We better get our act together by the year 2000 or we’re done.
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
Anybody Want to Guess the Prediction from UN Global Warming Alarmists from 30 Years Ago?
- Thread starter big_country90
- Start date
Cmon, BC they have a plus or minus allowance of 5,000,000,000 years. Give them some slack please.
Seriously man, why do you think it is -50 in Minnesota.
Seriously man, why do you think it is -50 in Minnesota.
VERY IMPORTANT THANKS FOR POINTING IT OUT.
On the climate change frontline: the disappearing fishing villages of Bangladesh
A row of mangrove trees sticking out of the sand, exposed by low tide off Kutubdia island in the Bay of Bengal, is all that remains of a coastal village that for generations was home to 250 families. The villagers were forced to flee as their land, which had been slowly eroding for decades, was finally engulfed by the ever-rising tide five years ago.
For the embattled people of Ali Akbar Dial, a collection of disappearing villages on the southern tip of the island in Bangladesh, the distant trees serve as a bittersweet reminder of what they have lost and a warning of what is come. The low-lying island of Kutubdia has one of the fastest-ever sea level rises recorded in the world, placing it bang on the front line of climate change, and the islanders are fighting a battle they fear is already lost.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-...line-disappearing-fishing-villages-bangladesh
Interesting. I've mentioned here before I began reading about this topic in 1989, and have been told that is bullshit.
We are definitely seeing "eco-refugees". The Syrian Civil War was preceeded by a prolonged drought and rural migration to urban areas.
I've also posted here a video from the Department of Defense about urban dystopia fueled in part by eco-refugees.
Most importantly, from what blog did BC copy this link? Does he not want us to know his reading habits?
We are definitely seeing "eco-refugees". The Syrian Civil War was preceeded by a prolonged drought and rural migration to urban areas.
I've also posted here a video from the Department of Defense about urban dystopia fueled in part by eco-refugees.
Most importantly, from what blog did BC copy this link? Does he not want us to know his reading habits?
“Prolonged drought”== bombed out, dictator controlled, economically deprived, multi generation war torn nation
Every nation on planet earth is seeing the rural areas empty into the cities.
That's not an argument for Climate Change having an effect on Syria.
That's not an argument for Climate Change having an effect on Syria.
Maybe that's a good sign that I should move back to the country.
I will tell you what this man made global warming stuff is. It is all these high and mighty types and eggheads thinking man is more important than he is. That is what this is all about.
Correct. It is an argument for Syria...at least part of it, that is. Is it complex. But you cannot deny that eco-refugees exist, and you cannot deny that climate change is and is expected to be part of the problem....it's in here around :55.....there's also a mention of wealth-inequality.
Of course, the video highlights the worry we will kill more of ourselves off than climate change alone could. But it is part of the problem.
Sheep farming in Newfoundland is more appealing every day.
Yeah. And we all know drought never happened before man forced his evil carbon emissions into the air. I mean, there is absolutely no historical record of drought before the industrial revolution. None. It simply didn't exist . . .
You saying it was one of those articles found in the back of Playboy? I mean, they do have good articles.
hey....it's Science! I wonder if GK is researching for a response. He seems to be one of the bigger suckers for these articles but really all of these liberal puppets seem to happily have their strings pulled.
My neighbor across the street is all pissed off about Trumps tweet asking for Global Warming in the midwest. Not only is the like a religious cult thing to them, they don't have a sense of humor.
She is out there scraping frost of her windshield. Maybe she ought to turn on the Global Warmingdefroster.
She is out there scraping frost of her windshield. Maybe she ought to turn on the Global Warmingdefroster.
This will be an exercise in fultility but here goes...
Tell me you guys didn’t find a single outlier from a single individual among the overwhelming amount information available on the topic and actually believe you have validated your ideologically tainted belief system. I know you all are having fun reveling in your own little echo chamber of like minded individuals, but Jesus...dig in a little before you start you spike the ball 50 yards from the goal line.
There have been a ton of research, models, and predictions done since the 1970s and 1980s with amazing accuracy. Let s review a few...
Sawyer (1973)
John Sawyer published a prediction in 1973 in Nature magazine...
https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/Sawyer_Nature_1972.pdf
...where he predicted that the world would warm .6C between 1969 and 2000 and that atmospheric carbon would increase 25%.
The results...the temperature estimate was nearly spot on with global temperatures averaging between .51c and .56c. His estimate of atmospheric carbon of between 375 ppm to 400 ppm just missed the actual rate of 371 ppm. It’s probably important to mention that present levels of atmospheric carbon exceed the high end of his prediction of 400 ppm.
Broecker (1975)
The first prediction of global temperature was published In Science...
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1ab9/f065db3edea3e870ef63f76bbf5d8b1ae83c.pdf
...by Columbia University prof Wally Broecker. His prediction of a rapidly warming climate after 1975 was nearly spot on up to the year 2000 predicting atmospheric carbon of 373 ppm vs 375 actual. His prediction for 2016 was slightly off with a prediction of 424 ppm with an actual of 404 ppm. More recent models take into effect the lag between increase carbon and climate warming. But using the information available at the time, the prediction is nearly spot on for 25 years and only slightly off since 2000.
Hansen et al, 1981
Dr. James Hansen of NASA published a paper in 1981...
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf
In this paper, Hansen and his colleagues used a simple energy balance to make several predictions on climate warming. Their predictions both a slow growth and fast track model to create a range of temperatures. The overall rate predicted by Hansen using the fast-growth model actually fell 20% below observed rates.
Hansen et al, 1981
Hansen and his colleagues at the NASA Goddard Institute published this paper...
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf
In this study, Hansen made three different predictions (A,B,C) using varying amounts of greenhouse gases in addition to CO2 and the use of cloud dynamics. His model to observed is documented here...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
...and is pretty accurate.
Now for the granddaddy of scientific projection...the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...a comprehensive study using peer reviewed published literature forming a composite of scientific thought and study available at the time.
IPCC First Assessment Report 1990
The IPCC Reports are the most comprehensive reports on GW and are considered the benchmark of Climate Change studies. In the 1990 study, a prediction of increase from 1970 to 2016 was 1 degree C. The actual observed was .85 C, making the prediction slightly higher.
IPCC Second Assessment, 1995
The second report only used available studies from 1990 forward. Their mid range scenario (most likely) predicted carbon concentration in 2016 (404 ppm) almost identical to what was observed.
IPCC Third Assessment, 2001
The third assessment relied on atmosphere/ocean circulation models from 7 different modeling groups.
The composite projected a 2016 atmospheric CO2 concentration of 406 ppm, nearly the same as what was observed. Four different future emission scenarios were used from 2000 onward, with models prior to the year 2000 using estimated historical forcings. The rate of warming between 1970 and 2016 in the THird Assessment Report was about 14% lower than what has actually been observed.
IPCC Fourth Assessment, 2007
The fourth assessment used study projections with improved atmospheric dynamics, making use of Earth System Models (incorporated biogeochemistry of carbon cycles). Through 2016, “CO2 concentrations are nearly identical to those of the A2 scenario). AR4 projections between 1970 and 2016 show warming quite close to observations, only 8% higher.”
IPCC Fifth Report, 2013
In this report, information was gathered using modeling groups all around the world, running dozens of climate models using the same set of inputs and scenarios. Global surface air temperatures in the models have warmed, ..”about 16% faster than observations since 1970. About 40% of this difference is due to air temperatures over the ocean warming faster than sea surface temperatures in the models; blended model fields only show warming 9% faster than observations.”
Conclusion:
While you guys make hay with a single outlier, the evidence above shows that through countless studies and comprehensive gathering of the best data available, not only are scientist pretty close to their predictions, in many cases they underestimate or observe results that exceed their conservative estimates. Using one person’s predictions to indict the entire field of study in some sketchy and laughable cherry picked scenario might fool those who are gullible to the misinformation that is tweeted out daily by our president, but to any informed rational way of thinking it’s a shallow attempt to argue a point.
Tell me you guys didn’t find a single outlier from a single individual among the overwhelming amount information available on the topic and actually believe you have validated your ideologically tainted belief system. I know you all are having fun reveling in your own little echo chamber of like minded individuals, but Jesus...dig in a little before you start you spike the ball 50 yards from the goal line.
There have been a ton of research, models, and predictions done since the 1970s and 1980s with amazing accuracy. Let s review a few...
Sawyer (1973)
John Sawyer published a prediction in 1973 in Nature magazine...
https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~eps5/writing_assignment/CLIMATE_BKGD/Sawyer_Nature_1972.pdf
...where he predicted that the world would warm .6C between 1969 and 2000 and that atmospheric carbon would increase 25%.
The results...the temperature estimate was nearly spot on with global temperatures averaging between .51c and .56c. His estimate of atmospheric carbon of between 375 ppm to 400 ppm just missed the actual rate of 371 ppm. It’s probably important to mention that present levels of atmospheric carbon exceed the high end of his prediction of 400 ppm.
Broecker (1975)
The first prediction of global temperature was published In Science...
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1ab9/f065db3edea3e870ef63f76bbf5d8b1ae83c.pdf
...by Columbia University prof Wally Broecker. His prediction of a rapidly warming climate after 1975 was nearly spot on up to the year 2000 predicting atmospheric carbon of 373 ppm vs 375 actual. His prediction for 2016 was slightly off with a prediction of 424 ppm with an actual of 404 ppm. More recent models take into effect the lag between increase carbon and climate warming. But using the information available at the time, the prediction is nearly spot on for 25 years and only slightly off since 2000.
Hansen et al, 1981
Dr. James Hansen of NASA published a paper in 1981...
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf
In this paper, Hansen and his colleagues used a simple energy balance to make several predictions on climate warming. Their predictions both a slow growth and fast track model to create a range of temperatures. The overall rate predicted by Hansen using the fast-growth model actually fell 20% below observed rates.
Hansen et al, 1981
Hansen and his colleagues at the NASA Goddard Institute published this paper...
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf
In this study, Hansen made three different predictions (A,B,C) using varying amounts of greenhouse gases in addition to CO2 and the use of cloud dynamics. His model to observed is documented here...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
...and is pretty accurate.
Now for the granddaddy of scientific projection...the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...a comprehensive study using peer reviewed published literature forming a composite of scientific thought and study available at the time.
IPCC First Assessment Report 1990
The IPCC Reports are the most comprehensive reports on GW and are considered the benchmark of Climate Change studies. In the 1990 study, a prediction of increase from 1970 to 2016 was 1 degree C. The actual observed was .85 C, making the prediction slightly higher.
IPCC Second Assessment, 1995
The second report only used available studies from 1990 forward. Their mid range scenario (most likely) predicted carbon concentration in 2016 (404 ppm) almost identical to what was observed.
IPCC Third Assessment, 2001
The third assessment relied on atmosphere/ocean circulation models from 7 different modeling groups.
The composite projected a 2016 atmospheric CO2 concentration of 406 ppm, nearly the same as what was observed. Four different future emission scenarios were used from 2000 onward, with models prior to the year 2000 using estimated historical forcings. The rate of warming between 1970 and 2016 in the THird Assessment Report was about 14% lower than what has actually been observed.
IPCC Fourth Assessment, 2007
The fourth assessment used study projections with improved atmospheric dynamics, making use of Earth System Models (incorporated biogeochemistry of carbon cycles). Through 2016, “CO2 concentrations are nearly identical to those of the A2 scenario). AR4 projections between 1970 and 2016 show warming quite close to observations, only 8% higher.”
IPCC Fifth Report, 2013
In this report, information was gathered using modeling groups all around the world, running dozens of climate models using the same set of inputs and scenarios. Global surface air temperatures in the models have warmed, ..”about 16% faster than observations since 1970. About 40% of this difference is due to air temperatures over the ocean warming faster than sea surface temperatures in the models; blended model fields only show warming 9% faster than observations.”
Conclusion:
While you guys make hay with a single outlier, the evidence above shows that through countless studies and comprehensive gathering of the best data available, not only are scientist pretty close to their predictions, in many cases they underestimate or observe results that exceed their conservative estimates. Using one person’s predictions to indict the entire field of study in some sketchy and laughable cherry picked scenario might fool those who are gullible to the misinformation that is tweeted out daily by our president, but to any informed rational way of thinking it’s a shallow attempt to argue a point.
U.S. Midwest Freezes, Australia Burns: This Is the Age of Weather Extremes
Numbing cold hit parts of the United States as wildfires raged in Australia’s record-breaking heat. Here's the climate change connection.
Numbing cold hit parts of the United States as wildfires raged in Australia’s record-breaking heat. Here's the climate change connection.
Well, that is the way it is presented. The moving goal post.
It was called global warming. Now they like climate change.
It is true what they say. I have seen it. People put the posts about the frozen Al Gore and then here come the lectures about how Climate Change(formerly know as Global Warming) can cause the polar vortex. YOu know they do it. My tree hugger neighbor has already given the lecture.
Is it really your position that this was the sole source spouting this nonsense? Really? You think the article linked in the OP was an "outlier" of what was being preached 20-30 years ago? Because if so, you are lying to yourself.
If someone could read the signs of the times, then Jesus would know when the end of time happens. He doesn't know.
What you understand regarding the Bible would fit in a thimble and have room left over.
So this is how you’re going to play it...on one hand you ask if I really believe this guy is an outlier, and when I prove it by (purposely) posting a truckload of studies that overwhelm the notion that this guy represents conventional thought among climate scientist you call me verbose. Lol. Well done.
I’ve got this presidential tweet thing all figured out now. The limit of characters doesn’t allow him to exceed the attention span of his base.
The term “climate change” has been used for decades...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm
I got the main part down and I didn't have to drive to Columbus looking for answers.
I’m looking at next week’s forcast. Mid 60s four straight days...in February. Yeah man, that Global Warming must be true.
If you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em I say.
If you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em I say.
So. Again. It's your position that this is the only study spouting shit like that? Just want to be clear.
I'm not going to spend a ton of time in this, because I don't really care, but here's a few Google results showing this is not an "outlier" like you claim.
http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nation...cs-being-proven-wrong-over-and-over-again/amp
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...ge/climate-alarm-failed-prognostications/amp/
Point being, I'm not a climate change denier, but to act like a large number of climate scientists weren't making absurd predictions 20-30 years ago is revisionist history and does nothing to help your cause. You'd be better off admitting a majority got it wrong, but that the better studies - like the ones you posted, showing slight changes over a greater period of time - were the "outliers," but decidedly more accurate.
http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nation...cs-being-proven-wrong-over-and-over-again/amp
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...ge/climate-alarm-failed-prognostications/amp/
Point being, I'm not a climate change denier, but to act like a large number of climate scientists weren't making absurd predictions 20-30 years ago is revisionist history and does nothing to help your cause. You'd be better off admitting a majority got it wrong, but that the better studies - like the ones you posted, showing slight changes over a greater period of time - were the "outliers," but decidedly more accurate.
Last edited:
I’ve IPCC studies were a composite finding of the published peer reviewed work up to that time. It generated data that represented the work of large segments of the climate studies at the time. They were all (the IPCC studies) in line with was actually observed. What is absurd is to believe the single outlier is representive of the body of work by our climate scientist. It is not.
But let’s examine your sources starting with the AEI article. I won’t mention the fact that AEI has a media bias of strong right leanings with a rating of mixed factual reportings. A quick wiki search shows AEI, as of 2015, had received $960,000 in donations from Exxon Mobil. I also believe it’s fair to show also that former ExxonMobil CEO Lee R Raymond is VIce-Chairman of AEI’s board of trustees.
This is what source watch has to say about AEI...
“February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that AEI was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI asked for "articles that emphasise the shortcomings" of the IPCC report, which "is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science." AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green made the $10,000 offer "to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere," in a letter describing the IPCC as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent."[14]
The Guardian reported further that AEI "has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees," added The Guardian.[14]
Since the time of that report, AEI has continued to receive money from Exxon Mobil — a total of at least $1,520,000.[15]
AEI and the head of its energy studies department, Benjamin Zycher, have faced criticism for distorting scientific findings on global warming from Jeffrey Sachs, a leading environmental studies scholar, Columbia University professor, economist, and UN advisor. Zycher had once criticized Sachs for misconstruing the IPCC conclusions on global warming; however, Sachs responded, "It is Zycher who distorts, misrepresents, or simply ignores the IPCC conclusions."[16]
Sachs went on to write:
"It is time for Zycher and, indeed, the American Enterprise Institute, to come clean. The AEI, despite its roster of distinguished academics, has failed to be constructive in the climate debate. It's time that the AEI puts forward a strategy to achieve the globally agreed objective of avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."[16]
I’ll look at the other articles later.
