Some Failed Climate Predictions

Jack Hays said:

This will cause a chuckle or a groan or a protest, depending on your point of view. The author is not without a wry sense of humor.


Some Failed Climate Predictions

By Javier Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus…
Continue reading →

Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.
To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.
A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious. . . .

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

This will cause a chuckle or a groan or a protest, depending on your point of view. The author is not without a wry sense of humor.


Some Failed Climate Predictions

By Javier Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus…
Continue reading →

Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.
To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.
A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious. . . .

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

This will cause a chuckle or a groan or a protest, depending on your point of view. The author is not without a wry sense of humor.


Some Failed Climate Predictions

By Javier Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus…
Continue reading →

Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.
To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.
A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious. . . .

Click to expand...

katzgar said:

either the saudis or big oil is paying you. which one?

Click to expand...

bubbabgone said:

That's a keeper.
But you know, WUWT will not go unremarked upon.
I'm thinking you're nipple-tweaking.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Guilty as charged.
I'm expecting an especially amusing response to No. 7.

Click to expand...

katzgar said:

either the saudis or big oil is paying you. which one?

Click to expand...

Sweden said:

Jack draws attention to facts. You are unable to dispute them so you type this silly little post instead. Read the long list of massive prediction failures and apologise for you slander.

EVERY prediction made by the climate alarmism industry has prove wrong.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

It's worse than that. I'm a retiree who has found a cause.

Click to expand...

Glen Contrarian said:

Yeah, yeah, we know, all the scientists are lying, and they're lying just in order to get government contracts...never mind that our federal government and some state governments are censoring the scientists from discussing climate change.

But we get it - we really do. We understand that it doesn't matter how strong the evidence is for climate change, just because you can cherry-pick this or that as-yet unexplained observation, that those relatively very few observations somehow obviate the far, FAR more numerous observations and studies by scientists with much higher levels of education in the field than either you or I.

What is happening, Jack, is that you're looking at some predictions that didn't pan out, but what you're NOT looking at is the fact that while specifics may not be on the money, they are most certainly in the ballpark. It's as if you're playing golf and expecting that the other side make holes-in-one on every hole, and because they don't make a hole-in-one on every shot, you're assuming that the other person obviously doesn't know anything about playing golf...

...because the world sure as heck IS getting warmer. Sometimes the warming pace is slower than predicted, sometimes faster than predicted...but the world is warming. That is undeniable. What you should be asking yourself is how the heck it is that we can pump gigatonnes of CO2 (that's just from cars, not counting all the other sources) into the atmosphere every single doggone year, from sources that nature NEVER had to deal with before, and somehow pretend that the added CO2 won't change the chemistry of the atmosphere, that yes, that much CO2 can hold enough additional heat to make a real difference. It is PROVEN that we pump gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, and it is PROVEN that CO2 does hold more heat than "normal" air.

This is not a matter of politics, not a matter of partisanship, but of not-so-simple science - and the proof is right there in front of your face, if only you'd allow yourself to see it.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Not lying, just wrong. Those who upheld Ptolemy and attacked Copernicus weren't lying, they just couldn't shed an outmoded paradigm.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

Not lying, just wrong. Those who upheld Ptolemy and attacked Copernicus weren't lying, they just couldn't shed an outmoded paradigm.

Click to expand...

Glen Contrarian said:

Apples and oranges. The scientists of the Middle Ages and of the ancient world did not have access to a fraction of the information that we have today.

In other words, you just committed two logical fallacies: (1) the historian's fallacy, in which one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision, and (2) the association fallacy, in that you made the assumption that the qualities of one thing (the abilities of and data accessible by scientists of the past) are inherently qualities of another (the abilities of and data accessible to the scientists of today).

You simply cannot say that because a certain set of people were wrong once, that a different set of people are wrong today. Yes, there is ALWAYS the possibility that people are wrong - we are all human and therefore fallible - but when it comes to claiming that the near-total agreement of the climate scientists (who are best-qualified and best-educated in the field) are all wrong, the proof against MUST be stronger than the proof for.

But the proof against isn't even a fraction as strong as the proof for, and your claims evince a complete misunderstanding of the scientific community. If you understood the mindset of (the overwhelming majority of) scientists, you'd know that one of the things that they dearly love, that makes their whole career and puts them in history books, is to prove everyone else WRONG. Scientists do NOT want to agree with the crowd - they want to stand out from the crowd, and they can only do so by proving the crowd wrong. Why do you think that - as strong as general and special relativity theories are - there are still many scientists that strive to come up with different theories? But when it comes to climate science, they agree on global warming because that's what the data obviously, undeniably show.

You want to be a cynic - of course you do. But it's long past time that you learn to be equally cynical of both sides, not just of climate scientists, but also of those who argue that the climate scientists are incredibly, stupidly wrong. You know the arguments against climate scientists - you use them often enough - but I've yet to see a single post from you digging into the qualifications and money trails of those who argue against the conclusions of the near-entirety of the climate scientist community.

Click to expand...

Glen Contrarian said:

Apples and oranges. The scientists of the Middle Ages and of the ancient world did not have access to a fraction of the information that we have today.

In other words, you just committed two logical fallacies: (1) the historian's fallacy, in which one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision, and (2) the association fallacy, in that you made the assumption that the qualities of one thing (the abilities of and data accessible by scientists of the past) are inherently qualities of another (the abilities of and data accessible to the scientists of today).

You simply cannot say that because a certain set of people were wrong once, that a different set of people are wrong today. Yes, there is ALWAYS the possibility that people are wrong - we are all human and therefore fallible - but when it comes to claiming that the near-total agreement of the climate scientists (who are best-qualified and best-educated in the field) are all wrong, the proof against MUST be stronger than the proof for.

But the proof against isn't even a fraction as strong as the proof for, and your claims evince a complete misunderstanding of the scientific community. If you understood the mindset of (the overwhelming majority of) scientists, you'd know that one of the things that they dearly love, that makes their whole career and puts them in history books, is to prove everyone else WRONG. Scientists do NOT want to agree with the crowd - they want to stand out from the crowd, and they can only do so by proving the crowd wrong. Why do you think that - as strong as general and special relativity theories are - there are still many scientists that strive to come up with different theories? But when it comes to climate science, they agree on global warming because that's what the data obviously, undeniably show.

You want to be a cynic - of course you do. But it's long past time that you learn to be equally cynical of both sides, not just of climate scientists, but also of those who argue that the climate scientists are incredibly, stupidly wrong. You know the arguments against climate scientists - you use them often enough - but I've yet to see a single post from you digging into the qualifications and money trails of those who argue against the conclusions of the near-entirety of the climate scientist community.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

My use of the word "paradigm" was intended to hint that I was discussing an identifiable process that has been repeated enough times to be treated as a distinct phenomenon. Please see Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
And, in my experience, you're quite wrong about the "mindset" of most scientists. Often socially unsure, they are eager to be accepted. Enjoying robust intellectual self-assurance, they are loath to admit error. Thus is formed the situation to encourage a pack mentality or, as it's sometimes expressed, "groupthink."

Click to expand...

longview said:

In the discussion of AGW your is the logical fallacy, in assuming that it is a right or wrong question,
it is not and likely never was.
The question is how sensitivity is the climate to added CO2?
The follow on question would be at that level of sensitivity, which poses the greatest risk to humanity?
Curtailing the usage of the fuels that has lifted humanity from the mud, before a viable replacement is ready,
or adapting to changes posed by continued use of organic hydrocarbon fuels?
If the likely result would be changes that could destroy civilization, it might be worth the risk.
Since the changes appear to be at the low end of the range, and fairly inconsequential,
the risk appears to be greater than it's cost.
The CERES satellite was launched with the purpose of validating AGW, by measuring the energy imbalance
at the top of the atmosphere as CO2 levels increased.
What they found was that there is little correlation between CO2 level and net flux.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/c...ergy-systems-ceres-energy-balanced-and-filled

Click to expand...

Glen Contrarian said:

Not every series of measurements is going to show a significant change. For instance, you can't measure the windspeed of a hurricane by measuring the rain - it, like your chart, is apples and oranges. More telling is a graph like this:

Click to expand...

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes.

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

This will cause a chuckle or a groan or a protest, depending on your point of view. The author is not without a wry sense of humor.


Some Failed Climate Predictions

By Javier Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus…
Continue reading →

Here, for the first time in public, is Javier’s entire collection of massive, “consensus” climate science prediction failures. This collection is carefully selected from only academics or high-ranking officials, as reported in the press or scientific journals. Rather than being exhaustive, this is a list of fully referenced arguments that shows that consensus climate science usually gets things wrong, and thus their predictions cannot be trusted.
To qualify for this list, the prediction must have failed. Alternatively, it is also considered a failure when so much of the allowed time has passed that a drastic and improbable change in the rate of change is required for it to be true. Also, we include a prediction when observations are going in the opposite way. Finally, it also qualifies when one thing and the opposite are both predicted.
A novelty is that I also add a part B that includes obvious predictions that consensus climate science did not make. In science you are also wrong if you fail to predict the obvious. . . .

Click to expand...

Glen Contrarian said:

Ah. The "socially-awkward nerd" argument.

It's sad that y'all somehow think that scientists are in any way lesser social beings. I mean, when it comes to social awkwardness, have you spent much time Down South? Ah, but I forget! It's right-wing dogma that all non-right-wing academia is automatically part of a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy to make our children socialists! Yep! Pol Pot would have been a great support of our right-wing dogma! You know, work all the professors literally to death in the field because they're not teaching what y'all think they should teach....

Again, when are you going to be even a fraction as cynical of the people on your side as you are of the group who knows more about earth's climate than anyone else?

Click to expand...

Jack Hays said:

I spent several years in academia myself, and I have several lifelong friends who are accomplished scientists. And I don't accept your claim that I'm being cynical. But I can tell you that I never once, in all these years, encountered anyone in a scientific field whose aim was to prove his/her colleagues wrong.

Click to expand...

Glen Contrarian said:

"Credit for work done is still the currency of science"

Click to expand...

katzgar said:

either the saudis or big oil is paying you. which one?

Click to expand...

Tim the plumber said:

What motivates you to post?

Are you piad?

Why do you consider anybody who has a different take on the most expensive policy humanity has ever had as corrupt?

Click to expand...