U.N. Predicts Disaster If Global Warming Not Checked (1989)

https://web.archive.org/web/20201101032435/https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

by g42gregory • 3 years ago

67 76 3 years ago

web.archive.org

maxnoe• 3 years ago

Carl Sagan testifying in Congress, 1985: https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI

hm-nah2• 3 years ago

…we are all in this greenhouse together.

Wow…this was stated so eloquently, frankly and scientifically when I was 4 years old…in front of the (largely) MEN that could have started the global movement of adjusting our course…

I’m going to say it here:

Humanity has a man problem.

9(9.9?)% of serial killers, dictators, war criminals, robber barons and generally people in power have one thing in common, they are human males.

It is obvious that humanity has been mismanaged by men. For various reasons, they’ve rationalized their way out of taking the necessary action to bring humanity together, under one banner.

What are our options at this point?

pipeline_peak• 3 years ago

By 2000 Kinda makes you wonder why people don’t take global warming seriously…

chickenchicken• 3 years ago

reversed by 2000

MrBuddyCasino5• 3 years ago

People seem unable to hold these separate thoughts in their head at the same time:

- none of the predictions regarding global warming became true

- this does not mean that human-induced warming isn't happening

- but this also doesn't mean prosperity-ending measures to curb co2 emissions are justified in every case

The climate deniers are probably wrong, but so are the climate doomers who have shown a lack of epistemic humility and a failure to weigh the pros and cons of potential interventions. At its worst, its a death cult, and thankfully it seems to be in decline.

None of the interventions in western countries has made any impact globally, they literally don't matter and are a rounding error when compared to China and India.

woodruffw3• 3 years ago

None of the interventions in western countries has made any impact globally

The Montreal Protocol[1] is the first counterexample to this that comes to mind.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

a_humean• 3 years ago

You say that none of the interventions made any impact globally, and that is true, but only if you ignore all of the times that climate/ecological interventions through global agreements did work.

hutzlibu4• 3 years ago

"they literally don't matter and are a rounding error when compared to China and India"

Is that your gut feeling, or do you have some numbers to back that up?

Also China is investing quite heavily in renewables and one can argue that they started doing so, because the demand (through subsidies in the beginning) for them exploded, so then the prices dropped, so further demand happened - so now there is an industry in china that spits them out by the masses. Btw. it is a really comfortable position to say "look at china", how much they consume - when they mainly produce OUR stuff we then consume. One has to look at the CO2 consumption per human - (see here for example: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions). How can we expect the low income world to lead with industry change, when we still consume way more per citizen, than they do?

Levitz• 3 years ago

None of the interventions in western countries has made any impact globally, they literally don't matter and are a rounding error when compared to China and India.

I think we knew all along. Those policies aren't meant to make an impact on climate change as much as they are meant to make a political, hopefully influential, push towards such policies.

It's one thing to ask China to do something we are not doing, it's a whole different thing to ask them to do something we are.

matheusmoreira• 3 years ago

Not to mention the fact such "interventions" almost universally condemn developing countries to economic irrelevance. It's easy to act all virtuous about the climate when you're an obscenely wealthy industrial country. I for one would burn down the entire Amazon jungle if it brought my nation the industrial strength needed to rival the developed world. I wouldn't even think twice.

ZeroGravitas• 3 years ago

Some people were complaining about low quality climate denial comments, but this is a good example of high-effort climate denial you find on HN.

It's the equivalent of "intelligent Design" in evolution where they wrap an obviously wrong and totally discredited position like Creationism in sophistry to confuse matters.

proc0• 3 years ago

How can you claim some hypothesis is true if the predictions are wrong? At the very least the hypothesis should be adjusted to try and include why the predictions have failed.

I'm not saying there isn't evidence, but the details do matter. There is a massive difference if the hypothesized phenomena happens in 100 years instead of 10 years (which it seems has been the claim for decades). At the very least there seems to be no accountability for incorrect predictions, which ends up determining the politics of a country. This politicizes it even more as people feel forced to change too quickly in ways they do not see justified.

hm-nah2• 3 years ago

… prosperity-ending measures

More like capitalism-ending measures.

Capitalism is the culprit.

I need to imagine different models for making a living, models outside of profit-for-the-few.

Models focused on benefits-for-the-many.

onion2k• 3 years ago

Kinda makes you wonder why people don’t take global warming seriously…

This is what makes climate change a bigger problem - when the models are right and people take action it looks like a waste of time because the issues don't arise because they're mitigated (similar to Y2K really), and when the models are 20, or 30, or 50 years off, or flat out wrong, that means governments can ignore them with impunity. The only time climate science looks right is when the model is correct and no one takes action.

The result of this is that where there's a feedback loop that happens over decades or centuries (eg almost all environmental science) governments won't act when the problem is small, so humanity is setting itself up for a much bigger problem in the future. I'm in my late 40s and I don't have kids, so I'm not really sure I care, but if you do have kids and you don't want them to be drafted into wars over habitable land or have to live the second half of their lives on Mars, it might be worthwhile taking the climate seriously.

We don't really have a big problem to solve for ourselves. We have a problem to solve for future generations.

mschuster91• 3 years ago

We don't really have a big problem to solve for ourselves.

Well, actually we do, because climate change has accelerated to the point that we are threatened too. The 2022 heatwaves in Europe, for example, surpassed the height of the COVID pandemic in excess deaths [1], last year France and Switzerland had serious issues with power as their NPPs didn't have enough cooling water, and wildfires are growing stronger, more frequent and more devastating every year.

And that doesn't even take into account invisible threats like thawing permafrost in Russia releasing pathogens that have laid dormant for tens of thousands of years [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_European_heatwaves

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/12/0...

golergka• 3 years ago

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

The actual increase has been even less than 1 degree. How can one have the same trust in the same warnings now?

bluejekyll• 3 years ago

Is this your data source on that being less than 1? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

It looks like the trend is pretty obvious if not the magnitude.

docdeek2• 3 years ago

The trend is clear but the miss on the magnitude seems significant if it's the person making the prediction is asking for trust and billions of dollars.

ben_w4• 3 years ago

The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago

Sounds like they're talking Fahrenheit, not Celsius.

The change has been about 1 F, which is 0.555 C: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Glob...

Ice core derived temperature graph: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperatur...

defrost6• 3 years ago

It's very probable he was using Farenheit as his unit (given he's a lifelong US citizen) and given he's not a scientist of the physical or vaguely numerical type he's likely sloppy on his baseline and ranges.

None the less:

    The 2022 surface temperature was 1.55 °F (0.86 °Celsius) warmer than the 20th-century average of 57.0 °F (13.9 °C) and 1.90 ˚F (1.06 ˚C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900).

So the earth was up a degree and half F within 30 years relative to the 20th Centuray average.

and:

    Dr Noel Brown is the former Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, North American Regional office.

    Dr Brown holds a B.A. in Political Science and Economics from Seattle University, an M.A. in International Law and Organization from Georgetown University and Ph. D. in International Relations from Yale University.

    He also holds a diploma in International Law from The Hague Academy of International Law.

https://www.pace.edu/sites/default/files/files/commencement/...

So, not a STEM person and not a climate scientist.

readthenotes1• 3 years ago

"not a STEM person and not a climate scientist. "

Are you saying that the head of the United Nations Environment Program was speaking out of ignorance? That seems a very weak defense....

lern_too_spel• 3 years ago

The report mentioned in TFA says 1.5 to 4.5 degrees celsius from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, which was projected for 2075.

We can have the same trust in the warnings because we can read and understand.

https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/70000A5V.PDF?Dockey=7000...

"Carbon cycle modelers and energy economists generally expect the concentration of C02 to increase 50 percent by 2050 and to double by 2075."

"All projections of future concentrations have been based on the assumption that current trends will continue and that governments will not regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. However, in the fall of 1987, most of the industrial nations agreed to cut emissions of the chlorofluorocarbons by 50 percent over the following decade. Moreover, the United Nations has created an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to develop strategies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in general. Nevertheless, curtailing emissions will be difficult. There is considerable doubt regarding the global warming that would result from a doubling of carbon dioxide. There is general agreement that the average temperature would rise 1.2°C if nothing else changed. However, warmer temperatures would allow the atmosphere to retain more water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas, increasing the warming. A retreat of ice cover would also amplify the warming, while possible changes in cloud cover could increase or decrease the warming. Two reports by the National Academy of Sciences have developed a consensus estimate that the average warming will be 1.5 to 4.5°C, and that the polar areas will warm two to three times as much."

nabla92• 3 years ago

Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C (likely between 0.8°C and 1.2°C) above pre-industrial levels in 2017 . source: IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/

Annual records are

   2016 1.01°C
   2020 1.02°C

Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I reverse the question. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄?

marcus_holmes• 3 years ago

I read that as the warning was that the temperature would rise by 1 to 7 degrees during the next 30 years (i.e. 1989-2019), not since ~1850. It has definitely risen by >1 degree since ~1850, but most of that had already happened by 1989.

cm2187• 3 years ago

I agree, I have very little trust in all those climate projections, even today. That being said the industrial rise of China and South-East Asia happened since, and I doubt those were baked into any prediction in 1989 (like I doubt any prediction for the evolution of the world for the next 30y will be worth anything). If you look at the evolution of co2 emissions over that period, those two regions represent the bulk of the increase, with western countries rather dropping. So you can argue that the world we are looking at now is definitely worst that the world they were contemplating then.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...

verisimi3• 3 years ago

It's the branding element of the environmental warnings that are funniest to me.

We had Leonard Nimoy warning us in the 1970s about about global cooling and a 'mini ice age'. That didn't materialise so we moved to 'global warming'. Then when that didn't seem to happen either, we moved to the generic 'climate change' - a term which is always true (and meaningless).

jug• 3 years ago

Global warming didn't seem to happen? Uhh.

"Climate change" is used to cover more bases because the effect is not only the warming itself. We learned that you get issues with sticky weather patterns too etc. While the avg yearly temperature of Earth rises, it can also cause effects like extreme cold that sticks in unusual areas.

verisimi3• 3 years ago

Global warming didn't seem to happen? Uhh.

Seriously, in your experience, has it changed? And, if so, how do you determine that?

For myself, I've noticed nothing special. Seasons change with some warmer than average some colder than average... But that's weather isn't it - it changeable. I really can't say anything seems that different from my youth. The seas are certainly the same height.

IanCal• 3 years ago

That didn't materialise so we moved to 'global warming'. Then when that didn't seem to happen either, we moved to the generic 'climate change' - a term which is always true (and meaningless).

This is a bit silly and I feel like you should already know this. The very simple message is that the globe is warming and that this changes the climate. It's important to emphasise this last part because it's not the case that making the planet warming simply makes us all a bit toastier.

We had Leonard Nimoy

An actor who played a scientist from space.

ben_w4• 3 years ago

Leonard Nimoy warning us in the 1970s

He was also warning us about Klingons off the starboard bow. I'd say that treating all famous people as equivalently knowledgable reflects poorly on you, but really it's much worse than that — it reflects poorly on the way most human minds work.

tokai• 3 years ago

Sad to see all these comments pop up with all kinds of gotchas and disingenuous talking points. On HN of all places. It's not even the denial, but the low quality of it.

immmmmm2• 3 years ago

It is very disturbing indeed

blkhawk• 3 years ago

In my experience its very common on HN. Sadly these talking points represent such a large amount of memes that are so entrenched that its akin to talking to flat Earthers or sovereign citizens.

The Gish gallop is never ending and due its being a strongly politically-identity coupled you can't hardly convince anybody. there isn't a chance of fruitful debate :/

infecto• 3 years ago

That's society. It is powerful to have all these different opinions. Of course some of them are low-quality but others are terrific. You are only sad because you disagree with the opinions.

Like many things in life there is probably a middle-ground where most of the truth sits. Climate doomers who you see post a lot in HN argue that we need to cut consumption back dramatically and humanity will soon perish if we do not. I actually don't see too many extreme climate deniers here but I am sure they exist. Extreme in the sense they would deny humans have any impact on the environment. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

g-b-r3• 3 years ago

The truth tends to be in the middle of the scientific estimates

a-french-anon4• 3 years ago

Daily reminder that https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_da... happened, and was supposedly "investigated" by a commission (chaired by someone with clear conflict of interest) which found no issues whatsoever; basically snuffed.

I suggest you read those damned emails yourself if you want to reach an informed position.

immmmmm2• 3 years ago

am i dreaming or you are pushing old conspiracies on HN???

https://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.h...

defrost6• 3 years ago

Daily reminder that:

    The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light.

    The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-ab...

https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

What's next? Urban heat islands? Cosmic Rays? Heat from the Earths core?

a-french-anon4• 3 years ago

Can you read my last sentence? Instead of letting "fact checkers" do the thinking for you, make some effort to actually think for yourself.

By the way, being skeptical of climate change doesn't mean being against measures to reduce pollution (which is the only sensible position).

g-b-r3• 3 years ago

A lot of people seem to have interpreted the article as saying that by 2000 entire nations would be wiped off the face of earth.

Let's read it again.

“A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels _if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000._ ”

2000 is the limit for _reversing the trend_ !

Not doing that could mean that entire nations etc. at some unspecified time.

“ He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. ”

Is it clear what it says?

“As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, ” ... at some point in time.

“Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply” at some point in time!

“[...] Refugees [...] coast [...] crops” at some point in time...

“The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago”. Others pointed out that he's using Fahrenheit. Just check the numbers.

“Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, _we have an opportunity to start _the stabilizing process.”

“He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.

″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion”. Nothing too controversial here I think, as well as in the rest of the article.

What's left is the disconsolation of seeing "climate skeptics" even in a place like Hacker News.

I guess that whatever comes we deserved it.

water-data-dude• 3 years ago

Yeah, I thought it was pretty obvious that the article wasn’t claiming we’d be in the middle of armageddon by 2000. I agree that it’s a little unexpected to see several (4 out of 7) replies are from climate skeptics.

That being said, the top two comments are this one and the one with a link to a Carl Sagan video, so I’m inclined to think that the majority of people here acknowledge that climate change is a real thing but aren’t interested in wading into an argument with strangers on the internet on this particular topic.

U.N. Predicts Disaster If Global Warming Not Checked (1989)

Related Stories