Climate Change Predictions

[huckelberry]

Ceeboo, My reply to you made specific observations. You did not bother to notice .

About the fires? Yes, I noticed. In a separate paragraph you made mention of 1970 and science being much better now - That's what I replied to you about because the OP and the linked video was about articles spanning many years (some as recent as 2021)

I will not bother to continue.

No worries.

So you did not respond because you understood absolutely nothing of what I said.
I said nothing about fires.

ok ok I will explain a bit. In 1970 if you went to Lewiston Idaho on many days there would be limited visibility from seriously annoying smoke. There was no fire. The smoke came from industrial smoke stacks. At that time there was growing environmental concerns which, though requiring people to make a bunch of noise did result in widespread change in industrial emissions (car and truck as well). You live in a much cleaner environment due to a combination of industry change and legal pressure from government.

[ceeboo]

About the fires? Yes, I noticed. In a separate paragraph you made mention of 1970 and science being much better now - That's what I replied to you about because the OP and the linked video was about articles spanning many years (some as recent as 2021)


No worries.

So you did not respond because you understood absolutely nothing of what I said.
I said nothing about fires.

ok ok I will explain a bit. In 1970 if you went to Lewiston Idaho on many days there would be limited visibility from seriously annoying smoke. There was no fire. The smoke came from industrial smoke stacks. At that time there was growing environmental concerns which, though requiring people to make a bunch of noise did result in widespread change in industrial emissions (car and truck as well). You live in a much cleaner environment due to a combination of industry change and legal pressure from government.

Okay - Thanks for giving me another shot. (Smoke/fire - same ballpark? - Kidding)

Still not sure (Keep being patient with me, sometimes I miss the point) what that has to do with the OP/topic which is about past articles written, spanning decades, that make predictions that ended up not being remotely accurate.

[canpakes]

What does your wholesale rejection of climate change observations and conclusions get you?

I'm going to take a leap of faith and assume that you read the OP's before you leap into them with bizarre responses - and that you have been following the thread - and that you have read why I posted the one random article that you are responding to (hint - It was to provide one example of historic articles of climate experts predicting catastrophic things that did not happen) - and that you are aware of the thread topic (another hint - The topic is about various articles that have been written, over the span of many years, by climate experts, who have made really serious predictions, that have not come to pass.

A specific complaint of yours is about how the topic has been politicized. As you said in your lead post:

“While much of this is way over my head, I can't help noticing how political much of it seems to be (I am not suggesting that the claimed actual existential threat is political, I don't know, I am suggesting that much of the talks around it seem to be political).”

My response - the Forbes article that I posted - directly addresses the politicization of the topic.

As for the science, only you can decide for yourself if one person’s aggressive timeline about permanent sea ice invalidates the trend that a clear majority of the scientific community agree upon, even as predictions about particular milestones within that trend may vary by a decade or two.

So - having taken that leap, and considering your curious suggestion about my wholesale rejection of climate change (a.k.a. - Your imagination running wild again), the only conclusion I can make is you're a freaking moron.

(I really need to stop engaging you)

No worries, Ceeboo. You’re a fine fellow, and your reputation for building excellent roll towers during Thanksgiving dinners is first-rate, but ‘engaging’ is rarely something you do regardless of who’s asking the questions.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What does your wholesale rejection of climate change observations and conclusions get you?

I'm going to take a leap of faith and assume that you read the OP's before you leap into them with bizarre responses - and that you have been following the thread - and that you have read why I posted the one random article that you are responding to (hint - It was to provide one example of historic articles of climate experts predicting catastrophic things that did not happen) - and that you are aware of the thread topic (another hint - The topic is about various articles that have been written, over the span of many years, by climate experts, who have made really serious predictions, that have not come to pass.)

So - having taken that leap, and considering your curious suggestion about my wholesale rejection of climate change (a.k.a. - Your imagination running wild again), the only conclusion I can make is you're a freaking moron.

(I really need to stop engaging you)

Did you even read canpakes response to you? Anyway.

Let’s take a complex problem and simplify it, yes? Think of climate change predictive models akin to Hurricane predictive models. Both are based off measurements using sophisticated equipment that accumulates hard data which is then interpreted by ‘scientists’ who then do their best to let you know the basic facts of the incoming storm. This



was when Helene was a tropical storm. You can see lots of paths it could take. As time went on, scientists gathered more data, refined their models, and narrowed down the paths the storm would take - was right before it was classified as a hurricane:



As the storm was happening they updated their models thusly:



This is how climate change is being tracked, albeit slower - but nonetheless accurately, just like the hurricane was tracked. The tropical storm’s path wasn’t perfectly predicted two months ago, but there were forecasts of tropical storms and hurricanes because that’s where the data led us.

Do you see now? Maybe “tropical storm Climate Change” will turn into “hurricane Climate Change”. And yes, some really smart people said the hurricane would be a Cat5 and it would happen in 2022. Others are looking at the data and their predictive models forecasting a different date. Others say we’re in the ‘outer bands’ of it now, and there’s no going back.

The point is that much like a hurricane is tracked, modeled, and predicted, so is climate change. It’s happening. It’s just that our brains are wired in such a way that unless something is smacking us in the face right now it’s hard to wrap our minds around it. Hell, we still have people who won’t evacuate when a hurricane is barreling down on them, or when a Mt. Saint Helens is about to explode. Those people? That’s your cultist reporter. Please don’t give heed to idiots like him.

- Doc

eta: Would you listen to this guy? https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyinc ... jgS7OeBtoT

That’s your guy, unfortunately.

[Gadianton]

Nothing in the OP or the 17-minute video even hinted at politics (including political factions lying)

The video is by the Epoch times, which is a right-wing outrage outlet that does nothing but outrage politics. I watched the first five minutes, and it was 100% politics. You will learn nothing about what global warming is or where climate change is at today by watching this video.

[ceeboo]

Nothing in the OP or the 17-minute video even hinted at politics (including political factions lying)

The video is by the Epoch times, which is a right-wing outrage outlet that does nothing but outrage politics. I watched the first five minutes, and it was 100% politics. You will learn nothing about what global warming is or where climate change is at today by watching this video.

Fine - If we can, let's put aside the outrage outlet, who posted the video, how cult-minded he may be, and place our focus on the suggested articles/headlines in the video and only the suggested articles/headlines in the video.

What did you think about the many historic articles written, by climate experts, covering decades up to around 2021, that predict many catastrophic events that did not happen?

In addition, let's pretend that all of the articles he read in the video are true. Would that give you pause if/when more predictions are written? Do you think a little skepticism is healthy and/or valid?

[honorentheos]

I work in an industry where no one has time for climate change denial. We've moved on as the window to act has closed on preventing effects and we are now acting to mitigate and adapt to those effects while working to prevent the worst outcomes if no action is taken.

Last week I was in a discussion with folks from around the US discussing the outcomes of a recent series of awards from the Climate Pollution Reduction Grant where somewhere around 75% of the successful applications were blue states, counties, or other organizations compared to red states and entities under red state government. And the general reason why came down to two things:

First, folks who take it serious and have viable programs or projects seeking funding were more likely to win funding and those tended to be proposed by blue states and other traditionally progressive government bodies. The ark can't be built while the rain falls.

Second, entities whose leadership politicize the issue are more likely to give the money back if Trump wins in November as a political statement. So in order to ensure the funding creates the other impacts needed the money mostly avoided climate skeptical states who would rather score points than take seriously to act to address a problem that is at a scale folks don't immediately comprehend easily.

We tend to understand things best when we see how they affect us personally or our immediate circle. Climate change skepticism tends to arise out of the problems this creates where addressing the challenge effectively require change. And if a person only sees the change as a negative impact they will reject any evidence that points to a bigger, long-range issue.

We saw a huge shift in public perception and discourse over the last couple of years as the magnitude of natural disasters, record temperatures, increased wildfire impacts became tangible and part of folks lived experience. A company strategic planning meeting I participated in last year included a discussion with a very staunch economic focused gent who commented to me after that he had evolved over five years from dismissal to what it means for their company now.

My guess is Ceeboo has no personal reason to take it seriously and human nature makes the attempt to change his mind almost impossible. But the real Ceeboo will not have that luxury. God help him if his government fails to act in time as the impacts of it will not hit everyone equally. The disadvantaged and poor are now and even more so will suffer more than those who have financial resources to deflect the consequences in their own lives. But also, not all regions will suffer equally either. Some will be better prepared than others. Those decisions are being made and the impacts baked in as we speak.

[canpakes]

The video is by the Epoch times, which is a right-wing outrage outlet that does nothing but outrage politics. I watched the first five minutes, and it was 100% politics. You will learn nothing about what global warming is or where climate change is at today by watching this video.

Fine - If we can, let's put aside the outrage outlet, who posted the video, how cult-minded he may be, and place our focus on the suggested articles/headlines in the video and only the suggested articles/headlines in the video.

What did you think about the many historic articles written, by climate experts, covering decades up to around 2021, that predict many catastrophic events that did not happen?

That’s a vague and loaded question. Rather, post an example as you did prior and then ‘what people think’ about whatever you might be referring to can be discussed.

With the earlier example of Anderson, I’d guess that some folks are more concerned with the fact of a 10,000-year trend in arctic ice coming to an abrubt end and the consequences that may have, as opposed to being concerned that a prediction about that 10,000-year trend ending in 2022 may actually take another 20 or 30 years to be realized.

In addition, let's pretend that all of the articles he read in the video are true. Would that give you pause if/when more predictions are written? Do you think a little skepticism is healthy and/or valid?

Skepticism about what, exactly?

Let’s not ‘pretend’. Let’s be specific.

[honorentheos]

Also, African Sumac is one of my least favorite trees. I'm sure they have their place but it isn't in Arizona.

I've been advising people to not plant Ash trees in the Phoenix area as they have always been at the edge of their range which is showing signs of shifting the last couple of years to the point losses are among the highest.

Unfortunately our native Saguaro cactus is suffering as well but not equally. Last year saguaro in the Phoenix urban areas suffered significant losses. No clear answers as to why have been published but the UofA Ag extension presented on it with theories it could be due to a a combination of issues where transplant techniques combined with record nighttime temperatures play a role. This year desert spoon are dying in record numbers also suggesting their elevation range is rising, possibly again due to increased nighttime temps.

[canpakes]

Also, African Sumac is one of my least favorite trees. I'm sure they have their place but it isn't in Arizona.

True; it’s an ‘introduced’ variety, and seen as invasive. The seeds sprout too easily and in no time, a single tree can end up fostering a community of saplings.

My guess is that it was first popularized as a tree that would take no effort to grow. And, examples in some older neighborhoods do have a certain beauty about their form and trunk. Likely its continued use benefited from nostalgic memories.

When we left AZ, they were no longer being recommended by more conscientious designers or landscapers.

https://www.aznps.com/invasives/GrowNat ... _sumac.htm