4 ms·

Thanks for posting the link so I could see the article. I did only skim it, and I'm surprised. I don't think it's an unreasonable criticism for 1997. But that

Thanks for posting the link so I could see the article. I did only skim it, and I'm surprised. I don't think it's an unreasonable criticism for 1997. But that's over a quarter of a century ago. He accepts CO2 is probably released by humans and apparently at a rate the sinks can't cope. He accepts that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses can lead to warming. But says that the data thus far had not borne out global warming was happening. That's not unreasonable for the time. 25 more years of data and there is plenty to suggest that there is a global warming effect significantly contributed to by emissions. What is unreasonable is to take a theory that is that good axiomatically (he accepts all its assumptions as clearly evident) and say let's not look into this anymore. That's bonkers given the stakes.

the8472 3y ago
> But says that the data thus far had not borne out global warming was happening. Should we wait until predictions of bad outcomes become true and only then react? Has anyone tried adding a D part to the PI policy.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > Should we wait until predictions of bad outcomes become true That's the way we're on. > and only then react? Worse it gets the less remain to be done. Nothing will be done even then.
_Algernon_ 3y ago
1997 had a temperature anomaly of 0.42 C above average temperature relative to 1961-1990 avg. temperature (which is already above pre-industrial levels. >But says that the data thus far had not borne out global warming was happening. This claim is evidently horseshit. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/temperature-anomaly https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/temperature-anomaly
- psychphysic 3y ago
  I'd encourage you to actually read the article and his argument if you haven't. But the suggestion is not against the null hypothesis that the world is not getting warmer. It was that the warming was within the bounds of established mechanisms unrelated to human activity. There is little value in arguing about the state of mind of an author 25 years ago. Especially where we agree the outcome of reasoning was faulty.
defrost 3y ago
Perhaps you're young. I'm 60 and have spent much of my life in geophysics applied to energy and minerals exploration, in the development of earth scale GIS mapping and computation tools, etc. In 1980 in computational dynamics classes looking at geophysics it was accepted that the volumes of CO2 being released were at a scale that would trap more energy and that steps need to be taken to reduce free CO2. This was scoped out in Stockholm in 1972 at the First Earth Summit. In 1989 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a forum for the examination of greenhouse warming and global climate change, was established, at that time it was known that there was a problem just from the inevitable consequences of the cold equations of physics. Data on the increasing C02 levels from sites such as Cape Grim supported the changes when coupled with trapped air sample from ice cores, etc. Oil exploration industries were already well aware of the issues that fosil fuel use presented. The problem wasn't that the data was insufficient, the real issue was that many people demanded a much greater level of evidence to justify them caring .. much as happened earlier with the health issues surrounding tobacco. As I remarked above the linked opinion piece gives insight into the tactics of those that were actively spreading FUD to avoid taking action and to kick the can down the road.
- darkteflon 3y ago
  I always think of Carl Sagan’s 1985 Senate hearing address[1] as a pivotal missed opportunity, too. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/11/us/action-is-urged-to-avert-global-climate-shift.html https://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/11/us/action-is-urged-to-ave...
- Animats 3y ago
  Right. A side effect was that studies of climate change in that period tended to avoid erring in the direction of overestimating climate change. Looking back at predictions from 20-25 years ago, CO2, global temperature rise, and sea level rise predictions were pretty close. The side effects of those changes were way underestimated.[1] "We "underestimated the dramatic increase in persistent weather extremes like the unprecedented heat waves, droughts, wildfires and floods we’ve witnessed in recent years." We used to see statements that there might be some trouble by 2050, and real trouble by 2100. We're seeing real trouble now. [1] https://www.onlineathens.com/story/news/environment/2019/12/25/were-predictions-we-made-about-climate-change-20-years-ago-accurate/2014160007/ https://www.onlineathens.com/story/news/environment/2019/12/...
pyrale 3y ago
For those who didn't read the article: > The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. The author is very far from saying we don't have enough evidence. He claims that scientists had collected enough evidence to dismiss the theory. Which is in hindsight, quite obviously, a lie.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

the8472 3y ago

> But says that the data thus far had not borne out global warming was happening. Should we wait until predictions of bad outcomes become true and only then react? Has anyone tried adding a D part to the PI policy.

myshpa 3y ago
> Should we wait until predictions of bad outcomes become true That's the way we're on. > and only then react? Worse it gets the less remain to be done. Nothing will be done even then.

_Algernon_ 3y ago

1997 had a temperature anomaly of 0.42 C above average temperature relative to 1961-1990 avg. temperature (which is already above pre-industrial levels. >But says that the data thus far had not borne out global warming was happening. This claim is evidently horseshit. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/temperature-anomaly https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/temperature-anomaly

psychphysic 3y ago
I'd encourage you to actually read the article and his argument if you haven't. But the suggestion is not against the null hypothesis that the world is not getting warmer. It was that the warming was within the bounds of established mechanisms unrelated to human activity. There is little value in arguing about the state of mind of an author 25 years ago. Especially where we agree the outcome of reasoning was faulty.

defrost 3y ago

Perhaps you're young. I'm 60 and have spent much of my life in geophysics applied to energy and minerals exploration, in the development of earth scale GIS mapping and computation tools, etc. In 1980 in computational dynamics classes looking at geophysics it was accepted that the volumes of CO2 being released were at a scale that would trap more energy and that steps need to be taken to reduce free CO2. This was scoped out in Stockholm in 1972 at the First Earth Summit. In 1989 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a forum for the examination of greenhouse warming and global climate change, was established, at that time it was known that there was a problem just from the inevitable consequences of the cold equations of physics. Data on the increasing C02 levels from sites such as Cape Grim supported the changes when coupled with trapped air sample from ice cores, etc. Oil exploration industries were already well aware of the issues that fosil fuel use presented. The problem wasn't that the data was insufficient, the real issue was that many people demanded a much greater level of evidence to justify them caring .. much as happened earlier with the health issues surrounding tobacco. As I remarked above the linked opinion piece gives insight into the tactics of those that were actively spreading FUD to avoid taking action and to kick the can down the road.

darkteflon 3y ago
I always think of Carl Sagan’s 1985 Senate hearing address[1] as a pivotal missed opportunity, too. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/11/us/action-is-urged-to-avert-global-climate-shift.html https://www.nytimes.com/1985/12/11/us/action-is-urged-to-ave...
Animats 3y ago
Right. A side effect was that studies of climate change in that period tended to avoid erring in the direction of overestimating climate change. Looking back at predictions from 20-25 years ago, CO2, global temperature rise, and sea level rise predictions were pretty close. The side effects of those changes were way underestimated.[1] "We "underestimated the dramatic increase in persistent weather extremes like the unprecedented heat waves, droughts, wildfires and floods we’ve witnessed in recent years." We used to see statements that there might be some trouble by 2050, and real trouble by 2100. We're seeing real trouble now. [1] https://www.onlineathens.com/story/news/environment/2019/12/25/were-predictions-we-made-about-climate-change-20-years-ago-accurate/2014160007/ https://www.onlineathens.com/story/news/environment/2019/12/...

pyrale 3y ago

For those who didn't read the article: > The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. The author is very far from saying we don't have enough evidence. He claims that scientists had collected enough evidence to dismiss the theory. Which is in hindsight, quite obviously, a lie.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]