Climate Change Predictions

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Inconvenient Truth: 32 Climate Predictions Proven False | Facts Matter
https://youtu.be/E1e5HAZo4iw?si=Jh4_9R7n3xsDG68G

You, uh, may want to consider the source.

- Doc

[Doctor Steuss]

On a purely anecdotal note, both my dad and I lost our African Sumac trees this last summer. In an interview with UNLV's horticulturist, he said that landscaping companies will likely not be able to use it anymore in the valley. Any that survive will likely never fully recover enough to weather next summer if it's anywhere as hot. It's crazy what a difference just a few degrees can make to plants that have thrived in an environment for decades.

That’s crazy. African Sumac is an incredibly tough and drought-tolerant tree. If they’re having a tough time due to an increase in average temperatures, then the yearly trend is having a much more severe impact on desert-adapted plants than I imagined it would.

We left behind an AS in Phoenix, but here in Utah, we’re watching the viability range of aspens tighten up due to increased warming. They used to grow comfortably down to around 4,500 - 5,000 ft altitude, but a lot of the established trees in the area are starting to stress and decline from the rising heat and drought trends.

It's almost become a guarantee that each year, at least one temperature record will be broken. This week, we broke the record for the number of days over 100 degrees in a single year. This summer we broke the all-time "official" record high with a balmy little 120 degrees.

The unfortunate thing with heat stress and plants is you can't exactly water your way out of it. I also may have lost a Yucca plant this summer. A Yucca! (*&^%$#@!). There's still a hint of green in some places, so I'm hopeful it might pull through. Probably have to dump ice on the ground next year on the days that top 115 (we had ten days in a row in July that were above 115).

[ceeboo]

Inconvenient Truth: 32 Climate Predictions Proven False | Facts Matter
https://youtu.be/E1e5HAZo4iw?si=Jh4_9R7n3xsDG68G

You, uh, may want to consider the source.

- Doc

Yes - It's always all about the source.

Peter: "Hey, take a look at all of these news articles that were written from the past several years"

Fred: "Wait - Before I read what was literally written by various experts in these articles over the years, I need to know who is suggesting I read them"

Peter: "Why would that make any difference at all?"

Fred: "Because information isn't valuable, the source is what's valuable."

Peter: "Okay, no worries - Want to go get a cup of coffee?"

Fred: "No, I need to get home, The View is starting in about 15 minutes."

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Why do you get so mad when confronted with facts? The video you linked was made by a Falun Gong cultist who spent a significant time shilling for an ultra-Right rag pushing straight up nonsense. A serious person goes to the source of studies when wanting to talk about a serious issue being observed and tracked by people who use highly technical instruments to gather data through which predictive models are made.

Ceeboo, you got a serious ear tickling problem. If something tickles your lobes you like it and think it’s real. If something sounds bad to you you think it’s bad and not real.

Anyway. Pick one thing our Falun Gong friend talked about and present it as a point of discussion. ‘Global Warming’ is sucha large and complicated topic, it’s hard to know where to start.

Also

[Moksha]

That’s crazy. African Sumac is an incredibly tough and drought-tolerant tree. If they’re having a tough time due to an increase in average temperatures, then the yearly trend is having a much more severe impact on desert-adapted plants than I imagined it would.

We left behind an AS in Phoenix, but here in Utah, we’re watching the viability range of aspens tighten up due to increased warming. They used to grow comfortably down to around 4,500 - 5,000 ft altitude, but a lot of the established trees in the area are starting to stress and decline from the rising heat and drought trends.

Ha! Those trees are just crazy liberals trying to make conservative climate claims look bogus. Those trees are politicizing the discussion with their behavior.

[ceeboo]

Why do you get so mad when confronted with facts?

Because facts make me furious! I despise facts!

The video you linked was made by a Falun Gong cultist

I don't care if the video was made by Donald Duck - I care about the INFORMATION.

Ceeboo, you got a serious ear tickling problem. If something tickles your lobes you like it and think it’s real.

I "think" the articles in the video are real? I gather from your statement is that you do not think the articles are real?

Anyway. Pick one thing our Falun Gong friend talked

Okay - I randomly picked the 2018 Forbes article by the Harvard Professor: I will copy/paste the article below.


Forbes
We Have Five Years To Save Ourselves From Climate Change, Harvard Scientist Says
Jeff McMahon
Senior Contributor
Reporting from Europe, Jeff McMahon covers the environment.

Jan 15, 2018,12:03am EST
Updated Jul 3, 2019, 11:04am EDT

"We have exquisite information about what that state is, because we have a paleo record going back millions of years, when the earth had no ice at either pole. There was almost no temperature difference between the equator and the pole," said James Anderson, a Harvard University professor of atmospheric chemistry best known for establishing that chlorofluorocarbons were damaging the Ozone Layer.

"The ocean was running almost 10ºC warmer all the way to the bottom than it is today," Anderson said of this once-and-future climate, "and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would have meant that storm systems would be violent in the extreme, because water vapor, which is an exponential function of water temperature, is the gasoline that fuels the frequency and intensity of storm systems."

People have the misapprehension that we can recover from this state just by reducing carbon emissions, Anderson said in an appearance at the University of Chicago. Recovery is all but impossible, he argued, without a World War II-style transformation of industry—an acceleration of the effort to halt carbon pollution and remove it from the atmosphere, and a new effort to reflect sunlight away from the earth's poles.

This has to be done, Anderson added, within the next five years.

"The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero," Anderson said, with 75 to 80 percent of permanent ice having melted already in the last 35 years.

"Can we lose 75-80 percent of permanent ice and recover? The answer is no."

The answer is no in part because of what scientists call feedbacks, some of the ways the earth responds to warming. Among those feedbacks is the release of methane currently trapped in permafrost and under the sea, which will exacerbate warming. Another is the pending collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, which Anderson said will raise sea level by 7 meters (about 23 feet).

"People at this point haven't come to grips with the irreversibility of this sea-level rise problem," Anderson said, displaying a map that shows the site of Harvard's new $10 billion Allston campus inundated after 3 meters of sea-level rise. He followed that map with images of Manhattan shrunken by encroaching waters and Florida missing its southern tip.

"When you look at the irreversibility and you study the numbers, this along with the moral issue is what keeps you up at night," Anderson said.

The moral issue

Harvard Professor James Anderson, best known for his work linking chlorofluorocarbons to the Ozone Hole, issued warned about the irreversibility of climate change.
Harvard Professor James Anderson, best known for his work linking chlorofluorocarbons to the Ozone... [+] Harvard
Anderson was awarded Chicago's 2016 Benton Medal for Distinguished Public Service in part for contributing science that led to the Montreal Protocol, the 1987 international agreement to mitigate damage to the Ozone Layer. He argued Thursday the physical sciences should take responsibility for preventing environmental catastrophe in the same way the biological sciences have set out to cure cancer.

At universities, that means linking the study of physical sciences with global issues like climate change, with government ethics, public policy, and other relevant practices.

In Chicago Thursday, he prosecuted a moral argument that implicates university administrators who refuse to divest from fossil fuels, journalists who fail to fact-check false statements made by political candidates, and executives of fossil fuel companies who continue to pursue activities that are exacerbating climate change—especially those who mislead the public about those effects.

"I don't understand how these people sit down to dinner with their kids," Anderson said, "because they're not stupid people."

Now, I recognize that I have an ear condition and that I think things are "real", when they obviously are not real, but, I must admit, when I randomly googled one of the articles, that the cult loser provided as one of the historical news articles, I couldn't freaking believe that the article existed and that the Forbes article provides precise confirmation regarding what the cult dude said the article said.

But, because of the source (excellent advice - thank you) I am going to pretend that none of it is true and that the article doesn't say what it says.

[huckelberry]

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

[ceeboo]

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.

[canpakes]

"The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero," Anderson said, with 75 to 80 percent of permanent ice having melted already in the last 35 years.

"Can we lose 75-80 percent of permanent ice and recover? The answer is no."

A Forbes article. How about another Forbes article for you, and one that addresses this same statement?

Arctic Sea Ice Resumes Its Slide
Jeff McMahon
Senior Contributor

Oct 12, 2023,12:00am EDT
Updated Sep 18, 2024, 05:43am EDT


The oldest floating ice in the Arctic appears in [+]
red on these maps comparing ice levels in 1985 and this year, from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado Boulder. Arctic ice levels reached their probable low for the year in mid-September. Data and images from Tschudi et al., 2019a and 2019b

After a brief rebound in 2020, the oldest ice floating in the Arctic Sea appears to have resumed its melt toward oblivion, according to data released this week by the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Scientists monitor the oldest ice because it tends to be more resilient, NSIDC says, better at reflecting sunlight, better at resisting melt.

“Very little of the oldest (4+ years old) ice remains in the Arctic, with small patches north of Greenland and an area north of the Beaufort Sea,” the NSIDC reported after recording the year’s annual low for Arctic ice on Sept. 19.

The oldest sea ice (in red on the maps above) covers 36,000 square miles, the second lowest extent in the satellite record, which has been maintained since 1985. The lowest was 21,000 square miles in 2019.

In the 1980s old ice covered more than 965,000 square miles of the Arctic Ocean.

In January of 2018, the Harvard University scientist James Anderson urged the world to mount a World-War II-style mobilization to combat climate change before all of the permanent floating ice disappears from the Arctic Sea.

If we didn’t, he said, the loss of that ice could trigger irreversible climate feedbacks, such as the release of methane trapped in permafrost and trapped under the sea, and such as the accelerated collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, with a consequent rise in global sea levels.

It would be a loss, he said, from which we will be unable to recover.

In 2018, Anderson estimated that at the rate permanent floating ice had been melting, it would be gone from the Arctic after 2022. The ice continued to decline in 2019 but rebounded briefly in 2020.

Anderson’s message in 2018 was subverted as his comments were exploited first by climate activists and then by climate-change doubters.

I attended Anderson’s lecture at the University of Chicago in 2018 and wrote an article conveying his warning. The article has bounced between climate partisans for more than five years.

The climate activists struck first, when a now-defunct site called GritPost exaggerated Anderson’s remarks to say that “climate change will wipe out all of humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.” Anderson never mentioned the extinction of humanity. Gritpost added that detail. He said that if all the floating ice disappeared from the Arctic—which at the time he predicted could happen in five years—we would be unable to recover from climate change.

Anderson has since elaborated that those with sufficient resources will probably always be able to stave off extinction.

In 2019, Greta Thunberg featured GritPost’s misleading version in a tweet, so the faux prediction of extinction spread fast and wide among climate activists.

When Thunberg later deleted the tweet, the climate doubters pounced, including several prominent bloviators, some of whom misled their audiences about the nature of Anderson’s message. Most attacked Thunberg. Some attacked Anderson for having predicted that humanity would be wiped out by 2023, which of course he never predicted.

This year, Anderson expressed concern that his quote from 2018 doesn’t differentiate between permanent floating ice and land-based ice. “The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero," Anderson had said in 2018. "Can we lose 75-80 percent of permanent ice and recover? The answer is no."

Most readers seem to have understood that he was talking about permanent floating sea ice. For the first five years the story was in print, I didn’t encounter anyone who failed to understand that reference. The story itself makes a distinction between the floating ice in that quote and the land-based Greenland ice sheet. But in Anderson’s shorthand description of “permanent sea ice” as just “permanent ice,” those who do not accept mainstream climate science saw an opportunity to discredit both the science and climate activists, because land-based ice is further from disappearing.

In any event, the extent of permanent Arctic sea ice is not zero in 2023, but it’s heading toward zero again.

There have been some excellent fact checkers adjudicating the controversy over Anderson’s remarks, including Newsweek, FactCheck.org and Tjekdet. I don’t want to repeat their work. I just want to emphasize that five years ago, an eminent scientist—the one largely credited with determining the cause of the hole in the ozone layer—urged us to mobilize to combat climate change, and we still haven’t.

This despite a summer in which both Canada and Hawaii endured unprecedented fires, with almost 100 Hawaiians killed and much of North America inhaling Canadian smoke. Another 110 million North Americans, from California to Florida, simmered under heat waves, while “1,000-year” floods inundated Vermont, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, New York, Florida. Maybe the permanent floating ice isn’t yet vanished from the Arctic Sea, but there’s no shortage of disasters that ought to prompt mobilization, disasters of a scale we didn’t see even five years ago. Take, for a poignant example, a flood that drowned thousands in Libya along a river that normally, in the summer, runs dry.

This was one scientist’s opinion. Elsewhere, most estimates that I’ve seen predict the same result by some year between 2040 and 2060. Anderson’s estimate was aggressive but the trend backs up the eventuality of his claim. If your stand here is that ‘climate change is a hoax’ based off of Anederson’s prediction, then you’ve elected to ignore a few truckloads of other scientists and organizations who are concluding the same outcome with a relatively short delay past Anderson’s date.

What does your wholesale rejection of climate change observations and conclusions get you? It would seem much more political to take the stand you have of rejection based on Anderson’s inaccurate guess as opposed to simply observing what the science is pointing to, which is still in line with his observations.

Remember, too, that ice extent is not equal to ice volume, and that we could lose a permanent ice cover while still seeing seasonal ice develop. Below is a graph showing the proportions of arctic ice at particular ages.

This isn’t exactly looking good.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmaho ... its-slide/

[ceeboo]

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)