What AGW predictions have scientists gotten right vs wrong?

Question

Certain Parties keep talking about all the scientific predictions that scientists have gotten wrong. But they rarely name specifics, and when they do, often the prediction either is from the very early days of meaningful climate science (the 70s or so) or the prediction is not yet proven wrong (like the "ice-free Arctic in 5-10 years" prediction made in '08).

So, preferably referencing an original source (the person making the prediction, a scientific paper, or the like, use news sources only if they include an actual quote, preferably with context), what are some predictions that have come true (or at least mostly/close to true)? What are some predictions that have been proven entirely false? And what are some predictions that have not yet been proven either true *or* false, yet? (keep in mind that "could be as early as" =/= "will definitely happen by")

Please either avoid predictions that are more than 30 years old, or clearly mark them as older predictions. Incorrectly predicting, say, current temperatures in 2012 is a lot more noteworthy if the prediction was made in 2010 than if it was made in 1975. The older prediction would have been a further stretch, *and* the science was a lot less advanced then.

Also, any other thoughts?

Answer 1

"Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions?"



"Let's review the record. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:



That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.

That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.

That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).

That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.



They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.

The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.

The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.

The expansion of the Hadley cells.

The poleward movement of storm tracks.

The rising of the troposphere and the effective radiating altitude.

The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.

The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.



"Seventeen correct predictions? Looks like a pretty good track record to me.



"Are there problems with the models, and areas where they haven't gotten it right yet? Sure there are. The double Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone which shows up in some coupled models, ENSO variability, insufficiently sensitive sea ice, diurnal cycles of moist convection, and the exact response of climate to clouds are all areas of ongoing research. But the models are still the best thing we have for climate prediction under different scenarios, and there is no reason at all to think they're getting the overall picture wrong."



References to the prediction articles and to the confirmation articles are in the complete Web page from which I took the predictions above.

Answer 2

Alarmists like to pretend that "scientists" are on their side. What is closer to reality is that alarmist have polled scientists and have misinterpreted those polls, e.g. changed majority of scientist believing that human emissions of CO2 have warmed the planet to human emissions of CO2 is driving the planet dangerously warmer. Alarmists clearly got their predictions wrong, but that doesn't mean the scientist overall necessarily did. Any scientist who suggested 15 years ago that warming was going to continue and accelerate was clearly wrong and wrong headed.



Here is a list of failed alarmists predictions

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/



Note: Dookie, as an actual scientist who has an actual memory, I don't need to put links to all my opinions. I certainly wouldn't link to Skeptical Science or a China loving Krugman.

Answer 3

For starters, this current "pause" in surface temperatures took the whole climate change community by surprise. No citation needed. In fact, the Met office claimed this in 2009:

"It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998)."



Here we are in 2014 and 1998 still stands as the hottest year on record.



Quote from 2000: According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html



Newspaper article in 2007 claims that 4.5 billion people could die by 2012.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/over-4-5-billion-people-could-die-from-global-warming-related-causes-by-2012/



50 million climate refugees by 2010, UN General Assembly, 2008

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/



Ice Free Arctic by 2009-2015. This is prediction was made by a number of climate scientists. I have a link to one. Weislaw Maslowski predicted in 2007 that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013. In fact he said it could happen much quicker.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/18/sea-ice-news-volume-4-number-4-the-maslowski-countdown-to-an-ice-free-arctic-begins/



And let's not forget all those tipping points we have passed, or all of windbag Al Gore's scary predictions.

Answer 4

Scientists don't make predictions, they make projections. And the only error in the projections is that they've been too optimistic. For instance, both this month no one expected the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to begin moving before the 2030's.

Answer 5

That is a strange request. If you make a prediction in 2010 for 2012, that is much different from, you are an idiot. None of the warmers are making claims of large changes in short periods of time. In fact, most all warmers will state that only after enough time will the changes cause by warming surpass the normal variability.

Answer 6

Most all of the GCMs are wrong! Name 1 that is 100% accurate?



When they correctly depict the climate as a whole in their GCMs, you can send a "Hail to the IP CC chief (Pichauri)!". Current climate science promoting Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change/Global Warming are simply adhering to the environmentalist aspect of the science. That has been clear since day 1 of the IP CC's involvement.



" ... The IPCC attributes 20th century global warming primarily to CO2 on the basis of climate modeling, claiming that the increase in solar activity during the 20th century was insufficient to cause the observed warming. Thus, it is claimed, CO2 is by default the only other possible cause of the warming [they don't know how to model ocean oscillations, so those are automatically & conveniently excluded as a cause].



However, climate models are programmed with solar forcing that is 5-13 times less than found by state-of-the-art solar activity reconstructions. ... "



" ... For example, the NASA-GISS climate model uses a solar forcing assumption which shows solar activity increased during the 20th century by only about 0.3 Watts per meter squared [W/m2]. Contemporary solar activity reconstructions, however, show that solar activity increased during the 20th century by 1.5 - 4 W/m2 or 5 - 13 times more than assumed by the NASA-GISS model. Reconstructed Total Solar Irradiance [TSI] shows an increase of ~ 4 W/m2 over the 20th century. Solar forcing based on these modern reconstructions is 1 - 2.6 times higher than the alleged forcing from increased greenhouse gases during the 20th century. In addition, climate models do not consider any of the multiple solar amplification mechanisms which have been described in the literature. Thus, the IPCC and others dismiss the role of the Sun in climate by conveniently assuming solar activity changed 5 - 13 times less than the research indicates.



In addition, since solar forcing was much higher than assumed by the models, this implies that CO2 forcing was significantly less than assumed by the models. ... "



Thanks fossil fuels for the ability to answer this question with honesty and integrity and deliver some clarity on how Climate Science keeps "sun activity" from being such a menace to their cause!) :-) Have a great day!!!



--------------------------------



LOL Jim Z!!!



From your link : #107. May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”

Answer 7

How about predicting warming of about one degree by 2050. Not wrong yet, but looking likely to be wrong. Joe Romm bet of warming of at least .15C from 2000s to 2010s. Not looking good so far.

The models failed, which the IPCC covered up by showing a spaghetti graph of all models,arguing that since a few were within range, the whole set is valid, and thus the average is valid.

Answer 8

Actually, nothing. comes to mind as being gotten 'right' by the Alarmist science community.....Seriously!



Well hold on a second.....the Alarmist 'scientific' community has successfully figured out how to apply for and be awarded.....Taxpayer-provided research grants to the tune of $Billions every year.



I guess that would count for something that they have gotten right! (sarc.)

Answer 9

They said that the world would run out of oil by the year 2000.

They also said the world would come to a standstill and all the computers would crash with the millennium bug. So there is two things ....

Answer 10

Besides having been made decades ago, or being about a time which has not yet happened, most of them are about the effects of global warming, and not whether or not Earth is warming. Consider polar bears. If they somehow survive an ice free Arctic, that would not mean that global warming isn't happening, but that polar bears are more adaptable than was once thought.



And, the prediction that actually counts.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1984/plot/gistemp/from:1984/trend/plot/uah/from:1984/plot/uah/from:1984/trend

Answer 11

Predictions are just that, predictions. They are not fact and can only be gauged by the science at hand.

If predictions can be made via today's hindsight, then they would be accurate

Answer 12

The major prediction they got wrong is the tropical troposphere hotspot, without that all their predictions are wrong.

Answer 13

One of the first estimates was in 1972:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=2456

"The increase of 25% CO2 expected by the end of the century therefore corresponds to an increase of 0.6°C in the world temperature – an amount somewhat greater than the climatic variation of recent centuries."

As the ex-post summary put it: "Between the years 1850 and 2000, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels did increase by very close to 25 percent, and global average surface temperatures also increased by just about 0.6°C during that time."



The general climate models have become much more powerful, sophisticated, and since then, and cover a much broader array of factors, and they are certainly not less accurate overall.



The errors tend to be in details, and to be blown way out of proportion by the anti-science tools of the fossil fuel industry, who rarely have much ability to understand what they are talking about but, at least for the ringleaders, decades of experience in cherry-picking, trickery, fake logic, and deception.



Case in point: JimZ, for once in a blue moon, cites an actual source. But it is none other than that old standby of deniers, Wattsup, an ex weather man with zero scientific credentials, zero scientific accomplishments, and long record of proven deception, and of taking funding from fossil fuel interests. Jim, however is so skeptical that he is absolutely sure that Wattsup is correct, and hundreds of Nobel Prize winning chemists and physicists are all wrong, because Nobel was a Swede, and most Swedes are Marxists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger)

[Edit: JimZ is as much of an "actual scientist" as these "scientists" quoted in the list of (perhaps correctly) translated climate predictions from Germany that he blindly cut-and-pasted from Wattsup: Spiegel, 3Sat, Chamber of Agriculture of Lower Saxony, German Federal Department of Highways. And these non-German "scientists" also on that list: Meryl Streep, Ted Turner, Washington Post in 1971 (when JimZ was cheating on his 3rd grade science test?),Dallas Morning News, and Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs.]



U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=1

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200602/backpage.cfm

http://nas-sites.org/climate-change/qanda.html#.U2Afzsf75DS

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

http://www.sharonlbegley.com/global-warming-deniers-a-well-funded-machine