50 years of failed eco predictions

The IPCC was formed in 1988. They've made a lot of predictions. We can judge how good they are on the predictions that have gone past their due date and whether they were accurate or not. We can't know if what they're predicting now will happen or not years down the road. But like odds makers in Vegas, if you get it wrong all the time you won't be trusted to suddenly get it right. That's why I showed their past track record of poor predictions.

I've read several of the IPCC reports. They tend towards worst case scenarios which is what bureaucrats do because that is the best way to get more funding, power, and people into your organization. The IPCC is part of the UN. The UN is a political organization. That makes the IPCC a government bureaucracy. It doesn't matter where they hire people from, those people are for all intents government employees of the UN. That's who's paying them.

Dr. Roy Spencer just published the Version 6 University of Alabama-Huntsville satellite-based global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2021 was -0.01 deg. C, down from the May, 2021 value of +0.08 deg. C.

As Dr. Spencer’s chart above shows, temperatures are back within the range seen 20 years ago. The hiatus in global temperature rise appears to have resumed.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2021_v6-550x317.jpg


https://notrickszone.com/2021/07/03...ars-ago-and-no-warming-in-tokyo-this-century/
 

Attachments

  • 1628663689127.jpg
    1628663689127.jpg
    49.4 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
You're just as observant as your orange, dear leader.

September 18 2018
"The video, recorded on the White House lawn, the president referred to Florence as a “tough” hurricane, saying it is one of the “wettest we’ve ever seen, from the standpoint of water.”

“I just want to thank all of the incredible men and women who have done such a great job in helping with Florence,” he said in the video. “This is a tough hurricane, one of the wettest we’ve ever seen, from the standpoint of water.”

Trump!
 

Is a "genius".

Trump began by sending "our thoughts and prayers to the people of Puerto Rico, who have been struck by storms of historic and catastrophic severity."
"The response and recovery effort probably has never been seen for something like this. This is an island surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water."
 
Is a "genius".

Trump began by sending "our thoughts and prayers to the people of Puerto Rico, who have been struck by storms of historic and catastrophic severity."
"The response and recovery effort probably has never been seen for something like this. This is an island surrounded by water. Big water. Ocean water."

giphy.gif




Trump!
 
.
This article in the Spectator is truly excellent in sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

What’s the truth about the UN’s ‘code red’ climate warning?

11 August 2021, 12:41am

Predictably enough, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report has been greeted with hyperbole about fire, flood and tempest. It is 'code red for humanity,' according to UN general-secretary Antonio Guterres. 'This report must sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels before they destroy our planet.' As ever with IPCC reports, the content doesn’t live up to the hysterical reviews. If the vision presented in it were the basis of a disaster movie you would want your money back.

No, it doesn’t say that the German floods were caused by man-made climate change – something implied by much of the press coverage, which used photos of the damage in Rhineland towns to illustrate the publication of the report. What it says – to quote from the ‘summary for policymakers’ – is that 'Globally averaged precipitation over land has likely increased since 1950, with a faster rate of increase since the 1980s (medium confidence)' – in other words we think, but we are not all that sure, that the world is experiencing higher rainfall. Somehow, that gets converted by some into an assertion that climate change has created an event such as the German floods out of nothing.

But the summary for policymakers is itself a distilled version which omits many of the complex changes observed in the climate over the past century, the uncertainties and caveats surrounding these – and the efforts to compare these changes with what has happened in the past few thousand years so as to judge whether they might be accounted by natural variability. These are published in the body of the report. Perhaps the most interesting section relates to storms. Over the past few years, it has become common practice to blame any storm on man-made climate change. TV reports on the subject almost invariably carry footage of palm trees being bent over by lashing winds of a tropical storm.

Yet the assertion that we are experience greater storms is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC report. The report finds evidence that storm tracks have shifted polewards over the past 70 years. But this is what it says, in chapter 2:
.
'..the total number of extratropical cyclones has likely increased since the 1980s in the NH (low 10 confidence), but with fewer deep cyclones particularly in summer. The number of strong extratropical cyclones has likely increased in the southern hemisphere (medium confidence). The extratropical jets and cyclone tracks have likely been shifting poleward in both hemispheres since the 1980s with marked seasonality in trends (medium confidence). There is low confidence in shifting of extratropical jets in the NH during the mid-Holocene and over 950–1400 CE to latitudes that likely were similar to those since 1979.'
.
In other words, the northern hemisphere is experiencing more storms, but fewer deep ones. They tend to track a slightly higher latitude than they did 40 years ago but there is some evidence that this trend was also evident during medieval times, before large scale burning of fossil fuels.
As for tropical monsoons, the report says:
.
'observed trends during the last century indicate that the GM precipitation decline reported in AR5 [the last IPCC report] has reversed since the 1980s, with a likely increase mainly due to a significant positive trend in the northern hemisphere summer monsoon precipitation (medium confidence). However, global monsoon precipitation has exhibited large multi decadal variability over the last century, creating low confidence in the existence of centennial-length trends in the instrumental record. Proxy reconstructions show a likely northern hemisphere monsoons weakening since the mid- Holocene, with opposite behaviour for the southern hemisphere monsoons.'

In other words, tropical monsoons have been getting wetter over the past 40 years, but the trend isn’t clear because of high variability. That hardly justifies apocalyptic visions of great storms. Indeed, the report notes a general weakening of windspeeds over land – with the exception of Australia. That is what might be expected if, as data suggests, the Arctic is warming faster than the tropics, reducing the differential in temperature between the two.

None of this is to say there are not some reasons for worry contained in the report. Sea level rise generally seems to be accelerating, from 1.3 mm per year between 1901 and 1971 to 3.7 mm per year between 2006 and 2018. That is a manageable problem in the short term but could become a much more serious one in the longer term.

More powerful heatwaves are creating problems in climates which are already hot – but are balanced by fewer cold spells elsewhere.
There are good reasons to want to reduce carbon emissions, to zero if possible. But the apocalyptic visions trotted out to accompany the publication of this IPCC report – as in common with previous IPCC reports – bear little relation to the scientific content within.

Written by Ross Clark

Ross Clark is a leader writer and columnist who, besides three decades with The Spectator, has written for the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and several other newspapers. His satirical climate change novel, The Denial, is published by Lume Books.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/what-s-the-truth-about-the-un-s-code-red-climate-warning-#
 
Last edited:
maggot
This article in the Spectator is truly excellent in sorting out the wheat from the chaff.

What’s the truth about the UN’s ‘code red’ climate warning?

Your cut-and-paste horseshit is a forum joke, maggot. You're the ' Nero ' of JPP.


Haw, haw.......................................haw.
 
maggot


Your cut-and-paste horseshit is a forum joke, maggot. You're the ' Nero ' of JPP.


Haw, haw.......................................haw.

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”

It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.

Saul Alinsky, a firm believer in the ends justify the means.
 
Dr. Roy Spencer just published the Version 6 University of Alabama-Huntsville satellite-based global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2021 was -0.01 deg. C, down from the May, 2021 value of +0.08 deg. C.

As Dr. Spencer’s chart above shows, temperatures are back within the range seen 20 years ago. The hiatus in global temperature rise appears to have resumed.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2021_v6-550x317.jpg


https://notrickszone.com/2021/07/03...ars-ago-and-no-warming-in-tokyo-this-century/
So 20 years ago, the range of the 13th month average was from 0 - .1 and in 2021 the lowest point is .2. Yeah.. 1 is exactly the same as 2.

I tell you what. I'll send you $50 and you send my $100. They are exactly the same after all.
 
Failed? WTF. The signs are everywhere. The climatologists are being proven correct over and over. You can quibble degree if it makes you happy, but the warnings were correct.

Guess you never read the blog filled with a nice collection of news articles that said THE SAME THING, and NONE of them came true.
Argument by repetition fallacy.
 
So 20 years ago, the range of the 13th month average was from 0 - .1 and in 2021 the lowest point is .2. Yeah.. 1 is exactly the same as 2.

I tell you what. I'll send you $50 and you send my $100. They are exactly the same after all.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers to even begin a statistical summary of this type. Oh, BTW, where is your margin of error value? What variance did you use and why? Where is the unbiased raw data?
 
Back
Top