4 ms·

I've been bombarded with this shit all my life. https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 > June

I've been bombarded with this shit all my life. https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0 > June 30, 1989 Articles in a similar vain are trotted out constantly, they just change the timespan and a few details. See recent example from FT: https://biggerpicture.ft.com/global-risks/video/global-sea-level-rise-what-it-means-you-and-your-business/ https://biggerpicture.ft.com/global-risks/video/global-sea-l...

eesmith 7y ago
As far as I can tell, the information from the 1989 AP article is correct. I believe we are well past the point where anthropomorphic climate change is stoppable. All we can do is reduce the impact. It's clear from the article's text that the statement was not that the predicted problems would occur by 2000, since "UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990" would give an absurdly short timeline. It says "The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown." Conveniently, that was 30 years ago. I went to https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ . In 1989 the temperature anomaly was about +0.25°C. It's currently +0.82°C. A change of 0.57°C is just over 1°F. As predicted by the most conservative estimate. I have been unable to find the report. The only people who talk about that newspaper article appear to be climate change denialists, who don't link to the actual report, and misread the article to believe that there's a prediction of a 3 foot sea rise by 2000. The late 1980s is when the majority of scientists - and associated people like Isaac Asimov, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfB7Hzb7G2Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfB7Hzb7G2Q - were convinced of the evidence of global warming and its potential problems. That built upon earlier work. Eg, "In 1982, Exxon's environmental affairs office circulated an internal report to Exxon's management which said that the consequences of climate change could be catastrophic, and that a significant reduction in fossil fuel consumption would be necessary to curtail future climate change. It also said that "there is concern among some scientific groups that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy#Early_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont...
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  so by some dextrous fiddling with measurement scales (I believe the UN measure temperature in Celsius, but as the article doesn't mention a measure, I'll grant that they might have been talking fahrenheit), it literally only just squeaks past the absolute lowest boundary of the most conservative estimate. There's no way you can claim that this is vindication of that prediction.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    Point taken, and valid. However, 1) that's literally the only prediction in the paper that has a short time-frame, which is also well in-line with general consensus both then and now, and 2) my point was not to vindicate the prediction but to point out that it's not a good example of 'shit bombardment' as Bantros stated. Without knowing the original article context, it's really hard to know what the exact prediction is. It seems clear from looking around that most people who reference the article are global-denialists as I haven't found anyone verify that the newspaper reporter was accurate in the report. So, I looked for the report. I believe it's "The State of the World Environment 1989 - UNEP/GC.15/7/Add.2" dated April 1989 at https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/28295/TSE89.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/28295/... . The prediction on p23./paragraph 68 is: > Even then, estimates of temperature increase vary widely—from 0.7°C to 9.6°C. Recent studies agree, however, that doubling the carbon dioxide concentration from the pre-industrial level of 270 ppmv will probably increase global mean temperature by 1.5°C to 4.5°C (47, 48, 49)—but most likely by 2°C. +0.82°C is larger than 0.7°C, so well within that predicted range - certainly on the low-end, but not enough to be rejected as "shit" given how the report explicitly states the uncertainty. The 1 degree could have been 0.82°C rounded (up) to the nearest degree, or 1.476°F rounded (down) to the nearest degree. I don't see an estimate of when, but figure 5 shows an estimate of 3°C rise by 2050, of which about 0.8°C come from CFC - CFCs weren't yet banned at that time. Which means Brown's prediction in the news article likely included a CFC component that didn't happen.
    - Bantros 7y ago
      The "shit bombardment" is the actual media coverage which has only gotten more and extreme over the past 30 years. Thanks for the link to the original paper, I've never seen it myself either

eesmith 7y ago

As far as I can tell, the information from the 1989 AP article is correct. I believe we are well past the point where anthropomorphic climate change is stoppable. All we can do is reduce the impact. It's clear from the article's text that the statement was not that the predicted problems would occur by 2000, since "UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990" would give an absurdly short timeline. It says "The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown." Conveniently, that was 30 years ago. I went to https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ . In 1989 the temperature anomaly was about +0.25°C. It's currently +0.82°C. A change of 0.57°C is just over 1°F. As predicted by the most conservative estimate. I have been unable to find the report. The only people who talk about that newspaper article appear to be climate change denialists, who don't link to the actual report, and misread the article to believe that there's a prediction of a 3 foot sea rise by 2000. The late 1980s is when the majority of scientists - and associated people like Isaac Asimov, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfB7Hzb7G2Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfB7Hzb7G2Q - were convinced of the evidence of global warming and its potential problems. That built upon earlier work. Eg, "In 1982, Exxon's environmental affairs office circulated an internal report to Exxon's management which said that the consequences of climate change could be catastrophic, and that a significant reduction in fossil fuel consumption would be necessary to curtail future climate change. It also said that "there is concern among some scientific groups that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy#Early_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_cont...

marcus_holmes 7y ago
so by some dextrous fiddling with measurement scales (I believe the UN measure temperature in Celsius, but as the article doesn't mention a measure, I'll grant that they might have been talking fahrenheit), it literally only just squeaks past the absolute lowest boundary of the most conservative estimate. There's no way you can claim that this is vindication of that prediction.
- eesmith 7y ago
  Point taken, and valid. However, 1) that's literally the only prediction in the paper that has a short time-frame, which is also well in-line with general consensus both then and now, and 2) my point was not to vindicate the prediction but to point out that it's not a good example of 'shit bombardment' as Bantros stated. Without knowing the original article context, it's really hard to know what the exact prediction is. It seems clear from looking around that most people who reference the article are global-denialists as I haven't found anyone verify that the newspaper reporter was accurate in the report. So, I looked for the report. I believe it's "The State of the World Environment 1989 - UNEP/GC.15/7/Add.2" dated April 1989 at https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/28295/TSE89.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/28295/... . The prediction on p23./paragraph 68 is: > Even then, estimates of temperature increase vary widely—from 0.7°C to 9.6°C. Recent studies agree, however, that doubling the carbon dioxide concentration from the pre-industrial level of 270 ppmv will probably increase global mean temperature by 1.5°C to 4.5°C (47, 48, 49)—but most likely by 2°C. +0.82°C is larger than 0.7°C, so well within that predicted range - certainly on the low-end, but not enough to be rejected as "shit" given how the report explicitly states the uncertainty. The 1 degree could have been 0.82°C rounded (up) to the nearest degree, or 1.476°F rounded (down) to the nearest degree. I don't see an estimate of when, but figure 5 shows an estimate of 3°C rise by 2050, of which about 0.8°C come from CFC - CFCs weren't yet banned at that time. Which means Brown's prediction in the news article likely included a CFC component that didn't happen.
  - Bantros 7y ago
    The "shit bombardment" is the actual media coverage which has only gotten more and extreme over the past 30 years. Thanks for the link to the original paper, I've never seen it myself either