2015: Annual New Year’s Prediction Challenge For Climate Alarmists

Happy New Year’s! Welcome to 2015, and the 5th year of my prediction challenge, which virtually no Warmists will take. And one year closer to End Of Life As We Know it. 2150 and 2200 are fast approaching, the primary dates that the climate alarmists always want to use to denote when Earth is going to burn, baby, burn in fire, dan dan daaaan, fire, dan dan daaaaan.

2014 saw historically low numbers for wildfires and tornadoes, just like 2013. There was just one landfalling U.S. hurricane, Arthur. There have still been no major hurricanes making landfall since 2005, the longest stretch since the Civil War era. There were only8 named Atlantic storms, with only six hurricanes (the average since 1980 is 12.1 storms and 6.4 hurricanes, with 2.7 major hurricanes). Arthur was the only storm to make landfall on the U.S. Thousands of cold temperature high temp records were set. There was barely a spring across the US and much of the northern hemisphere. In other words, the weather just didn’t cooperate with Warmist predictions. Hence, they have made a big effort, building on 2013, to change their predictions and fold all weather, including cold and snow, as being caused by “climate change”.

No child born over the last 18 years has seen statistically significant warming, and no child born this century has seen any warming.

Warmists attempted to say that 2014 was the hottest year evah!!!!!!! Alas, not really. And still wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation

New Year’s is usually a time when we make resolutions which we abandon when we realize that chocolate, bacon, and beer are great (and bacon cooked in beer and covered with chocolate!) In the blogosphere, we often make predictions for the New Year. Instead, how about a challenge?

For a long time, the alarmists have been making predictions as to what the climate will do. They say in 10 years, 50, 100. Instead, why not, say, make predictions for……2015! What I want for them to do, from the biggest of big climahypocrites, such as Al Gore, James Hansen, Barack Obama, and Leonardo DiCaprio, to the smallest climate dupes, is tell us exactly what the climate will do this year. For some of these questions, I’m using the USA, but, alarmists from around the world can use their own country/region, if they like:

  • What will the average temperature of the Earth be for 2015? Most scientists place the average at 59 degrees F (15 C) (it depends on the range of dates used, cherry picking to use more of the cooling period during the 40’s through 70’s). How far above, or below, will it be?
  • What will the average temperature be for the USA?  The rough average for the USA is 53 F.
  • How many tropical systems will there be in the Atlantic? How many will hit the USA?
  • What will the four seasons do in 2015? Warmer, colder, hotter, wetter? Tell us
  • What will each month look like in the USA? How about in your home state?
  • Which months will be above average, and which ones below, temperature wise?
  • What states will have big floods, and during what months?
  • What will tornado season look like?
  • How many destructive thunderstorms will there be, and in which states?
  • How many “extreme” weather events will there be? Oh, wait, that’s right, Warmists now call all weather events “extreme” now
  • How much ice will the poles gain/lose?
  • Will the Arctic be ice free this summer? It failed to be ice free in 2013 and 2014, and has gained ice
  • What will the average precipitation be for your home city? Average temperature? Average low’s and highs?
  • How many earthquakes will there be (since, apparently, climate change/globull warming creates earthquakes)?
  • Pick an island, and tell us how much the sea will rise around it.

There are many, many, many more questions that can be asked, but, I know what the alarmists are thinking: “Teach, that is weather, not climate! I refuse to participate!” Ah, but, what, exactly, is climate? Let’s pull a couple good definitions

  • Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time
  • Climate is the average weather conditions at a particular place over a long period of time. Climate is the long-term predictable state of the atmosphere. It is affected by physical features such as mountains, rivers, positioning of the globe, plateaus, deserts, depressions and much more.
  • The general or typical atmospheric conditions for a place and/or period of time. Conditions include rainfall, temperature, thunderstorms, lightning, freezes, etc.

Notice, “long term predictable.” Weather and other natural forces create climate. And right now the alarmists are saying “but, Teach, one year is not considered to be a “long period of time!”” Well, you have plenty of data available for the long term, and, with all your vast knowledge of what the climate is doing, due to man’s release of greenhouse gases, surely you alarmists can make predictions for 2015 based on that long term data, and be mostly correct, right? Surely, you aren’t afraid to make predictions for this year, and tell us what the climate during 2015 will do, right? But, you have to make your predictions, and can’t go back and change them up as the year goes on, the way many organizations, like NOAA, the Met Office, and the IPCC do. And at the end of the year, we will see how well you have done.

And since you are now claiming that every weather event is a result of Hotcoldwetdry, er, climate change/climate disruption, you should be able to give us a few predictions. You’re somehow able to make those predictions for the long term, why not the short term?

Of course, if you use any of the models from Warmist groups, you’ll be bound to fail

There’s your real “97% consensus”, though we can substitute the squishy feelings based word “consensus” with that sciencey word “data”.

Any alarmist up for the challenge? And no cheating be reading the Farmer’s Almanac, which tends to be right way more than the Met, NASA, UN IPCC, and other alarmist groups are. Forget about your PR blitzes, “spreading awareness” campaigns, your advocacy, your stunts, and tell us what will happen. If you’re correct, for a change, maybe people will start to believe you again.

Oh, and a second challenge: live your life in 2015 in the manner you tell everyone else to live. Go “carbon neutral”. Give up your fossil fueled vehicles. No washing machines. No dryers. No refrigerator ice makers. No A/C. No gas heating and cooking. No pets. No kids. No hairspray. No new clothes. Turn all power off at home when not at home. Flip those circuit breakers. 2 minute showers. Move into a tiny home.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “2015: Annual New Year’s Prediction Challenge For Climate Alarmists”

  1. Jeffery says:

    When will the Weather Nazis (Deniers) understand the difference between weather and climate? You sabotage your own “argument” when you looked up definitions of climate…

    over long periods of time

    Over long periods of time. Not 1 year.

    Have you ever looked at an actual trace of a yearly temperature record?

    Use this app: http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

    What you will see is that there is chaotic variability in the yearly records. Why is this? Because of the various inputs that comprise the global average surface temperature, such as El Nino/La Nina (exchanging heat between the ocean and atmosphere – and largely unpredictable) and volcanic activity (emit sunlight absorbing aerosols – also unpredictable). Yet, the global average surface temperature continues to increase (contrary to your claim that global warming stopped 18 years ago – the oceans didn’t get the memo).

    Predict a single roll of a die. Can’t do it? Yet, for 1000 rolls of a die one can predict an approximate distribution of getting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, but still not be able to predict the next roll.

    There is short-term variability superimposed upon the long-term increase caused by increased atmospheric CO2.

    The graphic you supplied to trash the models is a retread from Denier Roy Spencer. It’s obvious with just cursory inspection that Spencer fudged the data.

    How did he fudge? What Roy Spencer has done is he’s used a five year average – 1979-1983 to plot his data instead of the normal 30 year baseline. Why did he pick 1979 to 1983 as the baseline? The answer can only be that he wanted to deceive his readers.

    Effectively what Roy’s little trick did, was to artificially shift the CMIP5 model runs up compared to observations, making it look as if there is more of a difference than in actuality.

    Teach typed:

    Go “carbon neutral”. Give up your fossil fueled vehicles. No washing machines. No dryers. No refrigerator ice makers. No A/C. No gas heating and cooking. No pets. No kids. No hairspray. No new clothes. Turn all power off at home when not at home. Flip those circuit breakers. 2 minute showers. Move into a tiny home.

    Where I live we can pay a little extra for electricity from renewable sources (solar and wind, here). By adding the true cost of the damage being caused by fossil fuels (using a cap and trade system or a carbon tax) we would further shift investment to renewable energy sources.

    Why do you think Deniers should be exempt from saving humankind?

  2. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Again, wrong. The fact is that your religion has not been able to predict a single trend. If it can’t do that, then it has failed a major tenet of the scientific process and thus, your religion is WRONG.

  3. Jeffery says:

    dave,

    The closest I have to a religion is reason and evidence, although the belief that conservatives are always wrong is reaching the status of dogma. But I still hold to the hope that my conservative brethren will once again join the rational.

    You claim I have a religion based on belief rather than evidence, then in the next sentence you attack the religion you created for me as “wrong”. Since there is no evidence for the Christian God, does that make that religion wrong?

    A century ago, Svante Arrhenius predicted that increasing atmospheric CO2 would increase the temperature of the Earth’s surface.

    He also wrote:

    “Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter climates of Africa? There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension. The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree.”

    Based on his careful measurements, he predicted that burning fossil fuels would add CO2 to the atmosphere, and further predicted that the CO2 would cause the Earth to warm. This was in the 1890s. He also speculated that the warming could benefit humankind (see quote above).

    The sea levels are rising steadily. Arctic sea ice and the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets and most glaciers are melting and will continue.

    No evidence, none, nada, zip, zilch contradicts Arrhenius’ elegant predictive work.

    We know that the Earth is warming rapidly because of the CO2 we continue to add to the atmosphere. Deniers variously argue that: It’s not warming. It’s the Sun shining more brightly. There is too little CO2 to absorb infrared radiation. The Earth rapidly warms and cools this much “naturally” without any physical causes. The data are fudged (it’s not warming).

    So, dave, your position on global warming is a belief system inconsistent with scientific evidence. There is no evidence that will alter your belief, yet you call climate realism a religion.

    It’s always projection.

  4. jl says:

    “Should the deniers be exempt from saving humankind?” I don’t know. Should the astrologers be exempt from being called drama queens? Again, how did early homosapiens, with a brain smaller than a chimpanzee and with no technology, survive ice-ages, volcanoes, floods, droughts, ect., ect., but now humankind needs saving? Uh, no. Funny the astrologers never factor human adaptation in their scary scenarios. The earth is not rapidly warming from CO2, it warms and cools as it has done naturally in the past, and is currently not now warming. And you have no comparable data to say it’s “rapid”. As far as Arrhenius, he also thought a doubling of CO2 would be beneficial to mankind, unlike the bed-wetters of today. He also “predicted” farming in Greenland, earth would warm between 8-9C, the suburban residents of Chicago would be sitting under their own fig trees, cotton would be a staple in Iowa, Siberia would become the greatest farming area in the world, and the Antarctic would have millions of people.” But as CO2 has increased about 1 part per ten thousand over the last century, it would be the same, as I’ve seen written, like adding ten additional people to the Rose Bowl. Human kind will be just fine.

  5. Jeffery says:

    j,

    I would never want to prevent you from calling people names. What else would you have to type about?

    As I’ve explained to you many times, human civilization developed during the Holocene in a fairly stable climate. How many coastal cities of several million people each were there 50,000 years ago? When the glaciers slowly encroached on Toronto, Chicago, Moscow and Stockholm what happened to those big cites? Oh, that’s right, they didn’t exist yet. There were bands of hunter-gatherer/foraging tribes in the lower latitudes totaling a few million at most. There were no cities, no bridges, airports, sewage systems or fresh water supply systems. No schools, no agriculture, no international trade. See how it was different back then?

    Bands of hunter-gatherers could adapt to the gradual change in climate that took place over thousands of years. You may not know this, but there are over 7,000,000,000 people on Earth now. In addition, since human civilization first began during the early Holocene, we have fewer and fewer hunter-gatherer societies. With civilization we started agriculture, specialized occupations and the formation of cities. So things are different.

    But why do you worry about adaptation since global warming is a hoax and it’s stopped warming anyway?

  6. Jeffery says:

    Speaking of predictions, the CO2 – global warming link is holding up pretty well.

    How about other predictions?

    Rush Limbaugh (Leader of New Conservatism): “… the country’s economy is going to collapse if Obama is re-elected. … “There’s no if about this. And it’s gonna be ugly. It’s gonna be gut wrenching, but it will happen.”

    The economic freefall would begin because “California is going to declare bankruptcy” and Obama would force states like Texas to “bail them out.”

    “I know mathematics, and I know economics. I know history. I know socialism, statism, Marxism, I know where it goes. I know what happens at the end of it.” (Things aren’t great, but we have the strongest economy on Earth right now)

    Newt Gingrich: … if Obama was reelected he would push gas to “$10 a gallon.”

    Mike Lee (R-UT): … predicted that if Obama was reelected gas would cost $5.45 per gallon by the start 2015. Lee said that gas prices would rise 5 cents for every month Obama was in office, ultimately reaching $6.60 per gallon. (it’s $1.88/gal in St Louis now)

    Mitt Romney: predicted that if Obama is reelected “you’re going to see chronic high unemployment continue four years or longer.” … pledged that, if elected, he could bring the unemployment rate down to 6% by January 2017. (It’s 5.8% now)

    Donald Trump: “The stock market and US dollar are both plunging today. Welcome to @BarackObama’s second term.”

    Charles Bilderman (Forbes): the “market selloff after Obama’s re-election [was] no accident,” predicting “stocks are dropping with no bottom in sight.” … the policies the Obama administration would pursue in his second term would “crash stocks.” (The Dow is flirting with 18,000, up over 35% since Obama was reelected)

    The climate scientists (even a century ago) are doing OK compared to conservatives.

  7. Casey says:

    The only thing Jeffey can predict is that his head will still be up his ass in 2015.

    Nazis? Really? When we all know the Nazis were leftists?

    Jeffey doesn’t understand history either.

  8. Jeffery says:

    Cassy,

    The only thing Jeffey can predict is that his head will still be up his ass in 2015.

    That’s better than what you keep putting up your ass.

    When we all know the Nazis were leftists?

    With conservatives, it’s always projection, Cassy.

    The Earth continues to warm because of CO2 we humans keep adding to the atmosphere.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6256 access attempts in the last 7 days.