Here’s What’s Happening In Your World…When It’s 4°C Hotter
I thought I’d publish this map of the world, created by the Metropolitan Art Museum, enabling you to get a glimpse of life on Earth if the planet warms 4°C, an extremely likely scenario. As we’ve often said, there will be some winners along with all the losers.
As interesting as it is, I question its accuracy, in that it features part of today’s land mass that will have long since ceased to exist due to the melting of a large percentage of the ice on Greenland and Western Antarctica.
Craig,
Fascinating ! In 1972, the National Geographic published a similar doomsday map compiled by a “consensus’ of renowned scientists and Nobel Laureates, illustrating a frozen world caused by “global cooling “.
The authors of the 1972 map predicted these event to be manifest by 2012. to paraphrase the Bard, “There are more complex things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than conceived in your philosophy “. !
Thank God you’re here, MP. I’m not sure how we’d function without a lawyer explaining how our scientists are wrong about matters within their zone of experience who have made this subject their life’s work.
There’s a reason I don’t weigh in subjects like atonal music and the plays of Sophocles: I don’t know anything about them. Maybe there’s a suggestion in there for you somewhere.
Craig,
The map you presented was designed not as a scientific paper for discussion among scientists, but rather for public consumption and comment since the subject matter affects everyone.
Nor is the map a ‘holy writ’ imbued with deified truth. Accordingly, the public (including me)should be able to comment without fear of being attacked by fanatical acolytes for committing some imagined ‘hearsay’!
Craig,
Oh, and while I’m dodging ‘slings and arrows’ (more Hamlet ;)) , brickbats etc, but still far preferable than enduring a lecture on the possible subject matter contained in the missing works of Sophocles’ Antigone tetralogy.( a lecture I once endured as a student, while romantically in pursuit of young female classics scholar). I think I’m entitled to point out that while I may have a law degree, I also have qualifications in economics,behavioural science, logistics and international finance.
What’s more relevant, is my nearly the last 40 years experience in working ( with modest success) as an investment banker, fund manager and financial analyst.
In these capacities I’m obliged to invest a great deal of time (and money) in researching and understanding the scientific aspects of technology, environment, industries etc. Unlike you, I get it wrong, both my clients and I lose money. This is a very effective incentive to get it right.
As a private individual I try to do my bit for the environment. I concentrate on practical projects. Projects, where I can see a possibility of bringing something valuable in my skill set to the venture. I’m proud of my environmentally successful projects, (and even some of the less successful).
Making a real difference is a lot harder than just demanding of others, especially governments, take action.
Ok Marcopolo,
Present it.
Find the 1970’s articles (both of them) that discussed global cooling and actually offer a link.
The fact that you believe in such nonsense proves – more than anything else you could ever have presented – that you are just a fool who mindlessly reads propaganda and gibberish and then trolls sites who are trying to find positive ways to change the direction of society.
There was never a consensus on global cooling. There were never “doomsday maps”. There were no “collections of Nobel Laureates”.
You are either lying, or you are a fool parroting someone else’s lies.
There was ONE research group that put forward a POSTULATE concerning global cooling during a time when the scientific community at large had access to less than one thousandth the climate data that they have at their disposal today. That is not “consensus”, and it is not “the scientific community”. If you don’t know the definition of words then you should refrain from using them, and if you are reading or watching propaganda referencing such transparent idiocy then you should stop doing so…
You only serve to make yourself look like a fool.
If you think I’m being overly blunt, it’s because that particular piece of nonsense fetishism from the alt-right blogs has been discussed and debunked literally thousands of times over the past decade. Even doing a moments’ worth of research would have dissuaded you from bringing up such asinine idiocy, since it is completely and utterly untrue. The fact that you refused to offer even a moment of your time to finding out about a subject before blathering out the bullshit spewed by the likes of Breitbart and Trump says quite a bit about you.
None of what that says is good.
Glenn,
Well you asked for references, and I think I provided enough referrals, but perhaps the most chilling alarmist example comes from Dr. Arnold Reitze in 1970.
Professor Reitze enjoyed a long career as one of the most distinguished American Environmental Law experts, yet in 1970, he propounded “after studying ‘consensus opinion’ by eminent scientists that the world will become 20 degrees cooler due to pollution, within 20 years, we will be forced to sacrifice democracy in favor of laws that will protect us from further pollution.”
Professor Reitze continued “if the population is to survive, the following steps must be undertaken”:
1)Outlawing the internal combustion engine within twenty years.
2)Rigid control on all consumer products to ensure minimum pollution or resource depletion.
3) Controls on all research and development projects is any risk or even the slightest suggestion of additional pollution is involved.
4) Strict population controls for the number of children allowed per family, with heavy penalties (including sterilization0 for those exceeding the limit.
No wonder the good doctor felt it necessary to recommend ” We will be forced to sacrifice democracy for laws that will protect us from further pollution “.
None of any of this has anything to do with actual science, but a great deal about overly excited “true believers” , spouting passionate, but inaccurate, ( and gratuitously abusive) dogma against all who dare to question their beliefs.
Having answered your accusations with more than fulsome evidence, I don’t expect an apology, or even a retraction, your silence speaks for itself.
Glenn,
Oh my goodness, you are an angry, and abusive little possum, aren’t you ?
But you are probably correct there was no more a scientific “consensus ” in 1970 than there is in 2017 ! However, with just a little research you could check the numbers of Nobel Laureates, scientists etc who belonged to doomsday predicting organizations such as the “Club of Rome” etc, in the early 1970’s.
But your outrage is misplaced since my observation was pnly intended to illustrate how the media uses terms like “experts” “consensus” “scientists” ” Nobel Laureates ” to justify all kinds of sensational predictions and articles.
There is an abundance of material from the early 1970’s about ‘Global Cooling”. (even several movies over the years even as as recently as 2004 when the wildly unscientific “The Day After Tomorrow ” was released.)
In 1974 a Time Magazine article titled ” Another Ice Age?” observed gravely,
“When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”
In 1975 Newsweek trumpeted “The Cooling World”, claiming;
“Scientists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century with Ice Age conditions predicted”.
The Washington Post edition of January 11, 1970 headlined “Colder Winters Herald Dawn of New Ice Age”. The article went on to explain how a new ice Age was predicted, quoting several distinguished scientists, etc
In 1972 an article appeared in the scholarly, but relatively obscure peer-reviewed scientific publication, ‘Quaternary Research Journal’. The article reported on the findings by a group of glacial-epoch scientists at a conference who agreed “the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near”.
The popular mainstream media seized upon this single phrase to justify an outburst of sensationalist predictions of another Ice Age.
Excerpts from the 1970 Study of Critical Environmental Problems, ” Man’s Impact On The Global Environment: Assessment and Recommendations for Action” formed the basis of many ‘Ice Age’ article in 1970-1 . Authors of articles in the mainstream media invariably cited only ” Ice Age” speculation, omitting any conclusions relating to warming.
In 1971 the hugely influential Dr Stephen Henry Schneider a Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, consultant to the Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, was widely quoted in the press, including the NYT, as predicting decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 °K, triggering a new ice age.
The fear of another Ice Age has always captured the imagination. In 1913, concern of new ice age caused the National Geographical Society to sponsor a totally inept expedition to the Arctic resulting in a shipwreck and the party only surviving by shooting and eating the local Polar Bear population and mining a small coal vein !
My observation was only intended to be a comment on how the popular media creates myths and distorts complex concepts by employing simplistic, and often sensationalist, articles,graphs, and imagery such as the map Craig posted.
However, since you and Craig seem to have got pretty riled, so before you both rush off to arm yourselves with pitchforkstar barrels, commence molesting the chickens for feathers, I suggest you read :
[ http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/09/13/83-consensus-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/ ]
Either that or take a little nap until you feel better …..
Marcopolo,
Your attempt to double down here makes you look more pathetic and more flat-out fucking contemptable.
I said “scientific consensus”, you offer news articles from non-peer reviewed mainstream news. Even then you can only offer a few.
During the 70’s the bulk of PEER REVIEWED science journals were warning about global warming. That was always the concern.
There were 7, if you include non-mainstream journals no longer in print – peer reviewed articles warning of global cooling. Seven, over a decade.
It’s not real. It’s not true. It’s been thoroughly debunked, and you are a fool to just cite whatever the first link that you find without fact checking further.
The climatedepot link includes ever paper that discusses the 3 decades of global cooling that had been observed prior to 1970, which is 278 of the 285 linked papers. Yes, there was scientific consensus of the observed instrumental temperature record over the past 3 decades. 278 of those papers went on to explicitly warn that the Earth was still stuck in a climate warming threat based on rising greenhouse gasses that would eventually overshadow the cooling affect from the aerosol emissions that were reflecting sunlight and cooling the planet slightly over the prior 30 years.
YOU. ARE. SPEWING. LIES.
You should be ashamed of yourself, because you are a disgrace. Grow up and learn to research something before just aping nonsense. Better yet, just stop paying attention to the nonsense.
Glen,
Good Grief, an even angrier little possum, screaming even more invective !
That’s the problem with throwing a tantrum, you just shout and swear and make a fool of yourself, mainly because you are so busy shouting you you never bothered to listen(or read) to what other were saying !
My original comment was a reference to public and media perception in the 1970’s. I carefully repeated this theme throughout all the references I cited. This was always the context of my observation.
I would have thought the observation contained in my reply;
“Excerpts from the 1970 Study of Critical Environmental Problems, ” Man’s Impact On The Global Environment: Assessment and Recommendations for Action” formed the basis of many ‘Ice Age’ article in 1970-1 . Authors of articles in the mainstream media invariably cited only ” Ice Age” speculation, omitting any conclusions relating to warming.”
Would have made the context abundantly clear. My observation concerning the response to the Quaternary Research Journal’ report, should have made the context even clearer.
But apparently not !
That’s the trouble with hysterical ranting, because you’re so full of your own opinions, you don’t actually listen to anyone but the sound of your own voice ! As a result you get it get it wrong and wind up alienating not only your audience, but the cause you advocate.
This has always a problem with overly excited advocates, they seldom listen to what people are actually saying, nor interested in making sure they understand the reasoning behind the observations of others.
Instead they only hear certain ‘trigger’ words or phrases and immediately commence a tirade of invective, oblivious of the irrelevance.
Never-mind, but I do have two pieces of advice for you,
1) In any debate or discussion it’s wise before speaking(or shouting) to make sure you’ve understood what others have actually said.
2) In any negotiation, debate or discussion, the person who raises their voice, screams abuse and resorts to bad language always loses the argument in the opinion of audience.
Here’s an idea. Why not calm down, (deep breathing helps) and re-read what I wrote in the correct context ? It’s not that hard, is it ?
Don’t worry about the embarrassment of having made a fool of yourself, just apologize and move on…. ( it’s so much easier than ‘maintaining your rage):)