Once the 2014, 2015 and 2016 data are also included, the above graph shows the scientific truth: the models are very much in line with what we observe. Climate scientists, using current science, are successful in predicting temperatures.
Heartland’s “Six Reasons To Be A Climate-Change Skeptic” Are Six Demonstrable Falsehoods
Ethan Siegel
51941

If you look at the graph included it is extremely deceptive.

1) Although the peak in 2016 looks like it is hitting somewhere closer to the middle of the predictions in fact 2016 was the peak of an El Niño and since the summer of 2016 the temperatures have fallen back almost to the flat line represented in the black line from 1998 or so. In other words we are still in a haitus and we are at the bottom of the estimates.

2) If you draw a plot through the average of the black line almost anybody can eye that the recent surge is also obviously way off the norm. A linear fit shows clearly that the black line data is at the very bottom of the predictions.

It’s important to note that they update the models every 7 years. They have reduced several times the growth that they first anticipated and as you can see they still need to reduce the growth because they are still way off, but James Hansen originally predicted that from 1998 to 2018 we would see between 2–5C change. As you can see from the graph we have gotten maybe 0.5C or 1/10th what they originally predicted.

They are always way way way above what the actual temperatures are. They can’t reduce their graphs any more because then there will be virtually no temperature increase by 2100. So, they are stuck in a hard place. They want to show at least 1.5C by 2100 from 1800 but even with fabricated land data they can’t get close. So, they can’t reduce the predictions anymore.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.