4 ms·

Do you happen to have sources for the seventies stories? Maybe even in New York times?

jessriedel 9y ago
(Thanks for just asking for sources rather than immediately attacking the intensions of the grandparent.) So a couple of Google searches show that there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of online lists of failed predictions of climate change maintained by climate change skeptics. For instance: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-e... From that list, I picked one story to track down: > On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press ran an article headlined: “UN Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map.” In the piece, the director of the UNEP’s New York office was quoted as claiming that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” He also predicted “coastal flooding and crop failures” that “would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” Worryingly, searching for this headline mostly returned more climate change skeptics websites. But this isn't totally unexpected since it dates to before internet adoption, and I was eventually able to find this archive photo from a local newspaper that appears to substantiate it. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/83413062/ https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/83413062/ Thats just sample size 1, though. Will see if I can find a NYTimes article. Edit: So a lot of these lists look like copypasta. Some are partial, but here is a pretty complete version: http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/1099963/121_failed_climate_predictions http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/109996... There are several mentions of the NY Times, and the two I checked were real (including at least one which was just a letter to the editor, and so not endorsed by the paper.) Note that these predictions are generally for global cooling. Many people says it's unfair to quote these claims because they did not represent the consensus position at the time (but this doesn't invalidate the grandparent's claim; he doesn't say NY Times). Anyhow, I would love to someone else take this further, but my initial impression is that the claim "there were a bunch of plausible sounding stories about coastal flooding in reputable newspapers" is probably true, but that this doesn't mean it reflected a consensus view back then. On the other hand, the current story also doesn't reflect a consensus view regarding any near- or medium-term claims.
- Gravityloss 9y ago
  Thanks for the legwork. Would need to see the actual content of the predictions. But at least from your quote, the actual effects are not supposed to happen by the year 2000. It's just that the amount of CO2 emitted by year 2000 has already committed us to a certain amount of climate change, that will just take a while to happen. Here's one article with some actual sources, looking at predictions from the year 1981. https://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-predictions-hansen-1981.html https://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-predictio...
  - jessriedel 9y ago
    > But at least from your quote, the actual effects are not supposed to happen by the year 2000. > It's just that the amount of CO2 emitted by year 2000 has already committed us to a certain amount of climate change, that will just take a while to happen. I agree visible effects by 2000 are not strictly implied by the quote, but it's a bit strained to say it's not suggested. Carbon stays in the atmosphere for a long time, but, unless I'm mistaken, the earth thermalizes to the temperature associated with a steady carbon level (inducing a corresponding sea level rise) fairly quickly. (Original commenter said 2000s.) My understanding is that most of the worrying "inertia" for warming, where the damage appear later, comes from either more complicated climate mechanisms (beyond just sea level rise from melting ice) and the slowness of changing the energy sector.
    - Gravityloss 9y ago
      This was about sea level rise. Glacier melting takes decades. There are potential very nonlinear effects with that too, so at some point, much later, sea level rise can be very fast, and it's too late to do much by then anymore. This is a very rough sketch and going by memory so best to check for yourself: on Antarctica, there are certain "gatekeeper" glaciers in valleys between the sea and large lowlands with multikilometer thick ice. If the gatekeeper glacier is lost, then the sea will flow into the big basin, and the large area will melt rapidly / float away as ice bergs etc. Eric Rignot has some interesting presentations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3ivlofypzE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3ivlofypzE

(Thanks for just asking for sources rather than immediately attacking the intensions of the grandparent.) So a couple of Google searches show that there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of online lists of failed predictions of climate change maintained by climate change skeptics. For instance: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-e... From that list, I picked one story to track down: > On June 30, 1989, the Associated Press ran an article headlined: “UN Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map.” In the piece, the director of the UNEP’s New York office was quoted as claiming that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” He also predicted “coastal flooding and crop failures” that “would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos.” Worryingly, searching for this headline mostly returned more climate change skeptics websites. But this isn't totally unexpected since it dates to before internet adoption, and I was eventually able to find this archive photo from a local newspaper that appears to substantiate it. https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/83413062/ https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/83413062/ Thats just sample size 1, though. Will see if I can find a NYTimes article. Edit: So a lot of these lists look like copypasta. Some are partial, but here is a pretty complete version: http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/1099963/121_failed_climate_predictions http://forum.weatherzone.com.au/ubbthreads.php/topics/109996... There are several mentions of the NY Times, and the two I checked were real (including at least one which was just a letter to the editor, and so not endorsed by the paper.) Note that these predictions are generally for global cooling. Many people says it's unfair to quote these claims because they did not represent the consensus position at the time (but this doesn't invalidate the grandparent's claim; he doesn't say NY Times). Anyhow, I would love to someone else take this further, but my initial impression is that the claim "there were a bunch of plausible sounding stories about coastal flooding in reputable newspapers" is probably true, but that this doesn't mean it reflected a consensus view back then. On the other hand, the current story also doesn't reflect a consensus view regarding any near- or medium-term claims.

Gravityloss 9y ago
Thanks for the legwork. Would need to see the actual content of the predictions. But at least from your quote, the actual effects are not supposed to happen by the year 2000. It's just that the amount of CO2 emitted by year 2000 has already committed us to a certain amount of climate change, that will just take a while to happen. Here's one article with some actual sources, looking at predictions from the year 1981. https://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-predictions-hansen-1981.html https://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-predictio...
- jessriedel 9y ago
  > But at least from your quote, the actual effects are not supposed to happen by the year 2000. > It's just that the amount of CO2 emitted by year 2000 has already committed us to a certain amount of climate change, that will just take a while to happen. I agree visible effects by 2000 are not strictly implied by the quote, but it's a bit strained to say it's not suggested. Carbon stays in the atmosphere for a long time, but, unless I'm mistaken, the earth thermalizes to the temperature associated with a steady carbon level (inducing a corresponding sea level rise) fairly quickly. (Original commenter said 2000s.) My understanding is that most of the worrying "inertia" for warming, where the damage appear later, comes from either more complicated climate mechanisms (beyond just sea level rise from melting ice) and the slowness of changing the energy sector.
  - Gravityloss 9y ago
    This was about sea level rise. Glacier melting takes decades. There are potential very nonlinear effects with that too, so at some point, much later, sea level rise can be very fast, and it's too late to do much by then anymore. This is a very rough sketch and going by memory so best to check for yourself: on Antarctica, there are certain "gatekeeper" glaciers in valleys between the sea and large lowlands with multikilometer thick ice. If the gatekeeper glacier is lost, then the sea will flow into the big basin, and the large area will melt rapidly / float away as ice bergs etc. Eric Rignot has some interesting presentations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3ivlofypzE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3ivlofypzE