Why is it So Often “Sooner than Predicted�?

For threads primarily discussing Climate Change (particularly in relation to Peak Oil)

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13570
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Why is it So Often “Sooner than Predicted�?

Post by UndercoverElephant »

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019 ... predicted/
It’s increasingly clear that our situation is worse than we’ve been told, perhaps far, far worse. One can choose to scoff at those predicting drastic outcomes like near-term human extinction, but how does one support that kind of skepticism when “reasonable� projections have so far proven to be woeful underestimates?
I'm minded to believe this. Not the extinction scenario, but the idea that climate change might be much worse than most people are expecting. Several explanations given in the article, but the one that strikes me is that the IPCC might be disregarding the worst projections because they see no point in unnecessarily alarming people. If even a much less bad projection demands action considerably more radical than anybody believes is politically likely, and yet is still economically possible, is there any point in issuing even more dire predictions? Would that make action more likely, or just risk provoking the opposite reaction?

But sooner or later if they indulge in that sort of manipulation of the figures, a gap will emerge between predictions and the observed reality. Could that be starting to happen?
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 10592
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

This is also makes some good points:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... te-change/
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13570
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

clv101 wrote:This is also makes some good points:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... te-change/
That makes a lot of sense. I am now wondering whether we are going to see some big stuff in the next ten years that almost nobody is expecting.
User avatar
adam2
Site Admin
Posts: 11001
Joined: 02 Jul 2007, 17:49
Location: North Somerset, twinned with Atlantis

Post by adam2 »

The situation is undeniably serious and worsening. In particular I expect considerable feedback to make things still worse.
Melting of polar ice, thereby exposing dark soil, rock, or seawater which absorbs more sunlight and accelerates warming.

Melting of tundra and permafrost which releases carbon dioxide if it burns and methane if it rots, thereby accelerating warming.

Clearance of tropical forest for hamburger production, releases the carbon formerly trapped in the forest in addition to the methane emitted by the cattle, and the combustion of the fuel used in transport and processing of the meat.

Rising temperatures increasing the need for air conditioning, much of which is powered by electricity from coal fired power plants.

Despite this, I do not expect humans to become extinct.
The end of modern technological civilisation is a distinct possibility. But the end of humans ? no way, too numerous, too ingenious, and too widespread.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14287
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

The ludicrous thing is we're so brainwashed that we're still looking for economic answers to environmental problems. Economics is the problem not the answer.

The answer doesn't lie in an economic answer it lies in an environmental one. If an answer to an environmental problem isn't economic, economics has the problem and economics must find the answer and a different one, at that, to the old paradigm.

Scientists have been giving politicians recommendations which they thought politicians and economists could deal with but that has always fallen markedly short of what science has shown subsequently to be required; hence the "sooner than predicted" scenario. It is often not sooner than the actual science predicted but sooner than the less troubling findings predicted.

This is why I always Quote Hansen et al and the 7m sea level rise by the end of the century. I know that CLV doesn't like it but I would far rather plan for that and not get it, although it is on its way, than plan for the 900mm that Hinckley has been planned for and then be surprised.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
adam2
Site Admin
Posts: 11001
Joined: 02 Jul 2007, 17:49
Location: North Somerset, twinned with Atlantis

Post by adam2 »

Whilst TPTB might try and reassure us that sea level rises will be limited to some modest figure, it would appear that the financial industry are less optimistic.
Try getting a mortgage on a low lying property !

A neighbour has just purchased a semi-derelict farm house and 18 acres of land for a low cash price due to it being at risk from flooding.
They intend to build a flood proof home and to graze free range beef cattle.
They have other higher land onto which the animals may be driven if flooding is forecast.
Between floods, the land is excellent grazing.
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14287
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

clv101 wrote:This is also makes some good points:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... te-change/
This quote from that article brings Hanson et al's 7m sea level rise by the end of the century more into the realms of probability than possibility.
the underwater melting that is driving disintegration of ice sheets and glaciers is occurring far faster than predicted by theory—as much as two orders of magnitude faster—throwing current model projections of sea level rise further in doubt.
And Hinckley Point Nuke has been designed on the IPCC basis of 0.9m by the end of the century. I've just written a letter to my MP, copied to the local paper, pointing this out and how the prevailing wind would bring any fall out from an explosion at Hinckley right over West Berkshire and London. Should have said Fukushima type explosion to wind up the ante a bit!!
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Banned
Posts: 730
Joined: 19 May 2019, 08:00
Location: Colorado

Post by ReserveGrowthRulz »

kenneal - lagger wrote: This is why I always Quote Hansen et al and the 7m sea level rise by the end of the century. I know that CLV doesn't like it but I would far rather plan for that and not get it, although it is on its way, than plan for the 900mm that Hinckley has been planned for and then be surprised.
Well, the Holocene has had 6 and 7 meter sea level rises in short periods of time before, your reference at least has precedent on their side.
woodburner
Posts: 4124
Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 22:45

Post by woodburner »

So, even with those sea level rises, the damage to the human population was such that the world population is now 7.7billion, with an increase so far this year of over 50million. Even so these right wing trumpist (add insults as required)websites are putting out this misinformation. Shocking! I am surprised google hasn’t censored them.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14287
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

RGR is talking about a sea level rise that took place over 7500 years ago when the human population was probably about ten million and a city was all of 50 people. We've had plenty of time to make up for any population loss all those years ago.

When the sea level rises now it will be a different matter as a large proportion of those 7 billion people you cite now live in cities which are at or about sea level and will be slowly inundated. also much of our food is grown at or about sea level so there will be a considerable loss there too. Combine that with more extreme weather and we could well have food shortagfes in the near future.

Hey, woodburner, that's really up to date news isn't it? 2011 the latest. Why hasn't he updated his website since then? Perhaps he got found out with a perfectly reasonable explanation within climate change parameters and didn't think it worthwhile? Or perhaps they are now shrinking? I don't doubt that there is more snow in places because it is one of the phenomena predicted by climate change/global warming; higher precipitation. If the temperature in a region rises from -15C to -10C you still have freezing conditions but it is still warming so, voila! Snow!

As to the area of thick ice increasing in the Arctic, it was local weather conditions which blew the ice against the Canadian coast, thickening it and so it lasted a bit longer. The rest of the ice disappeared quite quickly though so there was still a net loss of ice year on year. Nothing difficult or strange about that was there!

Off the top of my head, the reason that the Antarctic Sea Ice grew in extent was because there was so much ice melting down there that the sea water became less saline and thus froze at a much higher temperature. Hence, more ice. "Simples" and quite logical really. No conspiracy theories necessary. Just another bit of Trump Non News!

I wish you would actually look critically at what you are using, woodburner. It might save you some embarrassment.
Last edited by kenneal - lagger on 22 Aug 2019, 00:19, edited 1 time in total.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

The population"bomb" is going to create a food crisis all by itself with or with out climate change. How will we sort out cause and effect and direct out efforts where most useful.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14287
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

vtsnowedin wrote:The population"bomb" is going to create a food crisis all by itself with or with out climate change. How will we sort out cause and effect and direct out efforts where most useful.
We will know where the loss in food production is because of lower recorded yeilds due to inclement weather and initially due to salt water ingress into coastal land followed by complete inundation. I think there are pretty good statistics of how much food most countries produce and import. (CIA is one source I have seen quoted)

We will also have a pretty good idea which countries have a rising population from birth and death records.

I think we will know fairly accurately cause and effect.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
woodburner
Posts: 4124
Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 22:45

Post by woodburner »

The point vt made was that there is going to be a problem caused by population increase, regardless of any climate effects. Did you understand that point or is it you are so wedded to climate change that nothing else could be a problem?

I received this earlier, about the guy who had many fights whe he proposed that tectonic plates were moving around causing earthquakes and eruptions. He postulated a few other things too, which you will of course dismiss because you won’t like the narrative.
........... a geologist Thomas Gold. .............................

He was a maverick. In the nineteen fifties he had been repeatedly thrown out of the American Geological Society for being a vigorous promoter of the tectonic plate hypothesis. Namely, that the Earth’s surface is make up of vast plates that glide about above the mantle. Not so much gliding as grinding very slowly.

Of course, this is now universally accepted as being true. Not so sixty years ago, when anyone mentioning tectonic plates was considered a dangerous fool, who understood nothing about geology, or science. Oh yes, indeed.

However, Thomas Gold did not stop with tectonic plates, he also promoted the abiotic theory of oil generation. I think he also came up with the idea of neutron stars as well. Anyway, getting back to abiotic oil generation, he did not believe that oil was created when trees – or other organic matter - died, rotted, went underground and was, gradually converted to oil.

He believed that oil was generated spontaneously within the Earth’s core. To quote:

‘Gold’s theory of oil formation, which he expounded in a book entitled The Deep Hot Biosphere, is that hydrogen and carbon, under high temperatures and pressures found in the mantle during the formation of the Earth, form hydrocarbon molecules which have gradually leaked up to the surface through cracks in rocks. The organic materials which are found in petroleum deposits are easily explained by the metabolism of bacteria which have been found in extreme environments similar to Earth’s mantle. These hyperthermophiles, or bacteria which thrive in extreme environments, have been found in hydrothermal vents, at the bottom of volcanoes, and in places where scientists formerly believed life was not possible. Gold argues that the mantle contains vast numbers of these bacteria.

The abiogenic origin of petroleum deposits would explain some phenomena that are not currently understood, such as why petroleum deposits almost always contain biologically inert helium. Based on his theory, Gold persuaded the Swedish State Power Board to drill for oil in a rock that had been fractured by an ancient meteorite. It was a good test of his theory because the rock was not sedimentary and would not contain remains of plant or marine life. The drilling was successful, although not enough oil was found to make the field commercially viable. The abiotic theory, if true, could affect estimates of how much oil remains in the Earth’s crust.’ 1
1. More

On past form more of your toys will probably be flying out of your pram shortly, while you look for the gun to shoot the messenger.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.’ Max Plank.
Though it will be a while before Extinction Rebellion members die off. Meanwhile G. Thunberg sails off into the sunset to be “environmentlly friendly�. She forgot to say that the boat’s crew, all six, will be flying back so giving a rather larger “footprint� than if G.T. had gone by air in the first place, or even hitched a ride on a cargo ship.

Anyway, no doubt the contents thus far will give you cause to write some more abuse.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Banned
Posts: 730
Joined: 19 May 2019, 08:00
Location: Colorado

Post by ReserveGrowthRulz »

kenneal - lagger wrote:RGR is talking about a sea level rise that took place over 7500 years ago when the human population was probably about ten million and a city was all of 50 people. We've had plenty of time to make up for any population loss all those years ago.
Plus, back then folks could move! Just imagine the anthropology sites sitting on the bottom of the Bering Strait from all the folks that walked from Asia to North America?
kenneal-lager wrote: When the sea level rises now it will be a different matter as a large proportion of those 7 billion people you cite now live in cities which are at or about sea level and will be slowly inundated. also much of our food is grown at or about sea level so there will be a considerable loss there too. Combine that with more extreme weather and we could well have food shortagfes in the near future.
Sure could. No different than what was claimed for the 70's, so what are the odds that folks are right this time? From a First Worlder's perspective, there have already been food shortages, just go look at places in Africa. Happens all the time. They will continue? Not a surprise.
User avatar
ReserveGrowthRulz
Banned
Posts: 730
Joined: 19 May 2019, 08:00
Location: Colorado

Post by ReserveGrowthRulz »

vtsnowedin wrote:The population"bomb" is going to create a food crisis all by itself with or with out climate change. How will we sort out cause and effect and direct out efforts where most useful.
The Population Bomb was supposed to have gone off in the 1970's. And yet here we all are.
Post Reply