat is absorbed in the arctic oceans,
warming the poles, and ultimately the planet even more.
LOL!
So why is it that the southern hemisphere has been COOLING for the
past 17 years?
Simple, it is not.
Sure it has!
Really?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/07/05/this-new-antarctica-study-is-bad-news-for-climate-change-doubters/?utm_term=.68a24d0538e7
Post by Exeter!
Yeppers!
http://www.c3headlines.com/.....
Let's see.? Should I trust c2headlines.com" or the Washington Post.

LOL! What a bunch of losers.
Exeter!
2017-10-11 04:10:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob F
Post by Exeter!
Post by Bob F
Post by Exeter!
Post by Bob F
Post by Exeter!
Post by Bob F
And why does extreme cold weather occur when the world is
warming? Because it is coming from the poles, where it is being
displaced by warmer weather from other parts of the world. The
poles get warmer while the midwest gets colder. The ice therefore
melts at the poles, and more solar heat is absorbed in the arctic
oceans, warming the poles, and ultimately the planet even more.
LOL!
So why is it that the southern hemisphere has been COOLING for the
past 17 years?
Simple, it is not.
Sure it has!
Really?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/07/05/this-new-antarctica-study-is-bad-news-for-climate-change-doubters/?utm_term=.68a24d0538e7
Post by Exeter!
Yeppers!
http://www.c3headlines.com/.....
Let's see.? Should I trust c2headlines.com" or the Washington Post.
LOL! What a bunch of losers.
True believers always play shoot the messenger.

trust the DATA cited, ya friggin' alarmist hutbag.

Loading...