I'm not sure I'm seeing the wrong predictions about wildfires; it looks to me as if there are two separate things going on.

1. Hotter drier summers make for more and worse wildfires in places like Yellowstone (where a big wildfire in 2012 was the context for that 2012 article). If human activity makes the climate warmer, these will be worse.

2. Increasing agriculture tends overall to lead to fewer fires, for complicated reasons that differ from one environment to another.

The climate is warming, but at the same time the population is growing and many parts of the world are getting richer and more "developed". So you get both #1 and #2 happening.

The IPCC in 2001, and Steven Running in 2012, weren't (so far as I can see) saying anything about #2. Quite possibly they never thought about the impact of increasing population and development on wildfires, which seems fair enough: that's not really their remit. I haven't seen anything to suggest that #2 is wrong. (The 2017 Science article mentioned by Science Daily reiterates that warming climate tends to increase fires; it just says that over the period they studied the effects of human activity have been larger and in the other direction.)

What's the problem here?

> an even more weird prediction

Again, I'm not sure what the problem is meant to be here. One scientist tried to model the effects of climate change on the length of the day. Some others did the same and also measured what the effect actually is. It seems like the first one got it wrong. Scientists in all fields get things wrong all the time. I don't see that we can conclude anything from this other than that oceanographers aren't all infallible, which is ... not a surprise.

> far larger swings in temperatures in history with no problems at all

Those are in prehistory, which is relevant because we don't have the records that would tell us whether there were "no problems at all".

The most recent of those "far larger swings" you identified is between ~20k years ago and now. That time 20k years ago was the so-called "Last Glacial Maximum", and at that point Canada was completely covered by an ice sheet, as was much of northern Europe; sea level was ~125m lower than now.

I am curious about what you consider "no problems at all".

> I actually don't know of any climate alarmist who claims we are going to warm the planet 14 celsius warmer

Sure. I used that figure because you were saying how fantastic everything was when the planet was 14 degrees C warmer. It may have been excellent in some sense, but I think it would be very bad for the human race if we returned to those conditions. I'm not saying we will (I doubt it), just disagreeing with your apparent opinion about what it would be like if we did.

> the graph I provided shows around 7 Celsius warmer at the 8.5% increase per year rate ... more like 0.85%

Sorry, which graph? I guess you mean the one on the Wikipedia page, which is mostly of (pre-)historical data, with IPCC projections for 2050 and 2100?

What is it that those projections assume an 8.5% increase of per year that's actually more like 0.85%? (I haven't found anything for which that's accurate, but I haven't looked very hard because presumably you can just tell me.)

> This should have already happened

Could you be more specific? What exactly did Gore say was going to happen by when, and where did he say it?

I'll be frank: I do not believe that Gore claimed that large fractions of Florida would be underwater by now, and suspect you have been lied to. But I could be wrong!

Here's the best match I can find for that claim. Gore said something (I can't find his exact wording; it seems to have been vague, perhaps deliberately) about a 20ft (~= 6m) rise in sea levels. If there were a rise that big, then the southern part of Florida would look a little like that picture (though I'm not convinced it's very accurate). But so far as I can tell he didn't put a timescale on it, and I bet he never said or implied that it would happen within 13 years.

Now, I'm pretty sure we won't in fact see a 6m sea-level rise this century, and depending on exactly what Gore said he may have been badly wrong. But not -- unless you have more detailed information to offer that says otherwise -- wrong in the specific way you say he was wrong.