Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« The old fabulist of Fleet Street | Main | A big day for shale gas »
Tuesday
Jan272015

Predictions

Climate Change Predictions is a new blog on the climate block, which introduces itself thus:

We are a small group who have followed the global warming/ climate change issue for some years. Initially we didn’t know which version was correct but we noticed several things. One was the frequent use of predictions, often scary, that seemed on the surface to be believable. We wondered whether anyone ever went back to see if the predictions turned out to be true.

This blog presents predictions that have been made over the past 40 years or so and we leave it to you to make up your own mind about them.

Jo Nova points out that the post category of "hardest hit" is hilarious. Take a look.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (81)

Bish: You've put the same link to ClimateChangePredcitons in twice, not JoNova's.

Jan 27, 2015 at 9:03 AM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Well, I guess that's the whole planet to be the hardest hit, then. How strange. There are so many activists that they are having to choose which part of the planet to support.

Jan 27, 2015 at 9:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterStephen Richards

Actually, I would rather see a list of the predictions that have come to pass.

Jan 27, 2015 at 9:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrute

Thats worthy for "Best New Blog" to the Bloggies which are now open for nominations.
http://2015.bloggi.es/

Jan 27, 2015 at 9:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn OC

Thats worthy for "Best New Blog" to the Bloggies which are now open for nominations.
http://2015.bloggi.es/

Jan 27, 2015 at 9:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn OC

But no matter how many times the warmist's climate predictions are shown to be wrong - the politicians, with most power, will continue to believe them

Jan 27, 2015 at 9:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Stroud

Hardest hit have been the poor and the vulnerable across the world.

Jan 27, 2015 at 9:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterH2O: the miracle molecule

Check out the home page for a list of predictions which are continually revised.

Jan 27, 2015 at 9:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterDoug Elliot

Great idea. It would be good to have a repository for the histrionic excesses we have been bombarded with in recent decades, as well as for the more modest number of such excursions from earlier times. It would also be good to have a repository for the sundry 'projections' from in and around campaign-central, the IPCC. Thirdly, it would good to include the predictions of those who have chosen (how dare they!) to keep their distance from the bending of science to political will, or other perversions such as the gratification some seem to enjoy from successfully scaring people. May you live long and prosper, Climate Change Predictions!

Jan 27, 2015 at 9:38 AM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

Re: Brute.

Actually, I would rather see a list of the predictions that have come to pass.

No problem. Here it is:

----- Start List ------
----- End List ------

Jan 27, 2015 at 9:44 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

John there are lists in the BH Discussion Threads: Predictions for 2015, Predictions for 2014
as well as the List of failed predictions on WUWT

Jan 27, 2015 at 9:46 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Pity they appear to be anonymous.

Jan 27, 2015 at 9:48 AM | Unregistered Commenterrms

From Tim Harfords Blog a post on Good Forecasting : Coincidentally I made notes on earlier today applies to Climate.
- In a massive long term study into forcasting (mainly political) Tetlock found experts are such terrible forecasters. WHY ? they DON'T keep score and try to improve their predictions.
"Their predictions are really advertisements, conversation pieces, declarations of tribal loyalty."

- And to improve in a 20,000 person study they found: !!! a 20-minute !!! course about how to put a probability on a forecast, correcting for well-known biases, provides lasting improvements to performance.
PLUS discussing and arguing together : produced better predictions. (ie dont make debate taboo !)
- They massively improved success over the original studies. ..“Superforecasters” can predict geopolitical events with an accuracy far outstripping chance.
- Their main technique was to focus on the actual result. “actively open-minded thinking” works better than intuitive “foxes” and methodical “hedgehogs".
- But in investment a strategy of "stick within what you know" which avoids relying on forecasting brings better results.

Jan 27, 2015 at 9:56 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

@TerryS

I came up with ∅ myself. It would still be a worthy challenge for the warmist, though.

Jan 27, 2015 at 10:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrute

ha ClimateChangePredictions.Org is hysterical : the ultimate climate irony site : each post is followed by another the next day usually predicting the exact opposite.

Jan 27, 2015 at 10:14 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Perhaps when reporting a prediction a newspaper should quote the odds on it happening / not happening given by a betting firm.

Jan 27, 2015 at 10:39 AM | Unregistered CommenterA

[Snip - trolling]

Jan 27, 2015 at 10:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterOnbyaccident

Interesting list of Gran prediction failures Antony W found 2 years ago, mostly from before the Climate dramaqueen era

Jan 27, 2015 at 11:23 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Responses to snipped comment removed.

Jan 27, 2015 at 11:31 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Which areas of Real Climate Science predictions would be HARDEST HIT, by a 50% cut in tax payer funding?

Would anybody notice?

Jan 27, 2015 at 11:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

Nah. Took a look. They talk about "Less coral reefs". Just lazy.

Jan 27, 2015 at 11:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterHarry Passfield

AGW truly moves in mysterious ways.

Jan 27, 2015 at 11:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterMicky H Corbett

Thanks, stewgreen (9:46 AM). These are all useful. I also like this one: http://notrickszone.com/category/stupid-predictions/#sthash.CKiRQdRB.dpbs. He gives links as well, and that adds greatly to the value. I hope the new predictions blog will add links in due course. I think it would also be very helpful if they could also store screen captures, and provide database search facilities for it all in due course.

Jan 27, 2015 at 12:59 PM | Registered CommenterJohn Shade

OMG everywhere is "hardest hit" - this is going to be a disaster - just like New York today - it's possible everyone is dead.

Jan 27, 2015 at 1:15 PM | Unregistered Commenterjaffa

Has anybody calculated the tax payer funded subsidies from windmills in relation to annual fees at a boarding school such as Eton?

There would be some irony, if Eton was one of the hardest hit, by cuts in tax payer subsidies, if school fees could no longer be sustained by sustainable energy, tax-payer funded subsidies.

Is this why some of the Green Luvvies are so keen on wind power? It works financially to benefit their grandchildren. To hell with everybody elses useless spawn.

Jan 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

Apparently, whizz-kid Wall Street bankers are no more accurate in their predictions than chimpanzees tossing a coin...

Jan 27, 2015 at 3:02 PM | Unregistered Commentersherlock1

Hope they post the hundreds of predictions by 'sceptics' along the lines of "we're going into a new Little Ice Age' which have been heard regularly over the past decade and a half. Anyone remember John Daly or Theodor Landscheid and their failed predictions of cooling? Or have you conveniently forgotten these?

I'd say that the predictions from climate science over the past few decades of a continuous warming trend seem pretty good to me!

Jan 27, 2015 at 8:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterMonty

Hi Monty..thats one prediction..that might be right one day. :)
Thats all you could find.????
And not one word about all the fails..not a peep..
Dont all the fails and vanished $ ..for nothing..worry you..?
Of course I am being sarcastic with that rhetorical question..
"debating" with $CAGW$ trolls now days..is like playing chess with your dog..
The dog knows there is something in front of him..but that`s about it..

Jan 27, 2015 at 9:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterDrapetomania

Monty,

"I'd say that the predictions from climate science over the past few decades of a continuous warming trend seem pretty good to me!"

You mean like this one?

http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/PNAS_GTCh_Fig2.gif

Jan 27, 2015 at 9:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn M

Continuous atmospheric warming trend...tick
Continuous ocean warming trend...tick
Mass loss from Antarctica...tick
Mass loss from Greenland...tick
Arctic Amplification....tick
Mass loss from the world's glaciers...tick
permafrost melting...tick

etc etc.

Jan 27, 2015 at 9:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterMonty

Gloat if you like, Monty, but in what august publication were these “hundreds of predictions” made? And were these actually predictions, or just expressing fears of the eventuality? Personally, I am glad that there has been warming, and hope that it does continue; I dread the other prospect, that of cooling, as history has shown us that any cooling may well be rapid, if not precipitous – i.e. winters will quickly become longer and colder, with summers shorter and cooler. Needless to say, this is a scenario that does not appeal to me or, hopefully, anyone else.

BTW:
Continuous atmospheric warming trend...tick – thankfully.
Continuous ocean warming trend...tick – er… not confirmed.
Mass loss from Antarctica...tick – er… no.
Mass loss from Greenland...tick – er… no.
Arctic Amplification....tick – er… no.
Mass loss from the world's glaciers...tick – maybe, but not from glowball warbling.
permafrost melting...tick – well, yes, but it is a process that has been underway for about 7,000 years. Don’t you keep up-to-date with your “facts”? No tick.

Jan 27, 2015 at 10:08 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

I guess for Monty, predictions don't involve numbers, just words.

Jan 27, 2015 at 10:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn M

as I recall, the error bars around the GRACE ice measurements are larger than the measurements....still they make Monty happy.

Jan 27, 2015 at 10:56 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Don't be hard on Monty just cos he believes what he reads in the Guardian, without checking it against sources which aren't warmist propaganda.

Jan 28, 2015 at 1:29 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

What a great idea for a blog: Lay out the failed and cynical predictions of the climate hypesters and document them one by one.

Jan 28, 2015 at 4:39 AM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Reminds me of the old joke about the Washington Post (which has a progressive bent) Headline:

WORLD TO END TOMORROW
Women and Minorities Hardest Hit

Jan 28, 2015 at 8:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Jay

David Jay - gold!

Jan 28, 2015 at 8:58 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna

To all the “Montys” out there: do you post on here with the hope you might either offer or gain greater insight to the situation, by adding alternative views to the debate? Or do you just post to fulfil your thwarted desire to shout, “Bogey!” in a crowded theatre during the quiet time of the show? That the latter of these two seems to be the more probable does sadden me.

Jan 28, 2015 at 4:04 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent.
I'm just trying to point out that predictions from climate science are, on the whole, a lot better than those made by 'skeptics'. We can argue about the utility of GCMs but they have been enormously successful about predicting the large-scale behavior of the climate in response to increased forcing by GHG. They also probably get the size of climate sensitivity about right too (whatever Monckton, Lewis et al might say).

Compare their predictions with those of 'skeptics'! I've lost count the number of times I've been told that we will soon be in a new glaciation, warming has stopped, it's got cooler etc. Generally laughable.

Jan 28, 2015 at 5:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterMonty

Again, Monty doesn't want to seem to want to talk about numbers, other than those he doesn't agree with are "probably wrong."

Of course, the Hansen graph I linked to shows Hansen overestimated the temperature increase by 50-100% (depending on which "scenario" you want to hand wave about).

The sensitivity Hansen assumed is about the same as the "best" models, so I can see why Monty has an aversion to quantitative analysis.

Jan 28, 2015 at 5:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn M

Therein lies the rub, Monty. You say that the predictions made by climate academics (I do not consider them to be scientists – or even “scientists”) are better than those made by sceptics; the point is, I know of no “sceptic” prediction that has made it to the mainstream media, while climate academics' predictions are plastered all over; that they are often contradictory, and have yet to be fulfilled is conveniently ignored. In fact, now you mention it, I know of no “sceptic” prediction, as such is actually anathema to most sceptics!

Jan 28, 2015 at 5:47 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Well of course no 'skeptic' predictions are going to make it to the media! The media and policymakers are interested in what scientists say...not what classicists like Monckton or English graduates like Booker, Delingpole etc say.

But look at the bigger picture....for decades scientists have been predicting warming in response to GHG forcing. That's what's happened. Pretty good eh?

Jan 28, 2015 at 5:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterMonty

Hey Monty.

Ten years ago, I had $20 in my wallet and I predicted I'd be a millionaire.

Today, I've got $25 in my wallet.

Pretty good eh?

Jan 28, 2015 at 6:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn M

Good grief! What about those well-known non-scientists like Bob Ward, Richard Black, et al (a full list could easily be compiled) who do make it on the media? Ah, but they are for the message, not sceptical!

No TRUE scientist will have any qualms about engaging with a non-scientist, nor with being asked to explain, or even with being corrected. Of course, you are also overlooking that prior to the glowball warbling scam, many (and many are the same academics) were saying that the world was cooling for the same reasons.

Oddly enough, few of us disagree with that the globe has warmed. What most contend is that the warming is in response to GHG “forcing” (an erroneous term, by the way); it is more probably part of a natural cycle. So long as our attention is focussed solely on CO2, the full pattern may never be revealed; why should these academics wish to apply such blinkers?

Jan 28, 2015 at 6:49 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

@BH:

Previous post snipped I can only assume as I use the denier word with regards to the featured website (it quite obviously is) ... no not trolling I'd say but as its your ball then by all means invent the rules. I've been called a warmist many times on here and care not a jot. However as you deny AGW then by extension what else would I call you....witness for example the characteristic sad post from RR.

"" Continuous atmospheric warming trend...tick – thankfully.
Continuous ocean warming trend...tick – er… not confirmed.
Mass loss from Antarctica...tick – er… no.
Mass loss from Greenland...tick – er… no.
Arctic Amplification....tick – er… no.
Mass loss from the world's glaciers...tick – maybe, but not from glowball warbling.
permafrost melting...tick – well, yes, but it is a process that has been underway for about 7,000 years. Don’t you keep up-to-date with your “facts”? No tick. ""

You ask for publications - lets try your first denial (i.e. that of lack of evidence for ocean warming) ... how about this...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/pdf

Now. Patiently I ask RR. Where is your evidence for lack of ocean warming? You know I've been here before and asked for evidence and only once (ONCE!) did I get anything back from any of you. It didn't change my mind about the science (I explained why) but the effort was appreciated.

I could go through the rest of this list but it would quickly become embarrassing for you. And no doubt your minders at BH might call it trolling...

:-))

Jan 28, 2015 at 11:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterOnbyaccident

How about the general lack of real evidence for ocean warming? Pre the ARGO deployment, there was nothing reliable with credible coverage, which is proved by the fact it is discontinuous with ARGO data. ARGO is still not ideal and we need more than 7 or 8 years of data to determine any trends. And we should measure the deep ocean as well. NEXT.

Jan 28, 2015 at 11:59 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

Diogenes
We know the oceans have warmed before ARGO because we have measured slr. Quite frankly, I don't know why people like me and Onbyaccident bother arguing this...it's clear that neither you, nor any of the other 'skeptics' on BH or WUWT are at all interested in the truth.

Anyway, you are a dwindling band and have remained (and will continue to remain) politically and economically irrelevant,except perhaps in the wilder reaches of the Tea Party and UKIP.

While people like you and BH debate whether there's a GHE or whether C02 is a GHG, or whether there is warming, the rest of the world is getting on with debating how we are going to try and keep the Global T below 2C (little chance) and how we are going to adapt to 4C.

Jan 29, 2015 at 9:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterMonty

Onbyaccident: you’re having a larf, right? You know as well as I do (or, at least, I hope you do) that it is not possible to prove a negative. Where is your evidence that the oceans have warmed?

Do not give me the limited amount of evidence that has been gleaned by the pitifully few sites around the world over just a few years as “proof”. Give me evidence that has been gathered from many sites over several decades – preferably centuries. Then, and only then, can you state with any confidence that the oceans are warming. What little information we have at present is a good basis for continuing study, but, when you consider the scale of the project, it is certainly NOT enough to come to any reasonable conclusions.

As for historical records… have you no curiosity about the bizarre fact that historical temperature readings are routinely being deemed to have been “too high”, and are steadfastly being adjusted downwards? Hence, some readings that were indicating a downward trend are now – miraculously – upwards!

Monty: as for sea levels, there has been a protracted discussion about that on the aptly-named “Discussion” site (see at the top of the page); there is more than heating of the water that can affect sea-levels.

Also, Monty, much as it might shock you, I can assure you that the “Global T” is already way, way above 2°C; it is about 14°C, at present. Perhaps you meant a rise of 2°C? A rise from when? Now? Or at some time in the past, when it was cooler than now? And where do you get 4°C? Are you aware that the Mediaeval Warming Period was warming than now? That the Romans had it even warmer? And that the Minoans were even warmer, still? The geological trend for global temperatures is actually downwards; enjoy the warmth while you can. If you can show us quite what damage has been caused by the rise to date from the Little Ice Age, you arguments have a bit more leverage. As you are unlikely to be able to give any realistic examples, I would then ask what damage do you expect a further rise will inflict upon us?

Jan 29, 2015 at 11:09 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Rodent says: "Are you aware that the Mediaeval Warming Period was warming than now?"

No it wasn't. And it wasn't global either.

" That the Romans had it even warmer?"

No they didn't.

" And that the Minoans were even warmer, still?"
Evidence? Highly unlikely.

"The geological trend for global temperatures is actually downwards; enjoy the warmth while you can".
Irrelevant. The global trend has been upwards for the last century or so.

"If you can show us quite what damage has been caused by the rise to date from the Little Ice Age, you arguments have a bit more leverage".
What? You want me to go through all the attribution literature? Do it yourself. But, as a starter, look at Himalayan glaciers, European heatwaves, Millennium Floods etc.

"As you are unlikely to be able to give any realistic examples, I would then ask what damage do you expect a further rise will inflict upon us?"
Well 1-2m sea level rise by 2100 might be damaging. Don't you think? And huge levels of ecological extinctions? Do you think these are going to be a good thing? Really?

Jan 29, 2015 at 1:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterMonty

Monty:

No it wasn't. And it wasn't global either.
Yes, it was, on both counts. The evidence is out there; if I can find it, so can you. It should be easy to find, but I cannot be bothered doing your work for you. The same for the Romans and the Minoans.

"The geological trend for global temperatures is actually downwards; enjoy the warmth while you can".
Irrelevant.
Sorry, but very, very relevant. That “The global trend has been upwards for the last century or so.” is not being disputed (it is actually more like the last two centuries, by the way – and thank God for that!). What I most fear is that this pause is really a peak, and temperatures are to fall; should that happen, we will be in for bad times, ahead.

Himalayan glaciers…
A process (also questionable) that has been going on for centuries, and is probably more the fault of the rising Himalayas than mere humans.
… European heatwaves, Millennium Floods etc…
And when have events like these not occurred, occasionally? (Apart from “Millennium Floods” of course, which, by definition, can only occur once in a millennium.)

(Oh, dear. I’ve just realised you will trot out the “warmest decade for centuries (or even ‘evah’!)” meme; well, yes, it may well be, but that is what you get at the end of a progressive rise – it tends to be higher than what was before.)

Well 1-2m sea level rise by 2100 might be damaging. Don't you think? And huge levels of ecological extinctions?
Well, as the highest rate of sea-level rise is about 3.5mm per year (and even that figure is contentious – many reason that it is much lower, or even negative, in some areas – the Maldives are still above water, by the way, and building more airports; Bangladesh is actually growing in area, too), then it will have to rise a lot faster to achieve your goal. Have a read of the discussion on it, on the "Discussion" site, above: "A Debating Motion- Sea level rise is a threat". As for ecological extinctions (whatever they might be – I suspect you might mean “extinctions of species”), I have to ask: where is your evidence that this will happen? Really?

Do yourself a favour Monty: ignore me, ignore “Onbyaccident”, ignore everyone else on this site and any others that you might visit; ignore, even, the opinions of your favourite personalities, be they David Attenborough, David Bellamy or David Beckham. Sit back and empty your mind of all preconceptions and prejudices. Once you are sure that you do not intend to verify any ideas you might have, search the internet for a wide range of scientific papers on the subject, ensuring that they are by as wide a range of authors as you can find, and read the information. A good paper will minimise the authors’ prejudices, but strive to identify any prejudice that you do see, and endeavour to ignore it – just gather the data, and try to do it without coming to any initial conclusions. Keep your mind open and fluid; should you feel your opinions setting, give yourself a shake, and continue reading. This will take some time, but do come back to us and tell us the results.

Jan 29, 2015 at 4:04 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>