6 ms·

For hundreds of years there have been people predicting some kind of nightmare scenario 'in about 30 years'. In the 1960's and 1970's they were predicting a ne

For hundreds of years there have been people predicting some kind of nightmare scenario 'in about 30 years'. In the 1960's and 1970's they were predicting a new ice age, that oil would completely run out, etc etc. More recently they have been predicting extremely rapid climate change, global warming, 'cities underwater', etc. Look at the graph of anticipated sea level rise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise Notice anything suspicious? It goes along pretty flat (the historical data looks as linear as it could possibly be), then as soon as you get to right now it jumps up and to the right with exponential growth. If a startup pitched that growth trajectory everyone would know exactly what was going on - high hopes and lies. Except that well meaning idiots have been pitching this for the last 30 years, exponential up and to the right growth of temperature and sea level, and it never materializes. Every few years they just update the graphs to show the small increase that actually occurred and move the exponential explosion so it's always in the near future. Edit: I have noticed people down-voting this comment, that's fine of course, but I wonder whether it's because you think the oceans are going to start rising exponentially - starting right now - or if you think it's dangerous to question climate change dogma because it empowers climate change deniers or something? Or are you just down-voting it because it seems like something you don't like?

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Notice that from now into the future it is no longer a line, but a range that widens the further into the future it goes. The base of which continues in a perfectly linear fashion. It's attempting to encompass simple progression and the likely impact of tipping points and accelerating melt. So no I don't notice anything suspicious by including uncertainty on the plot. If you look at the range of IPCC predictions, current measured sea level rise is tracking the linear portion of their worst case prediction. (RCP8.5) Draw whatever conclusion you will.
- ltbarcly3 7y ago
  This is again a misleading response. If these are uncertainty ranges, it should be statistically absurd for reality to always end up at the extreme low end of the predicted range. How many times does that have to happen before you would have to say the prediction isn't a good one?
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    IPCC reports are inherently conservative - they reflect the known and agreed. It's not surprising that reality tends worse as additional effects, tipping points and surprises are reflected in reality but not IPCC reports. There has been criticism that they are too conservative.
    - ltbarcly3 7y ago
      Have they ever, ever made a prediction that didn't over estimate the subsequent measured values of temperature or sea level rise?
itcrowd 7y ago
You are being downvoted because you are spreading lies and misinformation. No AGW nightmare scenarios have been spread for "hundreds of years" (except maybe a biblical end of times, which is not scientific) and the "global cooling" of the 60s/70s meme has also long been debunked. Please read up on climate science before making outrageous statements like you do (and provide sources for your claims). Maybe you can start learning here: https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-op-ed-cherry-picks-data-to-mislead-readers-about-climate-models-patrick-michaels-caleb-stewart-rossiter/ https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-o...
- ltbarcly3 7y ago
  You are disagreeing, but also agreeing with me. My point is that weird biblical cults believed disaster is 'right around the corner' and when the disaster didn't happen at the appointed time, people kept believing it was 'right around the corner'. Global cooling has been debunked, but at the time it was something people thought was real and had a veneer of sciencism attached to it which enhanced it's credibility. My point is that I have yet to see an academic model of climate change that under predicted the actual warming (or sea rise) that has subsequently been measured. You can interpret that in lots of ways, but what you can't deny is that if every model is over estimating, there is a clear systemic bias.
  - itcrowd 7y ago
    > I have yet to see an academic model of climate change that under predicted the actual warming Well, here's one under prediction: Hansen made 3 scenarios in 1988 (A, B and C), of which A over-estimated the warming, B was almost spot-on and C was under-estimating the warming. [1] https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
    - ltbarcly3 7y ago
      A linear extrapolation would have been more accurate than any of his 3 models.
skohan 7y ago
It's worth noting that even we fall into the best case of the ranges depicted here, which there is no reason to believe we will, such a rise in sea levels would have deleterious effects. There are already climate refugees who were forced to relocate because their homes are now below water, and there are millions more living at or near sea level.
- ltbarcly3 7y ago
  This is extremely false, there are no refugees who fled because sea level rise made their homes be underwater. There are people who's homes are not tenable due to storms and storm surge, which would be true with or without sea level rise. There are people who live on land that is subsiding, and so the land is lower (not the sea being higher). Sea level rise is estimated to be something like 60mm since the year 1900. That is about as much as your finger, less if you have an averaged sized hand. You can't live in a place that is 60mm above sea level, even a light breeze would put you under water due to the height of waves being far, far higher. So to believe there are refugees due to sea level rise, you have to believe there were people who lived at some level that was already under water much of the time in the year 1900, basically whenever there is some wind, and now with sea level rise it's under water a little more often, because now it only takes a 11kph wind to put them under water when 120 years ago it would have taken 12kph, and that 'little bit more often' over the course of a hundred years was enough that they abandoned their home rather than put a couple of thin boards on top of their floor to make it 3 inches higher, which would put them far higher above the water than they would have been even in 1900. It's completely absurd.
raarts 7y ago
Well, I'm with you on sea level rise. I live in The Netherlands. Big part of our country is below sea level, millions of people actually. Recently Deltares, the body that advises the government on the height of our dikes released a 187-page report on sea level rise. Using the newest methods, they found that sea level has been rising at a constant rate (1.8mm/yr) for > 125 years now, and the sea level rise is NOT accelerating. I trust these people, since they are responsible for millions of lives. Of course IPCC climate models are projecting acceleration, but those are just models. And past sea level rise acceleration projections have obviously been wrong so far. I clearly remember over the course of my life reading about climate catastrophes, scientists being in consensus about it, it never came true, and I don't believe it now.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > I trust [Deltares], since they are responsible for millions of lives. OK, so do so. https://www.deltares.nl/en/blog/the-battle-of-engineers-against-climate-change/ https://www.deltares.nl/en/blog/the-battle-of-engineers-agai... > Climate change is happening right now and at a frightening speed, especially in the Arctic. To underpin the need for action, I share three wake-up calls... > We can’t afford to ignore the warning signs. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to get climate change under control. After long negotiations, world leaders have agreed on action at the Paris climate summit. Now it’s up to the engineers to develop ambitious plans and innovative solutions.
  - raarts 7y ago
    You are quoting a blog entry from 2016. The report I was referring to was from march 2019. They debunked their own blogpost.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      In another comment, someone pointed out issues with your understanding of that report, which you replied to with basically "well I don't believe that part". As such, I'm not inclined to credit your claim they "debunked" this. You're welcome to cite an updated statement or blog post saying so, though.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Notice that from now into the future it is no longer a line, but a range that widens the further into the future it goes. The base of which continues in a perfectly linear fashion. It's attempting to encompass simple progression and the likely impact of tipping points and accelerating melt. So no I don't notice anything suspicious by including uncertainty on the plot. If you look at the range of IPCC predictions, current measured sea level rise is tracking the linear portion of their worst case prediction. (RCP8.5) Draw whatever conclusion you will.

ltbarcly3 7y ago
This is again a misleading response. If these are uncertainty ranges, it should be statistically absurd for reality to always end up at the extreme low end of the predicted range. How many times does that have to happen before you would have to say the prediction isn't a good one?
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  IPCC reports are inherently conservative - they reflect the known and agreed. It's not surprising that reality tends worse as additional effects, tipping points and surprises are reflected in reality but not IPCC reports. There has been criticism that they are too conservative.
  - ltbarcly3 7y ago
    Have they ever, ever made a prediction that didn't over estimate the subsequent measured values of temperature or sea level rise?

itcrowd 7y ago

You are being downvoted because you are spreading lies and misinformation. No AGW nightmare scenarios have been spread for "hundreds of years" (except maybe a biblical end of times, which is not scientific) and the "global cooling" of the 60s/70s meme has also long been debunked. Please read up on climate science before making outrageous statements like you do (and provide sources for your claims). Maybe you can start learning here: https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-op-ed-cherry-picks-data-to-mislead-readers-about-climate-models-patrick-michaels-caleb-stewart-rossiter/ https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/washington-examiner-o...

ltbarcly3 7y ago
You are disagreeing, but also agreeing with me. My point is that weird biblical cults believed disaster is 'right around the corner' and when the disaster didn't happen at the appointed time, people kept believing it was 'right around the corner'. Global cooling has been debunked, but at the time it was something people thought was real and had a veneer of sciencism attached to it which enhanced it's credibility. My point is that I have yet to see an academic model of climate change that under predicted the actual warming (or sea rise) that has subsequently been measured. You can interpret that in lots of ways, but what you can't deny is that if every model is over estimating, there is a clear systemic bias.
- itcrowd 7y ago
  > I have yet to see an academic model of climate change that under predicted the actual warming Well, here's one under prediction: Hansen made 3 scenarios in 1988 (A, B and C), of which A over-estimated the warming, B was almost spot-on and C was under-estimating the warming. [1] https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
  - ltbarcly3 7y ago
    A linear extrapolation would have been more accurate than any of his 3 models.

skohan 7y ago

It's worth noting that even we fall into the best case of the ranges depicted here, which there is no reason to believe we will, such a rise in sea levels would have deleterious effects. There are already climate refugees who were forced to relocate because their homes are now below water, and there are millions more living at or near sea level.

ltbarcly3 7y ago
This is extremely false, there are no refugees who fled because sea level rise made their homes be underwater. There are people who's homes are not tenable due to storms and storm surge, which would be true with or without sea level rise. There are people who live on land that is subsiding, and so the land is lower (not the sea being higher). Sea level rise is estimated to be something like 60mm since the year 1900. That is about as much as your finger, less if you have an averaged sized hand. You can't live in a place that is 60mm above sea level, even a light breeze would put you under water due to the height of waves being far, far higher. So to believe there are refugees due to sea level rise, you have to believe there were people who lived at some level that was already under water much of the time in the year 1900, basically whenever there is some wind, and now with sea level rise it's under water a little more often, because now it only takes a 11kph wind to put them under water when 120 years ago it would have taken 12kph, and that 'little bit more often' over the course of a hundred years was enough that they abandoned their home rather than put a couple of thin boards on top of their floor to make it 3 inches higher, which would put them far higher above the water than they would have been even in 1900. It's completely absurd.

raarts 7y ago

Well, I'm with you on sea level rise. I live in The Netherlands. Big part of our country is below sea level, millions of people actually. Recently Deltares, the body that advises the government on the height of our dikes released a 187-page report on sea level rise. Using the newest methods, they found that sea level has been rising at a constant rate (1.8mm/yr) for > 125 years now, and the sea level rise is NOT accelerating. I trust these people, since they are responsible for millions of lives. Of course IPCC climate models are projecting acceleration, but those are just models. And past sea level rise acceleration projections have obviously been wrong so far. I clearly remember over the course of my life reading about climate catastrophes, scientists being in consensus about it, it never came true, and I don't believe it now.

ceejayoz 7y ago
> I trust [Deltares], since they are responsible for millions of lives. OK, so do so. https://www.deltares.nl/en/blog/the-battle-of-engineers-against-climate-change/ https://www.deltares.nl/en/blog/the-battle-of-engineers-agai... > Climate change is happening right now and at a frightening speed, especially in the Arctic. To underpin the need for action, I share three wake-up calls... > We can’t afford to ignore the warning signs. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to get climate change under control. After long negotiations, world leaders have agreed on action at the Paris climate summit. Now it’s up to the engineers to develop ambitious plans and innovative solutions.
- raarts 7y ago
  You are quoting a blog entry from 2016. The report I was referring to was from march 2019. They debunked their own blogpost.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    In another comment, someone pointed out issues with your understanding of that report, which you replied to with basically "well I don't believe that part". As such, I'm not inclined to credit your claim they "debunked" this. You're welcome to cite an updated statement or blog post saying so, though.