A New Year’s Prediction Challenge For Climate Alarmists

Happy New Year’s! Welcome to 2021, and a new decade. 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.

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……2021! 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 2021? Most scientists place it at 59 degrees F (15 C). 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 2021? 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?
  • How much ice will the poles gain/lose?
  • Will the Arctic be ice free this summer?
  • 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 2021 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 2021 will do, right? But, you have to make your predictions, and can’t go back and change them up as the year goes on. And at the end of the year, we will see how well you have done.

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 2021 in the manner you tell everyone else to live. Change your life. Buy an electric vehicle, ditching your use of fossil fuels. Demand your high poobahs in the Cult of Climastrology practice what they preach. Start with China Joe.

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

27 Responses to “A New Year’s Prediction Challenge For Climate Alarmists”

  1. Dana says:

    Our ever-hopeful host wrote:

    Oh, and a second challenge: live your life in 2021 in the manner you tell everyone else to live. Change your life. Buy an electric vehicle, ditching your use of fossil fuels. Demand your high poobahs in the Cult of Climastrology practice what they preach. Start with China Joe.

    https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif Hah! Not even the esteemed Mr Dowd will do those things!

    One major problem is that the warmunists think that we can give up fossil fuels but nothing will change in their lives. They won’t have to sacrifice anything! In that, they are just like the socialists, who apparently think that, under socialism, we’ll all be able to afford nice apartments in Central Park West, when the reality is that they’d wind up in the Pink Houses in East New York.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Science deniers such as Mr Dana and Teach like to imagine they know how others live their lives. Why? Because it allows them to use a common argument/logical fallacy. Global warming is a scam if any warming realist burns even a single gram of fossil fuel!! In addition, it allows them to avoid discussing global warming.

      https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_yahoo.gif Hah! Not even Mr Dana knows what I’ve done or will do!! And it’s none of his business!

      I would ask nothing of science deniers that I wouldn’t accept myself. As explained many times I prefer a market approach of transitioning to fossil fuels priced at their true costs. We could have done this over 20 years ago but science deniers (fueled by fossil fuel industry) blocked the process. Since we’re already living a simple lifestyle our carbon footprint is low and has been for decades. In addition we’ve been very fortunate financially so the increased costs for low carbon energy sources won’t affect us as much as others. That’s why a carbon tax has to include a progressive rebate program.

      Certainly conservatives believe in responsibility, right? Someone has to pay for the negatives associated with burning fossil fuels – things like asthma, COPD, water and air pollution, acid rain, environmental degradations of mining and drilling, oil spills, cancer, pollution with heavy metals, not to mention the issues associated with atmospheric CO2, i.e., ocean acidification, global warming with attendant sea level rise, redistribution of plants and animals.

      • Dana says:

        The very private Mr Dowd wrote:

        Hah! Not even Mr Dana knows what I’ve done or will do!! And it’s none of his business!

        Well, that’s true enough. But when I consider that you have spent so much bandwidth here telling other people how they should live, I think it reasonable to ask what you have done, personally, to walk the walk rather than talk the talk.

        I would ask nothing of science deniers that I wouldn’t accept myself. As explained many times I prefer a market approach of transitioning to fossil fuels priced at their true costs. We could have done this over 20 years ago but science deniers (fueled by fossil fuel industry) blocked the process. Since we’re already living a simple lifestyle our carbon footprint is low and has been for decades.

        So, tell us what that “simple lifestyle” is!

        For arguments to be persuasive, they require salesmanship as well as statistics, and no matter how many statistics you ply us with, your salesmanship is terrible. Just a little bit of information, a little bit of telling us what you have done, would really help your cause.

        In addition we’ve been very fortunate financially so the increased costs for low carbon energy sources won’t affect us as much as others. That’s why a carbon tax has to include a progressive rebate program

        It has, it would seem, been a long time since you knew or understood anything about the poor. A “progressive rebate program” would mean that you’d saddle the poor with far greater expenses, expenses they can barely afford now, and maybe, just maybe, after having to file all sorts of paperwork, they’d get what, a check from Uncle Sam every three months? That check is nice, but when they’ve been pushed to the ground as prices skyrocket, as they go into deeper and deeper debt, that check every three months — assuming that they’ve filled out all of the forms properly — will be nice, but it will still leave them further and further behind.

        It seems that you are asking the poor to file quarterly taxes, along with all of their receipts, to prove how much of a rebate they ought to get.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Thanks for the advice. Commenters here are refractory to persuasion.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Dana metaphorically painted Rimjob into a corner where he has nowhere else to retreat hence his nonsensical reply.

            Well done Dana.

            Lolgf https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Sorry Suckbutt, but I tire easily of the nonsense.

            Metaphorically… I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Metaphorically as opposed to literally.
            Are you really that dense?

            Bwaha! Lolgfy https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Poor Suckbutt is always the cheerleader, always the fluffer, but never an original thought. LOL.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Mr Dana typed: “…you have spent so much bandwidth here telling other people how they should live”

          Have I? Mostly I try to correct right-wing/conservative/Republican mis- and disinformation, endemic in the US. Asking you to accept evidence (e.g., Trump lost, AGW is real, Covid is real) is not telling you how to live, is it? If I say there’s no evidence of gods, demons, angels, souls, heaven, hell or miracles, it’s not telling you not to believe or to eschew church. Agreeing that it’s wise to consume less meat for health and environmental reasons is not telling you stop meat-eating.

          • Dana says:

            Saying that you want the government to stick its hand deeper into our wallets, to force us to live poorer, pretty much qualifies as telling us how we should live, with the added hand of the government compelling us to do so.

            What is more telling, however, is that you still decline to tell us what sacrifices you have made to fight global warming climate change. You said that you live a “simple lifestyle,” but have declined to tell us what that means. I’ve already told you what I’ve done: planted trees, installed a clothesline, only run the air conditioning in the summer when my wife is home, added insulation and modern, energy efficient appliances, and none of that has, in any way, ‘doxed’ myself.

            I am reminded of George Bush and Al Gore. The esteemed Mr Gore went on and on and on about global warming, back when it was actually called global warming, while President Bush withdrew our signature from the misbegotten Kyoto Accords, but then people pointed out that, in their private residences, Mr Bush’s Prairie Chapel Ranch was much more energy efficient than Mr Gore’s mansion outside Knoxville.

  2. Jl says:

    Good-more drama! Hey-did you forget extreme weather or is the cult onto a new target this month? Yes, J-here’s some more terrible things that have happened as fossil fuel use and CO2 concentrations have risen. https://twitter.com/jimfish56837379/status/1344467449987608578?s=12

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Sorry Jil, fossil fuel use causing cancer, asthma and COPD costing the nation millions in health costs is not serious enough for you? Oil spills costing billions are not serious enough for you? All we ask is to require fossil fuel users to pay those costs. A positive side effect is that as people reduce their use of fossil fuel energy they’ll reduce their GHG emissions. Healthier citizens and slowing global warming is a Win-Win!!

      The US and most states tax cigarettes at dollars per pack in an effort to reduce smoking (which causes cancer, lung disease, heart disease) and to recoup some of the gov’t expenses associated with patient treatment. No doubt these taxes affect the working class more than the leisure class.

      • Jl says:

        “The US and most states tax cigarettes….all we ask is fossil fuel users to pay those costs..” And fossil fuel users are taxed at the pump by the US and every state. Airline fuel is taxed, diesel is taxed…. so your point would be……what?

  3. Hairy says:

    Teach remember way back in 2012 when you posted something from your experts saying tgat “global cooling” was imminent ? I remember
    How is tgat prediction working out ?

    Or the one saying that or the one saying that the reduction of solar activity (sunspots) would trigger global cooling
    Teach the fact is tgat the planet continues to heat up and that you can offer no explanation for it
    Scientists have known for over 120 years that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas and easily heats in the presence of infrared radiation

  4. Jl says:

    I remember in the 70s when they were saying global cooling was imminent, which shows that consensus is basically irrelevant. So John, is this what people do who have “science” on their side? Remove inconvenient references from the past? Can you offer an explanation on why the planet heated up during the MWP? https://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Jl,

    Do you really remember a concern and scientific consensus regarding global cooling in the 70s? I was in college then it don’t remember it from the geography/geology/Weather Elements* courses or texts. On the other hand I heard nothing of global warming then either. I even rec’d Time, Newsweek, US News, the local newspaper, Scientific American and Playboy back then and don’t remember the scare. I did read the immensely popular “Population Bomb” by Paul Ehrlich (1968) where he mentioned CO2 global warming AND the cooling effects of aerosols and dust but was unsure what would happen.

    “The greenhouse effect is being enhanced now by the greatly increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In the last century our burning of fossil fuels raised the level some 15%. The greenhouse effect today is being countered by low-level clouds generated by contrails, dust, and other contaminants that tend to keep the energy of the sun from warming the Earth in the first place.
    At the moment we cannot predict what the overall climatic results will be of our using the atmosphere as a garbage dump.” – Ehrlich, 1968.

    A gentle take-down of the NoTricksZone (NTZ) global cooling consensus myth:

    https://skepticalscience.com/70s-cooling-myth-tricks-part-I.html

    https://skepticalscience.com/70s-cooling-myth-tricks-part-II.html

    “NTZ’s massive list of papers is meant to impress and overwhelm the casual “skeptic”. Most people will never dig much deeper than a quick scroll through NTZ’s never-ending stream of quotes from papers which he claims all support a 1970s “global cooling consensus”. But, a close look at this treasure trove shows a less than careful treatment of the data. And NTZ’s critique of PCF08 reveals shifting goal posts and straw-man arguments which distort our understanding of 1970s climate science.”

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    As you may recall we’ve looked at some of NTZs papers that he highlights in his writings and shown they rarely support his conclusions.

    This is the Trickster’s M.O. Flood the Zone with papers of marginal (if any) relevance and then create a conclusion not based on the evidence.

    His very first highlighted reference is to an early 70s Master’s thesis where he misleadingly edits a quote from the the thesis (which didn’t originate from the thesis writer at all)

    Thesis: “Sellers (1973) has developed a climate model which quantitatively relates particulate loading to surface temperature. He has shown that an increase in man-made global particulates by a factor of 4.0 will initiate an ice-age.”

    Trickster: “[A]n increase in man-made global particulates by a factor of 4.0 will initiate an ice-age.”

    So why would the Trickster want to make a reader think a quote was from one author (Cimorelli74) rather than the actual author (Sellers73)? Because Sellers did not mention global cooling and Cimorelli did, obliquely.

    As Alexander Pope said: “A little learning is a dang’rous thing; / Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.”

    But let’s give the Trickster credit as he combs the literature looking for tidbits that support his foregone conclusion.

    Anyway, no, there was no scientific consensus in the 70s predicting an incipient ice age.

    Next on the tee: The MWP Myth!!

    *I do remember the physics instructor in the Weather class telling the joke about towing a Northern Hemisphere hurricane across the equator to “cancel” it by offsetting the Coriolis Force. Ha Ha!

  6. Jl says:

    Hey J-what’s the title of the NTZ article? “Robust global cooling consensus”. What are the titles of Hellers’s articles? “Erasing the 1970s global cooling scare” and “ministry of truth erasing the 1970s global cooling scare.”. The other NTZ article, “before the 1960s-1970s global cooling scare was erased, it caused droughts….glacier advance ice age threats..”. Notice all but one talks about global cooling, not an ice age. But if you look at the second NTZ article listed it has the National Academy of Science and NASA talking about what was going on at the time could advance to an ice age.

  7. Jl says:

    “The temp record was flat from WW2 to the 70s”. Only after they adjusted the temps. The way back machine never lies. https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2016-08-23-at-5.10.41-AM-1.gif

Bad Behavior has blocked 8981 access attempts in the last 7 days.