User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: 30 years of climate doom- how do the predictions stand up?

  1. #1
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496573
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,583x in 94,415 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    30 years of climate doom- how do the predictions stand up?

    30 years of climate doom- how do the predictions stand up?

    Scientists are now admitting what I have been saying for decades: the climate models suck. They are wrong.

    James E. Hansen wiped sweat from his brow. Outside it was a record-high 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, as the NASA scientist testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a prolonged heat wave, which he decided to cast as a climate event of cosmic significance. He expressed to the senators his “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming.”

    With that testimony and an accompanying paper in the Journal of Geophysical
    Nothing that has been predicted has become true. Not even close.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (06-24-2018)

  3. #2
    Points: 11,596, Level: 25
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 154
    Overall activity: 11.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    mamooth's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1080
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    3,513
    Points
    11,596
    Level
    25
    Thanks Given
    15
    Thanked 1,071x in 788 Posts
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    So, a piece from Patrick Michaels, a man paid very handsomely by the fossil fuel industry and CATO. He tried to pull the same scam in 2006. At that time, he actually doctored the graphs, erasing scenario B and C without saying he did so, then comparing to the incorrect Scenario A. That's why he's widely considered to be an open fraud. Let's check his recent deceptions here.
    Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C.
    No, actual temperatures are slightly below scenario B and well above scenario C. The forcings were slightly below scenario B. So, Hansen's 1988 model was very good.
    Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16.
    The global average temperature has been warming consistently and strongly over that period, increasing by about 0.35C, exactly in line with Hansen's predictions.
    Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.
    The models have been excellent. And the models aren't even necessary. Directly measured data proves AGW theory just fine. The success of the models is just icing on the cake.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-observations/

    In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years.
    No, he didn't say that. Michaels just made that up.
    Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No
    Yes, actually.
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...orms/page2.php
    How about stronger tornadoes?
    Hansen never predicted stronger tornadoes. Nobody ever made such a prediction, so it's more dishonesty from Michaels to imply that they did. Remember, follow the money. All of the corrupting money goes to the denier side. Every denier 'scientist' is accepting bribe money. They get paid very well to lie. In stark contrast, the mainstream scientists turn down the bribe money, and that gives them added credibility.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts