Climate scientist says previous predictions about climate change 'were not wrong'

[Social Media]

PBS Newshour" invited climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe to discuss climate change predictions following the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on Monday.

The IPCC, an organization of experts convened by the United Nations, published an extensive report warning about the disastrous effects that global warming predictions are expected to have on humanity by the early 2030s. Many social media users have called out these claims, pointing out that past climate doom predictions have been wrong for decades.

[Tippaporn]

17 hours ago, Social Media said:

Many social media users have called out these claims, pointing out that past climate doom predictions have been wrong for decades.

But . . . but . . . but they're not wrong wrong.  It may seem to be wrong but it's not wrong at all.  At least not that kind of wrong.  Wrong to an extent maybe but not totally wrong.

The twisted logic used to explain that wrong is not wrong is awesome to behold.

[owl sees all]

Think they must have changed the definition of the word 'wrong'.

 

Turn the clock back to the 1970s, and an 'ice-age' was nearly upon us. Are these the same 'scientists' that are now spouting the nonsense?

[Tippaporn]

31 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Think they must have changed the definition of the word 'wrong'.

 

Turn the clock back to the 1970s, and an 'ice-age' was nearly upon us. Are these the same 'scientists' that are now spouting the nonsense?

Plenty of instances already where Merriam Webster has changed definitions of words to reflect the move to newspeak.

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

But . . . but . . . but they're not wrong wrong.  It may seem to be wrong but it's not wrong at all.  At least not that kind of wrong.  Wrong to an extent maybe but not totally wrong.

The twisted logic used to explain that wrong is not wrong is awesome to behold.

Thank you for providing absolutely no facts to back up your assertion.

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, owl sees all said:

Think they must have changed the definition of the word 'wrong'.

 

Turn the clock back to the 1970s, and an 'ice-age' was nearly upon us. Are these the same 'scientists' that are now spouting the nonsense?

False.

"The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends."

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4335191&page=1

 

[placeholder]

9 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

But . . . but . . . but they're not wrong wrong.  It may seem to be wrong but it's not wrong at all.  At least not that kind of wrong.  Wrong to an extent maybe but not totally wrong.

The twisted logic used to explain that wrong is not wrong is awesome to behold.

This is what reasoning backed by evidence looks like:

 

Early climate modelers got global warming right, new report finds

Climate skeptics have long raised doubts about the accuracy of computer models that predict global warming, but it turns out that most of the early climate models were spot-on, according to a look-back by climate scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and NASA.

Of 17 climate models published between the early 1970s and the late 2000s, 14 were quite accurate in predicting the average global temperature in the years after publication, said Zeke Hausfather, a doctoral student in UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group and lead author of a new paper analyzing the models.

“The real message is that the warming we have experienced is pretty much exactly what climate models predicted it would be as much as 30 years ago,” he said. “This really gives us more confidence that today’s models are getting things largely right as well.”

https://news.berkeley.edu/2019/12/04/early-climate-modelers-got-global-warming-right-new-report-finds/

[Red Phoenix]

On 3/23/2023 at 12:33 AM, placeholder said:

Thank you for providing absolutely no facts to back up your assertion.

https://co2coalition.org/publications/challenging-net-zero-with-science-lindzen-happer-co2-coalition-paper-released/

[owl sees all]

The climate is changing. IMO, it's quite natural.

 

Back in Adam and Eve's day, there was a temperate climate in England; much like the South of England now. After that England saw a 1000 years of warming. so much so, that the south and west of England had  thriving wine industries.

 

Then it started to coo,l and we are still in that period. Seems to go in cycles of about 1000 years, and I read recently that the North Sea was once a solid block of Ice.

 

As for Isaan, that is now my home, much of it was underwater for thousands of years. A long time ago, I grants you.

 

 

[h90]

On 3/23/2023 at 12:36 AM, placeholder said:

False.

"The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends."

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4335191&page=1

 

No it is not, as I am old enough to remember and all the great ideas how we can geoengineer to warm up the planet. Like painting the polar ice in black color.
Because of the cooling the harvest will be much smaller and millions will die.....Soon afterwards was peak oil. As we make fertilizer from oil or gas, with lack of fertilizer millions will die. It was in the newspapers, it was discussed in families. The cause was industrial production and both particle and SO2 in the air that cause the cooling. I can't remember why the SO2 should cause cooling. Particle because they block the sunlight.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, h90 said:

No it is not, as I am old enough to remember and all the great ideas how we can geoengineer to warm up the planet. Like painting the polar ice in black color.
Because of the cooling the harvest will be much smaller and millions will die.....Soon afterwards was peak oil. As we make fertilizer from oil or gas, with lack of fertilizer millions will die. It was in the newspapers, it was discussed in families. The cause was industrial production and both particle and SO2 in the air that cause the cooling. I can't remember why the SO2 should cause cooling. Particle because they block the sunlight.

Can you please share with us a link to your study? Did you publish in The Journal of Because I Said So.?

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, owl sees all said:

The climate is changing. IMO, it's quite natural.

 

Back in Adam and Eve's day, there was a temperate climate in England; much like the South of England now. After that England saw a 1000 years of warming. so much so, that the south and west of England had  thriving wine industries.

 

Then it started to coo,l and we are still in that period. Seems to go in cycles of about 1000 years, and I read recently that the North Sea was once a solid block of Ice.

 

As for Isaan, that is now my home, much of it was underwater for thousands of years. A long time ago, I grants you.

 

 

Even if your version of the how long there was a warming trend in England was correct (it isn't), clearly you  believe that England constitutes most of the world.

[placeholder]

4 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

https://co2coalition.org/publications/challenging-net-zero-with-science-lindzen-happer-co2-coalition-paper-released/

Get back to me with some peer reviewed science.  It should be easy to find something to back your belief. After all, only 99.9% of peer-reviewed papers say otherwise.

 

And there is this huge falsehood  told by Lindzen in 2018:

“Warming of any significance ceased about 20 years ago,” Lindzen claimed in a lecture at the Global Warming Policy Foundation. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20181018164016/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6259555/Climate-scientist-says-climate-claims-nonsense-coral-reefs-not-danger.html

 

What purveyors of falsehoods like Lindzen do, is look for anomalies and make them their baseline. So, to go back 20 years from 2018 would bring us back to 1998, That year featured an El Nino that was one of the most powerful ever recorded. This phenomenon raises global temperatures. This El Nino, being a huge one, raised temperatures a lot. Despite which in 2005, the average global temperature was higher than in 1998, And so was another in 2010., In fact the last 8 years have all had higher average temperatures than any previous yearly global average. And that includes years in which powerful La Ninas appeared. La Ninas have an effect opposite to that of El Ninos. They actually depress global temperatures. That 1998 record setter does not even make the top 10 anymore.

Here's a link to more info:

https://skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html

[owl sees all]

3 hours ago, placeholder said:

Even if your version of the how long there was a warming trend in England was correct (it isn't), clearly you  believe that England constitutes most of the world.

It all goes in cycles.

 

There is plenty of fear-mongering around. We can't do anything about climate change. Cause we have no control over the sun for one thing. But we can do other stuff; like not poisoning the soils with chemicals, and dumping trash into the the oceans, which is IMO is far more important than the CC fears currently on offer.

 

As for England ''constitutes most of the world.'' Well I don't think that, but that it is the centre of the world, Universe even. Is beyond question. I'll be even more precise. It's Hainault Forest in Essex. Where spirits and energy collect.

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, owl sees all said:

It all goes in cycles.

 

There is plenty of fear-mongering around. We can't do anything about climate change. Cause we have no control over the sun for one thing. But we can do other stuff; like not poisoning the soils with chemicals, and dumping trash into the the oceans, which is IMO is far more important than the CC fears currently on offer.

 

As for England ''constitutes most of the world.'' Well I don't think that, but that it is the centre of the world, Universe even. Is beyond question. I'll be even more precise. It's Hainault Forest in Essex. Where spirits and energy collect.

 

Now if only we had an atmosphere then maybe we could do something about it. Oh wait a minute...

[h90]

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

Can you please share with us a link to your study? Did you publish in The Journal of Because I Said So.?

Did you read what I wrote? Obviously not. Hint: in the 1970s there were no webpages. But obviously your are not interested in any honest discussion. Ask you parents or grandparents how it was then. It is not a fact that I need to proof, because I don't want to win a discussion, I am only reporting how it was then. I don't care much if you believe me or.

[h90]

10 hours ago, owl sees all said:

It all goes in cycles.

 

There is plenty of fear-mongering around. We can't do anything about climate change. Cause we have no control over the sun for one thing. But we can do other stuff; like not poisoning the soils with chemicals, and dumping trash into the the oceans, which is IMO is far more important than the CC fears currently on offer.

 

As for England ''constitutes most of the world.'' Well I don't think that, but that it is the centre of the world, Universe even. Is beyond question. I'll be even more precise. It's Hainault Forest in Essex. Where spirits and energy collect.

 

Beside the oceans which is really bad...and the great idea to shoot some uranium (which burns/explodes and sprays the dust everywhere) in Ukraine, the by far bigger damage on ourself is the nutrition. All the damage we do to nature is less harmful for us than the crap we eat. Which shows the mindset as well how can we expect that people take care of nature if they don't even take care of themself.

[placeholder]

49 minutes ago, h90 said:

Did you read what I wrote? Obviously not. Hint: in the 1970s there were no webpages. But obviously your are not interested in any honest discussion. Ask you parents or grandparents how it was then. It is not a fact that I need to proof, because I don't want to win a discussion, I am only reporting how it was then. I don't care much if you believe me or.

I offered the results of a study by someone who actually researched the scientific literature to see what was being said about climate change back then. You offer your recollections. It's absolutely clear that a rational, objective observer would go with actual confirmable evidence.  Except to those under the sway of a strong bias.

[gamb00ler]

On 3/23/2023 at 12:33 AM, placeholder said:

Thank you for providing absolutely no facts to back up your assertion.

Social media has fixed the prior fixation on facts.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/29/2023 at 8:54 PM, owl sees all said:

The climate is changing. IMO, it's quite natural.

 

Back in Adam and Eve's day, there was a temperate climate in England; much like the South of England now. After that England saw a 1000 years of warming. so much so, that the south and west of England had  thriving wine industries.

 

Then it started to coo,l and we are still in that period. Seems to go in cycles of about 1000 years, and I read recently that the North Sea was once a solid block of Ice.

 

As for Isaan, that is now my home, much of it was underwater for thousands of years. A long time ago, I grants you.

 

 

Much of the Saudi Arabian desert was sea bed long ago, and apparently trees grew on the Antarctic land mass before the ice came.

Climate changes, but these days some people are able to make money out of it.

[owl sees all]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Much of the Saudi Arabian desert was sea bed long ago, and apparently trees grew on the Antarctic land mass before the ice came.

Climate changes, but these days some people are able to make money out of it.

To quote Wolf; "When people are fearful, they are easy to manipulate, and likely to do as they are told."

 

Just another ruse to bring the populas into line.

[zzaa09]

And yet the unnecessary and mindless consumption, accumulation and waste continue on....

[placeholder]

14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Much of the Saudi Arabian desert was sea bed long ago, and apparently trees grew on the Antarctic land mass before the ice came.

Climate changes, but these days some people are able to make money out of it.

That was about 130 million years ago. It's clear you haven't mastered the concept of rate of change.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, zzaa09 said:

And yet the unnecessary and mindless consumption, accumulation and waste continue on....

and will continue because most people don't care about the woke agenda.

[gargamon]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and will continue because most people don't care about the woke agenda.

So you think 20% is most? Good luck with that. 

[thaibeachlovers]

31 minutes ago, gargamon said:

So you think 20% is most? Good luck with that. 

Are you claiming that 80% of 8 billion people care about the woke agenda?

IMO most wouldn't know woke if they fell over it.

[gamb00ler]

On 4/13/2023 at 5:17 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Much of the Saudi Arabian desert was sea bed long ago, and apparently trees grew on the Antarctic land mass before the ice came.

Climate changes, but these days some people are able to make money out of it.

 

21 hours ago, placeholder said:

That was about 130 million years ago. It's clear you haven't mastered the concept of rate of change.

Don't even mention continental drift .... 

https://earthhow.com/antarctic-plate/#:~:text=“All continents move and they,about 1 centimeter per year.”