2020 climate fails

[SkyDekker 1,122]

9 hours ago, mistercwood said:

It's finally occurred to me that the reason you love these things as "evidence" is that you never, ever factor in that they're almost always based on things proceeding business-as-usual.

Pretty sure behaviours have changed a wee bit over the last 34 years. Might've changed the outcome a smidge.

It also never comes with evidence of the "prediction".

[brenthutch 383]

11 hours ago, mistercwood said:

Pretty sure behaviours have changed a wee bit over the last 34 years. Might've changed the outcome a smidge.

Yes, like INCREASING our output of CO2 by sixteen BILLION + tons per year.  Given that behavioral change one would expect things to be much worse than predicted.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

26 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Yes, like INCREASING our output of CO2 by sixteen BILLION + tons per year.  Given that behavioral change one would expect things to be much worse than predicted.

Post the prediction and the parameters it was based on and then we can discuss it.

[BIGUN 1,053]

9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Yes, like INCREASING our output of CO2 by sixteen BILLION + tons per year.  Given that behavioral change one would expect things to be much worse than predicted.

Brent, you are simply not, or choosing not to look at the climate situation on a macro scale. While you make it sound like increasing our (the US) output by 16 billion tons per year is nothing. It very much is something. You fail to address that in the past 30 years, the world as ACCUMULATED AND TRAPPED in the atmosphere 1.5 trillion tons of CO2, methane, etc. It can't go anywhere. The US, China and the EU are responsible for more than 50% of the total 36 billion tons being pumped into the atmosphere each year.  

Each year, we increase these emissions by 50%. That's year over year. 

Brother, you've got to get away from the popular mainstream anti-climate change rhetoric and do some real learning about the science of climate change. Like say:

NASA

Or, maybe the thirteen participating agencies that aggregate their findings to GlobalChange.gov

 

[brenthutch 383]

15 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Post the prediction and the parameters it was based on and then we can discuss it.

Read the link on my original post 

[brenthutch 383]

15 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Brent, you are simply not, or choosing not to look at the climate situation on a macro scale. While you make it sound like increasing our (the US) output by 16 billion tons per year is nothing. It very much is something. You fail to address that in the past 30 years, the world as ACCUMULATED AND TRAPPED in the atmosphere 1.5 trillion tons of CO2, methane, etc. It can't go anywhere. The US, China and the EU are responsible for more than 50% of the total 36 billion tons being pumped into the atmosphere each year.  

Each year, we increase these emissions by 50%. That's year over year. 

 

You missed the point I was making.  I believe mister wood was making the case that these predictions failed because our behavior changed.  I pointed out that the change in our behavior was to increase our (the world’s not just the US) CO2 output by 16 billion tons per year, and things should actually be worse than predicted.  While temperatures have risen, slightly, the predictions of disaster have failed to follow suit.  Check out the NOAA website and you will see that nothing (floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires etc) falls outside of historical, natural variability. 

[billvon 2,400]

12 hours ago, mistercwood said:

It's finally occurred to me that the reason you love these things as "evidence" is that you never, ever factor in that they're almost always based on things proceeding business-as-usual.

You know very well that if the sea does rise a foot and we lose New Orleans, Brent will be right here saying "but they predicted TWO FEET so it's all fake!"

[brenthutch 383]

55 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Post the prediction and the parameters it was based on and then we can discuss it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver1?CMP=share_btn_link
 

· By 2007 violent storms smash coastal barriers rendering large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable. Cities like The Hague are abandoned. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento river area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.

· Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colderand drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.

Deaths from war and famine run into the millions until the planet’s population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope.

· Riots and internal conflict tear apart India, South Africa and Indonesia.

· Access to water becomes a major battleground. The Nile, Danube and Amazon are all mentioned as being high risk.

By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an ‘economic nuisance’ as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.

 

 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver1?CMP=share_btn_link
 

· By 2007 violent storms smash coastal barriers rendering large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable. Cities like The Hague are abandoned. In California the delta island levees in the Sacramento river area are breached, disrupting the aqueduct system transporting water from north to south.

· Between 2010 and 2020 Europe is hardest hit by climatic change with an average annual temperature drop of 6F. Climate in Britain becomes colderand drier as weather patterns begin to resemble Siberia.

Deaths from war and famine run into the millions until the planet’s population is reduced by such an extent the Earth can cope.

· Riots and internal conflict tear apart India, South Africa and Indonesia.

· Access to water becomes a major battleground. The Nile, Danube and Amazon are all mentioned as being high risk.

By 2010 the US and Europe will experience a third more days with peak temperatures above 90F. Climate becomes an ‘economic nuisance’ as storms, droughts and hot spells create havoc for farmers.

 

 

Again you post a news article. In this case the news article of a secret report that isn't produced. 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

51 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Read the link on my original post 

It's a link to a video. I am asking for a link to documents showing the making of the predictions. You said it was an EPA prediction, should be pretty easy to find.

 

Or do you always just agree with videos you see on the internet?

[brenthutch 383]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

It's a link to a video. I am asking for a link to documents showing the making of the predictions. You said it was an EPA prediction, should be pretty easy to find.

 

Or do you always just agree with videos you see on the internet?

The video was on a subsequent post, view my OP

[SkyDekker 1,122]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The video was on a subsequent post, view my OP

The OP link only has news clippings as "evidence". Does that mean that from now on pictures of newspaper clippings are to be taken as fact by you?

[brenthutch 383]

6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Again you post a news article. In this case the news article of a secret report that isn't produced. 

Let’s try to take a different approach.  Why don’t you give me an example of a climate change prediction of disaster that actually happened, (and HARKing is not allowed.)

[mistercwood 287]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Yes, like INCREASING our output of CO2 by sixteen BILLION + tons per year.  Given that behavioral change one would expect things to be much worse than predicted.

Ok so output went up. Did we (globally) take other measures/actions to offset that in any way at all or is that a net increase? Did the prediction you're laughing at factor in a continuous increase in outputs that were more excessive than the reality? Were there other underlying assumptions at work that didn't pan out and would affect the outcomes vs prediction? You know. Context.

I went and looked at your sources by the way, in case I could get this info myself.

Holy shit dude.

That page was like Buzzfeed but with no budget or design flair. Single graphs and newspaper clippings, no sources, no context, just "haha aren't warmists dumb haha!"...

Once again, I regret engaging you on the guaranteed topic that you will never, ever, ever approach in good faith.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Let’s try to take a different approach.  Why don’t you give me an example of a climate change prediction of disaster that actually happened, (and HARKing is not allowed.)

Why? I don't believe in your hypothesis that disaster predictions prove climate change.

But, I am sure I can find pictures of newspaper clippings that state that disasters were due to climate change. Seems that is all you need for "evidence".

[brenthutch 383]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

The OP link only has news clippings as "evidence". Does that mean that from now on pictures of newspaper clippings are to be taken as fact by you?

It is a fact that those articles appeared in those publications, those publications, shape public opinion (worked on many in this forum) and public opinion drives policy.  It is the policy aspect of the discussion that gets my attention.  If it were just an esoteric debate between a few scientists I wouldn’t care.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It is a fact that those articles appeared in those publications, those publications, shape public opinion (worked on many in this forum) and public opinion drives policy.  It is the policy aspect of the discussion that gets my attention.  If it were just an esoteric debate between a few scientists I wouldn’t care.

Your argument is that these articles from the mid 80s have shaped public opinion and policy. But, then you don't accept that policy changes since the mid-eighties may have invalidated predictions from that era.

You don't really stick to anything do you? Just argue whichever way the wind blows. Must be a republican.

[brenthutch 383]

12 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

 

12 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

Ok so output went up. Did we (globally) take other measures/actions to offset that in any way at all or is that a net increase? Did the prediction you're laughing at factor in a continuous increase in outputs that were more excessive than the reality? Were there other underlying assumptions at work that didn't pan out and would affect the outcomes vs prediction? You know. Context.

https://www.sealevel.info/hansen1988_retrospective.html

 

In 1988 NASA's James Hansen and seven co-au­thors wrote a highly influ­en­tial, ground­break­ing cli­mate mod­el­ing paper entitled, Global Cli­mate Changes as Fore­cast by God­dard Insti­tute for Space Stud­ies Three-Di­men­sional Model (pdf). They used NASA GISS's GCM Model II (a pre­de­cessor of the cur­rent Model E2) to pre­dict future cli­mate change, under sev­eral scen­arios. They con­sidered the com­bined effects of five green­house gases: CO₂, CFC11, CFC12, N₂O, and CH₄.

They pre­dicted a “warm­ing of 0.5°C per dec­ade” if emis­sions growth was not curbed (though their graph showed only about 0.37°C per dec­ade). That was their “scen­ario A,” (“bus­i­ness as usual” [tran­scripts]) which they described as fol­lows: “Scen­ario A assumes that growth rates of trace gas emis­sions typ­ical of the 1970s and 1980s will con­tinue indef­in­itely; the assumed annual growth aver­ages about 1.5% of cur­rent emis­sions, so the net green­house for­cing increases expo­nen­tially.”

Un­der their “scen­ario A,” emis­sions would have increased by 1.5% per year, total­ing 47% in 26 years. In fact, CO₂ emis­sions increased even faster than that. CO₂ emis­sions increased by an aver­age of 1.97% per year, total­ing 66% in 26 years. Yet tem­per­at­ures increased only about one-third to one-fourth as much as their “scen­ario A” pre­dic­tion.↑

 

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,122]

9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

In 1988 NASA's James Hansen and seven co-au­thors wrote a highly influ­en­tial, ground­break­ing cli­mate mod­el­ing paper entitled,

in 1988? But the newspaper clipping is supposed to be from 1987?

[mistercwood 287]

6 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

https://www.sealevel.info/hansen1988_retrospective.html

Quote

Add­i­tion­ally, includ­ing an expon­en­tial increase in CFCs in their “busi­ness as usual” Scen­ario A was inde­fen­si­ble, because the Mon­treal Pro­to­col had already been agreed upon in 1987, and the Vienna Con­ven­tion back in 1985. It is impos­si­ble to imag­ine that Han­sen, his seven co-auth­ors, the peer-review­ers, and the edi­tors, were all ignor­ant of those already-exist­ing trea­ties, so there's no excuse for the paper never­the­less pro­ject­ing expo­nen­tial increases in CFCs, in any of their sce­nar­ios.

So the study and prediction did in fact take into account factors that we know now were massively curbed, starting from when the paper was published.

From there, an observer has two choices:

1. Acknowledge that this is probably the biggest reason why the BAU prediction didn't match reality. Because it's perfectly logical. Then move on.
2. Use this to attack the prediction as dumb, even though it's internally logically consistent.

Your source chose option two. Cos - once again - they're hacks.

[brenthutch 383]

11 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Your argument is that these articles from the mid 80s have shaped public opinion and policy. But, then you don't accept that policy changes since the mid-eighties may have invalidated predictions from that era.

“Un­der their “scen­ario A,” emis­sions would have increased by 1.5% per year, total­ing 47% in 26 years. In fact, CO₂ emis­sions increased even faster than that. CO₂ emis­sions increased by an aver­age of 1.97% per year, total­ing 66% in 26 years. Yet tem­per­at­ures increased only about one-third to one-fourth as much as their “scen­ario A” pre­dic­tion.”

You must not understand that those policies did nothing to bring the rate of growth in CO2 emissions below predicted levels.  

[brenthutch 383]

4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

in 1988? But the newspaper clipping is supposed to be from 1987?

“Hansen et al 1988, retrospective

Reviewing the predictions of a seminal climate modeling paper, thirty years later

March 7, 2018
(latest substantial revision December 9, 2019)”

You obviously having reading comprehension difficulties.... perhaps your brain is frozen from all of that global warming up north.

[brenthutch 383]

9 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

So the study and prediction did in fact take into account factors that we know now were massively curbed, starting from when the paper was published.

From there, an observer has two choices:

1. Acknowledge that this is probably the biggest reason why the BAU prediction didn't match reality. Because it's perfectly logical. Then move on.
2. Use this to attack the prediction as dumb, even though it's internally logically consistent.

Your source chose option two. Cos - once again - they're hacks.

 

[mistercwood 287]

I honestly can't tell at this point if you're trolling or genuinely can't see where you're failing at fundamental logic.

[BIGUN 1,053]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Check out the NOAA website and you will see that nothing (floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires etc) falls outside of historical, natural variability. 

You mean like this NOAA "Stuff?"