U.N. Predicts Disaster If Global Warming Not Checked (1989)(web.archive.org)
web.archive.org
U.N. Predicts Disaster If Global Warming Not Checked (1989)
https://web.archive.org/web/20201101032435/https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
79 comments
Carl Sagan testifying in Congress, 1985: https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI
> …we are all in this greenhouse together.
Wow…this was stated so eloquently, frankly and scientifically when I was 4 years old…in front of the (largely) MEN that could have started the global movement of adjusting our course…
I’m going to say it here:
Humanity has a man problem.
9(9.9?)% of serial killers, dictators, war criminals, robber barons and generally people in power have one thing in common, they are human males.
It is obvious that humanity has been mismanaged by men. For various reasons, they’ve rationalized their way out of taking the necessary action to bring humanity together, under one banner.
What are our options at this point?
Wow…this was stated so eloquently, frankly and scientifically when I was 4 years old…in front of the (largely) MEN that could have started the global movement of adjusting our course…
I’m going to say it here:
Humanity has a man problem.
9(9.9?)% of serial killers, dictators, war criminals, robber barons and generally people in power have one thing in common, they are human males.
It is obvious that humanity has been mismanaged by men. For various reasons, they’ve rationalized their way out of taking the necessary action to bring humanity together, under one banner.
What are our options at this point?
A lot of people seem to have interpreted the article as saying that by 2000 entire nations would be wiped off the face of earth.
Let's read it again.
“A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels _if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000._ ”
2000 is the limit for _reversing the trend_ !
Not doing that could mean that entire nations etc. at some unspecified time.
“ He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. ”
Is it clear what it says?
“As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, ” ... at some point in time.
“Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply” at some point in time!
“[...] Refugees [...] coast [...] crops” at some point in time...
“The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.
The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago”. Others pointed out that he's using Fahrenheit. Just check the numbers.
“Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, _we have an opportunity to start _the stabilizing process.”
“He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.
″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion”. Nothing too controversial here I think, as well as in the rest of the article.
What's left is the disconsolation of seeing "climate skeptics" even in a place like Hacker News.
I guess that whatever comes we deserved it.
Let's read it again.
“A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels _if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000._ ”
2000 is the limit for _reversing the trend_ !
Not doing that could mean that entire nations etc. at some unspecified time.
“ He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. ”
Is it clear what it says?
“As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, ” ... at some point in time.
“Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply” at some point in time!
“[...] Refugees [...] coast [...] crops” at some point in time...
“The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.
The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago”. Others pointed out that he's using Fahrenheit. Just check the numbers.
“Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, _we have an opportunity to start _the stabilizing process.”
“He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.
″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion”. Nothing too controversial here I think, as well as in the rest of the article.
What's left is the disconsolation of seeing "climate skeptics" even in a place like Hacker News.
I guess that whatever comes we deserved it.
Yeah, I thought it was pretty obvious that the article wasn’t claiming we’d be in the middle of armageddon by 2000. I agree that it’s a little unexpected to see several (4 out of 7) replies are from climate skeptics.
That being said, the top two comments are this one and the one with a link to a Carl Sagan video, so I’m inclined to think that the majority of people here acknowledge that climate change is a real thing but aren’t interested in wading into an argument with strangers on the internet on this particular topic.
That being said, the top two comments are this one and the one with a link to a Carl Sagan video, so I’m inclined to think that the majority of people here acknowledge that climate change is a real thing but aren’t interested in wading into an argument with strangers on the internet on this particular topic.
[deleted]
Sad to see all these comments pop up with all kinds of gotchas and disingenuous talking points. On HN of all places. It's not even the denial, but the low quality of it.
That's society. It is powerful to have all these different opinions. Of course some of them are low-quality but others are terrific. You are only sad because you disagree with the opinions.
Like many things in life there is probably a middle-ground where most of the truth sits. Climate doomers who you see post a lot in HN argue that we need to cut consumption back dramatically and humanity will soon perish if we do not. I actually don't see too many extreme climate deniers here but I am sure they exist. Extreme in the sense they would deny humans have any impact on the environment. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Like many things in life there is probably a middle-ground where most of the truth sits. Climate doomers who you see post a lot in HN argue that we need to cut consumption back dramatically and humanity will soon perish if we do not. I actually don't see too many extreme climate deniers here but I am sure they exist. Extreme in the sense they would deny humans have any impact on the environment. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
The truth tends to be in the middle of the scientific estimates
In my experience its very common on HN. Sadly these talking points represent such a large amount of memes that are so entrenched that its akin to talking to flat Earthers or sovereign citizens.
The Gish gallop is never ending and due its being a strongly politically-identity coupled you can't hardly convince anybody. there isn't a chance of fruitful debate :/
The Gish gallop is never ending and due its being a strongly politically-identity coupled you can't hardly convince anybody. there isn't a chance of fruitful debate :/
It is very disturbing indeed
Daily reminder that https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_da... happened, and was supposedly "investigated" by a commission (chaired by someone with clear conflict of interest) which found no issues whatsoever; basically snuffed.
I suggest you read those damned emails yourself if you want to reach an informed position.
I suggest you read those damned emails yourself if you want to reach an informed position.
[deleted]
Daily reminder that:
https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
What's next? Urban heat islands? Cosmic Rays? Heat from the Earths core?
The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light.
The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming.
https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
What's next? Urban heat islands? Cosmic Rays? Heat from the Earths core?
Can you read my last sentence? Instead of letting "fact checkers" do the thinking for you, make some effort to actually think for yourself.
By the way, being skeptical of climate change doesn't mean being against measures to reduce pollution (which is the only sensible position).
By the way, being skeptical of climate change doesn't mean being against measures to reduce pollution (which is the only sensible position).
> Can you read my last sentence?
How stereotypically French of you .. try to be less cartoonishly condescending, particularly as you seem the type to so readily fall for the Lord Monckton school of bullshit and misdirection.
The links are for others, I've read more than just the cherry picked emails framed in a mountain from a molehill campaign of smoke, noise and no substance.
For my part I've been an exploration geophysicist doing multispectral global mapping for energy and mineral resource companies since the 1980s after completing degrees in maths and physics, writing earth mapping and computation software, building and field deploying a variety of aquisition and processing instrumentation.
AGW is clearly established fact, the physics is sound, measurements of decades backs up everything claimed in recent years, paloeclimatology is sound.
How stereotypically French of you .. try to be less cartoonishly condescending, particularly as you seem the type to so readily fall for the Lord Monckton school of bullshit and misdirection.
The links are for others, I've read more than just the cherry picked emails framed in a mountain from a molehill campaign of smoke, noise and no substance.
For my part I've been an exploration geophysicist doing multispectral global mapping for energy and mineral resource companies since the 1980s after completing degrees in maths and physics, writing earth mapping and computation software, building and field deploying a variety of aquisition and processing instrumentation.
AGW is clearly established fact, the physics is sound, measurements of decades backs up everything claimed in recent years, paloeclimatology is sound.
> Instead of letting "fact checkers" do the thinking for you, make some effort to actually think for yourself.
Have you tried doing that yourself? Or are you only willing to believe the interpretations you want to believe?
And yes, "interpretations" is valid — imagine talking about "killing child with fork" to someone who knows nothing about computers, what they would think, how they would react. Would sound a lot like the pizzagate conspiracy theory, wouldn't it? And yet, the reality of those words in the context of Unix is nothing remotely close to that.
Have you tried doing that yourself? Or are you only willing to believe the interpretations you want to believe?
And yes, "interpretations" is valid — imagine talking about "killing child with fork" to someone who knows nothing about computers, what they would think, how they would react. Would sound a lot like the pizzagate conspiracy theory, wouldn't it? And yet, the reality of those words in the context of Unix is nothing remotely close to that.
Who would be daft enough to publicly mock people for something he's guilty of? Yes I did, and while my conclusion is not "climate change is fake!!1!", I did find fuel for mistrust in those mails.
Classic case of researchers knowing what they have to find before even starting, possibly with some economic and/or ideological (which means emotional, for most) incentives.
Mind you, it's not a big shock to me, as I did my studies in a university with bigshot researchers around, and they never struck me as significantly wiser (as in "not fooling yourself") than average; more intelligent, sure.
Mind you, it's not a big shock to me, as I did my studies in a university with bigshot researchers around, and they never struck me as significantly wiser (as in "not fooling yourself") than average; more intelligent, sure.
> Who would be daft enough to publicly mock people for something he's guilty of?
Apart from most of the human species? :P
Apart from most of the human species? :P
Guess I'm a bit naïve. Rhetorically, it'd be strange for someone to make such a bold lie then freely admit it, though.
am i dreaming or you are pushing old conspiracies on HN???
https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.h...
https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.h...
>By 2000
Kinda makes you wonder why people don’t take global warming seriously…
Kinda makes you wonder why people don’t take global warming seriously…
This is what makes climate change a bigger problem - when the models are right and people take action it looks like a waste of time because the issues don't arise because they're mitigated (similar to Y2K really), and when the models are 20, or 30, or 50 years off, or flat out wrong, that means governments can ignore them with impunity. The only time climate science looks right is when the model is correct and no one takes action.
The result of this is that where there's a feedback loop that happens over decades or centuries (eg almost all environmental science) governments won't act when the problem is small, so humanity is setting itself up for a much bigger problem in the future. I'm in my late 40s and I don't have kids, so I'm not really sure I care, but if you do have kids and you don't want them to be drafted into wars over habitable land or have to live the second half of their lives on Mars, it might be worthwhile taking the climate seriously.
We don't really have a big problem to solve for ourselves. We have a problem to solve for future generations.
This is what makes climate change a bigger problem - when the models are right and people take action it looks like a waste of time because the issues don't arise because they're mitigated (similar to Y2K really), and when the models are 20, or 30, or 50 years off, or flat out wrong, that means governments can ignore them with impunity. The only time climate science looks right is when the model is correct and no one takes action.
The result of this is that where there's a feedback loop that happens over decades or centuries (eg almost all environmental science) governments won't act when the problem is small, so humanity is setting itself up for a much bigger problem in the future. I'm in my late 40s and I don't have kids, so I'm not really sure I care, but if you do have kids and you don't want them to be drafted into wars over habitable land or have to live the second half of their lives on Mars, it might be worthwhile taking the climate seriously.
We don't really have a big problem to solve for ourselves. We have a problem to solve for future generations.
> We don't really have a big problem to solve for ourselves.
Well, actually we do, because climate change has accelerated to the point that we are threatened too. The 2022 heatwaves in Europe, for example, surpassed the height of the COVID pandemic in excess deaths [1], last year France and Switzerland had serious issues with power as their NPPs didn't have enough cooling water, and wildfires are growing stronger, more frequent and more devastating every year.
And that doesn't even take into account invisible threats like thawing permafrost in Russia releasing pathogens that have laid dormant for tens of thousands of years [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_European_heatwaves
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/0...
Well, actually we do, because climate change has accelerated to the point that we are threatened too. The 2022 heatwaves in Europe, for example, surpassed the height of the COVID pandemic in excess deaths [1], last year France and Switzerland had serious issues with power as their NPPs didn't have enough cooling water, and wildfires are growing stronger, more frequent and more devastating every year.
And that doesn't even take into account invisible threats like thawing permafrost in Russia releasing pathogens that have laid dormant for tens of thousands of years [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_European_heatwaves
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/0...
People seem unable to hold these separate thoughts in their head at the same time:
- none of the predictions regarding global warming became true
- this does not mean that human-induced warming isn't happening
- but this also doesn't mean prosperity-ending measures to curb co2 emissions are justified in every case
The climate deniers are probably wrong, but so are the climate doomers who have shown a lack of epistemic humility and a failure to weigh the pros and cons of potential interventions. At its worst, its a death cult, and thankfully it seems to be in decline.
None of the interventions in western countries has made any impact globally, they literally don't matter and are a rounding error when compared to China and India.
- none of the predictions regarding global warming became true
- this does not mean that human-induced warming isn't happening
- but this also doesn't mean prosperity-ending measures to curb co2 emissions are justified in every case
The climate deniers are probably wrong, but so are the climate doomers who have shown a lack of epistemic humility and a failure to weigh the pros and cons of potential interventions. At its worst, its a death cult, and thankfully it seems to be in decline.
None of the interventions in western countries has made any impact globally, they literally don't matter and are a rounding error when compared to China and India.
"they literally don't matter and are a rounding error when compared to China and India"
Is that your gut feeling, or do you have some numbers to back that up?
Also China is investing quite heavily in renewables and one can argue that they started doing so, because the demand (through subsidies in the beginning) for them exploded, so then the prices dropped, so further demand happened - so now there is an industry in china that spits them out by the masses. Btw. it is a really comfortable position to say "look at china", how much they consume - when they mainly produce OUR stuff we then consume. One has to look at the CO2 consumption per human - (see here for example: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions). How can we expect the low income world to lead with industry change, when we still consume way more per citizen, than they do?
Is that your gut feeling, or do you have some numbers to back that up?
Also China is investing quite heavily in renewables and one can argue that they started doing so, because the demand (through subsidies in the beginning) for them exploded, so then the prices dropped, so further demand happened - so now there is an industry in china that spits them out by the masses. Btw. it is a really comfortable position to say "look at china", how much they consume - when they mainly produce OUR stuff we then consume. One has to look at the CO2 consumption per human - (see here for example: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions). How can we expect the low income world to lead with industry change, when we still consume way more per citizen, than they do?
I'm all for leading by example, but if you accept the premise that climate change is an existential risk, how do you explain the actions of the German green party that insisted on shutting down the last remaining nuclear power plants, even as Nordstream was blown up?
The LNG that we currently consumes as a substitute for the Russian gas is emitting even more greenhouse gases than burning lignite btw, because the US shale gas extraction is extremely dirty [0].
You can not hold both positions at the same time: either climate change is existential, in which case we should do everything that we can to stop it, or shut down nuclear, stop using relatively clean Russian gas and instead increase emissions to new levels by burning coal and "dirty" gas.
This tells me there is more to it than the surface-level discussion, possibly a religious doomsday movement that purity-spiraled out of control.
[0] https://www.research.howarthlab.org/publications/Howarth_LNG...
The LNG that we currently consumes as a substitute for the Russian gas is emitting even more greenhouse gases than burning lignite btw, because the US shale gas extraction is extremely dirty [0].
You can not hold both positions at the same time: either climate change is existential, in which case we should do everything that we can to stop it, or shut down nuclear, stop using relatively clean Russian gas and instead increase emissions to new levels by burning coal and "dirty" gas.
This tells me there is more to it than the surface-level discussion, possibly a religious doomsday movement that purity-spiraled out of control.
[0] https://www.research.howarthlab.org/publications/Howarth_LNG...
"how do you explain the actions of the German green party that insisted on shutting down the last remaining nuclear power plants"
Politics and fear for radiation, Chernobyl, Fukoshima etc? The whole history of the green party with its roots in anti nuclear? I don't think political parties are the right metric when looking for rationality.
Politics and fear for radiation, Chernobyl, Fukoshima etc? The whole history of the green party with its roots in anti nuclear? I don't think political parties are the right metric when looking for rationality.
You will find that "rationality" as people today understand it is a treacherous path as well. One mistake (among others) is to assume that The Science is independent of political power structures, and can thus serve as an independent guiding star for what should be done, when the reality is that it is the other way around: science is used as a post-hoc justification for the things people wanted to do anyway. Climate change (note how it is not just "global warming" anymore) is just one example among many.
You mean people wanted to get rid of stinky coal and polluting noisy cars in the city and therefore invented climate change? If true, this would be my favourite conspiracy ever.
But actually, I rather believe the scientific consensus, which is not 100% made up by scientists hold in chains by evil corporations and governments, but rather contains a quite diverse bunch.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
But actually, I rather believe the scientific consensus, which is not 100% made up by scientists hold in chains by evil corporations and governments, but rather contains a quite diverse bunch.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
This has to be one of the laziest strawmen replies I ever got.
Well and your post was probably one of the longest for saying "climate change is a hoax". At least this is how it came across, or did you have any other message?
> None of the interventions in western countries has made any impact globally
The Montreal Protocol[1] is the first counterexample to this that comes to mind.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
The Montreal Protocol[1] is the first counterexample to this that comes to mind.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol
I'd like to add the phase-out of incandescent lightbulbs [0], which in Europe happened when I was younger and didn't care about much of anything, but even so I was always impressed by how a ban on something so widespread happened in a somewhat concerted effort without too much resistance in this part of the world. But then it really had almost only benefits for everyone. (Although I will say the warm light of the old bulbs is still unmatched by LEDs)
Did the reduction in fluorocarbons actually impact economies and everyday people in any significant way though? Because CO2 reduction has massive impacts on those, which is why unless all countries are simultaneously willing to incur significant costs on standards of living and economic prosperity, risk stunting developing countries' growth, etc, it simply isn't going to work.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_ligh...
Did the reduction in fluorocarbons actually impact economies and everyday people in any significant way though? Because CO2 reduction has massive impacts on those, which is why unless all countries are simultaneously willing to incur significant costs on standards of living and economic prosperity, risk stunting developing countries' growth, etc, it simply isn't going to work.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_ligh...
I’m pretty sure it did: CFCs are ridiculously good refrigerants, propellants, etc. Entire supply chains had to be re-rolled around replacements.
But the point wasn’t to argue that the scope of the Montreal Protocol is comparable to the scope of the Kyoto Protocol or other international CO2 reduction plans. It was solely to point out that Western countries have contributed meaningfully to global climate protections; shrugging everything off as China’s responsibility is neither sensible nor historically accurate.
But the point wasn’t to argue that the scope of the Montreal Protocol is comparable to the scope of the Kyoto Protocol or other international CO2 reduction plans. It was solely to point out that Western countries have contributed meaningfully to global climate protections; shrugging everything off as China’s responsibility is neither sensible nor historically accurate.
> But then it really had almost only benefits for everyone. (Although I will say the warm light of the old bulbs is still unmatched by LEDs)
How's your sleep? The blue coming out even the "warm" LEDs is firmly in the bioactive melatonin suppression regions of the spectrum.
How's your sleep? The blue coming out even the "warm" LEDs is firmly in the bioactive melatonin suppression regions of the spectrum.
Not a carbon things (in fact may have made that worse) but plastic bag minimum charge laws have had a tremendous impact on littering. The usual suspects were all against it at the time but there is no major support for reversing the laws now.
Yep, this is another good example (and agreed re: ultimate carbon impact).
You say that none of the interventions made any impact globally, and that is true, but only if you ignore all of the times that climate/ecological interventions through global agreements did work.
>None of the interventions in western countries has made any impact globally, they literally don't matter and are a rounding error when compared to China and India.
I think we knew all along. Those policies aren't meant to make an impact on climate change as much as they are meant to make a political, hopefully influential, push towards such policies.
It's one thing to ask China to do something we are not doing, it's a whole different thing to ask them to do something we are.
I think we knew all along. Those policies aren't meant to make an impact on climate change as much as they are meant to make a political, hopefully influential, push towards such policies.
It's one thing to ask China to do something we are not doing, it's a whole different thing to ask them to do something we are.
Some people were complaining about low quality climate denial comments, but this is a good example of high-effort climate denial you find on HN.
It's the equivalent of "intelligent Design" in evolution where they wrap an obviously wrong and totally discredited position like Creationism in sophistry to confuse matters.
It's the equivalent of "intelligent Design" in evolution where they wrap an obviously wrong and totally discredited position like Creationism in sophistry to confuse matters.
Yours is a good example of a low-effort climate absolutist comment that is trying to portray simple matters of fact as "obviously wrong and totally discredited position".
How can you claim some hypothesis is true if the predictions are wrong? At the very least the hypothesis should be adjusted to try and include why the predictions have failed.
I'm not saying there isn't evidence, but the details do matter. There is a massive difference if the hypothesized phenomena happens in 100 years instead of 10 years (which it seems has been the claim for decades). At the very least there seems to be no accountability for incorrect predictions, which ends up determining the politics of a country. This politicizes it even more as people feel forced to change too quickly in ways they do not see justified.
I'm not saying there isn't evidence, but the details do matter. There is a massive difference if the hypothesized phenomena happens in 100 years instead of 10 years (which it seems has been the claim for decades). At the very least there seems to be no accountability for incorrect predictions, which ends up determining the politics of a country. This politicizes it even more as people feel forced to change too quickly in ways they do not see justified.
Not to mention the fact such "interventions" almost universally condemn developing countries to economic irrelevance. It's easy to act all virtuous about the climate when you're an obscenely wealthy industrial country. I for one would burn down the entire Amazon jungle if it brought my nation the industrial strength needed to rival the developed world. I wouldn't even think twice.
> … prosperity-ending measures
More like capitalism-ending measures.
Capitalism is the culprit.
I need to imagine different models for making a living, models outside of profit-for-the-few.
Models focused on benefits-for-the-many.
More like capitalism-ending measures.
Capitalism is the culprit.
I need to imagine different models for making a living, models outside of profit-for-the-few.
Models focused on benefits-for-the-many.
reversed by 2000
It's the branding element of the environmental warnings that are funniest to me.
We had Leonard Nimoy warning us in the 1970s about about global cooling and a 'mini ice age'. That didn't materialise so we moved to 'global warming'. Then when that didn't seem to happen either, we moved to the generic 'climate change' - a term which is always true (and meaningless).
We had Leonard Nimoy warning us in the 1970s about about global cooling and a 'mini ice age'. That didn't materialise so we moved to 'global warming'. Then when that didn't seem to happen either, we moved to the generic 'climate change' - a term which is always true (and meaningless).
Global warming didn't seem to happen? Uhh.
"Climate change" is used to cover more bases because the effect is not only the warming itself. We learned that you get issues with sticky weather patterns too etc. While the avg yearly temperature of Earth rises, it can also cause effects like extreme cold that sticks in unusual areas.
"Climate change" is used to cover more bases because the effect is not only the warming itself. We learned that you get issues with sticky weather patterns too etc. While the avg yearly temperature of Earth rises, it can also cause effects like extreme cold that sticks in unusual areas.
> Global warming didn't seem to happen? Uhh.
Seriously, in your experience, has it changed? And, if so, how do you determine that?
For myself, I've noticed nothing special. Seasons change with some warmer than average some colder than average... But that's weather isn't it - it changeable. I really can't say anything seems that different from my youth. The seas are certainly the same height.
Seriously, in your experience, has it changed? And, if so, how do you determine that?
For myself, I've noticed nothing special. Seasons change with some warmer than average some colder than average... But that's weather isn't it - it changeable. I really can't say anything seems that different from my youth. The seas are certainly the same height.
Wow verisimi noticed nothing special everyone stop we've been wrong all along!
You are talking at COP27 right??
If you don't see anything wrong, but act as if something is wrong because someone told you, that leaves you very open to manipulation.
If co2 etc is the biggest disaster ever, shouldn't we be able to see something? Must we take the software models as truth? Do politicians always tell the truth?
If co2 etc is the biggest disaster ever, shouldn't we be able to see something? Must we take the software models as truth? Do politicians always tell the truth?
> That didn't materialise so we moved to 'global warming'. Then when that didn't seem to happen either, we moved to the generic 'climate change' - a term which is always true (and meaningless).
This is a bit silly and I feel like you should already know this. The very simple message is that the globe is warming and that this changes the climate. It's important to emphasise this last part because it's not the case that making the planet warming simply makes us all a bit toastier.
> We had Leonard Nimoy
An actor who played a scientist from space.
This is a bit silly and I feel like you should already know this. The very simple message is that the globe is warming and that this changes the climate. It's important to emphasise this last part because it's not the case that making the planet warming simply makes us all a bit toastier.
> We had Leonard Nimoy
An actor who played a scientist from space.
> Leonard Nimoy warning us in the 1970s
He was also warning us about Klingons off the starboard bow. I'd say that treating all famous people as equivalently knowledgable reflects poorly on you, but really it's much worse than that — it reflects poorly on the way most human minds work.
He was also warning us about Klingons off the starboard bow. I'd say that treating all famous people as equivalently knowledgable reflects poorly on you, but really it's much worse than that — it reflects poorly on the way most human minds work.
> The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.
The actual increase has been even less than 1 degree. How can one have the same trust in the same warnings now?
The actual increase has been even less than 1 degree. How can one have the same trust in the same warnings now?
It's very probable he was using Farenheit as his unit (given he's a lifelong US citizen) and given he's not a scientist of the physical or vaguely numerical type he's likely sloppy on his baseline and ranges.
None the less:
and:
So, not a STEM person and not a climate scientist.
None the less:
The 2022 surface temperature was 1.55 °F (0.86 °Celsius) warmer than the 20th-century average of 57.0 °F (13.9 °C) and 1.90 ˚F (1.06 ˚C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).
and:
Dr Noel Brown is the former Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, North American Regional office.
Dr Brown holds a B.A. in Political Science and Economics from Seattle University, an M.A. in International Law and Organization from Georgetown University and Ph. D. in International Relations from Yale University.
He also holds a diploma in International Law from The Hague Academy of International Law.
So, not a STEM person and not a climate scientist.
"not a STEM person and not a climate scientist. "
Are you saying that the head of the United Nations Environment Program was speaking out of ignorance? That seems a very weak defense....
Are you saying that the head of the United Nations Environment Program was speaking out of ignorance? That seems a very weak defense....
You can read what I wrote and you can read their biography.
Both myself and the references do indeed state that the director of the New York office of UNEP holds political and legal qualifications and no STEM qualifications.
Neither they nor myself claim that he is the Head of UNEP or speaks from ignorance.
It's clear, though, that in an AP article he uses non SI units and doesn't clarify expected ranges and probabilities.
Both myself and the references do indeed state that the director of the New York office of UNEP holds political and legal qualifications and no STEM qualifications.
Neither they nor myself claim that he is the Head of UNEP or speaks from ignorance.
It's clear, though, that in an AP article he uses non SI units and doesn't clarify expected ranges and probabilities.
That's not what the comment you're replying to is saying?
They're saying said person was probably using F as unit of measure, and everything else was explanatory text to explain why they thought that.
They're saying said person was probably using F as unit of measure, and everything else was explanatory text to explain why they thought that.
> The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago
Sounds like they're talking Fahrenheit, not Celsius.
The change has been about 1 F, which is 0.555 C: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Glob...
Ice core derived temperature graph: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperatur...
Sounds like they're talking Fahrenheit, not Celsius.
The change has been about 1 F, which is 0.555 C: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Glob...
Ice core derived temperature graph: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperatur...
>Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C (likely between 0.8°C and 1.2°C) above pre-industrial levels in 2017 . source: IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/
Annual records are
I reverse the question. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄?
Annual records are
2016 1.01°C
2020 1.02°C
I reverse the question. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄?
I read that as the warning was that the temperature would rise by 1 to 7 degrees during the next 30 years (i.e. 1989-2019), not since ~1850. It has definitely risen by >1 degree since ~1850, but most of that had already happened by 1989.
These scenarios are based on the "The Business-as-Usual" assumption that is not 100% valid. In IPCC 1990 business-as-usual scenario C02 emissions are roughly 45 Gt today, in reality, it's 37 Gt.
Probably the most important factor is that coal use has not increased to the levels predicted, because actions have been taken in the last decade or so.
Probably the most important factor is that coal use has not increased to the levels predicted, because actions have been taken in the last decade or so.
The report mentioned in TFA says 1.5 to 4.5 degrees celsius from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, which was projected for 2075.
We can have the same trust in the warnings because we can read and understand.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/70000A5V.PDF?Dockey=7000...
"Carbon cycle modelers and energy economists generally expect the concentration of C02 to increase 50 percent by 2050 and to double by 2075."
"All projections of future concentrations have been based on the assumption that current trends will continue and that governments will not regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. However, in the fall of 1987, most of the industrial nations agreed to cut emissions of the chlorofluorocarbons by 50 percent over the following decade. Moreover, the United Nations has created an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to develop strategies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in general. Nevertheless, curtailing emissions will be difficult. There is considerable doubt regarding the global warming that would result from a doubling of carbon dioxide. There is general agreement that the average temperature would rise 1.2°C if nothing else changed. However, warmer temperatures would allow the atmosphere to retain more water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas, increasing the warming. A retreat of ice cover would also amplify the warming, while possible changes in cloud cover could increase or decrease the warming. Two reports by the National Academy of Sciences have developed a consensus estimate that the average warming will be 1.5 to 4.5°C, and that the polar areas will warm two to three times as much."
We can have the same trust in the warnings because we can read and understand.
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/70000A5V.PDF?Dockey=7000...
"Carbon cycle modelers and energy economists generally expect the concentration of C02 to increase 50 percent by 2050 and to double by 2075."
"All projections of future concentrations have been based on the assumption that current trends will continue and that governments will not regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. However, in the fall of 1987, most of the industrial nations agreed to cut emissions of the chlorofluorocarbons by 50 percent over the following decade. Moreover, the United Nations has created an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to develop strategies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in general. Nevertheless, curtailing emissions will be difficult. There is considerable doubt regarding the global warming that would result from a doubling of carbon dioxide. There is general agreement that the average temperature would rise 1.2°C if nothing else changed. However, warmer temperatures would allow the atmosphere to retain more water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas, increasing the warming. A retreat of ice cover would also amplify the warming, while possible changes in cloud cover could increase or decrease the warming. Two reports by the National Academy of Sciences have developed a consensus estimate that the average warming will be 1.5 to 4.5°C, and that the polar areas will warm two to three times as much."
Is this your data source on that being less than 1? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
It looks like the trend is pretty obvious if not the magnitude.
It looks like the trend is pretty obvious if not the magnitude.
The trend is clear but the miss on the magnitude seems significant if it's the person making the prediction is asking for trust and billions of dollars.
It's not that absolutely no countermeasures were taken since 1985. Just take Chinas renewable boom alone. There's a few things that wouldn't have happened without that prediction.
Also don't misinterpret a range. It doesn't say "5-7 degrees", it says "1-7 degrees" covering a best-case and worst-case scenario. It's not less credible just because the worst case is so bad.
Also don't misinterpret a range. It doesn't say "5-7 degrees", it says "1-7 degrees" covering a best-case and worst-case scenario. It's not less credible just because the worst case is so bad.
It actually says that 1 to 7 degrees are the most conservative predictions:
> The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.
This at least implies (though doesn’t confirm) that the ‘worst-case scenarios’ from the less-conservative predictions were higher than 7 degrees in 30 years.
> The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.
This at least implies (though doesn’t confirm) that the ‘worst-case scenarios’ from the less-conservative predictions were higher than 7 degrees in 30 years.
Why would a higher temperature be the more optimistic estimate?
Here 'conservative' means the least extreme best case assumptions.
Here higher tempretures are the pessimistic worse case predictions.
Here higher tempretures are the pessimistic worse case predictions.
I don't think so. Conservative ethymologically means "preserve the current state". Hence the opposite would be pessimistic.
Another person mentioning that these are Farenheit units, makes it clear. There were publications in the 80s predicting much higher numbers and shorter timelines.
Another person mentioning that these are Farenheit units, makes it clear. There were publications in the 80s predicting much higher numbers and shorter timelines.
Tempreture rises higher than 7 F degrees were the pessimistic least conservative estimates of the time.
Lower tempreture rises were conservative estimates based on "preserving the current levels of CO2" emissions.
I am indeed one of the "another person"s that mentioned these are F units.
Lower tempreture rises were conservative estimates based on "preserving the current levels of CO2" emissions.
I am indeed one of the "another person"s that mentioned these are F units.
Nah, a more optimistic prediction would already be "-2 to 5" degrees.
"Conservative" in this context relates to the method, not the outcome. You're still ignoring the range-characteristic of the outcome and talk like it was "5-7" degrees.
"Conservative" in this context relates to the method, not the outcome. You're still ignoring the range-characteristic of the outcome and talk like it was "5-7" degrees.
I think to credit these guys you'd really have to ignore a lot of factors that were discovered decades later than this outburst, including many previously unknown natural phenomena that would have curbed their estimates had they been discovered prior. Especially in hindsight, it's alarmist.
Luckily we've finished understanding all the natural phenomena and processes that affect a planetary climate model so we should be good to go now.
Haha!
> There's a few things that wouldn't have happened without that prediction.
This is how I think most climate activists think, that even if they exagerate, it's all good, we just over prepare or over-correct.
This is how I think most climate activists think, that even if they exagerate, it's all good, we just over prepare or over-correct.
Where's the exaggeration? When a scientists says "1-7" and in the end it's 3, there was no exaggartion.
Also, it's not a way how "climate activists think". It's called "Preparedness paradox" [1] and has been well researched, e.g. with flood disasters and their countermeasures.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox
Also, it's not a way how "climate activists think". It's called "Preparedness paradox" [1] and has been well researched, e.g. with flood disasters and their countermeasures.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox
Right, not to mention that the magnitude is what has largely been used to put blame on one thing or another over the decades following.
I agree, I have very little trust in all those climate projections, even today. That being said the industrial rise of China and South-East Asia happened since, and I doubt those were baked into any prediction in 1989 (like I doubt any prediction for the evolution of the world for the next 30y will be worth anything). If you look at the evolution of co2 emissions over that period, those two regions represent the bulk of the increase, with western countries rather dropping. So you can argue that the world we are looking at now is definitely worst that the world they were contemplating then.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...
[deleted]