Bobby,
It is always dangerous to feed a TROLL, but here goes. I looked through the thread and couldn’t find any specific prediction you’ve referenced that I could do some quick research.
So I googled “Global Warming Predictions and got this one with an attached conclusion:
30 years ago, James Hansen testified to Congress about the dangers of human-caused climate change. In his testimony, Hansen showed the results of his 1988 study using a climate model to project future global warming under three possible scenarios, ranging from ‘business as usual’ heavy pollution in his Scenario A to ‘draconian emissions cuts’ in Scenario C, with a moderate Scenario B in between.
Changes in the human effects that influence Earth’s global energy imbalance (a.k.a. ‘anthropogenic radiative forcings’) have in reality been closest to Hansen’s Scenario B, but about 20–30% weaker thanks to the success of the Montreal Protocol in phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Hansen’s climate model projected that under Scenario B, global surface air temperatures would warm about 0.84°C between 1988 and 2017. But with a global energy imbalance 20–30% lower, it would have predicted a global surface warming closer to 0.6–0.7°C by this year.
The actual 1988–2017 temperature increase was about 0.6°C. Hansen’s 1988 global climate model was almost spot-on.
I did have a quick look at the math in the various scenarios and it supports the conclusion. That isn’t saying that the prediction is accurate, but the difference in CFCs would support the reduction from .84C to .6C
I found that in a quick search, so I researched Scenario B as that seems to be the one that Hansen specifically referenced in his subsequent writings the most. I found 3 “Opinion” writings that refuted the above findings, but provided NO support for the objection. Further I found 3 other refuting opinion/articles, but they referenced the wrong scenario, or had obvious analysis and/or reference errors (for example, one quoted increases in greenhouse gasses that were simply not supported by the data of a number of independent websites, or used Scenario A, when the growth in greenhouse gasses are aligned with Scenario B).
I then went to data driven websites to support or refute the conclusion as outlined below:
Temperature Rise -
Since you referenced the US, I looked for some other supportive data and found this specific to the US.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it’s-warming-everywhere
Seems to support the Scenario B prediction...
Here is another:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp
Seems to support the Scenario B prediction...
Greenhouse Gasses in the math of the prediction -
This is a simple explanation of the reason greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming.
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
Basic chemistry. Atmospheric Methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas:
Here is a graph of atmospheric methane plotted over time:
https://www.methanelevels.org
I think this is ONE prediction that has seemed to come true. I don’t know if James Hansen is a “One Worlder” or a “Warmer”, so technically not sure if this satisfies your challenge or not.
If you have any specific predictions, I’m happy to look into them.
Kind regards,
Ronny