Nature study: ‘Retrospective prediction’ shows the ocean ate the global warming lost during 2000-2010

Warmism just gets funnier and funnier.

“The ability to predict retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models, but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions.”

Read more at Nature Climate.

11 thoughts on “Nature study: ‘Retrospective prediction’ shows the ocean ate the global warming lost during 2000-2010”

  1. When you can only match predictions retrospectively it is called a prophesy, not a prediction.

  2. It’s been demonstrated by Pelkie Sr that it’s possible. Pretty much it’s ocean currents, or just a more-or-less constant feed to the deep ocean. Just because heat is moving doesn’t mean temperature changes. In fact, steady-state movement between effectively infinite heat sources and sinks means that all interim steps are at constant temperature.

    This is one of those counter-intuitive concepts that separates the chemists from the chemical engineers.

  3. I wonder how heat could have gotten to the depths below the 600 meters to which the buoys measure it without passing through the upper 600 meters. Should the passing heat not leave some sort of trail as it heads downward?

    I am unwilling to spend even $32 to read the article. So if someone has free access and will publish an answer, I sure would like to know how that works.

  4. The phrase “predict retrospectively” could only be used with a straight face by someone who totally lacks an understanding of causality.

  5. Interestingly, I have found that I can predict retrospectively the climate, the weather, even the football results, over the past 17 years or more, and with 100% accuracy..

    Does this make me a climate scientist, or just a guy who can use a computer and read?

    These guys are real clever at this, not so good at predicting climate temperatures even a few months into the future.

    I also retrospectively predicted the attack on Pearl Harbour, to the minute.

  6. Pure observation of anyone that has lived on the ocean or near it fully understands the huge heat sink it provides . . it keeps the freezing down in most locations . . off California it keeps areas like San Diego and Santa Barbara cool even in summer. Observation, looking back while attempting to project those two information sources into the future is in my opinion a gross waste of time and money.

    If Science can not agree on the phenomena that effect climate then all is like using the wedgie board to predict the future.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.