We won't know the answer to this question for several years.
Can I ask, have you ever objectively assessed the accuracy of climate science predictions or are you simply swallowing up the spoon-fed nonsense that pervades in the denialist media?
The simple fact of the matter is, and whether deniers accept it or not is of no consequence, the majority of climate predictions have been reasonably accurate. Some have been way off the mark but when assessed honestly and objectively the overall accuracy is in the order of 70%.
Where they have tended to fall down in recent years is that none of them foresaw the global dimming effect as a result of the formation of the Asian Brown Cloud. This has suppressed the rate of warming and what we’re seeing now is that global temperatures are being pegged back at a time when the models predicted continued warming.
Please be aware that the chemical gases and particulate matter that comprise the ABC have atmospheric residence periods (ARPs) of a few days to 2 or 3 years. If China and India stick to their world and press ahead with the introduction of Clean Air Acts then the ABC will rapidly dissipate (as happened worldwide when other countries passed Clean Air Acts). With the ABC gone the underlying warming will bounce back.
The current cocktail of anthropogenic greenhouse gases has an average ARP of 84 years, far more than that of the ABC. All that’s happening now is that the dimming is masking some of the warming, the warming hasn’t gone away and once the ABC dissipates we’ll get a sudden surge of warming before it returns to it’s previous upward trend.
Instead of accepting the lies emanating from denier’s blogs try looking for yourself at some climate predictions that have now come to fruition, bear in mind that you need at least 30 years of observations so look at those predictions from the 1970’s and early 80’s. When you look for yourself at the real facts you’ll see that they bear no relation to the lies being spouted by the deniers.
As for the article you linked to, I wouldn’t pay too much attention to it. Space and Science is essentially one person masquerading as a credible organisation, he has a habit of making predictions AFTER the event then claiming he accurately predicted them.
He thinks the Sun is responsible for everything, not just climate change but tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes etc. Unfortunately his hypothesis that the planet is cooling because sunspot numbers are down gets completely blown out of the water when you look back at the historical temperature and solar records and realise that the correlation he claims is there, simply doesn’t exist.
The whole basis of the "Climate Change Movement" is based on the fact that Global Warming = Global Cooling = Global Warming =Global Cooling = Global Warming = Global Cooling etc..........
It is safe to predict a cooling of the climate after a warming trend and vice-versa. That's what brilliant scientists of climate science do.
It's safe to say that climate models are unreliable in predicting future climate states. The IP CC is very clear on this. There are too many variables to consider that can not be replicated in these models.
Gringo - How do you talk out of both sides of your mouth so eloquently? Do you place the pipe in the center? You're hypocritical nature is becoming more apparent every time I read your answers. I noticed in a question posted by flossie about taxpayer subsidies you stated -"API has a long history of pushing their points while conveniently ignoring the ones that potential would hurt them....." What does pro-AGW science try to do? Maybe you should try reading Trevor's answer to Ottawa Mike's question here : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... ... and maybe you can understand what side of your mouth you should put that pipe of yours?
No. That report IS a climate science prediction, and it is very much like other climate science predictions based on unverified computer models. It takes poorly understood factors, pretends to understand them better than the available record would allow, and makes predictions in hopes that the predictions will either confirm their model, or at least allow them to learn from how things turned out differently. This model is untested. You would do well to note the poor performance history of alarmist climate science computer models. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic...
The prediction is now only 4 months old, but you can follow the result if you are really interested.
Recovering Sun Spot Index: http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-index-graphic...
Global Temperature/Ocean Temperature/Sun Spot Index/Solar Output http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/off...
Sea Ice http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-s...
Sea level (1 ft/century) http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRi...
Some serious flaws in the method is their over dependence on just a few factors. Actually, getting this part right has proven to be a major problem with other models as well. http://www.john-daly.com/
This new model fails to take into account:
The 62 year climate cycle. http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyY...
The 1470 year climate cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event
Greenhouse effects. [1]
A possible tipping point [2] leading to an ice age at 2 kelvins cooler than now. [3]
Ocean currents such as the PDO, AO, and AMO. [4]
That makes it the same as the others except it is too new to have embarrassed itself yet.
First thank you for the link. This fits very much with a lot of what I have been seeing and reading. Stocking up on MRE's, some weapons and ammunition just in case. (grins)
Please keep the info flowing.
Given the fact that it is written by just 2 people (Humlum whose work has long been criticized and thoroughly debunked and Casey, a former NASA engineer) doesn't give real skeptics much confidence. The fact that it omits to state who the 'many other climate researchers and organizations' are on whose work the study is allegedly based, does not sound very scientific either.
Space & Science, despite it's name, is nothing more than yet another fake science outfit and whose members are (closely) connected to conservative think-tanks, conservative fake grass roots and the ultra wealthy conservative donors.
On their homepage they run a recent 2013 news-article which says: "Watchdogwire.com named Mr. Casey, "America's best climate prediction expert." That is really no surprise as digging a bit deeper one discovers that Watchdogwire's editor, Dr. Rich Swier, also serves as the director of another fake science outfit run by the same Casey, one with an equally impressive but fake name: the "International Earthquake and Volcano Prediction Center" (IEVPC). http://www.ievpc.org/id1.html http://www.spaceandscience.net/id65.html
Many of the fake space science outift's 'supporting researchers' are also active at the fake earthquake and volcano prediction center. http://www.ievpc.org/id64.html http://www.spaceandscience.net/id72.html http://www.spaceandscience.net/id71.html
And Casey claiming to have a peer-reviewed paper when in fact it is not peer-reviewed does not help much either.
Its funny that real skeptics here get called 'alarmists' when Casey writes in his press-release:
"I want to be very clear about what this report is saying. Here in the United States, we face the real prospect of major crop damage and food shortages as we get closer to the bottom of the next cold era estimated to be 2031. We should fully expect to see substantial crop losses during the 2020’s along with accompanying food riots, and social unrest, especially in ever y major US city.
That means we may have seven years, and likely less, to set aside the food we will need or make adjustments to our national food production and consumption practices in order to get through the global cooling onslaught with minimal damage."
http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuild...
'Skeptics': next time you wish to criticize those 'crazy scientists' who first predicted Global Cooling, remember Mr Casey.
Edit @ Pat:
Unlike you, I am skeptical of ALL science claims and check them out vigorously. The spaceandscience site has, apart from its name, absolutely nothing which even comes close to resembling 'science'. It SOUNDS 'sciency' but that's it. And it is deliberately made to appear scientific to appeal to the easily to fool poor souls out there.
Mr Casey has been trying to push his RC Theory for some time now. It did not get peer-reviewed (despite his claim) so he wrote a book about it. Humlum is yet another failed scientist with no scientific integrity: his scientific work utterly debunked where it matters (the scientific community), he now resorts pushing his long debunked views via websites and largely right-wing oriented media and blogs.
Oh, and it certainly doesn't help Mr Casey's credibility that in the past known 'skeptics' have identified Mr Casey and his space and science outfit as 'a hoax':
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com.es/2008/01...
Ha! Ha! Just look at Portland: < This model is untested.> That alone gives it a better chance than the 'tested' ones that gave us the hockey stick. The 'tested' computer models have have a rate of 0% accuracy in predictability. Anything is better than that.
I certainly does seem that they have done some extensive practical research. However, their main flaw is they base their conclusion on the Sun's activities. You can't tax that so it will never fly.
I can remember back in the 1970s when the likes of James Hansen were giving us an imminent Ice Age based on computer models.
In direct answer to the question: Witch doctors in Africa have a better success rate than our 'scientific' doomsayers of our modern era.
http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ssrc2013globalclimatestatusreportexecutivesummary.pdf
