7 ms·

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 June 29, 1989 UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U

by Zecar 8y ago

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 June 29, 1989 UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ 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.

throwaway5752 8y ago
What is the problem with that article? We failed to stop global warming, and now it's likely that - regardless of what is done, even cutting to zero net carbon emissions - that the Maldives will be lost in the century.
- Zecar 8y ago
  The problem is that there have been alarmist articles like this posted for nearly a hundred years proclaiming gloom for days that are now in the past.
  - kaybe 8y ago
    And they did not have the science and data to support them, now we do. Let's just hope we are being a bit too alarmist and it gets us to change our behaviour fast enough and not too late. We'd rather be wrong on this, you know.
    - Zecar 8y ago
      > And they did not have the science and data to support them, now we do. We know more than we knew then. We don't (and can't) know the outcome with current climate science. It's currently impossible for us to model the complex system that is Earth's climate with ranges into the decades. We can't even model weather a month out. Claiming climate science is settled is incredibly disingenuous and it bothers me that more scientists don't step up and say "hey here's what we think might happen but it's impossible to say for sure". > We'd rather be wrong on this, you know. Oh I definitely believe you on that, it's just that taking away rights from people to accomplish climate goals is not a zero-sum game and it needs to be treated with care and caution, not alarmism.
      - kaybe 8y ago
        A lot of care was taken in the wording of the last IPCC report to communicate what findings have which level of confidence. The range is from 'virtually certain' to unsure, and yes, some parts are indeed not settled yet, but the main findings are more than sufficient to tell humanity that we need to act now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report#Climate_change_2013:_report_overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report#C... > Oh I definitely believe you on that, it's just that taking away rights from people to accomplish climate goals is not a zero-sum game and it needs to be treated with care and caution, not alarmism. That is for the politicians to work out. The load must be balanced of course, but if we don't act fast everyone will suffer for it. Calm and fast would be best though. edit: Oh and the recent report about the ozone hole had some good news: The ozone hole is closing and the gases that were not emitted due to the controls also saved us from ~0.4°C of warming. (If the 'business-as-usual' projections are right, but there is no way to check that.) Plus, these greenhouse gas concentrations go down over time. Much easier than CO2 and methane, but a first win!
        Zecar 8y ago
        > A lot of care was taken in the wording of the last IPCC report to communicate what findings have which level of confidence. The level of confidence is near zero, and if the IPCC was being honest and unbiased that is what they would say. As I said previously upthread, anybody who claims they can model our climate with any level of accuracy on the order of decades is being completely disingenuous. We can't model weather even a month out. The history of global warming alarmism has nearly a hundred-year long trail of missed predictions. But they have it right this time, right?
        kaybe 8y ago
        Nobody claims accuracy on the timescale of such a high resolution. Aditionally, we don't know about future emissions and land-use changes, and feedback effects, so we cannot predict the exact future. Please check the wikipedia page for what is actually claimed.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Half of the anthropogenic CO2 has been emitted in the last 25 years, and emissions continue to accelerate. We can pretend it isn't happening, we can ridicule older predictions for not being precise to the day or year, or we can acknowledge that study after study increases the weight of evidence. Evidence that makes abundantly clear we should have started doing something decades ago. Even the oil companies had their own internal predictions of severe climate change back in the 70s and 80s. Prediction is always going to be an imprecise science, but that does not invalidate it in the slightest. Edit: The prediction you highlight still looks sound. "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". We didn't reverse the trend by 2000 and it still seems inevitable that the Maldives are on borrowed time. http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/history_legacy/keeling_curve_lessons http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/history_legacy/keeling_curve_less... https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
  - Arnt 8y ago
    When you put it like that, it sounds as if you mean that these articles are incorrect. Do you actually mean that? The one quoted by GP seems to be largely right: We didn't reverse by 2000, and various island states are beyond hope now. Even if the CO₂ emissions drop to zero tomorrow, the present amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere will drive the sea level too high for the Maldives and a few more states. If you want to buy real estate there, you should plan on recovering your investment quickly.
  - polotics 8y ago
    Not true. Please cite.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
yongjik 8y ago
In 1989: > 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 ... In 2018 [1]: > If the rate of ocean rise continues to change at this pace, sea level will rise 26 inches (65 centimeters) by 2100 — enough to cause significant problems for coastal cities ... So this is an example of mankind having a pretty reasonable estimate of impending disasters back in freaking 1989, and doing nothing, and thirty years later still blaming scientists because the predicted disaster, unfolding as we see now, did not yet hit (some of) us personally... right? [1] https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level...

by Zecar 8y ago

throwaway5752 8y ago

What is the problem with that article? We failed to stop global warming, and now it's likely that - regardless of what is done, even cutting to zero net carbon emissions - that the Maldives will be lost in the century.

Zecar 8y ago
The problem is that there have been alarmist articles like this posted for nearly a hundred years proclaiming gloom for days that are now in the past.
- kaybe 8y ago
  And they did not have the science and data to support them, now we do. Let's just hope we are being a bit too alarmist and it gets us to change our behaviour fast enough and not too late. We'd rather be wrong on this, you know.
  - Zecar 8y ago
    > And they did not have the science and data to support them, now we do. We know more than we knew then. We don't (and can't) know the outcome with current climate science. It's currently impossible for us to model the complex system that is Earth's climate with ranges into the decades. We can't even model weather a month out. Claiming climate science is settled is incredibly disingenuous and it bothers me that more scientists don't step up and say "hey here's what we think might happen but it's impossible to say for sure". > We'd rather be wrong on this, you know. Oh I definitely believe you on that, it's just that taking away rights from people to accomplish climate goals is not a zero-sum game and it needs to be treated with care and caution, not alarmism.
    - kaybe 8y ago
      A lot of care was taken in the wording of the last IPCC report to communicate what findings have which level of confidence. The range is from 'virtually certain' to unsure, and yes, some parts are indeed not settled yet, but the main findings are more than sufficient to tell humanity that we need to act now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report#Climate_change_2013:_report_overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report#C... > Oh I definitely believe you on that, it's just that taking away rights from people to accomplish climate goals is not a zero-sum game and it needs to be treated with care and caution, not alarmism. That is for the politicians to work out. The load must be balanced of course, but if we don't act fast everyone will suffer for it. Calm and fast would be best though. edit: Oh and the recent report about the ozone hole had some good news: The ozone hole is closing and the gases that were not emitted due to the controls also saved us from ~0.4°C of warming. (If the 'business-as-usual' projections are right, but there is no way to check that.) Plus, these greenhouse gas concentrations go down over time. Much easier than CO2 and methane, but a first win!
      - Zecar 8y ago
        > A lot of care was taken in the wording of the last IPCC report to communicate what findings have which level of confidence. The level of confidence is near zero, and if the IPCC was being honest and unbiased that is what they would say. As I said previously upthread, anybody who claims they can model our climate with any level of accuracy on the order of decades is being completely disingenuous. We can't model weather even a month out. The history of global warming alarmism has nearly a hundred-year long trail of missed predictions. But they have it right this time, right?
        kaybe 8y ago
        Nobody claims accuracy on the timescale of such a high resolution. Aditionally, we don't know about future emissions and land-use changes, and feedback effects, so we cannot predict the exact future. Please check the wikipedia page for what is actually claimed.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Half of the anthropogenic CO2 has been emitted in the last 25 years, and emissions continue to accelerate. We can pretend it isn't happening, we can ridicule older predictions for not being precise to the day or year, or we can acknowledge that study after study increases the weight of evidence. Evidence that makes abundantly clear we should have started doing something decades ago. Even the oil companies had their own internal predictions of severe climate change back in the 70s and 80s. Prediction is always going to be an imprecise science, but that does not invalidate it in the slightest. Edit: The prediction you highlight still looks sound. "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". We didn't reverse the trend by 2000 and it still seems inevitable that the Maldives are on borrowed time. http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/history_legacy/keeling_curve_lessons http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/history_legacy/keeling_curve_less... https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
- Arnt 8y ago
  When you put it like that, it sounds as if you mean that these articles are incorrect. Do you actually mean that? The one quoted by GP seems to be largely right: We didn't reverse by 2000, and various island states are beyond hope now. Even if the CO₂ emissions drop to zero tomorrow, the present amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere will drive the sea level too high for the Maldives and a few more states. If you want to buy real estate there, you should plan on recovering your investment quickly.
- polotics 8y ago
  Not true. Please cite.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

yongjik 8y ago

In 1989: > 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 ... In 2018 [1]: > If the rate of ocean rise continues to change at this pace, sea level will rise 26 inches (65 centimeters) by 2100 — enough to cause significant problems for coastal cities ... So this is an example of mankind having a pretty reasonable estimate of impending disasters back in freaking 1989, and doing nothing, and thirty years later still blaming scientists because the predicted disaster, unfolding as we see now, did not yet hit (some of) us personally... right? [1] https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level...