Science/Environment Climate change predictions that were wrong

[ferball]

So I guess that "we're heading toward an ice age" stuff is wrong.

What else?

"Everything is gonna be all right!"

What about:

"Its all in your imagination warmist!"

That one was wrong too.

 

[barreness]

That what the research says. Either way, we are headed for mass extinction.

Yeh the holocene likely was the catalyst for Humans to go full 'civilisation' and agriculture, after chilling out with hunter-gatherer type set ups for ~300k years.

We were coming off that warm point slowly as all those articles you linked say. If we say gave it another 10,000 years we may have got an ice age. Instead we went full special and cranked the temp up like 4-6 degrees in 300 years.

Weather(pun) this triggers all kinds of cascading failures and reinforcing feedback loops and cooks the planet for a few million years is yet to be seen, but is likely by most research.

Eventually the planet has ways like rock weathering and limestone sealife to bring back carbon dioxide to reasonable levels as theorised in events like the deccan/siberian traps. I guess this mass extinction could well pave the way for all crazy new types of creatures, which is cool in an abstract way, the time of mammals is looking over

We are in a mass extinction event now, when that inevitably takes me and you is up for debate

 

[barreness]

You good with your kids facing that?

Sadly I don't thinks it's even the metaphorical kids facing that. We are in it now with bushfires, floods etc. Next few decades are looking very dicey for much of humanity*, let alone the rest of the biosphere

*The bunkers should hold for a few years, for some

 

[barreness]

So I guess that "we're heading toward an ice age" stuff is wrong.

What else?

"Everything is gonna be all right!"

What about:

"Its all in your imagination warmist!"

That one was wrong too.

Honestly it's probably the mentally healthy thing for many, 'she'll be right'

The time for action was in the 70's, the time for radical action was in the 90's, the time for shitting the bed and going all out was in the 2010's

None of that happened, so here we are. Let the resource wars begin and good luck

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

You good with your kids facing that?

It's an inevitability.

Nothing will stop the extinction of humans. At some point, everything, even human history will be reduced to nothing.

 

[Gough]

It's an inevitability.

Nothing will stop the extinction of humans. At some point, everything, even human history will be reduced to nothing.

You seem to approach this prospect with such relish.

 

[ferball]

Honestly it's probably the mentally healthy thing for many, 'she'll be right'

The time for action was in the 70's, the time for radical action was in the 90's, the time for shitting the bed and going all out was in the 2010's

None of that happened, so here we are. Let the resource wars begin and good luck

People barely knew in the 70s. It was still theoretical. They were still bringing back Antarctic ice cores and testing them to check for evidence.

Late 70s maybe they were confident enough to make a link between atmospheric CO2 and warming.

Agree with the rest.

There's a chance that cascading disasters will force the rate of fossil fuel use down and we will see a slowing in the rate of emissions but I dunno how likely it is and how much help it will be if it happens.

 

[ferball]

Also ... resource wars started decades ago.

 

[Long Live HFC]

Don't need to. It already is:

Humans may have prevented super ice age

Our impact on Earth's climate might be even more profound than we realise. Before we started pumping massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the planet was on the brink of entering a semi-permanent ice age, two researchers have proposed. Had we not radically altered the...

www.newscientist.com

Human emissions will delay next ice age by 50,000 years, study says - Carbon Brief

The scale of carbon dioxide emissions from human activity is enough to push back the next ice age by 50,000 years, new research suggests.

www.carbonbrief.org

Human-induced climate change reversed 6,500-year global cooling trend

What would Earth’s climate naturally be doing if it weren’t for human intervention? Researchers at Northern Arizona University have now analyzed over 12,000 years of climate data, and found that human-induced warming interrupted and reversed a long-term natural global cooling period.

newatlas.com

Interesting, thanks for the sources.

 

[barreness]

People barely knew in the 70s. It was still theoretical. They were still bringing back Antarctic ice cores and testing them to check for evidence.

Late 70s maybe they were confident enough to make a link between atmospheric CO2 and warming.

Agree with the rest.

There's a chance that cascading disasters will force the rate of fossil fuel use down and we will see a slowing in the rate of emissions but I dunno how likely it is and how much help it will be if it happens.

Well nah, chemists knew about it from the mid 19th century

Long before the current political divide over climate change, and even before the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865), an American scientist named Eunice Foote documented the underlying cause of today’s climate change crisis.
The year was 1856. Foote’s brief scientific paper was the first to describe the extraordinary power of carbon dioxide gas to absorb heat – the driving force of global warming.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/07/scientists-physics-climate-change-eunice-foote/

Oil companies start getting data on it in the 50's

Major oil companies, including Shell and precursors to energy giants Chevron, ExxonMobil and BP, were alerted about the planet-warming effects of fossil fuels as early as 1954, newly unearthed documents show.

The warning, from the head of an industry-created group known as the Air Pollution Foundation, was revealed by Climate Investigations Center and published Tuesday by the climate website DeSmog. It represents what may be the earliest instance of big oil being informed of the potentially dire consequences of its products.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/12/big-oil-fossil-fuel-warning

I reckon the 70's was the time for action because things like silent spring('62), limits to growth('74), population bomb('68), hippies etc came into the public consciousness. The idea was there to limit industrial society, it just never followed through for various reasons

 

[barreness]

Also ... resource wars started decades ago.

Well yeh. I mean the last grabs for everything as it turns to shit; including water, ag land, energy. The basic resources more so than the fancy stuff

 

[barreness]

It's an inevitability.

Nothing will stop the extinction of humans. At some point, everything, even human history will be reduced to nothing.

We could have had a few million years like many species, perhaps even 100 million like crocodiles.

Instead it's gonna get wrapped up under 500k, and we're the smart ones apparently

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

We could have had a few million years like many species, perhaps even 100 million like crocodiles.

Instead it's gonna get wrapped up under 500k, and we're the smart ones apparently

Even if we get to the next Ice Age, things will get really interesting. 8 billion people don't fit neatly in and around the equator. I think the last ice age had most of North America (Canada in particular) and Europe covered in ice. Australia and Africa were uninhabitable due to lack of rain.

 

[barreness]

Even if we get to the next Ice Age, things will get really interesting. 8 billion people don't fit neatly in and around the equator. I think the last ice age had most of North America (Canada in particular) and Europe covered in ice. Australia and Africa were uninhabitable due to lack of rain.

Well I mean ice age talks are completely out the window now, this was really just a talking point back in the 70's to cover 'maybe some global warming ain't that bad'.

The 8/9 billion stuff is the current dilemma. It can't be sustained without industrial ag, industrial ag can't be done without global heating and land degradation.

We're in a situation with no good solution. You get the deniers(which you seem to take that argument), the green washers(it'll be solved by solar panels/veganism), or the fascists who will drive it into the dust violently.

I would prefer a more realistic position that goes degrowth, eco-socialist, collapse of civilisation in a calm way. This is unpopular with basically everyone I know, so go off I guess

 

[Seeds]

Well I mean ice age talks are completely out the window now, this was really just a talking point back in the 70's to cover 'maybe some global warming ain't that bad'.

The 8/9 billion stuff is the current dilemma. It can't be sustained without industrial ag, industrial ag can't be done without global heating and land degradation.

We're in a situation with no good solution. You get the deniers(which you seem to take that argument), the green washers(it'll be solved by solar panels/veganism), or the fascists who will drive it into the dust violently.

I would prefer a more realistic position that goes degrowth, eco-socialist, collapse of civilisation in a calm way. This is unpopular with basically everyone I know, so go off I guess

Why is industrial ag needed when ag productivitiy gains meant global land use from agriculture peaked 15-25 years ago? Thats right, global population is growing but land use for agriculture is shrinking, not decreasing. Are you not aware of this? And industrial ag will be powered by solar, wind and batteries. So your global heating argument is wrong. You cant just brush it away like you have attempted to in your post. The green washers have the solution. You cant pretend it does not exist.

Not to mention industrial ag reduces land use not increase it. It will give back farm land to the forests. Why are you stating it leads to increased land degradation when it gives land back to forests.

And what is the calm way of telling people they should stop breeding and their standards of livings need to fall? Changing the culture to make it less consumer driven is certainly one I advocate for but all it will lead is more resources being consumed in infrastructure (something I strongly advocate for). It wont lead to lower economic growth, in fact it will boost it. There is no calm way to achieving your goal. Just the Thanos way. Perhaps before you go all Thanos you should actutally pay attention to the latest science. Cos your goal, whether its calm or not, is not even needed to feed the world or reduce emissions anyway. Green tech is the answer. It always has been. Its not reducing the size and prosperity of humanity.

Oh and 70 percent of ag land use is used for livestock (both directly and to grow crops to feed them). Not crops. Cell based meat has the potential to wipe out the need for most of that livestock land use.

 

[barreness]

Why is industrial ag needed when ag productivitiy gains meant global land use from agriculture peaked 15-25 years ago? Thats right, global population is growing but land use for agriculture is shrinking, not decreasing. Are you not aware of this? And industrial ag will be powered by solar, wind and batteries. So your global heating argument is wrong. You cant just brush it away like you have attempted to in your post. The green washers have the solution. You cant pretend it does not exist.

Land use peaks and declines......due to degradation right? Did someone decide to stop farming in a global capitalist world due to high profits?

Not to mention industrial ag reduces land use not increase it. It will give back farm land to the forests. Why are you stating it leads to increased land degradation when it gives land back to forests.

'Giving land back to the forests', I guess in a few centuries they might be able to restore it

Why are the Amazon (and Australian) forests still getting slashed and burnt if we're 'giving it back'

And what is the calm way of telling people they should stop breeding and their standards of livings need to fall? Changing the culture to make it less consumer driven is certainly one I advocate for but all it will lead is more resources being consumed in infrastructure (something I strongly advocate for). It wont lead to lower economic growth, in fact it will boost it. There is no calm way to achieving your goal. Just the Thanos way. Perhaps before you go all Thanos you should actutally pay attention to the latest science. Cos your goal, whether its calm or not, is not even needed to feed the world or reduce emissions anyway. Green tech is the answer. It always has been. Its not reducing the size and prosperity of humanity.

They don't need to be told to stop breeding, they're doing it naturally(bar one child policy, which I'd ague was the most meaningful environmental policy in history). Fertility declines across the world

Yeh standard greenwashing here. Growth in a finite world must be maintained, the tech that got us into this will fix it, etc. When in doubt accuse anyone of being genocidal if they don't maintain the farce

Oh and 70 percent of ag land use is used for livestock (both directly and to grow crops to feed them). Not crops. Cell based meat has the potential to wipe out the need for most of that livestock land use.

Yes, veganism and lab meat(magic tech that doesn't work economically) will fix this. Greenwashing

As I said earlier, this is probably good for your mental health, you've got young kids, I don't blame you

 

[barreness]

Sorry just carrying on

Lab grown meat has been floated for 20 odd years(at least as far as remember)

Has anyone actually tried some? if so, reports, soylent green or legit?

 

[ferball]

Well nah, chemists knew about it from the mid 19th century

Long before the current political divide over climate change, and even before the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865), an American scientist named Eunice Foote documented the underlying cause of today’s climate change crisis.
The year was 1856. Foote’s brief scientific paper was the first to describe the extraordinary power of carbon dioxide gas to absorb heat – the driving force of global warming.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/07/scientists-physics-climate-change-eunice-foote/

Oil companies start getting data on it in the 50's

Major oil companies, including Shell and precursors to energy giants Chevron, ExxonMobil and BP, were alerted about the planet-warming effects of fossil fuels as early as 1954, newly unearthed documents show.

The warning, from the head of an industry-created group known as the Air Pollution Foundation, was revealed by Climate Investigations Center and published Tuesday by the climate website DeSmog. It represents what may be the earliest instance of big oil being informed of the potentially dire consequences of its products.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/12/big-oil-fossil-fuel-warning

I reckon the 70's was the time for action because things like silent spring('62), limits to growth('74), population bomb('68), hippies etc came into the public consciousness. The idea was there to limit industrial society, it just never followed through for various reasons

Theoretically yeah but the whole point of that exercise in Antarctica was to provide real world evidence that there was a correlation, then show causation between temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere.

In the 70s there were credible scientists saying an ice age was a possibility.

 

[ferball]

Well yeh. I mean the last grabs for everything as it turns to shit; including water, ag land, energy. The basic resources more so than the fancy stuff

I think that process has started.

 

[Andre]

It's an inevitability.

Nothing will stop the extinction of humans. At some point, everything, even human history will be reduced to nothing.

Humans are unlikely to go extinct as such. Humans will continue evolving though. What 'humans' look like in a million years will be considerably different to now.

In the short term, even with environmental stuff up's, or god forbid a nuclear winter, that humans have evolved large brains is both our (as in the whole species) curse, but also blessing. There'd be enough humans left that a civilisation would emerge again even if everything went full shit creek. Hopefully more careful.

 

[PiCkLeJuiCe]

Humans are unlikely to go extinct as such. Humans will continue evolving though. What 'humans' look like in a million years will be considerably different to now.

In the short term, even with environmental stuff up's, or god forbid a nuclear winter, that humans have evolved large brains is both our (as in the whole species) curse, but also blessing. There'd be enough humans left that a civilisation would emerge again even if everything went full shit creek. Hopefully more careful.

I hope your right, but if you think humans can peacefully decide who is going to reside in the last remaining habitable parts of the planet then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[JoinDate]

More fake news from lefty loonies at the ABC.

Tourist town considers artificial reef to stop popular beaches vanishing

As erosion threatens roads and even homes in Robe in South Australia, artificial reefs and other options are on the table to fight back.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Gethelred]

I hope your right, but if you think humans can peacefully decide who is going to reside in the last remaining habitable parts of the planet then you haven't been paying attention.

This is a rather arrogant statement to make.

 

[CD Xbow]

More fake news from lefty loonies at the ABC.

Tourist town considers artificial reef to stop popular beaches vanishing

As erosion threatens roads and even homes in Robe in South Australia, artificial reefs and other options are on the table to fight back.

www.abc.net.au

I don't have a clue what you mean. What part of it is fake news? Is it factually incorrect? What has it got to do with the 'loony left'? I cant see anything in the article that should trigger such a strong response from you. Perhap you have linked the wrong article?

 

[ferball]

Poe's Law!