5 ms·

Can you cite any accurate prediction about 2023 made by climate alarmists in the 1980s?

by TechBro8615 4y ago

hinkley 4y ago
[flagged]
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  > You want a citation? Look around. I'm looking around. Can you show me someone from 1980 predicting what I see now? And I'm not talking about predictions about predictions about 2066. I'm asking for some 1980s predictions about the climate in 2023 that can be trivially shown to be accurate by looking at data like average temperature over the last year, or sea levels today compared to in 1980.
  - jackmott 4y ago
    [dead]
- Insanity 4y ago
  What is that laser reference about?
  - klyrs 4y ago
    One of the first results for "Jewish space laser": https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/01/30/did-rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-blame-a-space-laser-for-wildfires-heres-the-response https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/01/30/did-rep-mar... She says she didn't mean for it to be antisemitic. Doesn't walk back the space laser conspiracy theory, though. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/marjorie-taylor-greene-jewish-space-lasers-rothschilds-didnt-know-anti-semitism.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/marjorie-taylor-gree...
faeriechangling 4y ago
Well no, it's tautological that predictions made by alarmists are inaccurate. Otherwise they wouldn't be alarmists. Here's how various models made during the 80s fared though: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m... Not unreasonably badly really. On the other hand I haven't really seen evidence from what I've heard from various far-right figures of a sudden shift to global cooling, cessation of global warming, or any sort of dramatically lower rate of global warming than expected. Usually I see people cite what Al Gore said in an inconvenient truth being wrong, but the thing is there's actually quite a few models which weren't wrong so why wouldn't you believe those? If anything I've heard arguments shift from "global warming isn't happening" towards "peoples models of how climate change will impact the economy are wrong" and "it's easier to adapt to climate change than move away from fossil fuels" and "Doing things about climate change is pointless when $COUNTRY and $CORPORATION won't do anything" and recently "carbon pricing kills poor people through poverty today for a speculative benefit in the future". Maybe with a sprinkling of "The climate has always changed" (yes) and "Climate change - manmade?" (yes).
- slashdev 4y ago
  All of which amounts to sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and saying don’t try to change me followed by a bunch of of neeeneer neeners. I kid, but I guess that is what’s at the root of it. A fear of change and wanting to believe it isn’t so, because then there’s no need for change. The whole attitude is foreign to me, because I believe in following the evidence wherever it takes me, no matter how frightening I find it. It would be easier if I could believe the comforting lie sometimes.
  - TechBro8615 4y ago
    I think you'll find that much of what you interpret as resistance to "climate change" is not so much resistance to the idea that it exists, or even that we should "do something" about it, but rather to the current approach where "doing something" involves grossly hypocritical billionaires and politicians distributing money to each other while lecturing everyone else on how to live and what they must sacrifice. There are yearly conferences where hundreds of private jets emit more Co2 into the world than the average person will in their lifetime. And the people attending these conferences step off their jet, drive in a motorcade of SUVs to the venue, and sign documents committing to disburse billions of taxpayer dollars to LLCs and corporations their friends will form before next year's conference when they'll do it all over again. They'll lament about the epidemic of science denialism afflicting the common folk, and then they'll get back on their jets and fly back to one of their multiple homes to continue hoarding and growing their obscene wealth. When you dismiss criticism of the status quo as "science denialism" or whatever perjorative is en vogue amongst your fellow saviors of "our democracy," you are serving the agenda of the biggest polluters on the planet, by looking the other way while they facilitate global corruption and forego any legitimate mitigation of the impending catastrophe you care so virtuously about preventing to stave off the existential threat so many of your fellow non-billionaires are too ignorant and science-denying to recognize.
jackmott 4y ago
[dead]
RC_ITR 4y ago
Can you cite any accurate predictions about 2023 by climate denialists in the 80’s?
- labster 4y ago
  The world is not going to end Most everyone will still be driving gas/petrol cars No evidence will appear that will convince me [the denialist] that climate change is real Peak oil won’t happen until 2020 at the earliest As a meteorologist, I know that persistence is very often a correct forecast. Inability to predict change is when people die, though.
  - RC_ITR 4y ago
    I mean by that level or rigor, Lake Meade is not full. The great salt lake is not even close to full. We have less arctic ice. Sea levels are higher. But as you said, this isn’t an argument either of us will win, so agree to disagree?
    - TechBro8615 4y ago
      Just to be clear, Lake Mead is an artificial lake that has always been expected to run out of water. Without human intervention to continuously refill the "lake" (really a reservoir), all of its water would eventually evaporate, even if we were to stop using it as a water source. It's a puddle in the middle of a desert. Its emptiness is not evidence of climate change nor of any trend of changing sea levels.
      - rurp 4y ago
        What are you talking about? Lake Mead is fed by one of the largest rivers in the country. It's only dropping because Southwest states pull immense amounts of water out of the resevoir and the upstream river. If those outflows were cut back the lake would last for ages.
        TechBro8615 4y ago
mitthrowaway2 4y ago
> Can you cite any accurate prediction about 2023 made by climate alarmists in the 1980s? https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pd... Feel free to superimpose today's data[1] on Figure 3 from the above report. Link to the CSV file is here [2] to save you some time with the analysis. Some discussion here [3] (2007). Seems to me that if you compare against the most recent data, scenario B ("the most plausible" of 3 scenarios) is pretty close to dead-on. [1] https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.png https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Glob... [2] https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/ [3] https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hanse...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
antonvs 4y ago
A significant trend was correctly recognized in the 1980s. The idea that an "accurate prediction" 43 years into the future is required to validate this reflects the same sort of misunderstanding that leads you to be on the wrong side of this issue in the first place.

Can you cite any accurate prediction about 2023 made by climate alarmists in the 1980s?

hinkley 4y ago

[flagged]

TechBro8615 4y ago
> You want a citation? Look around. I'm looking around. Can you show me someone from 1980 predicting what I see now? And I'm not talking about predictions about predictions about 2066. I'm asking for some 1980s predictions about the climate in 2023 that can be trivially shown to be accurate by looking at data like average temperature over the last year, or sea levels today compared to in 1980.
- jackmott 4y ago
  [dead]
Insanity 4y ago
What is that laser reference about?
- klyrs 4y ago
  One of the first results for "Jewish space laser": https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/01/30/did-rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-blame-a-space-laser-for-wildfires-heres-the-response https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2021/01/30/did-rep-mar... She says she didn't mean for it to be antisemitic. Doesn't walk back the space laser conspiracy theory, though. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/marjorie-taylor-greene-jewish-space-lasers-rothschilds-didnt-know-anti-semitism.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/marjorie-taylor-gree...

faeriechangling 4y ago

Well no, it's tautological that predictions made by alarmists are inaccurate. Otherwise they wouldn't be alarmists. Here's how various models made during the 80s fared though: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m... Not unreasonably badly really. On the other hand I haven't really seen evidence from what I've heard from various far-right figures of a sudden shift to global cooling, cessation of global warming, or any sort of dramatically lower rate of global warming than expected. Usually I see people cite what Al Gore said in an inconvenient truth being wrong, but the thing is there's actually quite a few models which weren't wrong so why wouldn't you believe those? If anything I've heard arguments shift from "global warming isn't happening" towards "peoples models of how climate change will impact the economy are wrong" and "it's easier to adapt to climate change than move away from fossil fuels" and "Doing things about climate change is pointless when $COUNTRY and $CORPORATION won't do anything" and recently "carbon pricing kills poor people through poverty today for a speculative benefit in the future". Maybe with a sprinkling of "The climate has always changed" (yes) and "Climate change - manmade?" (yes).

slashdev 4y ago
All of which amounts to sticking one’s fingers in one’s ears and saying don’t try to change me followed by a bunch of of neeeneer neeners. I kid, but I guess that is what’s at the root of it. A fear of change and wanting to believe it isn’t so, because then there’s no need for change. The whole attitude is foreign to me, because I believe in following the evidence wherever it takes me, no matter how frightening I find it. It would be easier if I could believe the comforting lie sometimes.
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  I think you'll find that much of what you interpret as resistance to "climate change" is not so much resistance to the idea that it exists, or even that we should "do something" about it, but rather to the current approach where "doing something" involves grossly hypocritical billionaires and politicians distributing money to each other while lecturing everyone else on how to live and what they must sacrifice. There are yearly conferences where hundreds of private jets emit more Co2 into the world than the average person will in their lifetime. And the people attending these conferences step off their jet, drive in a motorcade of SUVs to the venue, and sign documents committing to disburse billions of taxpayer dollars to LLCs and corporations their friends will form before next year's conference when they'll do it all over again. They'll lament about the epidemic of science denialism afflicting the common folk, and then they'll get back on their jets and fly back to one of their multiple homes to continue hoarding and growing their obscene wealth. When you dismiss criticism of the status quo as "science denialism" or whatever perjorative is en vogue amongst your fellow saviors of "our democracy," you are serving the agenda of the biggest polluters on the planet, by looking the other way while they facilitate global corruption and forego any legitimate mitigation of the impending catastrophe you care so virtuously about preventing to stave off the existential threat so many of your fellow non-billionaires are too ignorant and science-denying to recognize.

jackmott 4y ago

[dead]

RC_ITR 4y ago

Can you cite any accurate predictions about 2023 by climate denialists in the 80’s?

labster 4y ago
The world is not going to end Most everyone will still be driving gas/petrol cars No evidence will appear that will convince me [the denialist] that climate change is real Peak oil won’t happen until 2020 at the earliest As a meteorologist, I know that persistence is very often a correct forecast. Inability to predict change is when people die, though.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  I mean by that level or rigor, Lake Meade is not full. The great salt lake is not even close to full. We have less arctic ice. Sea levels are higher. But as you said, this isn’t an argument either of us will win, so agree to disagree?
  - TechBro8615 4y ago
    Just to be clear, Lake Mead is an artificial lake that has always been expected to run out of water. Without human intervention to continuously refill the "lake" (really a reservoir), all of its water would eventually evaporate, even if we were to stop using it as a water source. It's a puddle in the middle of a desert. Its emptiness is not evidence of climate change nor of any trend of changing sea levels.
    - rurp 4y ago
      What are you talking about? Lake Mead is fed by one of the largest rivers in the country. It's only dropping because Southwest states pull immense amounts of water out of the resevoir and the upstream river. If those outflows were cut back the lake would last for ages.
      - TechBro8615 4y ago

mitthrowaway2 4y ago

> Can you cite any accurate prediction about 2023 made by climate alarmists in the 1980s? https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pdf https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_ha02700w.pd... Feel free to superimpose today's data[1] on Figure 3 from the above report. Link to the CSV file is here [2] to save you some time with the analysis. Some discussion here [3] (2007). Seems to me that if you compare against the most recent data, scenario B ("the most plausible" of 3 scenarios) is pretty close to dead-on. [1] https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.png https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Glob... [2] https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/ https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/ [3] https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hanse...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

antonvs 4y ago

A significant trend was correctly recognized in the 1980s. The idea that an "accurate prediction" 43 years into the future is required to validate this reflects the same sort of misunderstanding that leads you to be on the wrong side of this issue in the first place.