Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

[longview]

Quite the contrary—I think he (and you) are avoiding my point. India’s Carey capacity is changing, underneath the usual population changes.

While concepts like tipping points are unsupported illusions for global temperatures,
they are not for populations! Once you pass the capacity of the land to support the population,
things can fall apart quickly. Like that greasy fingerprint on a halogen light bulb!
Aquifers run low to keep up with the crop demand, which causes wells at fixed depths to run dry.
Then you have a situation where resources are constrained, and the prices increase as supplied shrink.

 

[Lord of Planar]

All of which amounts to climate disaster. Disasters are, after all, relative. Presumably you think that widespread nuclear war would be a disaster. Cockroaches apparently wouldn’t. If no one was living in India, rising heat there wouldn’t be a disaster for humans. But lots of people do live there now, and parts of India are becoming unlivable; more will join suit soon. That’s a climate disaster.

But the largest change creating the disaster is population. The extremes stay about the same when it comes to the weather.

 

[JBG]

Daniel Turner: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn'''t it arrived? | Fox News



Global change has become another government income transfer scheme to enrich their buddies. Like a junkie they are so dependent on this money, they know if they let go their suffering would be immense. They would have to admit they are wrong. No one ever does that today. They won’t even say they weren’t entirely right. Nope. They just dig in and add taxes and fees to everything to support their fear industry.

I wonder how much money the U.N. and other NGO's received to study and abate this non-problem.

 

[chuckiechan]

But the largest change creating the disaster is population. The extremes stay about the same when it comes to the weather.

The people most worried about rising sea levels are the hedge funds, corporations, and billionaires who own all the beach front property worth owning.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The people most worried about rising sea levels are the hedge funds, corporations, and billionaires who own all the beach front property worth owning.

They can afford to relocate if they need to.

 

[PoS]

The people most worried about rising sea levels are the hedge funds, corporations, and billionaires who own all the beach front property worth owning.

Has there been any news of beachfront properties being sunk by rising water levels?

 

[Jack Hays]

The people most worried about rising sea levels are the hedge funds, corporations, and billionaires who own all the beach front property worth owning.

They own it because they know the sea level rise alarm is hokum.

 

[JBG]

They own it because they know the sea level rise alarm is hokum.

I would not go that far. The Alaskan Land Bridge from Siberia, a/k/a/ Beringia, is submerged. Query, was that caused by anthropogenic global warming? Remember the mammoths became extinct somewhat later, as did the dire wolf. There may have been Native American involvement there. Or maybe musk oxen flatulence caused global warming. Inquiring minds wonder.

 

[Jack Hays]

I would not go that far. The Alaskan Land Bridge from Siberia, a/k/a/ Beringia, is submerged. Query, was that caused by anthropogenic global warming? Remember the mammoths became extinct somewhat later, as did the dire wolf. There may have been Native American involvement there. Or maybe musk oxen flatulence caused global warming. Inquiring minds wonder.

Three to nine inches rise per century. Yawn.

 

[lwf]

Nonsense. There is absolutely nothing wrong with our climate today in either its level or rate of change as ice cores from both poles clearly illustrate over the last few thousand years

View attachment 67259380

I'd like these well financed 'experts' to explain why this major inconvenience for the whole AGW premise exists but I guess we'll never hear that because turkeys don't vote for christmas ..... ker ching !

The Milankovitch cycles explain the natural variation in climate throughout the history of the earth. According to the Milankovitch cycle, the earth should be undergoing a cooling period if natural forces are at work. The fact that global temperatures are increasing flies in the face of our understanding of the Milankovitch cycle, and the only thing that has changed from previous warming cycles is human activity.

 

[lwf]

It's been scientifically proven that humans are behind all the climate change in the world? Could you please show us the link that proves this wonderful discovery?

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

 

[PoS]

View attachment 67259602

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

From your own link:

The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Huge differences between fact and theory- this one has not been confirmed, not by any means. Also, the blog you linked to labels this as empirical evidence- which is pretty much just a hypothesis.

 

[Visbek]

Global change has become another government income transfer scheme to enrich their buddies....

Or: The UN predictions are actually starting to happen.

If you actually looked at the AP article referenced by your screed, it has a major issue: Almost none of the predictions are given an actual date. E.g. Brown predicted 3 feet of sea level rise, but he didn't say that would happen by 2000; what he said was "if we don't take emissions seriously by 2000, then there will be consequences." It is not surprising, of course, that deniers lock into the most unfavorable interpretation possible.

That said, Brown predicted....
• Entire nations like the Maldives threatened by sea level rise? Check.
• Bangladesh getting flooded and people displaced? Check.
• Egypt increasingly vulnerable to floods? Check.
• Climate change refugees? Check. (In fact, quite a few of the Central American migrants to the US are fleeing the effects of climate change.)
• Temperatures rising 1-7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2020? Well, the IPCC actually predicted 3C by 2030; of that, 0.75C was due to CFCs, which were largely eliminated due to the 1987 Montreal Protocol. We are currently at 0.75C of warming, so yep, that's another check mark.
• Much of the warming can't be stopped without action? Check. (We've already locked in lots of warming; at this point, we're just trying to avoid the worst case scenarios.)

The only thing the AP article was really off about was claims that the Midwest would be hit by major droughts. Instead, California got stuck with the droughts, and the Midwest is getting flooded by additional precipitation due in part to.. yep... climate change. Not too bad for a 30 year old prediction.

Like a junkie they are so dependent on this money, they know if they let go their suffering would be immense.

:roll:

Just stop. If global temperatures were completely unaffected by CO2 and CH4 and other gases, we'd still need climate scientists. They'd have plenty of work to do if there was no major crisis.

And if you think that money causes bias, then did you check Daniel Turner's funding sources? Surprise! He works for "Power the Future," which is basically a tiny anti-environmentalist PR group funded by the Koch Brothers, who own the largest private fossil fuel in the world. He's written op-eds promoting drilling in ANWR. He also used to be director of strategic communications for Koch Industries. So why does he get a pass...?

They would have to admit they are wrong. No one ever does that today.

Pot, kettle, black. Climate change deniers would prefer to choke on their own tongues before admitting they got anything wrong -- even though they are constantly proven wrong.

Back in the real world, a lot of the predictions made in the early 90s are now just starting to be seen. We're seeing more heat waves; more droughts; more precipitation (which doesn't offset the droughts); agricultural seasons are changing; sea level is rising... the list goes on.

 

[Jack Hays]

Or: The UN predictions are actually starting to happen.

If you actually looked at the AP article referenced by your screed, it has a major issue: Almost none of the predictions are given an actual date. E.g. Brown predicted 3 feet of sea level rise, but he didn't say that would happen by 2000; what he said was "if we don't take emissions seriously by 2000, then there will be consequences." It is not surprising, of course, that deniers lock into the most unfavorable interpretation possible.

That said, Brown predicted....
• Entire nations like the Maldives threatened by sea level rise? Check.
• Bangladesh getting flooded and people displaced? Check.
• Egypt increasingly vulnerable to floods? Check.
• Climate change refugees? Check. (In fact, quite a few of the Central American migrants to the US are fleeing the effects of climate change.)
• Temperatures rising 1-7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2020? Well, the IPCC actually predicted 3C by 2030; of that, 0.75C was due to CFCs, which were largely eliminated due to the 1987 Montreal Protocol. We are currently at 0.75C of warming, so yep, that's another check mark.
• Much of the warming can't be stopped without action? Check. (We've already locked in lots of warming; at this point, we're just trying to avoid the worst case scenarios.)

The only thing the AP article was really off about was claims that the Midwest would be hit by major droughts. Instead, California got stuck with the droughts, and the Midwest is getting flooded by additional precipitation due in part to.. yep... climate change. Not too bad for a 30 year old prediction.



:roll:

Just stop. If global temperatures were completely unaffected by CO2 and CH4 and other gases, we'd still need climate scientists. They'd have plenty of work to do if there was no major crisis.

And if you think that money causes bias, then did you check Daniel Turner's funding sources? Surprise! He works for "Power the Future," which is basically a tiny anti-environmentalist PR group funded by the Koch Brothers, who own the largest private fossil fuel in the world. He's written op-eds promoting drilling in ANWR. He also used to be director of strategic communications for Koch Industries. So why does he get a pass...?



Pot, kettle, black. Climate change deniers would prefer to choke on their own tongues before admitting they got anything wrong -- even though they are constantly proven wrong.

Back in the real world, a lot of the predictions made in the early 90s are now just starting to be seen. We're seeing more heat waves; more droughts; more precipitation (which doesn't offset the droughts); agricultural seasons are changing; sea level is rising... the list goes on.

A list of fantasies.

 

[Sunsettommy]

After 4 pages of feeble warmists replies, it is made clear that can't address post one article in any detail at all. They instead post a few weather events of last year which is well past the year 2000 date that had predicted far worse weather events than what warmists cry over in the last couple years.

Their lack of knowledge of climate HISTORY is very easy to see here.

Cheers

 

[chuckiechan]

Or: The UN predictions are actually starting to happen.

If you actually looked at the AP article referenced by your screed, it has a major issue: Almost none of the predictions are given an actual date. E.g. Brown predicted 3 feet of sea level rise, but he didn't say that would happen by 2000; what he said was "if we don't take emissions seriously by 2000, then there will be consequences." It is not surprising, of course, that deniers lock into the most unfavorable interpretation possible.

That said, Brown predicted....
• Entire nations like the Maldives threatened by sea level rise? Check.
• Bangladesh getting flooded and people displaced? Check.
• Egypt increasingly vulnerable to floods? Check.
• Climate change refugees? Check. (In fact, quite a few of the Central American migrants to the US are fleeing the effects of climate change.)
• Temperatures rising 1-7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2020? Well, the IPCC actually predicted 3C by 2030; of that, 0.75C was due to CFCs, which were largely eliminated due to the 1987 Montreal Protocol. We are currently at 0.75C of warming, so yep, that's another check mark.
• Much of the warming can't be stopped without action? Check. (We've already locked in lots of warming; at this point, we're just trying to avoid the worst case scenarios.)

The only thing the AP article was really off about was claims that the Midwest would be hit by major droughts. Instead, California got stuck with the droughts, and the Midwest is getting flooded by additional precipitation due in part to.. yep... climate change. Not too bad for a 30 year old prediction.



:roll:

Just stop. If global temperatures were completely unaffected by CO2 and CH4 and other gases, we'd still need climate scientists. They'd have plenty of work to do if there was no major crisis.

And if you think that money causes bias, then did you check Daniel Turner's funding sources? Surprise! He works for "Power the Future," which is basically a tiny anti-environmentalist PR group funded by the Koch Brothers, who own the largest private fossil fuel in the world. He's written op-eds promoting drilling in ANWR. He also used to be director of strategic communications for Koch Industries. So why does he get a pass...?



Pot, kettle, black. Climate change deniers would prefer to choke on their own tongues before admitting they got anything wrong -- even though they are constantly proven wrong.

Back in the real world, a lot of the predictions made in the early 90s are now just starting to be seen. We're seeing more heat waves; more droughts; more precipitation (which doesn't offset the droughts); agricultural seasons are changing; sea level is rising... the list goes on.

It has been that way in the past.

BTW, exactly what is your weather goal? Hotter, colder, no change at all? Will we still have seasons. I vote for summer!

 

[Visbek]

After 4 pages of feeble warmists replies, it is made clear that can't address post one article in any detail at all.

That's because there are basically no real details in the article.

 

[flogger]

The Milankovitch cycles explain the natural variation in climate throughout the history of the earth. According to the Milankovitch cycle, the earth should be undergoing a cooling period if natural forces are at work. The fact that global temperatures are increasing flies in the face of our understanding of the Milankovitch cycle, and the only thing that has changed from previous warming cycles is human activity.

So you obviously don't realise the Milankovitch cycles span periods of hundreds of thousands of years and are consequently quite irrelevant to the much shorter timescale of my illustrated graph ? :roll:

 

[lwf]

From your own link:

Huge differences between fact and theory- this one has not been confirmed, not by any means. Also, the blog you linked to labels this as empirical evidence- which is pretty much just a hypothesis.

It is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis. A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. It hasn't been "confirmed" much in the same way as the theory of evolution hasn't been confirmed. Many technically unproven theories are currently considered scientific laws and accepted as axioms by the vast majority of the scientific community, including climate change and AGW.

You can still reject these premises as unproven if you so desire, and I can reject yours. But if mine have the support of 99% of climate scientists around the world, and yours are supported by a fringe community of largely discredited pseudo-scientists, which do you think is more likely to reflect reality?

 

[lwf]

So you obviously don't realise the Milankovitch cycles span periods of hundreds of thousands of years and are consequently quite irrelevant to the much shorter timescale of my illustrated graph ? :roll:

Northern Hemisphere temps over the last thousand+ years

 

[PoS]

It is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis. A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. It hasn't been "confirmed" much in the same way as the theory of evolution hasn't been confirmed. Many technically unproven theories are currently considered scientific laws and accepted as axioms by the vast majority of the scientific community, including climate change and AGW.

I know what a theory is, and manmade AGW isnt anywhere near it- right now its a hypothesis, with only correlation/causation support (which is a fallacy) based on CO2 levels.

You can still reject these premises as unproven if you so desire, and I can reject yours.

I dont have one. My position is that we dont know.

But if mine have the support of 99% of climate scientists around the world, and yours are supported by a fringe community of largely discredited pseudo-scientists, which do you think is more likely to reflect reality?

First of all its supposed to be 97%, not 99%, and that figure is a cherry picked lie: The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up | Richard Tol | Environment | The Guardian

Even if we count an appeal to authority as an argument just to humor your position, its still silly- because science isnt decided by consensus, but by proving things right.

So no, the science hasnt been decided. Far from it in fact.

 

[lwf]

I know what a theory is, and manmade AGW isnt anywhere near it- right now its a hypothesis, with only correlation/causation support (which is a fallacy) based on CO2 levels.


I dont have one. My position is that we dont know.


First of all its supposed to be 97%, not 99%, and that figure is a cherry picked lie: The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up | Richard Tol | Environment | The Guardian

Even if we count an appeal to authority as an argument just to humor your position, its still silly- because science isnt decided by consensus, but by proving things right.

So no, the science hasnt been decided. Far from it in fact.

Same could be said of the theory of evolution. People are welcome to reject it, but they will continue to be in a shrinking minority as more and more evidence for it is accumulated. At this point, those who reject AGW as a conspiracy are more likely to have an agenda than those who accept it as scientific law.

 

[PoS]

Same could be said of the theory of evolution. People are welcome to reject it, but they will continue to be in a shrinking minority as more and more evidence for it is accumulated. At this point, those who reject AGW as a conspiracy are more likely to have an agenda than those who accept it as scientific law.

Everyone has an agenda, including those that perpetuate the 97% consensus lie and the constant doom about a coming climate apocalypse.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That's because there are basically no real details in the article.

No warmists can't ANSWER the QUESTION:

Daniel Turner: Decades ago, the UN promised climate disaster; so why hasn't it arrived?

That is the headline, now the content from 1989 you seem to have forgotten,

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

bolding mine

The statements are specific enough, that is why you and other warmists try to marginalize it with dishonest statements.

The reality is they were waaaay off on their predictions, and that it never happened at all.

You can't sweep this hysteria away...….

 

[Lord of Planar]

It is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis. A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. It hasn't been "confirmed" much in the same way as the theory of evolution hasn't been confirmed. Many technically unproven theories are currently considered scientific laws and accepted as axioms by the vast majority of the scientific community, including climate change and AGW.

You can still reject these premises as unproven if you so desire, and I can reject yours. But if mine have the support of 99% of climate scientists around the world, and yours are supported by a fringe community of largely discredited pseudo-scientists, which do you think is more likely to reflect reality?

Your ignorance is noted.