U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked in 10 Years.

[Sparko]

...says an article from 1989.

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

THIS is why people keep scoffing at the politicians regarding global warming, or climate change as they call it now.


It might be real, but they have been blowing it out of proportion and playing Chicken Little for over 30 years now.

[Faber]

The key word is "compensating". It's an income redistribution scheme.

[oxmixmudd]

...says an article from 1989.

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

THIS is why people keep scoffing at the politicians regarding global warming, or climate change as they call it now.


It might be real, but they have been blowing it out of proportion and playing Chicken Little for over 30 years now.

The actual predictive element on which this article is based is 1 to 7 'degrees' in 30 years. Which is now. 1 to 7 has to be F, there has never been a prediction of 7 C in such a short period of time. Given that, the actual rise in that same period is about 1.1 F, which is the low end, but still in the specified interval. Further, there were two elements unknown at the time that pushed thing to the low end. One was the low sunspot activity of the last 2 solar periods. The other was a cycle of oceanic warming - a period of higher than normal heat transfer from the atmosphere to the oceans.

So the science on which the predictions was base is sound. But the predictions are clearly worst case.

For now, basically, we've been given a pass. But right now we are seeing GREATER ice melt than worst case predictions. And if we see factors that favor accelerated warming toward the higher side of predictions rather than the low side as was the last 30 years, your perspective on predictions would be seen as naive.

But I do agree, on the whole, there is a tendency toward overplaying the potential immediate threat. It's a slow process, with a lot of inertia. We may well be beyond reversal for a very, very long time no matter what we do. Which was the point of the article. But the real cost and impact of that fact may not start really costing a lot of money and impacting a large population in low lying area for another 20 or 30 years

Keeping in mind that the drastic effect in the arctic is NOW. And that melting permafrost will add large amounts of CO2 in concert with our own emissions, you may just find that this article is in fact a good bit more accurate than it appears superficially.

jim

[Sparko]

The actual predictive element on which this article is based is 1 to 7 'degrees' in 30 years. Which is now. 1 to 7 has to be F, there has never been a prediction of 7 C in such a short period of time. Given that, the actual rise in that same period is about 1.1 F, which is the low end, but still in the specified interval. Further, there were two elements unknown at the time that pushed thing to the low end. One was the low sunspot activity of the last 2 solar periods. The other was a cycle of oceanic warming - a period of higher than normal heat transfer from the atmosphere to the oceans.

So the science on which the predictions was base is sound. But the predictions are clearly worst case.

For now, basically, we've been given a pass. But right now we are seeing GREATER ice melt than worst case predictions. And if we see factors that favor accelerated warming toward the higher side of predictions rather than the low side as was the last 30 years, your perspective on predictions would be seen as naive.

But I do agree, on the whole, there is a tendency toward overplaying the potential immediate threat. It's a slow process, with a lot of inertia. We may well be beyond reversal for a very, very long time no matter what we do. Which was the point of the article. But the real cost and impact of that fact may not start really costing a lot of money and impacting a large population in low lying area for another 20 or 30 years

Keeping in mind that the drastic effect in the arctic is NOW. And that melting permafrost will add large amounts of CO2 in concert with our own emissions, you may just find that this article is in fact a good bit more accurate than it appears superficially.

jim

The whole overplaying of the threat, i.e. "The world is gonna end in 10 years!," is why people are not taking global warming seriously, and even claiming it isn't happening at all. This article shows that they have been making the same doomsday prophesies for 30 years now. Just as we dismiss the Jehovah's Witnesses and other cults who keep predicting the Rapture every few years or whenever their is a blood moon or asteroid passing by, people dismiss the global warming alarmists.

Today it is people like Alexandria Cortez who use the latest UN IPCC report that says that the point of no return is, yet again, a dozen years away.

If the scientists and politicians want people to take them seriously, they need to stop with the drama and scare tactics. Every time they cry out that the sky is falling and it doesn't, they lose more credibility. So when the sky really does fall, nobody will believe them.

[Bill the Cat]

But the predictions are clearly worst case...
jim

And that is what the alarmists, like little Greta, are using as the inevitable "facts"

[Mountain Man]

And I predict that the Earth will continue as it has since creation until the Day of Judgment.

[Charles]

THIS is why people keep scoffing at the politicians regarding global warming, or climate change as they call it now.


It might be real, but they have been blowing it out of proportion and playing Chicken Little for over 30 years now.

Who are "they"? How many people are we talking about and are "they" the same persons today as over 30 years back? If "It might be real" perhaps it is a rather bad idea to dismiss what is said today because of what was said 30 years ago...

[shunyadragon]

Global Warming and Climate Change is the same as Climate Change and Global Warming.

[Bill the Cat]

Who are "they"? How many people are we talking about and are "they" the same persons today as over 30 years back? If "It might be real" perhaps it is a rather bad idea to dismiss what is said today because of what was said 30 years ago...

Al Gore!

[firstfloor]

[Bill the Cat]

Are you threatening to come to the US?

[Mountain Man]

You're right... except the danger is not rising temperatures but corrupt politicians trying to take our money and freedoms in the name of Mother Earth.

[oxmixmudd]

You're right... except the danger is not rising temperatures but corrupt politicians trying to take our money and freedoms in the name of Mother Earth.

MM, I don't think is it 'either or' (false dichotomy). The world is warming, it is a problem, and some entities (politicians, for profit companies etc) are using the issue and the debate over it to gain financially and/or manipulate their constituency.

[seer]

The impact of climate change on human behavior is steadily increasing.

Example...

[Mountain Man]

MM, I don't think is it 'either or' (false dichotomy). The world is warming, it is a problem, and some entities (politicians, for profit companies etc) are using the issue and the debate over it to gain financially and/or manipulate their constituency.

The Earth warms, and the Earth cools. It has been this way since God said, "Let there be light." Right now we are holding more or less steady and have been for a couple of decades, but at some point in the future there will be a period of warming or cooling. It's as natural as the rotation of the Earth and nothing to be alarmed about.