Reposted from JunkScience.com
2020 has been the wildest and most unpredictable year in the memory of most people. But did the climate doom that was predicted to occur in or by 2020 materialize? What follows are 10 predictions made for 2020 and what really happened. As it turns out, climate doomsayers weren’t seeing so 20-20 when it came to 2020.
1. Average Global Temperature
1987: NASA’s James Hansen predicts world 3C warmer by 2020.
2020 Reality: Average temp only 0.44C higher.
2. Global Emissions
1978: CO2 levels to double from 1978 to 2020
2020 Reality: CO2 only ~23% from 1978 to 2020
3. China & India Emissions
2009: China to cut emissions 40-45% below 2005 level by 2020; India to cut 20-25%.
2020 Reality: China 2020 emissions ~85% HIGHER than 2005; India ~150% HIGHER.
4. Snows of Mt. Kilimanjaro
2008: Snow on Kilimanjaro to vanish by 2020.
2020 Reality: Yup. Snow still there.
5. Sea-level rise in Florida
1986: EPA predicts 2 feet of sea level rise for Florida by 2020.
2020 Reality: Sea level rise + subsidence in South Florida since 1986 has been less than 4 inches.
6. Snow
2000: By 2020 snow will be so unfamiliar, people won’t know how to deal with it.
7. Pacific Islands
2000: Global warming will ruin Pacific Island Nations economies by 2020.
8. Global Conflict
2004: Pentagon says climate change-caused resources shortages to cause global war by 2020.
2020 Reality: Nations largely at peace. Planet only at war with coronavirus.
9. Arctic Ice
2013: Arctic ice-free by 2020.
10. Glacier National Park
2009: Glaciers gone from Glacier National Park by 2020.
Why I don’t wonder ? 😀
I am something of an old fart, and the catastrophists have been wrong since the late 1960’s.
1960 ? 😀
Go back further, at least to the middleages 😀
Why stop there? Let’s go with every prophecy of doom, ever!
I believe that the main cause of their errant prognostications lies in the second paragraph of the Paul Daley article
…
The report, due to be released officially today, warns that if global warming continues as predicted by United Nations Carbon Dioxide Emissions Modelling…
Predicted CO2 levels to double 1978 – 2020 (didn’t happen)
I believe it is that same modeling that Mr Hansen was using for his failed Temperature Increase Prediction in the first failed prediction above.
Models at a NOT data
If a model makes a falsifiable prediction it should be rewritten given actual data refuting its predictive ability.
Predicted CO2 increase = wrong
SO
Predicted temperature increases = wrong
AND
Predicted effects from temperature change = wrong
One should be very careful when prognosticating in public
Tom, the problem is that the Millennial and GenZ set, even many of the GenXers, are mesmerized by the propaganda emanating from those back lit electronic crystal balls that they stare into all day long.
They haven’t enough real life experience in years or even in hands/eyes on application to “de-baffle” the propagandists.
The first half of the 21st century will be written up as the era in which the overwhelming majority of the general population responded to the question posed by the CNN’s of the World (as prompted by the NYTiimes):
Question: “who are you going to believe – Me or your own lying eyes”
Ansewr: “You. I never look up from my “Smartphone” long enough for my own eyes to form an opinion.”
But if you show the Left the FACTS (this article) they will not believe you, they will think it is a right wing conspiracy to hide the “truth” (worse than we thought). They are so closed minded. Good to hear the climate is just fine.
“Our media is no longer holding the enemies of truth and freedom to account. Instead, it’s acting as their mouthpiece.” James Delinpole
Off topic format question: What does the [+] spoiler do?
Plus (+) is an upvote, minus (-) is a downvote.
Increasing the green (up-vote count) or red (down-vote count) figure between them
Green means that more people like what you said
Pre-conditioning anyone? So many of these predictions for 2020 (I quite understand you will have picked those mentioning 2020, there are rather a lot that do though), that haven’t happened but all the illiterati could have had 2020 burned in the mind. None of these came about but what a pig of a year they made of it anyway.
It’s high time that skeptics have their own list of prognostications.
Here are the first three:
Any statistical Cooling will be claimed by Biden as a hallmark of his Climate Action
Sadly that’s so true!
Someone should ask the alarmists what they got right.
I notice the replies to a main comment appear in a smaller type now making them harder to read. I too vote for a darker basic text color.
I have problems to link to an image, I’m asked for uploading it from my HD, and when trying to use the link tag, nothing happens.
The feature to edit my comment for a certain tme I can’t find.
The edit appears as a gear or asterisk in the lower right side of the post box
Mine vanishes as well, just press the lower right corner of your post and it appears
TO THE OWNERS OF WUWT SITE: Is there any chance of a referendum, asking whether the readers would like the new format scrapped, and returned to the old style?
I make a prediction – based on my impeccable taste – that the readership would vote to have the old style back.
Not me. I like the new format. I do agree it would be nice to have replies in a larger font size.
Use Ctrl ‘+’ and Ctrl ‘-‘ to adjust the font size.
I also like the new format, but would like to cut & paste comments into word documents. This doesn’t work as well with the new format.
I like the new format too.
I agree can’t get used to this format sorry, love wuwt but don’t like new look, find it harder to follow. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it!
The text are needs to be much wider. Right now it’s only a small fraction of my monitor.
Nah, new format better.
New format
Not sure what you’re seeing but the color for me is #070707 – yes, you can get darker, but not by much.
Unless you’re referring to the text in the reply BOX (where I’m typing), which I agree is really too light.
All the type looks a little darker now, except the comment box I’m typing in right now which is a lot lighter.
What we need is a new advocacy crusade for a new revenue source not from carbon taxes but from a tax on failed predictions with partial, annual payments placed in escrow accounts for each failed year prior to the target date. James Hansen will have to make large payments in arrears and be forced to do community service repairing thermostats.
Perhaps if Las Vegas odds makers would start putting odds on a prediction we just might see how unlikely these model based scenarios really are.
Fight Climate Fear. Warmer is Better
Does anyone know where we can place money with the Bookies on these future predictions. Might be a retirement fund in the making
Great 2020 hindsight!
For once the IPCC got it right:
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible” (Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report).
That’s a great collection…many thanks.
The Climate Crapologists couldn’t predict their way out of a paper bag if their lives depended on it. This is why they have to depend mightily on weasel words like “could”, “may”, and “if”.
Real science makes a prediction based on valid science and makes accurate predictions. The predictions come true.
Pseudoscience makes predictions based on -well pseudoscience. The predictions, which have a tendency of creating fear, fail to materialize. The prediction success rate from pseudoscience is extremely poor (in the case of cAGW, it is zero % success) but the fear factor gets the superstitious and gullible willing to forfeit their wealth and freedom based on the predictions.
Humans may like to believe they have outgrown the era of being ruled by the base emotions of Fear, Guilt, Lust, Sloth and Greed, but the reality is we are as gullible as ever. It is time to recognize this crucial fact that we are being emotionally blackmailed and this is costing us very, very dearly.
Real scientists make predictions that don’t come true all the time.
The difference is that a when a real scientist has a failed prediction, he adjusts his theory to match the data. In climate science they adjust the data to match the theory.
The predictions, which have a tendency of creating fear, fail to materialize
But they’ve achieved their real purpose if they created fear.
Then just repeat, with more predictions to stoke more fear.
We didn’t run out of oil and there was no Twilight in the Desert and Mann’s Mayan Calendar of Climate did not run out.
Japanese did something wrong also, any comment Greta?
Quote:
Rescuers are trying to free more than 1,000 vehicles which have been stranded on a highway for two days after a heavy snow storm struck Japan.””
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-55359771
Lemme guess, it was maybe an unprecedented could be maybe one, soon possibly many many more, of the kilo-mega super duper duper unpresented 400 times per mega-eon duper Snowy-Canes event that we will all have to get used to.
On Juvember 22nd in the year mumble mumble mumble. At 10 minutes past one.
AND, as projekshun-dictitated by Lame Handstands in his confeshonal tittery of blah-de-blah years ago.
Just before he was led away in cuffs by Ossifer Green as I recall.
2020! We shouldn’t have made it past 2000!
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
Harvard biologist George Wald, first Earth Day 1970.
This one is a favorite. How does one source(the one controlling climate change agenda on the planet right now) get so many things wrong…………and by such a wide margin, in just one article?
U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked
https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
PETER JAMES SPIELMANN June 29, 1989
UNITED NATIONS (AP) _
A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.
Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.
″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.
UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.
Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.
The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.
Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.″
He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a … change″ of about 3 degrees.
″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels … we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion.″
He said there is time to act, but there is no time to waste.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So far, by ignoring their cry to act, the biggest impact on the planet has been………..to green it up. CO2 is the building block for life on this planet. An entirely beneficial gas. The optimal level is 900+ ppm, more than double the current ambient atmospheric level.
This is shown at the link below as well as busting Scientific American with their wrong and/or misleading statements.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/62784/
Dr Noel Brown … I would like to meet him. He appears to have been right in the middle of it from the time he had the ability to be doing anything.
I would like to meet him ….
I can’t find him anywhere. He is listed as board member for a whole lot of organizations, but still can’t find him. Is he dead? He doesn’t have to be dead for me to add him to my ‘pee on his grave’ list, since I’ve got another 20 years before I start that project. (Some people want to visit all 57 States in an R/V … me, I just want to pee on Ed Kennedy’s grave).
That’s all well and good, but all that will do is give you some perverse satisfaction. He won’t even notice.
I am certain Hansen was predicting surface temperature when he claimed the 3C increase by 2020. Although UAH measures a global temperature it is unrelated to surface temperature.
Any satellite measurement is suspect. Version 7 may eliminate the drift that appears apparent in the present data set.
The moored ocean buoys show no warming during the satellite period.
The global surface temperature is stuck where it is for a long time to come. Anything that shows otherwise is a flawed measurement.
Rick,
There is probably *some* relationship between the satellite data and the surface temperature. I’m just not sure what that relationship actually is. I’ve not seen anyone actually even offer a relationship let alone explain it.
It is at Version 6 and still appears to have drift. I am hopeful that the drift will be corrected in Version 7.
The satellites measure the microwave radiance of oxygen and that is calibrated against radiosonde data. There are a whole raft of adjustments to get something that relates to “tropospheric” temperature.
Give me a temperature probe in the water on a moored buoy and I reckon I could get within 1C if I carried out annual calibration.
It is ridiculous to think that something measuring the radiance of oxygen from a satellite in space can arrive at anywhere near providing a meaningful difference of 0.44C. The two decimal places is simply fantasy but give a suggestion of precision and accuracy. BS to two decimal places is still BS.
The fact that the satellite depart actual moored buoyed data from the Nino 34 region means that it is a useless representation of anything to do with surface temperature.
I think Christy showed that the UAH temperature measurements and the weather balloon temperture measurements were comparable.
Like to 0.44C comparable?
Tropical ocean moored buoys over the Nino 34 region show no warming in the satellite era. UAH shows an upward trend for the same region. So if UAH and radiosonde agree then they are not measuring anything related to the surface temperature
RickWill is correct in my view: Christy’s satellite charts are BS with two decimal places. You simply cannot get the required resolution or accuracy of an IR instrument from 200+ miles away from target.
See this site for a running average of all ground and ocean based measuring stations:
http://temperature.global/?fbclid=IwAR1mhZfsFG7WnZYOjTznx_Yvy-_MguXETmvV-cioDlJGGsEqNoWppwAMrUo
The recorded global temperature for previous years:
2015 average: 0.98 °F (0.54 °C) below normal
2016 average: 0.48 °F (0.27 °C) below normal
2017 average: 0.47 °F (0.26 °C) below normal
2018 average: 1.33 °F (0.74 °C) below normal
2019 average: 0.65 °F (0.36 °C) below normal
AboutTemperature.Global calculates the current global temperature of the Earth. It uses unadjusted surface temperatures. The current temperature is the 12M average mean surface temperature over the last 12 months compared against the 30 year mean. New observations are entered each minute and the site is updated accordingly. This site was created by professional meteorologists and climatologists with over 25 years experience in surface weather observations.
Data SourcesNOAA Global METARs
NOAA One-Minute Observations (OMOs)
NBDC Global Buoy Reports
MADIS Mesonet Data
“RickWill is correct in my view: Christy’s satellite charts are BS with two decimal places.”
How about the radiosonde data? Is that also BS?
“The recorded global temperature for previous years:”
Nope.
VERIFYING THE ACCURACY OF MSU MEASUREMENTS (UAH)
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/catalog/satellite/msu/comments.html
“A recent comparison (1) of temperature readings from two major climate monitoring systems – microwave sounding units on satellites and thermometers suspended below helium balloons – found a “remarkable” level of agreement between the two.
To verify the accuracy of temperature data collected by microwave sounding units, John Christy compared temperature readings recorded by “radiosonde” thermometers to temperatures reported by the satellites as they orbited over the balloon launch sites.
He found a 97 percent correlation over the 16-year period of the study. The overall composite temperature trends at those sites agreed to within 0.03 degrees Celsius (about 0.054° Fahrenheit) per decade. The same results were found when considering only stations in the polar or arctic regions.”
UAH over the Nino34 region shows a warming trend of .13C/decade whereas the buoys show zero over the same period.
The radiosonde check was done over a relatively small area of the globe and only correlated to 97%. That leave plenty of room for the bias I suspect still exists in the data. It would be better to correlate to moored buoy data. He would have got closer to something meaning for a surface temperature.
“Although UAH measures a global temperature it is unrelated to surface temperature.”
There is no global temperature. UAH doesn’t measure it.
Jeff Alberts is bang on. Surface temperature is not what Christy et al are measuring.
They are measuring the average temperature of the troposphere. Since it is about 30,000 to 45,000 feet thick, and it’s temperature falls roughly 2.7 degrees F per 1,000 feet in altitude above sea level. What UAH and Christy are measuring has nothing to do with the climate debate in specific terms.
It may have some relevance to certain generic atmospheric understanding, but being some benchmark for a global average temperature is decidedly false! And using it as some alarm bell for Climate Change is also a false flag.
As I pointed out above with temperature.global, Christy’s values do not correspond to the land and sea surface measurements at all.
Furthermore since the lapse rate puts the temperature of the average altitude of the troposphere at from 15,000 to 23,000 feet ASL, at 18.5F to -3.1 F (average sea level temp is said to be 59F and -2.7 deg F per 1,000 feet saturated lapse rate) – Christy’s charts are not telling us about what the climate is doing.
Lapse rates change depending on moisture content (drier air has higher cooling rate as altitude increases, conversely when water vapor condenses, it warms the air) Hence a change over time of the average tropospheric temperature, again which is 15 to 23 thousand feet above sea level on average, and some 40-60 deg F cooler than average sea level temperature – Christy’s charts could mean there’s more water vapor condensing – making more clouds and cooling the surface more by reflecting more solar radiation!
Likewise Christy’s data could indicate the globe is cooling more, as with warmer mid troposphere temps mean more heat is being delivered to space from the radiative cooling of the mid troposphere!
In short most persons forget to contextualize what Christy’s charts are showing – the average temperature of the air, from 15 to 23 thousand feet in altitude. Tells us nothing definitive about what the climate is like at the ground.
So my agreement with RickWill that Chisty’s charts are BS, was misplaced. His numbers may be sound (pun intended with radiosonde data), but their general interpretation and use as a benchmark for global warming – is Bull Chips.
Christy/UAH is publishing the average temperature of the air, at between 15,000 feet and 23,000 feet on average. Tells us nothing with certainty about what the global average Climate is.
Aside, being a pilot, I am very aware of the vagaries and high variability of the temperature/dewpoint as you go up in altitude. And critically you must ascertain where/when you may encounter icing (and avoid these regions or you may die). The extremely variable nature of the air, in general and in huge variations on small local scales – thus “averaging” is utter nonsense and virtually meaningless towards global climate.
The UAH/Chisty data could mean a dozen different things – none of which is a definitive statement about global Climate!
The UAH data is akin to monitoring the internal resistance of your car’s battery and then stating you have a measurement of the engine’s performance! It may be an accurate rendering of the battery’s condition, but it does not give you the condition of the engine or the overall vehicle’s condition!
Oh gosh, give the Climate Scientists a break for being a few years or decades or centuries late with with prophecies coming to pass. And what about the medical impact the scientists proclaim. If only 1% of them are right, we should all thank God that Joe is elected and will save the Earth by rejoining the Paris accord and ending death.
Fauci: “We have entered the Pandemic Era” because of Climate Change
We Must Reduce CO2 Emissions to Prevent Bats Passing new Coronavirus Diseases to Humans
Climate change driving expansion of Lyme disease in the US
Climate change increases risk of Legionnaires Disease
Global Warming blamed for mystery Kidney Disease
Climate change affects allergies, immune response and autism
Global warming to sicken farm animals
Climate causes Deadly Turtle Herpes
Climate Change Will Cause an Invasion of Brain Eating Parasites
Climate change could bring bubonic plague back to Los Angeles
Dengue Spreading in South America Because Climate Change
Children are highly vulnerable to health risks of a changing climate
Global Warming will Cause More Baby Heart Defects
British Doctors: “Climate Change is worse than Ebola”
/s
Viner was right in one sense, snow does cause chaos in parts of the UK 🙂
Link at end of #8 is missing…
Obviously “by 2020” has been a typo for several decades.
They really meant “by 2030”.
Thirty years of global warming from around the Australian coastline:
imagine how hard one has to work to tease an upward trend out of this dataset. Hats off to the guys and gals at BoM for making something out of literally nothing.
I recall two years ago an article about the 40th anniversary of James Hansen’s infamous Congressional testimony. The reporter asked some climate alarmist how well Hansen’s predictions from that appearence had done. The alarmist blithely said they had done pretty well. A cursory review of the actual predictions against what really happened would have proved this assertion false. But the reporter did NO fact checking and simply accepted the answer. Paul Ehrlich made a career out of being wrong but never being checked. There is no downside to making sure predictions.
Making dire predictions. Frickty frackty Autocorrect.😕
2020 Reality: China 2020 emissions ~85% HIGHER than 2005; India ~150% HIGHER.
Absolute reality: India emitted 4.5 x less than China, 2 x less than the US, and 1.3 x less than the EU.
The point is the actual CO2 emissions increases are higher than predicted by alarmists.
Back in the 70’s, it was said that we were 30 years away from commercial nuclear fusion…and always will be. We still are.
Apparently we’re 20 years from the climate apocalypse…and always will be.
Interesting that not one of the AGW aco-lites has come forward with anything that their AGW cult-leaders have actually got correct !!
There aren’t a great many of the people who accept the science commenting on here.
ROFLMAO
griff, the village idiot that can’t help making an utter FOOL of itself.
It is noted that you were TOTALLY UNABLE to come forward with anything that their AGW cult-leaders have actually got correct !!
You are also TOTALLY UNABLE to produce anything to back up the “psuedo-science” of AGW…
The problem you have is that most people on here actually understand what real science is….. and YOU obviously don’t.
Would you like to make a feeble attempt at producing some of “the science”
1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?
2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation?
“The science” behind AGW is TOTALLY LACKING..
I repeat ….
It is also noted that you were TOTALLY UNABLE to come forward with anything that their AGW cult-leaders have actually got correct !!
Well YOU can make a counterpoint to the article, when are you going to do it instead of lame statements that impresses only you.
Come on, post a an argument against something in the article……..
That’s because the Alarmists haven’t gotten one thing right. Not one of their predictions has materialized. They are batting 1000.
The Whole Human-caused Climate Change scam is a House of Cards. All these theories and predictions built without a foundation. There is no evidence that CO2 is the control knob of the climate, and that’s the shaky foundation all these predictions are based on. And all of them have been wrong so far. Perhaps their basic assumptions are wrong. Ever think about that, Alarmists? No, that would ruin the whole game for you, wouldn’t it. Can’t be thinking like that.
Well the arctic saw its second lowest extent, with declines in volume, thickness and age, plus a very slow refreeze which left it at lowest for date for over 6 weeks after minimum.
Is there any doubt of the continued decline of arctic sea ice?
On that 1978 CO2 prediction – isn’t that a prediction of what would happen with no CO2 reduction?
Glaciers worldwide continue to decline, with the decline increasing in recent years.
and of course the arctic continues to warm, especially Alaska, Svalbard and Siberia – some new records there in 2020.
In November 2020 sea ice in the Arctic grew an average of 116,000 sq km per day, the fastest daily growth rate on record for the month and 46,400 sq km above the 1981-2010
average.
Meanwhile in Antarctica sea ice extent for November 2020 continued to be well above the 1981-2010 average.
**Is there any doubt of the continued decline of arctic sea ice**
Yes, as with any statement you make griff. there is doubt – there has been no decline for over 12 years.
Was just as warm in the past records are by micro degree in urban areas and very localised because of that
Did you know that it has been a LOT WARMER for nearly all the last 10,000 years.
Or are you still DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE
Glaciers continue to expose tree stumps and human artifacts
Arctic is no warmer now than in the 1930,40s
Love that arctic chart! Is there any doubt that it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today? The EVIDENCE is all around us.
Not only that, but there has been no warming in the Arctic this century except from the 2015 El Nino
And before the 1997/8 El Nino, it was actually COOLING
There was a whole post on the FACT that the Arctic iscurrently COLDER NOW than for most of the last 8000+ years
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/16/modern-icelands-climate-is-colder-with-more-ice-than-any-other-time-in-the-last-8000-years-except-the-1800s/
Seems that actual real science and FACTS are IGNORED by you,
Only way you can keep up the AGW FARCE in your tiny little brain-washed mind is by rabid DENIAL of actual science, and deliberately ignorant CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL.
“Is there any doubt of the continued decline of arctic sea ice?”
Current extent is ABOVE that of 2006, 2010, 2012, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019.
“a very slow refreeze“
Did you know that the fortnight from 27th Oct to 9th Nov had the fastest fortnight re-freeze since at least 1988
griff .. stop making a utter fool of yourself by continually display your wanton and DELIBERATE IGNORANCE.
https://www.google.com/search?q=uss+skate+surfaces+at+north+pole+1959&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=NuttJ9mzE8eQuM%252Cp5cBJh5mDUK0lM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kR5SPePIeazgfUvAXupskNZY-VAjw&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJxIu-6trtAhWNzzgGHZQ8CnMQ9QF6BAgIEAE#imgrc=oy89BDxZbTnOSM
Yet you keep ignoring my repeated requests of explaining WHY that worries you. I see Polar Bears doing well up there, so it can’t be that.
Why your obsession over low sea ice levels in the north, while you completely ignore the high sea ice levels of the south?
No new records, they were ALL a lot lower early in the Holocene, some even melted completely, only to reappear since then, you have been shown this repeatedly…….
Have they gotten ANY right?
Great list that I will be bookmarking for future climate debates. And just want to say that this is my first visit to the redesigned site and it looks awesome!