Failed 2020 Climate Predictions

In 2020 more climate doomsday predictions turned out to be false, as usual.

"2020 has been the wildest and most unpredictable year in the memory of most people. But did the climate doom that was predicted to occur in or by 2020 materialize? What follows are 10 predictions made for 2020 and what really happened. As it turns out, climate doomsayers weren’t seeing so 20-20 when it came to 2020. . . . "

CLIMATE FAIL
Wrong Again: 2020’s Failed Climate Doomsaying

2020 has been the wildest and most unpredictable year in the memory of most people. But did the climate doom that was predicted to occur in or by 2020 materialize?…

 

So far no challenge to this expose of long running warmist/alarmist errors.

Gee I wonder why....................

 

So you are not really saying that they got it wrong, but more like the timetable was too short.

There IS global warming, but not as much as quickly as some predicted.
There IS sea level rise, but not as much as quickly as some predicted.
The glaciers ARE receding, but not by as much as some predicted.
The coral reefs are dying back, but not as much and as quickly as some predicted.

The problem I see with with many of these articles claiming "failure" by those predicting climate change isn't so much that they were wrong about the warming - but that they were wrong about the timetable. They also seem to discount that since a number of those early predictions, a number
of countries have started initiating protocols to help slow that process.

 

Did you actually read the article?

The old predictions are quite specific and based on the AGW conjecture.

No one disputes a warming trend, sea level rise, individual glaciers receding in some areas. It is the POOR level of modeling scenarios made by AGW supporting scientists that is the problem. Good example is Dr. Hansen's 1988 3 modeling scenarios, he is now waaaay off 32 years later, all based on the AGW conjecture.

 

Good science doesn't use the outliers on predictions. Have you found the mean number of the bulk of predictions?
If 1,000 climate scientist have put together models, and you use the 5% of highs or lows to claim the entire modeling system is flawed - are
you practicing good science yourself?

 

Yet that is what all the alarmism has been based on, the outlier climate model RCP8.5.

 

LOL

You are evading the article and Dr. Hansen's 1988 3 modeling scenario failure.

It is clear you have nothing to offer here but evasions, can't handle prediction/projection failures made by warmist scientists.

It is also clear you will ignore a specific modeling scenario failure, it is a big one since it was made by then DIRECTOR of GISS and a big supporter of the silly AGW conjecture, of which he based his 3 modeling scenarios on.

Cheers

 

Yeah and it is stupid, since rate of warming is well below that scenario nonsense.

 

Well, no. They got it wrong.

 

No. The "timetable was too short" means they got it wrong.

The predictions were made based on models that were calibrated by ASSUMING that the natural cyclical warming 1970-2000 was due to increased CO2, and then projecting the effect of adding even more CO2 on global temperature. The fact that those predictions have failed indicates the original modeled assumption of the magnitude of CO2's effect on temperature was false.

Coral reef diebacks have been shown to be due to reduced water level because of prevailing winds, not higher water temperature. Corals grow in tropical seas, not cold ones, because they prefer warm water.

CO2 continues its near-exponential increase. Global temperature is disobediently not going along with CO2. That means CO2 does not govern global temperature, which falsifies the hysterical anti-fossil-fuel hate propaganda narrative.

 

No, Weather Channel, 2020 Did Not Bring Unprecedented Climate Disasters
ALARMIST MESSENGERS/CLAIMS DECEMBER 21, 2020
Rolling Stone Magazine Lies About COVID-19 and Climate Change
DISEASE/VIRUS DECEMBER 17, 2020
American Geophysical Union Fail: Climate Change Is Not Harming Mental Health
HEALTH IMPACTS DECEMBER 17, 2020
No, Climate Change Is Not ‘Pushing Birds North’
SPECIES IMPACTS DECEMBER 16, 2020

 

Global Warming is simply a fundamentalist style religion that requires one to deny logic, science, and mathematics.

 

The success of climate models is even better than expected, affirming the hard work of the overwhelming majority of the global scientific community regarding climate. The tiny percentage of dissidents from the overwhelming consensus have mounted no actual challenge. That is why their science doesn't get through peer review, and why their loudest voices are nonscientists on message boards and blogs.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-models-got-it-right-on-global-warming/

 

We don't know what the temperature of the Earth is. We don't have near enough thermometers to measure it. Anyone claiming to know what Earth's temperature is at any given time is just pulling random numbers out of their rear end...

Define "global warming". Circular definitions are not acceptable (they are meaningless).

It is not possible to measure a global sea level. There is no valid reference point. Land moves around, you see...

Glaciers recede and advance all the time. This is nothing to be afraid of.

Coral reefs are not dying. They are just fine.

Define "climate change". Circular definitions are not acceptable. How is Earth warming without any additional energy from the Sun? That would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. How is colder CO2 heating the Earth's warmer surface? That would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

One cannot "do something" about a "threat" that has not been defined nor explained in any logical nor scientific manner. No country is doing anything to address "global warming", whatever that is supposed to be...

 

I dispute the claim that we "know what Earth's temperature is" at any given moment. Same with any "the global sea level is _____" type of claim. I agree that we do know the "ice extent" of particular areas (via satellites, since it is a measure of surface area).

 

Science isn't good or bad. Science is amoral. Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. IOW, it is a set of falsifiable models that predict nature.

What are you even talking about?

There is no such thing as a "climate scientist".

A modeling system that violates logic, science, and mathematics is a flawed modeling system.

We don't have near enough thermometers to know what the temperature of the Earth is. Satellites cannot tell us the temperature of the Earth either because Earth's emissivity is an unknown value. Without that value, we cannot convert light readings into temperature readings. In order to obtain that value, we first must know the temperature of the Earth (a chicken and egg type problem).

 

Overall a pretty good response, but there's a few technical issues that I have with it, along with some expanded explanations:

We don't know what the "global temperature" nor "global CO2 content" is at any given time. A thermometer in downtown Denver says nothing about, say, the middle of a forest 50 miles outside of Denver. A CO2 station near a volcano in Hawaii says nothing about the CO2 content at the southernmost tip of Antarctica. We don't have enough instrumentation to measure these things within any usable accuracy.

Since such instrumentation needs to be in accessible areas for maintenance/repair purposes, there is a location bias present in any such data. Since data is not simultaneously read by the same observer, a time bias is also present. Since the volume of Earth is so incredibly vast, and since temperature/CO2 variances per square mile are such high values, it would take an insane amount of instrumentation to bring the calculated margin of error down to a usable value (for thermometers, it would take upwards of 200 million of them, since temperature can easily vary by as much as 20degF per mile).

See above for measurement comments. As for the teachings of the Church of Global Warming, we already know (from science) that CO2 does not increase Earth's temperature in any way because the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us that within any closed (IOW "boundaries are defined") system (such as the Sun-Earth-Space system), heat only flows from hot to cold (never in reverse). This means that colder CO2 CANNOT heat Earth's warmer surface. If it could, then entropy would be decreasing, and the 2nd law tells us that entropy always increases or stays the same.

We also know (via the 1st law of thermodynamics) that Earth's temperature cannot increase without the existence of additional energy. Where is this additional energy coming from??

We also know (via the stefan boltzmann law) that if Earth's temperature is increasing, then Earth's radiance is also increasing (as both sides of an algebraic equation MUST equal). The issue here is that the Church of Global Warming will assert that CO2 is somehow "trapping" or "slowing" heat (which would mean a reduction of Earth's radiance). Under such an impossible scenario, since both sides of an algebraic equation MUST equal, Earth's temperature would then be COLDER, not warmer.

The Church of Global Warming is required to violate logic, science, and mathematics in order to hold steadfast in their doom and gloom fundamentalist style faith... Personally, I choose to stick with logic, science, and mathematics.

 

Garbage.

False.

More baldly false claims.

That hilariously deceitful piece of trash cherry-picked models that showed the least predicted warming, altered others retroactively to predict less warming, and cherry-picked temperature data that show the most warming. SciAm is a pathetic, woke, politically correct remnant of its former self.

 

New Climate Models (CMIP6) Offer No Improvement, Model Discrepancies As Large As The Last Version (CMIP5)
By Kenneth Richard on 24. December 2020

Share this...
The “unsatisfactorily large” magnitude of the discrepancies between models in estimating the various radiative contributions to Earth’s energy imbalance serves to undermine confidence that CO2’s small impact could even be detected amid all the uncertainty.
Scientists have engaged in offering their educated guesses, or estimates, of cloud radiative effects for decades.

In the latest models, CMIP6, the top of atmosphere (TOA) net cloud radiative effects (CRE) when considering clouds’ longwave and shortwave combined impact is somewhere between -17 W/m² and -31 W/m² (Wild, 2020). That’s a 24 W/m² spread in CRE modeling.

The discrepancy range between modeled estimates for downward longwave clear-sky radiation is 22.5 W/m². This is the component where CO2’s underwhelming 0.2 W/m² per decade impact (Feldman et al., 2015) is manifested. Modeling discrepancies are thus more than 100 times larger than CO2’s forcing contribution over a 10-year period.

Dr. Wild further reports that there is a generalized 10-20 W/m² magnitude modeling discrepancy in the “global energy balance components” estimates, such as latent heat flux (18 W/m²). These spreads in climate modeling are referred to as “unsatisfactorily large” and they may preclude accurate representation of the global energy cycle and water cycle.

“The substantial inter-model spread of 18 Wm−2 in the simulated global mean surface latent heat flux further points to considerable discrepancies not only in the representation of the global energy cycle, but also of the global water cycle in the CMIP6 models.”

So, unfortunately, no real model improvements to energy budget estimates have been realized over the course of decades. . . .

 

No, Climate Change Is Not Threatening Superfund Sites, Toxic Releases
CLEANER AIR DECEMBER 23, 2020

 

10 Failed Predictions: Video

Charles Rotter

Many climate alarmist’s failed predictions were centered around 2020. This video examines just ten, and argues that they were produced not by science, but by ideology.

 

Cold Autumn Kills Thousands of Birds – Media Blame Global Warming
EXTREME COLD JANUARY 6, 2021

 

Dateline January 6, 2022: "Scientists Blame Year-Long Cold Snap on Global Warming"

 

Relax, Auburn Citizen, New York Farmers Are Enjoying a Climate Golden Age
CROP PRODUCTION JANUARY 8, 2021

 

The house of cards that is European climate and energy assumptions collapsed a bit.

Europe’s Near Electricity Black Friday Was Triggered In France Due To “Polar Cold Wave”
By P Gosselin on 12. January 2021

Share this...
A further analysis of last Friday’s European near power blackout shows that the problem had begun already one day earlier in France, due to cold weather, says a German expert.

At wind energy protest group Vernunftkraft Bayern, Jörn Künzle provides background on what was behind Europe’s near blackout last Friday, January 8, 2021. . . .