7 ms·

Not really. The delta in how data is collected in August and December is much smaller than 1980 to 2020. So such determinations aren’t as straightforward as you

Not really. The delta in how data is collected in August and December is much smaller than 1980 to 2020. So such determinations aren’t as straightforward as you imply. Not to mention none of the catastrophic climate consequences predicted in 1980 came to pass, but somehow we are supposed to be so much more certain about the prognosticators of today.

viraptor 7y ago
Which predicted catastrophes? The only one I remember is the ozone layer issue which we stopped with regulation and still pay the price (although it's getting better)
- chrisco255 7y ago
  You ever see the movie Waterworld? Some people actually believe that to be a possibility.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    I'd take some convincing that anyone actually thinks a terrible movie that had a thousand metres, or whatever it was, of sea level rise is a real possibility. We're "only" looking at a rise under 100m even if we lose both ice caps. Which would take centuries to fully melt... Would still end up being catastrophic for the society we built.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    Yeah, but we ignore those people when taking about real world. There's a difference between "believed in a catastrophic movie" and predictions based on real information.
  - ori_b 7y ago
    You ever see the Reptilian conspiracy theories? Some people actually believe that to be a possibility. Do you have any evidence that a significant portion of people working in the field in the 1980s thought that Waterworld was realistic, or are you just pointing at some cranks that existed, and treating it as evidence of anything other than the existence of cranks?
    - masonic 7y ago
      Most reptiles are land-based. Evil dolphin overlords, perhaps?
dragonwriter 7y ago
> Not to mention none of the catastrophic climate consequences predicted in 1980 came to pass Yes, AGW which was observed and predicted to get worse in 1980 and even earlier has come to pass largely as predicted. The catastrophic effects of ozome depletion didn't occur because of massive steps to counteract it, like banning CFCs. So that can't be what you are talking about. You are probably trying to reference the fringe theory of an impending ice age which got a lot of popular media attention despite being (or perhaps precisely because it was) a fringe theory, but... that's a broken analogy for obvious reasons.
btilly 7y ago
The "catastrophic climate consequences predicted in 1980" is pure propaganda. Even as far back as 1970, climate predictions in papers were overwhelmingly for warming, not cooling. And those which predicted cooling were focused on the effects of smog. However smog has largely disappeared thanks to environmental regulations enforced by organizations such as the EPA, and with it its localized cooling effects. By 1980, predictions of cooling were essentially gone from the scientific literature. However every last report that can be found of someone predicting cooling in any context (eg nuclear winter) gets press along with the message that those darned scientists were wrong again. The fact that they were always a minority view doesn't.
kbutler 7y ago
The charitable interpretation would be the catastrophic predictions in the "1980s", such as around the time AGW became widely publicized with Hansen's papers and testimony and UN efforts. https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 "[Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program]...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...governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control...The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years," June 29, 1989 There is a big difference between 1 degree in 30 years (slightly above what has been observed, mostly beneficial) and 7 degrees in 30 years (catastrophe). Note that the "10-year window" (and often shorter times) has been repeatedly invoked and repeatedly blown past throughout the 30 years. As Douglas Adams says — 'I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by.' This has come from scientists (Peter Wadhams Arctic ice free by 2016), UN IPCC (Himalayan glaciers by 2035), political figures (Al Gore 10 years/12 years, Ocasio-Cortez 12-years), and celebrities (Prince Charles!? 96-months). James Hansen speculated (1988/1989) that "West Side Highway...will be underwater" - about 20 foot sea level rise, but sea level rise has remained constant at about a foot per century. Also droughts (have to ask for water), increased crime, and boarded up windows because of wind speed. Note that this was reported as "in 20 years" - so 2009 - by Salon https://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/ https://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/ reporting the 1988/1989 interview, but after this article was highlighted by skeptics, Hansen corrected the numbers saying it was for 40 years and with a doubling of CO2 (which would be really fast and outside the bounds of even the extreme scenarios) - http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_Singing... Hansen also predicted (1988) strengthening hurricanes (no trend observed, despite warming, media attention, and increased observation) https://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/07/us/ferocious-storms-and-drought-seen.html https://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/07/us/ferocious-storms-and-d... Both sides tend to exaggerate their positions and ignore contrary evidence. Both skeptics and advocates tend to focus on "Scenario A" - the extreme, unrealistic worst-case scenario - rather than the more realistic moderate emissions, moderate warming scenarios. I wish both AGW proponents and skeptics would call out inaccuracies - even from "their own side". For instance, the IPCC's "Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035" was initially defended and widely publicized before being forced to be acknowledged as an error years later https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-him... The exaggerated sea-level rise predictions in the Salon article above stood uncorrected for years until it was called out by skeptics, then Hansen clarified the "40 years and doubled CO2".

viraptor 7y ago

Which predicted catastrophes? The only one I remember is the ozone layer issue which we stopped with regulation and still pay the price (although it's getting better)

chrisco255 7y ago
You ever see the movie Waterworld? Some people actually believe that to be a possibility.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  I'd take some convincing that anyone actually thinks a terrible movie that had a thousand metres, or whatever it was, of sea level rise is a real possibility. We're "only" looking at a rise under 100m even if we lose both ice caps. Which would take centuries to fully melt... Would still end up being catastrophic for the society we built.
- viraptor 7y ago
  Yeah, but we ignore those people when taking about real world. There's a difference between "believed in a catastrophic movie" and predictions based on real information.
- ori_b 7y ago
  You ever see the Reptilian conspiracy theories? Some people actually believe that to be a possibility. Do you have any evidence that a significant portion of people working in the field in the 1980s thought that Waterworld was realistic, or are you just pointing at some cranks that existed, and treating it as evidence of anything other than the existence of cranks?
  - masonic 7y ago
    Most reptiles are land-based. Evil dolphin overlords, perhaps?

dragonwriter 7y ago

> Not to mention none of the catastrophic climate consequences predicted in 1980 came to pass Yes, AGW which was observed and predicted to get worse in 1980 and even earlier has come to pass largely as predicted. The catastrophic effects of ozome depletion didn't occur because of massive steps to counteract it, like banning CFCs. So that can't be what you are talking about. You are probably trying to reference the fringe theory of an impending ice age which got a lot of popular media attention despite being (or perhaps precisely because it was) a fringe theory, but... that's a broken analogy for obvious reasons.

btilly 7y ago

The "catastrophic climate consequences predicted in 1980" is pure propaganda. Even as far back as 1970, climate predictions in papers were overwhelmingly for warming, not cooling. And those which predicted cooling were focused on the effects of smog. However smog has largely disappeared thanks to environmental regulations enforced by organizations such as the EPA, and with it its localized cooling effects. By 1980, predictions of cooling were essentially gone from the scientific literature. However every last report that can be found of someone predicting cooling in any context (eg nuclear winter) gets press along with the message that those darned scientists were wrong again. The fact that they were always a minority view doesn't.

kbutler 7y ago

The charitable interpretation would be the catastrophic predictions in the "1980s", such as around the time AGW became widely publicized with Hansen's papers and testimony and UN efforts. https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 "[Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program]...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...governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control...The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years," June 29, 1989 There is a big difference between 1 degree in 30 years (slightly above what has been observed, mostly beneficial) and 7 degrees in 30 years (catastrophe). Note that the "10-year window" (and often shorter times) has been repeatedly invoked and repeatedly blown past throughout the 30 years. As Douglas Adams says — 'I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by.' This has come from scientists (Peter Wadhams Arctic ice free by 2016), UN IPCC (Himalayan glaciers by 2035), political figures (Al Gore 10 years/12 years, Ocasio-Cortez 12-years), and celebrities (Prince Charles!? 96-months). James Hansen speculated (1988/1989) that "West Side Highway...will be underwater" - about 20 foot sea level rise, but sea level rise has remained constant at about a foot per century. Also droughts (have to ask for water), increased crime, and boarded up windows because of wind speed. Note that this was reported as "in 20 years" - so 2009 - by Salon https://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/ https://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/ reporting the 1988/1989 interview, but after this article was highlighted by skeptics, Hansen corrected the numbers saying it was for 40 years and with a doubling of CO2 (which would be really fast and outside the bounds of even the extreme scenarios) - http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_SingingInTheRain.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_Singing... Hansen also predicted (1988) strengthening hurricanes (no trend observed, despite warming, media attention, and increased observation) https://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/07/us/ferocious-storms-and-drought-seen.html https://www.nytimes.com/1988/12/07/us/ferocious-storms-and-d... Both sides tend to exaggerate their positions and ignore contrary evidence. Both skeptics and advocates tend to focus on "Scenario A" - the extreme, unrealistic worst-case scenario - rather than the more realistic moderate emissions, moderate warming scenarios. I wish both AGW proponents and skeptics would call out inaccuracies - even from "their own side". For instance, the IPCC's "Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035" was initially defended and widely publicized before being forced to be acknowledged as an error years later https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-him... The exaggerated sea-level rise predictions in the Salon article above stood uncorrected for years until it was called out by skeptics, then Hansen clarified the "40 years and doubled CO2".