Climate Change Solution: No Humans

essentialsaltes · Feb 11, 2020

Gracia Singh said:
I remember my childhood. I remember the alarmist global-warming videos and science specials shown on TV continually when I was growing up.

Like maybe Nova in 1983? Or Walter Cronkite in 1980? You can watch some of them here.

The Climate Warnings Films from the 1980s

Al Gore on Nova talks about ' over a long period of time'. The Cronkite piece talks about effects 50-70 years from now.

At about 18 minutes on the 1981 Warming Warning, they talk about ice melting in "decades or centuries".

expos4ever · Feb 11, 2020

Gracia Singh said:
I remember my childhood. I remember the alarmist global-warming videos and science specials shown on TV continually when I was growing up. I remember sheets of data being handed out to us in third grade, detailing how global warming and the hole in the ozone layer would cause sea levels to rise to such an extent that by 2000-2020 (the numbers got later every year), Manahattan would be under water.

I remember images like this being shown to us often.

Well, whatever you remember, mainstream scientists were not making such predictions.

rjs330 · Feb 11, 2020

What exactly were mainstream scientists predicting about temperature and the effects of climate change in the 80s and 90s? Who were these mainstream scientists?

essentialsaltes · Feb 11, 2020

rjs330 said:
What exactly were mainstream scientists predicting about temperature and the effects of climate change in the 80s and 90s? Who were these mainstream scientists?

The IPCC Impacts Assessment 1990 is part of the first of the international consensus reports put together by the IPCC.

Oceans and coastal zones
Global warming will accelerate sea-level rise, modify ocean circulation and change marine ecosystems, with considerable socioeconomic consequences. These effects will be added to present trends of rising sea-level, and other effects that have already stressed coastal resources, such as pollution and overharvesting. A 30-50 cm sea-level rise (projected by 2050) will threaten low islands and coastal zones.

So Manhattan being underwater by 2000 is not really a plausible scenario.

Working Group I has also predicted the increase in global mean temperatures to be about 1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before the end of the next century.

This is pretty much on target with observed data.

1920px-Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg.png

essentialsaltes · Feb 11, 2020

The scenarios generally have the following features:
(i) an effective doubling of C02 in the atmosphere over pre-industrial levels between now and 2025 to 2050 for a 'business-as-usual' scenario, with no changes to present policy;

Preindustrial levels was about 280ppm
Currently 416ppm, and rising at 4ppm/year

At that rate, 2025 would be 436ppm, and 2050 would 536ppm, a bit short of a doubling at 560ppm.

Strathos · Feb 11, 2020

Gracia Singh said:
Respectfully, I remember years and years of global warming science, charts, data, figures, equations and predictions in the 80's and 90's put forth by professionals, claiming that by the year 2000, Manhattan would be under water.

I have learned not to innately trust the data, charts, predictions, forecasts, and prophecis made by scientists about the weather, climate, and how it will effect us. Data can be manipulated, or even falsified. We know that now. Or, we can just be wrong.

Considering that the sea would have to rise over 40 meters in order for Manhattan to be 'under water', and the maximum projected sea level rise by the year 2100 is only 1.3 meters, I can safely say that you never read any such thing from any sort of 'professional'.

Halbhh · Feb 11, 2020

Gracia Singh said:
I remember my childhood. I remember the alarmist global-warming videos and science specials shown on TV continually when I was growing up. I remember sheets of data being handed out to us in third grade, detailing how global warming and the hole in the ozone layer would cause sea levels to rise to such an extent that by 2000-2020 (the numbers got later every year), Manahattan would be under water.

I remember images like this being shown to us often;

This was twenty five years ago. I remember all this, Saltes.

I see.

While I was reading mainstream research (following my uncle's example) you were hearing alarmists that didn't know what they were taking about.

And now here we are.

I never thought in the 1990s that Manhattan would be under water soon. More like 2100 even in the most alarming scenarios to get enough to make storms dangerous. (But that happened sooner, with Sandy!)

And you heard it would be just underwater without storms, and soon.

That's quite a difference.

Now i see.

ananda · Feb 12, 2020

essentialsaltes said:

Why start the graph from 1880?

durangodawood · Feb 12, 2020

Chrystal-J said:
Just thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

My guess was the motive behind posting this was more to make the "whole glowball warming thing" seem kind of crazy. Glad to be corrected.

essentialsaltes · Feb 12, 2020

ananda said:
Why start the graph from 1880?

Mainly because I wanted actual data on a graph that had a labelled axis.

But sure if you like (note that you'll have to tack on the last 16 years to the end of this one from 2004 to get to 2020 -- from the other graph, that adds on additional steep increase in temperature.

I would note also that the last data in your graph is from 2016, and then the authors apparently predict a rapid decrease in temperature. The first graph I showed demonstrates that their prediction was laughably incorrect. Whereas 30 year old predictions from the IPCC are correct in all essentials.

The climate contrarians keep stating their rhetoric that mainstream science has made wrong predictions over and over again, when this is not the case. The proof is in the data. The consensus view has been quite accurate, and our models have improved since 1990. In contrast, your graph was wrong and out of date the year after it was published.

ananda · Feb 12, 2020

essentialsaltes said:
Mainly because I wanted actual data on a graph that had a labelled axis.

But sure if you like (note that you'll have to tack on the last 16 years to the end of this one from 2004 to get to 2020 -- from the other graph, that adds on additional steep increase in temperature.

I would note also that the last data in your graph is from 2016, and then the authors apparently predict a rapid decrease in temperature. The first graph I showed demonstrates that their prediction was laughably incorrect. Whereas 30 year old predictions from the IPCC are correct in all essentials.

The climate contrarians keep stating their rhetoric that mainstream science has made wrong predictions over and over again, when this is not the case. The proof is in the data. The consensus view has been quite accurate, and our models have improved since 1990. In contrast, your graph was wrong and out of date the year after it was published.

Cool, I look forward to the warming period!

bhsmte · Feb 12, 2020

It is likely humans will become extinct at some point. When, i have no idea, but no species lasts forever.

essentialsaltes · Feb 12, 2020

ananda said:
Cool, I look forward to the warming period!

You're soaking in it.

Chrystal-J · Feb 12, 2020

durangodawood said:
My guess was the motive behind posting this was more to make the "whole glowball warming thing" seem kind of crazy. Glad to be corrected.

No covert agenda here. Just something kind of off the wall (this woman's idea).

Strathos · Feb 12, 2020

Chrystal-J said:
No covert agenda here. Just something kind of off the wall (this woman's idea).

It's hardly a new idea, as others have pointed out.

Chrystal-J · Feb 12, 2020

Strathos said:
It's hardly a new idea, as others have pointed out.

Yes, but this board is for ideas to bounce around. Why not this one?

Halbhh · Feb 13, 2020

bhsmte said:
It is likely humans will become extinct at some point. When, i have no idea, but no species lasts forever.

About that very long term outlook, there's reason to be more hopefully finally -- someone more advanced than us is on the job, the one who Christ knew better than any and told us more about. He has high standards though, are we are challenged to turn to the only one that showed "love your neighbor as yourself" in the most complete way, and follow His example. That's why He came, to save us from ourselves, from the accumulations of our wrongs (little or large), and the habituation to wrongs we all fall into on our own without a Guide. He came for you and for me, to rescue us, because He really does love that well. Like Martin Luther King Jr. but more fully, the only way he could really change us, ultimately, was to be willing to die for us to help show us our wrongs, make us realize the real situation, and help us change.

Halbhh · Feb 13, 2020

Chrystal-J said:
Why is Antarctica's sea ice growing while the Arctic melts? Scientists now know why.

When we read that excellent article you offered carefully, this one you linked, and we see the key thing that caused the reported outcome at that time (and in the past) --

From your linked article @Chrystal-J :

"The mighty Southern Ocean Circumpolar Current prevents warmer ocean water from reaching the Antarctic sea ice zone, helping to isolate the continent. The winds within that ice zone keep the water extremely cold, enabling the sea ice cover to grow in recent years even as global temperatures have risen markedly."
Why is Antarctica's sea ice growing while the Arctic melts? Scientists now know why.

Crucial, and, based on real currents, real observation -- the thing keeping that coastal Antarctica water cold.....

But.....

It's just been discovered this insulation from warm water has failed.

January 2020:

"...at the base of the ice on the grounding line, the team found that the water was 2 degrees Celsius above the normal freezing point."
Scientists Grab First Glimpse Deep Underneath Antarctica's Unstable Thwaites Glacier

See?

More (you can find this from many science news sources, but here's one of the best):

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-scientists-antarctica-glacier.html

Halbhh · Feb 13, 2020

Chrystal-J said:
Why is Antarctica's sea ice growing while the Arctic melts? Scientists now know why.

Since 2015 (a high level of ice), what has happened to Antarctica sea ice?....

Understanding climate: Antarctic sea ice extent | NOAA Climate.gov

It should be interesting to see the upcoming 2020 number, which happens in February I think.

Halbhh · Feb 13, 2020

Hi @Gracia Singh -- I think you were interested in the good post earlier about high Antarctica sea ice in 2015 that @Chrystal-J gave us, and so you may be interested to see what has happened more recently.

See the post just above, #59 (and if you like more see the post just before that one also, #58).

Let me know if this was of interest!

Climate Change Solution: No Humans

Stranger in a Strange Land

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Stranger in a Strange Land

No one important

Everything You say is Life to me

Early Buddhist

Dis Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Early Buddhist

Newbie

Stranger in a Strange Land

The one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

No one important

The one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Everything You say is Life to me

Everything You say is Life to me

Everything You say is Life to me

Everything You say is Life to me

Similar threads