A quick recap of failed climate predictions

[brenthutch 383]

 

“We don’t have 12 years to save the climate. We have 14 months,” the now-defunct ThinkProgress predicted 43 months ago.

Former French prime minister Laurent Fabius warned 3,239 days ago that the international community had only “500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Earlier, in 2009, Gordon Brown, the U.K.’s prime minister at the time, said we had “fewer than fifty days to save our planet from catastrophe.”

Also in 2009, former vice president Al Gore declared that “there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”

In 2013, mid-melt, the Guardian ran the following headline: “US Navy predicts summer ice-free Arctic by 2016.”

The ice is still there.

“NASA Scientist: We’re Toast,” reads the headline of an Associated Press report from 2008.

In 2007, the IPCC predicted the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. The U.N.’s chief climate science body retracted the claim in 2010, explaining the prediction wasn’t based on any peer-reviewed data, but on a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999.

In 2006, Gore claimed that unless world leaders took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, Earth would surpass the “point of no return” in ten years — a “true planetary emergency,” he called it.

The year 2016 came and went, and now we’re being told the early 2030s are the real point of no return.

The Guardian, citing a “secret report,” warned in 2004 that “major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a ‘Siberian’ climate by 2020.”

The year 2022 was the U.K.’s warmest since they started keeping records in 1884. The heat was, of course, blamed on climate change.

“U.N. Predicts Disaster If Global Warming Not Checked,” the AP reported in 1989.

The report’s opening line reads, “senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

Like Charlie Brown and the football, some folks (too many actually) continue to believe this doomsday nonsense no matter how many times they are proven wrong. I guess it is true that it is easier to fool people than convince them that they have been fooled. 
 

 

[gowlerk 1,913]

I can't see the post, just the subject. Maybe someone could start a recap of failed BH predictions.

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

I can't see the post, just the subject. Maybe someone could start a recap of failed BH predictions.

I will go with a recap of climate scientist predictions vs climate contrarian predictions.

The first is the 2000 IPCC predictions.  This was the best estimate of climate scientists 23 years ago.

The second is a chart by Stefan Rahmstorf showing the actual temperatures vs predictions by Fritz Vahrenholt, climate change denier.  He claimed in 2012 that "the Sun has been getting weaker since 2005, and it will continue to do so in the next few decades. Consequently, we can only expect cooling from the Sun for now.”  He wrote a book on this and made a prediction, shown below.  

The third is a prediction by Russian astrophysicist Habibullo Abdussamatov.  He claimed in 2013 that "we witness the transitional period from warming to deep cooling characterized by unstable climate changes when the global temperature will oscillate (approximately until 2014) around the maximum achieved in 1998.”  No comparison data this time; just that climate denier's prediction.  

So now we have three predictions.  The first was in 2000, and was the end result of dozens of climate scientists using the best available data.  The other two are climate change deniers.  

Hey BH - which of those three do you think was the most accurate?

 

 

 

 

 

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

I can't see the post, just the subject. Maybe someone could start a recap of failed BH predictions.

Don’t worry, I will be giving a mid-year update in a few weeks.  It will include the latest on CO2 levels and emissions, coal usage, EV adaptation, energy transition, temperature and weather records (or lack there of) polar ice conditions, and polar bear populations to name a few.

[lippy 771]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Don’t worry, I will be giving a mid-year update in a few weeks.  It will include the latest on CO2 levels and emissions, coal usage, EV adaptation, energy transition, temperature and weather records (or lack there of) polar ice conditions, and polar bear populations to name a few.

It's just cruel to make us wait till then!

[Phil1111 911]

1 hour ago, lippy said:

It's just cruel to make us wait till then!

Its cruel when trolling so confuses the weak minded. Is there any chance he will forget and move onto "mo guns save mo lives".

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, lippy said:

It's just cruel to make us wait till then!

It's like having to wait a whole season to find out who shot JR.

[brenthutch 383]

25 minutes ago, billvon said:

It's like having to wait a whole season to find out who shot JR.

I’m waiting until the year is half over 

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Its cruel when trolling so confuses the weak minded. Is there any chance he will forget and move onto "mo guns save mo lives".

Given that I never said “mo guns save mo lives” it is a pretty good bet I will be sticking to the topic at hand.

[Phil1111 911]

38 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Given that I never said “mo guns save mo lives” it is a pretty good bet I will be sticking to the topic at hand.

Should your intellect and education not be applied to pursuing positions supported by facts?  "Failed climate predictions" is akin to water cooler talk about how bad local meteorologists got the weekend rainfall.

You know how this topic is going to end don't you? Billvon and others will supply accurate quotes from reputable sources. You will deny the obvious. Then start another thread on this same subject two weeks later.

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

You know how this topic is going to end don't you? Billvon and others will supply accurate quotes from reputable sources. 

NASA and the IPCC are not reputable sources?

[SkyDekker 1,123]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

NASA and the IPCC are not reputable sources?

They are, but you generally only supply the headlines of articles who end up not using, or not understanding the underlying NASA and IPCC data.

[brenthutch 383]

8 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

They are, but you generally only supply the headlines of articles who end up not using, or not understanding the underlying NASA and IPCC data.

Don’t worry, when i give my mid year update it will be from official government sources. (NOAA, IEA, NSIDC DoE and DoT to name a few)

[CygnusX-1 42]

On 6/6/2023 at 1:16 PM, brenthutch said:

Don’t worry, I will be giving a mid-year update in a few weeks.  It will include the latest on CO2 levels and emissions, coal usage, EV adaptation, energy transition, temperature and weather records (or lack there of) polar ice conditions, and polar bear populations to name a few.

Not sure you are going to wait for all the numbers to come out when you make the post. But in case you don't wait, be sure in your EV adoption to include that for Q1 of this year, the Tesla Model Y not only outsold the Ford F150 worldwide but also was the most popular sedan dethroning Toyota. (Tesla Model Y is the first EV to become the world’s bestselling car - The Verge)

[brenthutch 383]

20 hours ago, CygnusX-1 said:

Not sure you are going to wait for all the numbers to come out when you make the post. But in case you don't wait, be sure in your EV adoption to include that for Q1 of this year, the Tesla Model Y not only outsold the Ford F150 worldwide but also was the most popular sedan dethroning Toyota. (Tesla Model Y is the first EV to become the world’s bestselling car - The Verge)

To keep things consistent, I will stick to domestic sales.  Although Tesla sales are significant, taken together, EV sales are still a tiny fraction of what traditional vehicles are.

Edited June 9, 2023 by brenthutch

[wmw999 2,122]

14 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

To keep things consistent, I will stick to domestic sales

Of course you will — otherwise it might show a different story. 
 

[brenthutch 383]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Of course you will — otherwise it might show a different story. 
 

I will include the percentage of global sales as well, just for you.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

5 hours ago, wmw999 said:

Of course you will — otherwise it might show a different story. 
 

Hi Wendy,

I believe that it is called Cherry-Picking.

Jerry Baumchen