My Arctic Forecast Vs. Government Climate Experts

Three weeks ago I made this forecast of fraud and deception by the science community.

Instead of reporting the huge gain in ice and massive failure of their forecasts, climate alarmists will report that extent was “8th lowest on record.”

My forecast was spot on.

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-end-of-summer-arctic-sea-ice-extent.html

Compare my forecasts vs. their forecasts. They get paid billions of dollars and win Nobel Prizes to lie about the Arctic. I tell the truth about the Arctic – for free.

Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist | Environment | The Guardian

Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to My Arctic Forecast Vs. Government Climate Experts

  1. Steve Case says:

    Three weeks ago I made this forecast of fraud and deception by the science community.
    The link in bold above doesn’t go there but, after a short search on these pages I found the link to Tony’s forecast:

    https://realclimatescience.com/2017/09/the-bad-news-for-arctic-alarmists-keeps-getting-worse/

    And indeed, it says:

    Instead of reporting the huge gain in ice and massive failure of their forecasts, climate alarmists will report that extent was “8th lowest on record.”

  2. oldbrew says:

    Is Prod Waddam-I-talking-about hanging his head in shame yet?

  3. scott allen says:

    Did anyone notice that in the 8th lowest sea ice extent, they used the average of years between 1981 and 2010 (while the satellite measurement years covers 1978 thru 2017). So they cherry picked the high average years and left out the low average years.
    As I recall the years between 2010 and 2016 were the lowest year ever for sea ice extent, If they were to include the low year it would make 2017 about average (14th) on sea ice extent.

    • Gail Combs says:

      In future years NOAA will be used for examples in the newest version of How to Lie With Statistics

      https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728

      • cdquarles says:

        Hi Sis,

        If only, I say. I read that book back in the early 80s, when I was working in a pathology lab. A professor recommended it to me after I presented a ‘personal communication’ paper at a grand rounds. Hmm, I may have to buy a physical copy.

        I am currently reading “Uncertainty” by William Briggs. Another classic!

    • Mr GrimNasty says:

      It’s WMO ‘standard’ for long-term averages, to use the latest 30-year period ending at the start of the decade, so 1981-2010 currently (1971-2000 prior, 1961-1990 before that etc.)

      • Gail Combs says:

        A 30-year period is ~1/2 of a PDO or AMO cycle so is as meaningful as using 1/2 of a sine curve to represent the entire curve.

        At this point the WMO is aware of that and should have corrected to using one full cycle.
        Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) + Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)

      • scott allen says:

        Using your/WMO excuse, the much reported “global warming” by WMO and others will not be known until 2020 as the 30 year period from 1981 to 2010 there was a cooling trend.
        If I were to analyze a company that was 7 billion years old I certainly would not use just the last 30 years to determine long term trends, if more data was available why limit your analysis.

        Thank you Gail am reading it now.

        • scott allen says:

          In addition Mr. GrimNasty the WMO does not use your 30 standard for other long term trends. I cite a recent June 2017 paper on Global Lighting Strikes only uses a 15 year trend, a May 2017 paper on Fog also uses the last 15 years as a trend line.
          Please, why the difference in trend lines end date?

    • gator69 says:

      So they cherry picked the high average years and left out the low average years.

      Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

  4. CheshireRed says:

    This is exactly the sort of media response that is a giant red light to anyone with their BS detector switched on. A more accurate assessment would say ‘despite predictions of a vanishing ice cap this years low extent was actually a distinct improvement on previous, lower years.’

    But that true account goes against the narrative so never gets a hearing. It’s thus revealed as blatant propaganda which indicates they’re pushing a political project rather than announcing science fact.

    BTW Tony, when’s the book out? You have to do a book matey, even if it’s only a downloadable self-publish job like Dr Roy Spencer has done a few times. 10,000 downloads @ $3 = $30k, and you have all the info’ needed already. You’ve got 20k followers on Twitter so I’m sure it’d be worth your time. Could get good media coverage too so would help raise your profile further.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “years low extent was actually a distinct improvement on previous, lower years.”

      Why is increased Arctic sea ice an “improvement”?

      You are falling into their trap.

  5. It is time for the climate establishment scientists to recognize that the model projections are useless for forecasting purposes. Unfortunately they continue to make making the same egregious error of scientific judgement as always – by projecting temperatures forward in a straight line beyond a peak and inversion point in a millennial temperature cycle.
    Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
    and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
    Here is the abstract for convenience :
    “ABSTRACT
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH6 temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
    The fundamental error in establishment forecasts is illustrated in Fig 12 from the paper( It might not appear in the e-mail check link )

    Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed.

    The current situation is illustrated in Fig 4 ( might not appear check link)

    The paper further states
    “The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.”

    • AndyG55 says:

      Norman.. “because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events ”

      Nor to have an obvious step change from an El Nino as part of a trend (as your Fig 4 does)

      In actuality there are two essentially zero trends: from 1980-1997 (calculated trend is a remnant of the start/end points in the minor cycles), then 2001 – 2015.3

      These are separated by a step of about 0.3C at the 1998 El Nino.

      The warming from 1980-2001 came almost totally from the 1998 El Nino event.

  6. Cam says:

    And Grift is nowhere to be found.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *