http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21569440-uncomfortable-time-australians-especially-climate-change-sceptics-up-eleven
For the first time ever, the AVERAGE high temperature of the island of Australia reached 40 degrees centigrade, equivalent to 104 fahrenheit. The heatwave, at the height of the Australian summer which coincides with the northern hemisphere winter, has been hanging on for a week, and is showing no sign of ending. Fortunately, emergency teams were prepared for this nightmare and no humans lost their lives in the wildfires.
It is worth noting, that when you reach a record high temperature for a region, or when record highs outweigh record lows by a five to one margin, that you probably have a warming world. Add Australia to the evidence list. I don't care if it is snowing where you live. Global warming is real, and you need to admit it.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 53
Again....for the umpteenth time.....Weather (heat waves) are/is NOT climate!
When are you going to get that Chris?
Oh wait a minute....I know when you will get it...you will get it when this winters extremes are posted by skeptics.....You will then miraculously understand that weather is NOT climate and chastise those skeptics who dare even try to reference the record lows! LOL!
How big is Australia? An AVERAGE temperature of 104 for a continent. That's unusual. Put that together with the other unusual weather events and the proportion of high temperature records being set in comparison with the low records being set. That sounds like it may be climate related.
Well I don't know how unusual it is, but a heatwave is NOT a sign of climate change. Research shows us that abnormal weather has not increased as the planet has warmed and that included heatwaves.
Here is an example'
"Global Tropical Cyclone Landfalls 2012"
BTW,
We discussed this in another thread,
Larger graph
You can check the data here,
NOAA I entered Feb. 1998 as the starting point.
Try entering 1980 as the starting point. 1998 was a record high year.
What am I thinking?
Try entering 1990 as the starting point.
Point being Larry, this proves my contention that the U.S. had been cooling for the last few years.
"Try entering 1980 as the starting point."
O.K.,
So since 1980 (32 years) here in the U.S. the mean temperature has risen at a .7 F per decade rise and since 1990 (22 years) the rise has been at .06 F per decade and since 1995 (17 Years) a .16 F decline.
Seems to me that if C02 was the heat driver that you global warmists claim it is that that big of a difference couldn't exist.
You see, the trend is a rise in temperature. You also should realize that the effects of high levels of greenhouse gasses are cumulative and there are many positive feedback loops (like the smaller extent of ice at the poles).
Seems to me that you have no idea how climate works based on your comment.
For the last 23 years the trend has been flat
Seems to me that you just ignore the inconvenient truth that human produced C02 is not the cause of global warming.
Exactly right, Larry. This video provides a good explanation of how man's contribution to global warming has continued unabated even with short-term factors trying to hold back the warming.
This graphic shows how the denialist industry cherry picks short-term data and dishonestly claims it represents a long-term trend.
Of course, denialists will still lie about the warming that is still occurring, usually by relying on anonymous bloggers citing non-scientists funded by the Heartland Institute and bloggers associated with fossil fuel funded lobbying groups who blatantly lie about what scientists are saying.
Bottom line: The planet continues to warm and CO2 emissions caused by burning of fossil fuels is the main reason. This is unequivocally demonstrated by 100+ years of empirical data
You keep stretching that, and you're gonna run smack into the reality of global warming. There's a lot more detail in this explanation, which you'll blow off because it's from NPR. So here's one in a straight-up science journal called New Scientist.
Worse, he doesn't understand scientific investigation and scientific method at all. He remains convinced that scientists spend their careers trying to prove themselves right, and that science is biased toward "getting paid." Both of those assumptions are true, but only for the "think tanks" funded by the fossil fuel industry. He still thinks the "hockey stick" graph was wrong. Turns out, it's Danny who was wrong.
Well Climatologist Chuckles,
Despite the MET's song and dance in response to the accurate analysis of the data they released.
My 23 year comment is concerning the continental U.S. and even you can verify that.
When I die of old age the climate will have changed.....Because that is what it does.
"The surface of the earth, as measured by global mean temperature, has warmed by about one degree Celsius during the past hundred years, and the decade from 2001 to 2010 has been the warmest we have recorded.
"This warming has been strongly attributed to increasing greenhouse gases from human activities. While there are a number of influences on the climate system, such as changing solar radiation and changing atmospheric aerosols, it is very clear that warming has been dominated by increased carbon dioxide levels.
"The globe doesn’t warm uniformly everywhere, due mostly to natural regional variations in climate. In Australia, land temperatures and the temperatures of the surrounding oceans have warmed by approximately 1°C since 1910, fairly close to the global trends."
Also,
"Future warming of the climate due to greenhouse gas emissions will very likely lead to further increases in the frequency of unusually hot days and nights and continued declines in unusually cold days and nights.
"These changes will result in weather events which are increasingly beyond our prior experiences."
In short, the planet is getting hotter, it is because of us, and the results are going to continue to get worse.
"The authorities are preparing for such recordings as the new normal. On January 8th the Bureau of Meteorology added new colours, purple and pink, to its weather map to denote temperatures once considered off the scale: 50-52°C and 52-54°C respectively."
Climate scientists understand that with a planet that continues to warm Australia would be expected to have increasing incidence and severity of heat waves and droughts such as this one. The "new normal." Only that new normal will be supplanted with an even worse new normal as time passes.
And
"When she visited areas devastated by fire in Tasmania, the prime minister, Julia Gillard, avoided blaming global warming directly. But she added that climate change would, over time, bring “more extreme weather events”. Aaron Coutts-Smith, of the Australian meteorology bureau, is less equivocal about the prospects. He says all six of the nation’s states over the past decade have had a “predominance” of new record temperatures."
Key part = "climate change would, over time, bring “more extreme weather events”."
Exactly.
The time to take responsibility and act is here.
On the say so of irresponsible people perpetuated like the likes of you people Governments across the world have taken action that was not needed and have spent billions of £s and $s of tax payers money. And even now when we are seeing record snowfalls in China, Israel and with temperatures in India dropping to the lowest for the last 77 years not to mention your own country that is seeing temperature drops of 16-17-18-19-22-23 across the whole of your Nation you still perpetuate the myth of global warming trying to scar people into believing this myth that is now blasted out of the water.
Its disgraceful not to mention dishonest how people like you people are still bringing out the same old tired scaremongering story's that have blighted the lives of many a good man Who could see that Global Warming was a none starter from the beginning and said so at the time only to ostracized by the scaremongers and charlatans with an agenda to either make billions like Gore has done or to bring down the oil industry. Even now with the truth staring you in the face you still deny it.
As you have already been told, your information is false. Scientists did not "come out on Christmas Eve" or any other time and say "they got it all wrong." That was a lie created by the denialist industry and repeated ad nauseam by willfully ignorant ideologues.
Even here you can't get the scenario correct. You say that these "scientists" claimed on "Christmas eve" that "the warming trend had stalled for the last 16 years." Needless to say, that is pathologically false in every aspect.
In fact, the entire "16 year" thing was actually created out of thin air in October by a UK tabloid writer named David Rose. Rose has a history of writing inaccurate blog posts, which isn't surprising because he is associated with the GWPF, the non-science lobbying organization from which you plagiarize so often. Rose fabricated a "Met Office report" that didn't exist and then made up a false conclusion and attributed it to them.
The Met Office immediately issued a statement saying that Rose had gotten everything completely wrong - the Met Office had issued no report at all (Rose made that up) and the Met Office ongoing data set actually concluded exactly the opposite of the story that Rose had made up. The Met Office had to correct Rose's false reporting earlier in the year as well, so Rose has a track record of writing falsehoods, again in large part because he is funneling information from the GWPF lobbying group.
The actual facts are that earlier in the year the Met Office updated the data set that they use for their climate analyses (Hadcrut3 to Hadcrut4). Previously the data set did not include many stations in the Arctic. Given that the Arctic is warming up even faster than the already fast pace of the rest of the planet, and given that melting ice in the Arctic is speeding up the rate of warming, the additional data confirmed what other climate data gathering agencies had already been saying - that the planet is warming even more than thought.
Since all of this has been explained to you many many times before, one has to ask whether the continued repeating of known falsehoods is due to profound willful ignorance or intentional deceit. The tendency toward plagiarism and relying on non-science anonymous blogs and non-science lobbying organizations for your information suggests that a combination of the two is likely, but feel free to claim one over the other if you so choose.
Meanwhile, the planet continues to warm and human activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, is the main cause. This is unequivocal.
Honest people are taking responsibility and engaging in an honest debate about what policies are best to address the unequivocal science. Dishonest people choose willful ignorance and denial of the science, not to mention unethical behavior.
That noted, it seems quite a stretch that the hyper-majority of climate and earth scientists are incorrect - and possibly colluding for money - in their claim that global warming is anthropogenic.
All based on the non-scientific word of a handful of anonymous and non-scientist bloggers associated with fossil fuel funded lobbying organizations. Especially when everything the denialist industry lobby says has been shown to be false. Every. Single. Time.
This is the science.
This is the denial of science.
I know you think I'm off my rocker, but I just don't care about Global warming or not warming any more.
I've jsut come to the conclusion that God is in control, and He will do what he wants.
And I truly think God is pointing the way to end times....Just think of Revelations, when the whole earth will undergo a heat wave, it will make whatever we are going through now, or not going through seem pale in comparison.
There is no requirement for you, or anyone else, to take on the climate change issue. We have people who are dealing with the science and others trying to do something about the policy to address the science. The rest of us can go about our own lives, perhaps volunteering to get involved in other issues closer to home, or simply raise our families.
The problem comes when the denialist industry and their ideological followers choose willful ignorance and intentional deceit. Doing so holds back innovation, increases costs, and costs lives.
I've jsut come to the conclusion that God is in control, and He will do what he wants.
Others have reached the conclusion that God put us on this Earth with free will, thus capable of taking responsibility for our actions. The corollary to that is that God isn't going to bail us out after we've intentionally trashed his planet despite us knowing that we are doing so. And we do know that we are doing so.
And I truly think God is pointing the way to end times....Just think of Revelations, when the whole earth will undergo a heat wave, it will make whatever we are going through now, or not going through seem pale in comparison.
I have a more optimist view of the future. In any case, "end times" could be tomorrow or in 3 billion years. Today we are causing the warming of our planet. We know this unequivocally, and we know how we are causing it. So notwithstanding some potential "end times," in the interim we should choose to act responsibly, just as we choose to do for other issues. For example, wouldn't choose to toss our kids into the middle of a busy highway on the belief that God is in control and somehow are actions are beyond our making the choices we make. No, we would protect our children, teach our children, and take steps not to damage the planet when we know that we are and we know how to avoid it.
Happy New Year, Mooch. Be well.
I wish I could say I am well but it's been a hell of a year and we are already 2 weeks in, it's why I threw up my hands on this argument and just say I don't have the fight in me. I don't care anyone about global warming or the lack of.....
God can turn it around just like my life, but I seem to attract bad luck wherever I go....
I guess if I have to pick and choose battles I let you and other battle it out with reports and decide what's fact and fiction, I just don't have the stomach for it....
M.
Indeed, we all choose how to use our precious time since we can't all do everything. Because this is a science issue I have spent considerable time becoming informed and understanding the issue. I've also observed the "Tactics and Tall Tales" used by the denialist industry - both the professional lobbyists who create the lies and the amateur ideologues who eagerly parrot those lies. In my writing I work to help communicate the science to people in a way that we can all understand. I've also exposed the denialist industry for what they do, which is intentionally try to confuse the public rather than address it honestly.
I wish you all the best in fighting those battles you choose to fight, or fight because you have no choice. The year is young and although you may feel it has started off badly you can enlist help in changing its trajectory.
Best, always.
Make it so.
We need warp speed Mr. Scott!
Of course. But that isn't the point of the article, is it? It's unclear if you simply didn't read it, if you have a fundamental lack of understanding of the issue, or if you are intentionally trying to distract from the point.
You are once again confusing weather with climate:
Actually, no. Did you understand the article? Do you have any understanding of the state of 100+ years of climate science?
but it suits your agenda to do that on this occasion, just not when there are record snows in other places...
I always get a kick out of people who claim that others are "confusing weather with climate," then to support this statement offer up an "proof" that actually does confuse weather with climate. It's a sure sign of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
the science is not in yet. About 15 more years should tell us whether there is anything to worry about.
Wrong. The science includes over 100 years of research, over 100,000 peer-reviewed research papers, millions of points of empirical data from a multitude of lines of evidence, and basic physics of how the atmosphere works on this planet. Which is why nearly every climate scientist, every national academy of sciences around the world, and every major scientific organization on the planet all concur that the massive amounts of data unequivocally demonstrate that the planet is warming and the main cause is our burning of fossil fuels.
It would behoove you to at least make an attempt to understand the issue prior to commenting.
Check the above link: overall the monthly temperature has remained quite stable from 1942-2012 as we can all see.
To begin with, the data you linked is only for Australia whereas by definition global warming is a, well, global, phenomenon.
But your conclusion for Australia is opposite of what your own linked source concludes. Given that they are the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and you have zero qualifications, I'll go with the BoM.
In this chart, also from your linked site, the BoM clearly shows that the trend in Australia has been warming. The red areas are areas that have shown a warming trend for the last 40 years. Only a small part of Australia in the northwest shows a cool trend during that period.
In this time series you can also clearly see that the country is warming (red bars).
This, of course, is consistent with the overall global trend of warming, as shown in this chart from the same BoM.
So while you fall into the same trap as the denialist industry - eyeballing and issuing conclusions based on insinuation - actual climate scientists take the time to properly collect and analyze the data, then put it through peer-review so others can check their work. The denialist industry also likes to cherry pick pieces of the data set and create their preferred narrative around it even when that narrative is clearly disproved by all of the data denialists ignore. In contrast, actual climate scientists look at all of the data and draw conclusions consistent with all of the data.
Based on all the data from the last 100+ years of research, the planet is warming and our burning of fossil fuels is the main cause. This is unequivocal.
Given that your conclusion is inconsistent even with the data you claim as your source, let's get back to the actual point of the article. With 100+ years of data telling us that the planet will continue to warm, especially since we are avoiding taking responsibility and doing something to stop it, such weather extremes as we are currently seeing with the Australian heat wave are very highly likely to increase in frequency and severity.
The same is true for the long drought that has plagued the US this past couple of years. With the planet continuing to warm due to our actions, such extremes are very likely to increase in frequency and magnitude.
Other extremes will also occur as we alter our climate so much that periodic events like El Nino and La Nina impact short-term climate patterns. Same for alterations to various oscillations such as the PDO and AO that could cause a shift in climatic conditions (e.g., much warmer Arctic and much wetter UK).
In the end there are two main truths: we are warming our planet; and we seem incapable or unwilling to take action to deal with causes.
plus the entirely normal Australian fire season apparently "proves" Global warming: for once Gillard is less ideologically driven than you: She knows this proves nothing. BoM map colour changes don't either.
plus the entirely normal Australian fire season apparently "proves" Global warming:
Wrong. Pathologically so.
No one suggests that a one-day temperature spike proves global warming.
You chose that false premise as a way to ignore the actual point - that global warming is likely to increase the frequency and severity of temperature extremes such as that Australia is currently experiencing.
for once Gillard is less ideologically driven than you:
No idea how ideological Gillard is, but it is irrelevant to the science. The science is the science whether you acknowledge it or deny it.
She knows this proves nothing.
What she thinks isn't particularly relevant to the science. What is relevant are the 100+ years of science that demonstrate unequivocally the planet is warming and the main reason is our burning of fossil fuels. This is based on millions of data points, multiple lines of empirical evidence, and well-understood basic physics. It is documented in more than 100,000 peer-reviewed research studies. Which is why nearly every climate scientist, every national academy of sciences, and every major scientific organization in the world understands that the data tell us we are warming our planet.
BoM map colour changes don't either.
The BoM decision to add a color is based on their knowledge that we will continue to warm the planet and the likelihood that even greater extreme temperatures will occur in the future.
It appears you really didn't understand anything you read, nor have even the most rudimentary understanding of the basic science of man-made climate change.
Domestic disturbances (from a distance)
High school history classes
Satires of human nature, and
Dramatic news footage;-]
later on, of course, much nudity. too hot for clothes. :)
Point well made....Despite the science denier crews objections.
But that is how the global warmists keep the global warming concern alive.
Good one. You successfully destroyed any possibility that anyone could think you had a valid argument. Of course, that was already evident.
Must be a bit embarrassing for you.
You don't know what you are talking about.
On the contrary, I know quite a bit about this particular subject, as is obvious.
Your denial of the failure of the 1998 IPCC predictions is pathetic.
Your unfounded, and thoroughly and emphatically false, assertion that IPCC projections (not predictions) have somehow failed is a sign of your ideologically-based motivation.
To begin with, cherry picking the "1998 IPCC predictions" is, well, about as unscientific as one can possibly get. Not to mention profoundly uninformed given there were no "1998 IPCC predictions." The IPCC issued its Second Assessment Report (SAR) in 1995, its Third Assessment Report (TAR) in 2001, and its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) in 2007. Each report builds on the state of the science since the previous report, i.e., adds in all of the knowledge that we have gained in the intervening years. So saying something like "1998 IPCC predictions" is really kind of silly.
By the way, we do notice that you created this "your denial of the failure of the 1998 IPPC predictions" completely out of thin air. There was no discussion about the "1998 predictions" in your comments or my responses. Here again is a case where an amateur denialist can't defend his previous statements so tries to change the subject. It's a common tactic - a bit of a "tell" in the poker sense - and a good way for honest people to see when denialists are frothing.
We were supposed to be at least 0.2 degrees warmer by now.
False. See, you've made the same mistake that all amateur denialists with no knowledge of the science make. You've assumed that projections that seek to define the likely temperature increases over a long period, e.g., out to the year 2100, can somehow be used to precisely predict the exact temperature changes in a very short period of time. That is silly. It also ignores the short-term variability caused by short-term events like El Nino, La Nina, the occasional volcanic eruption, and others. So saying something like "supposed to be at least 0.2 degrees warmer by now" (based on a non-existent "1998 IPCC prediction") demonstrates that you don't understand even the most basic science surrounding this topic.
We're not. You lose. Theory failed, hypothesis rejected.
Um, false. As we've seen, you seem to have a fundamental ignorance about even the most basic scientific principles, not to mention a lack of awareness of what constitutes actual facts.
That is Science.
Um, no. As has been demonstrated. But thanks for demonstrating unequivocally that you have no understanding of this topic and are driven solely by ideology.
Warmism is something else. Something unhealthy...and you are a prime example of the delusion. Find another belief: this one is mortally wounded!
Blathering is another mark of the denialist who cannot defend anything they have said.
"Empirical Data Vs. Predictions"
The failed predictions of the global warmist alarmists is a long list!
My comment "You are a dumb-ass!" was shorthand for: I recognise you and have faced your closed mind and pompous statements before. I realise there is no point telling you anything as your mind is already made up, and you routinely label inconvenient fact as fictions. Or you misinterpret them in a way that allows you to dispute them. What I meant is that from 1998 the IPCC projections as shown on Mann's infamous Hockey Stick graph have departed from the real-life temperatures.
Yes it is warmer than it was 30 years ago, but it has stopped getting warmer. You can call it a plateau or a break in the long term trend if you like, or you could consider it is a new equilibrium. CO2 outputs have increased massively over the same period, so the hypothesis that warming is proportional to CO2 concentration is pretty much busted.
Dan
Thanks for the link - I've heard most of these before, but it is handy having all the research that contradicts AGW theory in one place. I am old enough to remember when the consensus was that the Earth's crust was fixed - the proponents of Plate Tectonics were initially reviled and ridicule by consensus science. I remember serious climatologists (no-one called themselves "Climate Scientists" back then) who were predicting an Ice Age was on the way, back in 1975. At that point the mean global temperature had dropped about 2.7° F since 1940. Actually they may still be right: the warming from 1975 till 1998 might just be a "dead-cat bounce" prior to the descent into the next glacial period. Apparently past Ice ages were preceded by just that brief period of warming.
No, it was you realizing that nothing you said was based on fact. It's a common defense mechanism of ideologues. "Facts" are what they believe whether there is any support for them or not. When challenged by actual facts and actual science the reaction is often to slash out to protect ones ego.
I realise there is no point telling you anything as your mind is already made up,
100+ years of science tells us what is going on with the climate. You offered nothing but talking points that have been disproved hundreds of times already.
and you routinely label inconvenient fact as fictions.
You provided no facts. Again, this is a common tactic of denialists - say something that is not true and has no support in logic or reality, then claim that the actual science is somehow not real despite 100+ years of validation.
What I meant is that from 1998 the IPCC projections as shown on Mann's infamous Hockey Stick graph have departed from the real-life temperatures.
Sorry, but it seems you're backtracking in an effort to not seem so uninformed. If you were referring to Mann's hockey stick graph than please state so rather than some idiotic "1998 IPCC predictions" that don't exist.
Now that we can agree that you were referring to Mann's graph, it is clear beyond all doubt that you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
Mann's graph existed in one paper in 1998, another in slightly more refined form in 1999, and still another in 2008. All show the "hockey stick" shaped reconstructed temperature trends, with the last period including the instrumental temperature record.
Now, to say that Mann's graph was somehow a prediction of actual exact temperatures in the ensuing 20 years is patently ignorant. To say that Mann's graph represents the entire IPCC state of the science is false, and once again, ignorant. To even conceptualize such a silly idea is, again, unmitigated ignorance of basic scientific principles.
There is no shame in being ignorant of topics outside your expertise. There is, however, shame in arrogantly claiming your ignorance supplants those with actual knowledge.
Yes it is warmer than it was 30 years ago, but it has stopped getting warmer.
It continues to get warmer. Any suggestion that it has "stopped warming" is patently false and intentionally dishonest. This has been demonstrated many many many times so repeating such a well-known falsehood really is inexcusable.
You can call it a plateau or a break in the long term trend if you like, or you could consider it is a new equilibrium.
Sorry, but it is still warming. You can't call short-term variability "stopped warming" when it is still warming. The fact that the dishonest fakery of the anonymous blogs and fossil fuel lobbyists has been widely and scientifically debunked should be a tip off that you can't rely on them for your "information."
CO2 outputs have increased massively over the same period, so the hypothesis that warming is proportional to CO2 concentration is pretty much busted.
That is one of the most idiotic statements made by the denialist industry and their plagiaristic lackeys. Seriously, saying something so silly is about the clearest demonstration of pathological ignorance of the topic that could ever be imagined. To begin with, the planet is still warming. Secondly, there are short-term phenomena that cause short-term variations in short-term temperatures.
The long-term trend has busted through these short-term variations (both enhanced and depressed) and shows continued warming.
Check out this graphic that shows how the dishonest denialist industry cherry picks this short-term variation and then tells people like you that the obvious continuation of warming doesn't exist.
but it is handy having all the research that contradicts AGW theory in one place.
Anonymous blogs citing other anonymous blogs and non-scientists funded by the fossil fuel lobby is not "research." Especially when it so easy to demonstrate how every single thing they say is wrong. Intentionally wrong.
I am old enough to remember when the consensus was that the Earth's crust was fixed - the proponents of Plate Tectonics were initially reviled and ridicule by consensus science.
Science grows as we gain new knowledge. For tectonics, as our our knowledge grew the science learned. For climate science, as our knowledge has grown the fact that we are warming the planet has become more and more unequivocal. Get it? The more data we get, the more knowledge we get, the more science we get, the more the fact that we are warming our planet becomes unequivocal. Beyond a doubt.
Science learns. Denialists stick with their narrative despite the science telling them otherwise. There is massive, unequivocal science that says the planet is warming due to the burning of fossil fuels. There is zero science that demonstrates otherwise.
I remember serious climatologists (no-one called themselves "Climate Scientists" back then) who were predicting an Ice Age was on the way, back in 1975.
False. How many times does this have to be explained to people like you before it finally sinks in? It has been explained hundreds of times on this venue alone. To repeat such idiotic drivel after years and years of this being explained is simply unfathomable. Please don't keep showing your ignorance.
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.â€
- Benjamin Franklin
To that we can add: It's one thing to be ignorant, yet another to be arrogantly ignorant.
A pack of lies as well: there are many dissenting scientists from your failed orthodoxy. I have a real job, so cannot afford the time to debate with trolls.
Goodbye.
I'm sorry your ego was hurt and that you seem incapable of assimilating more than a few words at a time. That likely explained the ridiculous falsehoods you sputter. Perhaps if you cannot take the time to become informed you should refrain from opining on topics you clearly don't understand.
Just look at your claim that the 1998 Mann paper failed to predict the temperatures of the last decade. Your claim is patently ridiculous on so many levels one must wonder if you have any knowledge in this area at all.
First, Mann's 1998 paper doesn't predict the future at all. It focuses on reconstruction of past temperatures. So you can't even get the basic facts right.
Second, to suggest that any single paper constitutes the entire science is silly. Thousands and thousands of research studies were evaluated and summarized in the IPCC reports (none of which was issued in 1988).
Third, even those studies that do project future temperature trends don't "predict" exactly temperatures in any short-term cherry picked period of time. That's unscientific and silly. They project long-term trends, usually out about 100 years or so.
Fourth, the idea of saying "predictions have failed" demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of science, fact, or even logic. The IPCC and others project out long-term trends. Within those long-term trends are considerable short-term variability due to short-term phenomena such as El Nino (which tends to enhance the effects of CO2 warming), La Nina (which tends to depress the warming), and various climatic oscillations (which could enhance or depress the warming depending on where you are relative to the changes from the norm). That is why the year to year average temperatures bounce up and down. And why projections look at the overall trend.
A pack of lies as well:
Everything I have said is demonstrably true. Which is why you respond with platitude instead of factual retort.
there are many dissenting scientists from your failed orthodoxy.
Actually, no, there are not. Sorry.
In fact, virtually every climate scientist on the planet, along with every national academy of science, every major scientific organization, 100,000+ peer-reviewed research papers, 100+ years of science, millions of data points, multiple lines of overwhelming empirical evidence, and the basic physics of how our atmosphere keeps this planet warm enough for us to live on all concur with the unequivocal fact that the planet is warming and it is mainly due to our burning of fossil fuels.
I have a real job, so cannot afford the time to debate with trolls.
A tacit admission that you can't back up anything you've said. Not that it matters because it is unambiguously clear to everyone reading this that you have no understanding of the topic. Hence your silly claim that a single old paper that didn't even make predictions of the future has somehow failed in its (non-existent) predictions. This after you first claimed that the "predictions" were made by the IPCC in a year that they issued no reports at all.
This, of course, is on top of your original claim that was based on a misrepresentation of the point of the article. And even there you claimed the exact opposite of what your own source had actually said. So you started with a falsehood, then jumped to another falsehood when you couldn't support the first, then tried to jump to another falsehood...and another...further digging yourself into a hole where everyone could easily see you were simply a frothing ideologue with no actual knowledge of the topic.
Hence the addendum to Benjamin Franklin's famous quote - It's one thing to be ignorant, yet another to be arrogantly ignorant.
Goodbye.
Indeed. Perhaps you should take with you another quote, this one from Abraham Lincoln:
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Thank you, Michele.
Unless Allen decides to delete his, all of the comments remain in the string above and can be read by anyone. In fact, I highly recommend everyone read them. Feel free to pass them along to friends and have a good laugh. The more the better.