5 ms·

You will find that predictions of climate change have been 100% false. Nobody has a crystal ball and nobody can predict what will happen in the future. So lets

You will find that predictions of climate change have been 100% false. Nobody has a crystal ball and nobody can predict what will happen in the future. So lets look into the past. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/m... About 20,000 years ago the earth was 10 celcius colder. For the last 20,000 years the earth has been warming pretty steadily. About 100,000 years ago the world was 5celcius warmer than today. If you look at the black/red dots from the IPCC predictions. All of those have already been disproven as false and not going to happen. Overall on the graph what's happening is that we are more or less exactly flat. However look at those spikes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:EPICA_delta_D_plot.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:EPICA_delta... Temperature on earth frequently rapidly spiked up in temperature. So what happened to life on earth when it was 5+ celcius warmer? It was fantastic for life. Frozen wastelands like Canada and Russia thawed and became extremely livable. People moved into these northern places. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene The Eocene 50 million years ago was 14celcius warmer and life thrived better than no other time in history.

gjm11 7y ago
> predictions of climate change have been 100% false That statement is itself 100% false, so far as I can tell. Here's one example. In 1982, some of Exxon's scientists wrote a memo for their management containing a graph (figure 3, page 7, of http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-management-about-co2-greenhouse-effect/ http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-ma...) saying that by 2020 CO2 levels would be in roughly the range 400..430 ppm and global mean temperature would be up by roughly 1..1.3 degrees C compared to 1960. Here we are in 2020 and the figures are about 410ppm and +0.9 degrees C. That matches up pretty well, wouldn't you say? > For the last 20,2000 years the earth has been warming pretty steadily What the graph you yourself linked to shows is something very different. There are wild oscillations in the Pleistocene (i.e., before 20k years ago), ending up with temperatures much colder than the present. Then a rapid increase from 20k to 10k years ago. Then near-flat temperatures for the last 10k years. And -- though it's over so short a period that it's hard to see on that graph -- an extremely rapid increase over the last ~50 years. > All of those have already been disproven as false and not going to happen How? By whom? > we are more or less exactly flat This https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ is not what I would call "more or less exactly flat". > look at those spikes ... frequently rapidly spiked up in temperature You're looking at a portion of the Pleistocene, also known as the last Ice Age. Glaciers came and went, and the Eemian "spike" is one of those periods in which the glaciers melted. So, yes, indeed, temperatures "spiked up" and we had a transition from a large fraction of the earth's land area being covered in ice to hardly any of it being. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be worried about climate change because the consequences might not be any more severe than those of the melting of an ice sheet covering the whole of Canada? > it was fantastic for life Pretty good for life overall, yes, and the climate change we're causing might be too. However, my own interests are parochial enough that I care much more what happens to our species and the others that we've grown to depend on, which is any entirely different question. For instance ... > The Eocene 50 million years ago was 14 celsius warmer and life thrived ... 50M years ago, sea levels were something like 100m higher than they are now. There's a handy tool at http://www.floodmap.net/ http://www.floodmap.net/ that lets you explore the consequences of a given increase in sea level (though it's a bit glitchy and it looks like maybe it doesn't have data for anything too far from the equator). At 100m, things we would lose include: about half of England and Ireland; all of the Netherlands; half of Belgium; most of western France; all of Senegal, the Gambia, and Guinea-Bissau; huge amounts of the eastern USA including more or less all of Florida, Louisiana, Delaware and Rhode Island. I'm sure life would thrive. The human race would adapt too, no doubt; we're a very adaptable species. But a whole lot of us would have our homes under water, and large regions of what's now the inhabitable world would become inhospitable to human life. E.g., a temperature rise of 14 degrees C turns San Francisco into Death Valley.
- sleepysysadmin 7y ago
  >That statement is itself 100% false, so far as I can tell. >the figures are about 410ppm and +0.9 degrees C. That matches up pretty well, wouldn't you say? I certainly concede that not literally 100% of the predictions will be wrong. In fact I bet I could go predicting and we'll be within similar error margins. My assertion was more to do with consequence predictions. Sorry for being unclear. In 2001 the IPCC predicted that wildfires would be out of control because of climate change. In that the increased temperatures would make the summers dryer and make the fires worse. Which is a really bad prediction to start with because smokey the bear is dead because the actual movement to prevent forest fires resulted in the current situation where we have too many trees. Which the IPCC in 2001 did know about fire ecology. They were creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. In 2012 they reiterated this flawed prediction: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120703/climate-change-scientist-ipcc-wildfires-global-warming-drought-pine-beetles-west-forests https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120703/climate-change-s... Except they are wrong: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170629175502.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170629175502.h... Fires declined 24% in their prediction period. Not only did they cheat in their predictions, they were still wrong. How about an even more wierd prediction: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11555-global-warming-will-make-earth-spin-faster/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11555-global-warming-... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/dec/11/climate-change-longer-days-glaciers-north-south-pole https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/dec/11/climate-chan... Only a few years apart. The climate scientists are predicting days will get longer and shorter at the same time because of climate change. Except in the last 50 years the earth rotation has sped up and slowed down. These are patently false. >This https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ is not what I would call "more or less exactly flat". The most common thing climate scientists like to do is show only the last 150 years. I provided much much better information showing far larger swings in temperatures in history with no problems at all. >You're looking at a portion of the Pleistocene, also known as the last Ice Age. Glaciers came and went, and the Eemian "spike" is one of those periods in which the glaciers melted. So, yes, indeed, temperatures "spiked up" and we had a transition from a large fraction of the earth's land area being covered in ice to hardly any of it being. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be worried about climate change because the consequences might not be any more severe than those of the melting of an ice sheet covering the whole of Canada? The point I was making is that climate change isn't a problem. It's a good thing. The climate does change as I proved. That's not a problem. >Pretty good for life overall, yes, and the climate change we're causing might be too. However, my own interests are parochial enough that I care much more what happens to our species and the others that we've grown to depend on, which is any entirely different question. For instance ... A couple degrees celcius isn't going to result in any problem to our ridiculous species. We already regularly live in the hottest and coldest places on earth. Winterpeg Manitoba Canada might become habitable soon if climate change doesnt get lazy. >... 50M years ago, sea levels were something like 100m higher than they are now. There's a handy tool at http://www.floodmap.net/ http://www.floodmap.net/ that lets you explore the consequences of a given increase in sea level (though it's a bit glitchy and it looks like maybe it doesn't have data for anything too far from the equator) Very flawed tool with so many assumptions that make it appear far worse than it really will be. Furthermore, you are correct. 100 metres higher IF the world is 14 celcius warmer. I actually don't know of any climate alarmist who claims we are going to warm the planet 14celcius warmer. In fact the graph I provided shows around 7 celcius warmer at the 8.5% increase per year rate. Which has been disproven. Their 8.5% rate is more like 0.85%. Furthermore, fossil fuels are going to run out long before their year 2100 prediction. The world is much greener today than for a long time. It's actually quite unlikely we will see more than a couple celcius increase at current predictions. > huge amounts of the eastern USA including more or less all of Florida, Louisiana, Delaware and Rhode Island. In fact Al gore's propaganda film the inconvenient truth predictions have failed. This should have already happened: http://www.npr.org/programs/fa/features/2006/may/flaafter_lg.jpg http://www.npr.org/programs/fa/features/2006/may/flaafter_lg... according to him Florida should be under water like this. Hurricane doesnt count.

gjm11 7y ago

> predictions of climate change have been 100% false That statement is itself 100% false, so far as I can tell. Here's one example. In 1982, some of Exxon's scientists wrote a memo for their management containing a graph (figure 3, page 7, of http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-management-about-co2-greenhouse-effect/ http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-ma...) saying that by 2020 CO2 levels would be in roughly the range 400..430 ppm and global mean temperature would be up by roughly 1..1.3 degrees C compared to 1960. Here we are in 2020 and the figures are about 410ppm and +0.9 degrees C. That matches up pretty well, wouldn't you say? > For the last 20,2000 years the earth has been warming pretty steadily What the graph you yourself linked to shows is something very different. There are wild oscillations in the Pleistocene (i.e., before 20k years ago), ending up with temperatures much colder than the present. Then a rapid increase from 20k to 10k years ago. Then near-flat temperatures for the last 10k years. And -- though it's over so short a period that it's hard to see on that graph -- an extremely rapid increase over the last ~50 years. > All of those have already been disproven as false and not going to happen How? By whom? > we are more or less exactly flat This https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ is not what I would call "more or less exactly flat". > look at those spikes ... frequently rapidly spiked up in temperature You're looking at a portion of the Pleistocene, also known as the last Ice Age. Glaciers came and went, and the Eemian "spike" is one of those periods in which the glaciers melted. So, yes, indeed, temperatures "spiked up" and we had a transition from a large fraction of the earth's land area being covered in ice to hardly any of it being. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be worried about climate change because the consequences might not be any more severe than those of the melting of an ice sheet covering the whole of Canada? > it was fantastic for life Pretty good for life overall, yes, and the climate change we're causing might be too. However, my own interests are parochial enough that I care much more what happens to our species and the others that we've grown to depend on, which is any entirely different question. For instance ... > The Eocene 50 million years ago was 14 celsius warmer and life thrived ... 50M years ago, sea levels were something like 100m higher than they are now. There's a handy tool at http://www.floodmap.net/ http://www.floodmap.net/ that lets you explore the consequences of a given increase in sea level (though it's a bit glitchy and it looks like maybe it doesn't have data for anything too far from the equator). At 100m, things we would lose include: about half of England and Ireland; all of the Netherlands; half of Belgium; most of western France; all of Senegal, the Gambia, and Guinea-Bissau; huge amounts of the eastern USA including more or less all of Florida, Louisiana, Delaware and Rhode Island. I'm sure life would thrive. The human race would adapt too, no doubt; we're a very adaptable species. But a whole lot of us would have our homes under water, and large regions of what's now the inhabitable world would become inhospitable to human life. E.g., a temperature rise of 14 degrees C turns San Francisco into Death Valley.

sleepysysadmin 7y ago
>That statement is itself 100% false, so far as I can tell. >the figures are about 410ppm and +0.9 degrees C. That matches up pretty well, wouldn't you say? I certainly concede that not literally 100% of the predictions will be wrong. In fact I bet I could go predicting and we'll be within similar error margins. My assertion was more to do with consequence predictions. Sorry for being unclear. In 2001 the IPCC predicted that wildfires would be out of control because of climate change. In that the increased temperatures would make the summers dryer and make the fires worse. Which is a really bad prediction to start with because smokey the bear is dead because the actual movement to prevent forest fires resulted in the current situation where we have too many trees. Which the IPCC in 2001 did know about fire ecology. They were creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. In 2012 they reiterated this flawed prediction: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120703/climate-change-scientist-ipcc-wildfires-global-warming-drought-pine-beetles-west-forests https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20120703/climate-change-s... Except they are wrong: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170629175502.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170629175502.h... Fires declined 24% in their prediction period. Not only did they cheat in their predictions, they were still wrong. How about an even more wierd prediction: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11555-global-warming-will-make-earth-spin-faster/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11555-global-warming-... https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/dec/11/climate-change-longer-days-glaciers-north-south-pole https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/dec/11/climate-chan... Only a few years apart. The climate scientists are predicting days will get longer and shorter at the same time because of climate change. Except in the last 50 years the earth rotation has sped up and slowed down. These are patently false. >This https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ is not what I would call "more or less exactly flat". The most common thing climate scientists like to do is show only the last 150 years. I provided much much better information showing far larger swings in temperatures in history with no problems at all. >You're looking at a portion of the Pleistocene, also known as the last Ice Age. Glaciers came and went, and the Eemian "spike" is one of those periods in which the glaciers melted. So, yes, indeed, temperatures "spiked up" and we had a transition from a large fraction of the earth's land area being covered in ice to hardly any of it being. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't be worried about climate change because the consequences might not be any more severe than those of the melting of an ice sheet covering the whole of Canada? The point I was making is that climate change isn't a problem. It's a good thing. The climate does change as I proved. That's not a problem. >Pretty good for life overall, yes, and the climate change we're causing might be too. However, my own interests are parochial enough that I care much more what happens to our species and the others that we've grown to depend on, which is any entirely different question. For instance ... A couple degrees celcius isn't going to result in any problem to our ridiculous species. We already regularly live in the hottest and coldest places on earth. Winterpeg Manitoba Canada might become habitable soon if climate change doesnt get lazy. >... 50M years ago, sea levels were something like 100m higher than they are now. There's a handy tool at http://www.floodmap.net/ http://www.floodmap.net/ that lets you explore the consequences of a given increase in sea level (though it's a bit glitchy and it looks like maybe it doesn't have data for anything too far from the equator) Very flawed tool with so many assumptions that make it appear far worse than it really will be. Furthermore, you are correct. 100 metres higher IF the world is 14 celcius warmer. I actually don't know of any climate alarmist who claims we are going to warm the planet 14celcius warmer. In fact the graph I provided shows around 7 celcius warmer at the 8.5% increase per year rate. Which has been disproven. Their 8.5% rate is more like 0.85%. Furthermore, fossil fuels are going to run out long before their year 2100 prediction. The world is much greener today than for a long time. It's actually quite unlikely we will see more than a couple celcius increase at current predictions. > huge amounts of the eastern USA including more or less all of Florida, Louisiana, Delaware and Rhode Island. In fact Al gore's propaganda film the inconvenient truth predictions have failed. This should have already happened: http://www.npr.org/programs/fa/features/2006/may/flaafter_lg.jpg http://www.npr.org/programs/fa/features/2006/may/flaafter_lg... according to him Florida should be under water like this. Hurricane doesnt count.