Based on what was being said here ten years ago, who was the most accurate?

According to NASA GISS the trend from 2010-2019 was +0.4C per decade. And that's even with starting at 2010, which was a record breaking year. 

So I suppose that means both predictions were wrong, with the denier prediction being a lot more wrong?

I think it's telling too that hardly any of those individuals still post here. I think JimZ is the only one from those days, though I don't remember him ever being among those that argued the "global cooling is coming" line very much anyway. 

The majority of scientists were accurate. We've already crossed the 2c above the 1750 baseline. Go to "Arctic News" by Sam Carana. IPCC is based on the slow process of the peer reviewed science. Without a frozen arctic ocean, we are done. Already the jet stream is broken, it's slowed down because there is not as much temperature difference between poles and equator. So storms are more extreme, and last longer.  The oceans are dying....the amazon is turning into savannah, our forests are dying. Animals are moving north in latitude, those that are not as specialized. The rate of change....50 years, is too much for species to adapt to. The warming will make the temperate zones....USA, and many places in Europe and China, uninhabitable....can't go food. The move is north. Putin wins. Sibera now, is being farmed, where he expects to make it a bread basket. The USA, whose soils have been depleted will not be able to grow grains, except maybe in the Dakotas. Canada, who has torn up their forests for Tar Sands...will have to grow grains on scale to feed the earth populations. People will be moving north in latitude because their lands are being made uninhabitable--drought, deserts, sealevel rise. But the soils of these northern forests take many years to build.. you can't just get away with tossing fossil fuel nitrogen fertilizers on what was a previously forested soil and expect to feed the world with the grains they are accustomed to having---per population. The warming is continuing and the positve and negative feedback loops of so many events: arctic ice loss, lack of reflectivity (albedo) in arctic, ecosystem breakdowns, species extinction and places that normally had snow cover on earth will continue to warm the earth. The oceans used to take up the heat, but they are dying as well and acidifying. And the shift in ice weight from melting ice on global scale, is causing a lot of vulcanism around the globe. The plankton in the oceans are dying as the oceans warm up, and plankton supply our oxygen. So....it's all playing out, horrifically as scientists predicted, actually even worse. We have aboutTen years--if that, maybe 20 years to do something while we have the means to do it (money and infrastructure), after a global breakdown, it's done. Unless we do something now: immediately stop burning fossil fuels, stop cutting forests, stop  monoculture agriculture, livestock, stop burning down the Amazon and rainforests, stop increasing population 8 billion now...deal with population, and change the way that we live, it's done. Stop creating poisons and treating the earth like a trash dump for toxins.  The scientists were right. The Indigenous peoples....have always been right. "What we do to the earth, we do to ourselves."

4 people posting here.  Except all 4 people are the same person.

darwinist + dirac + koshka + david = same person

Thanks Dirac; so not really a "math" problem at all then.  :-\

Interesting answer Koshka and thanks for the heads up about my answer to yours.  I've removed the link and, fingers crossed, it's back. Thanks for your climate modelling link too; I agree, well worth a look.

A quick word on trends; I should have been clearer in my question, it was the 30yr trendline that showed warming at around 0.2C/decade and the current 30yr one is similar.  It was that trend I had in mind; apologies as that wasn't very clear.  We don't want to make the same mistake as the "skeptics" did with their "pause" do we!  ;-)

Having said that, I agree, we have seen a lot of warming this decade.

Dirac, I remember Christopher Monckton's plots.  He was smart enough to pull them in good time (when it was clear that a strong El Nino was approaching in 2015 that would have made them unfit for purpose).  I wonder how long it will be before someone resurrects that idea, with 2015 as a start date, and "skeptics"  once again claim that the warming has stopped?

David, if I have understood him correctly, Jim's has always accepted that the greenhouse effect is real and that we are causing at least some of the warming.  Shame he's so political though ...

Good answers David Dirac and Koshka.  Thanks.  Daro, I'm curious as to your two simple math "problems".  Any chance of a re post?   Also, just what were you saying ten years ago and how well has it stood up?

Hmmm ... Daro's answer has disappeared.

Based on what was being said here? Wow. Seriously, I remember coming here for entertainment more than concern about global warming because of the plateau, oooh forgive me for I have sinned =) I never liked group-think. 

But to answer your question, I guess those that ''guested'' 0.2 C/decade (although guesses are not scientific) were more right. David's data is provided it did warm 0.4 C/decade. That's more than what people ''guessed''.I wanted to tell you your answer to my last question was ''ghosted'' I know because I can still see it on your profile's answers. I might repost. 

BTW, for fun, I left an interesting link about the history of climate models I'll post link in source, it's from 2010. It does not have to do with your question, but it's an interesting link I think everyone should look at. Climate science has come a long way.

@Daro, take your meds...you have to provide an answer, not a rant about other users!

xx

EDIT for Darwinist: Daro's "math" problem (as I remember it) goes something like this: Daro goes out and votes for Trump, the next morning he wakes up and hears that 100 percent of the votes went to Biden, what does that tell him? The question always struck me as entirely rhetorical and not really a math problem at all, so I mostly ignored it.  Ever since he has been claiming that ignoring his question says something about mathematical ability.

The evidence keeps piling up for warming, while the skeptic side is seeming less and less credible. Yahoo actually shows some old questions from 10 or more years ago and they sound similar to what we're hearing from deniers today--talking about some impending cooling that never happens. Some of the skeptic tactics are simply no longer tenable--Christopher Monckton used to make some plot "X days with no warming" or something like that, where he'd cleverly choose his endpoints to always make it seem like it's not getting any warmer.  That simply doesn't work anymore, as David's plot shows the warming has been quite rapid this decade.

You've actually seen an attrition in the denial side, also.  There used to a number of people on the skeptical side that were reasonably competent at science and logic that could ask salient questions, but they're all pretty much gone.  There is not much science left on the skeptic side these days.