Fact-Checking Climate Alarmist Predictions – Part III
Young children are scared. Millennials are in hysterics and mobilized. Adults are frightened and uncertain.
Politicians are feeding off the angst, enacting multi-billion-dollar public policies, and thinking about implementing multi-trillion-dollar plans, in an effort to appease the electorate under the guise of saving the planet and humanity.
Is there really cause for the level of angst, eco-anxiety, and dread that many people are feeling?
I don’t know because I’m not a climate scientist nor a psychologist, but neither are most of the people shouting the loudest.
We can, however, all do a postmortem on some of the predictions made over the years and make up our own minds because I think there’s reason for hope.
For reference, there’s a website called ExtinctionClock.org that tracks the more cataclysmic climate-related predictions.
Let’s start by looking at some of the predictions made in 2007 in the India Today article as mentioned in Part I of this series that were supposed to occur by 2020.
SEE ALSO: Link to Part I
SEE ALSO: Link to Part II
It seems that poor public policy is often the cause of India’s troubles. Poor water management and imbalanced distribution of subsidies for farmers are likely to be the cause of food insecurity.
Additionally, in 2020, it appears that any temporary food shortages were the result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) predicts that by 2100, sea levels will rise 0.3 meters, or 11.8 feet, which is quite a bit less than what the article predicts by stating that “Global average rise in sea levels could be as much as 0.8 meters by 2100.” Plus, there’s time to adapt to changes in sea level.
There is also evidence to support that glaciers in Asia are growing, a perspective that we don’t often hear.
Historical records show that death rates in India are decreasing. So the 2007 prediction of “Death and disease rise, resulting in a pervasive smell of rotting flesh.” appears to be hyperbole. This is good news.
Overall, life expectancy in general throughout the world has increased due to a number of factors, including industrialization and energy use. Again, this is a cause for celebration.
The article claims “25% of wildlife will perish”. This is an unclear statement – do they mean that wildlife will simply die due to old age and other natural causes?
If so, it may be an accurate prediction, but if they intend to evoke the fear of wildlife extinction, then it’s likely an exaggeration.
The IUCN (International Union for Conservation) Red List started tracking the status of plants and animals in 1964, and their data presents a much less dire reality.
We also have the opportunity to look back on some of the predictions made in relation to the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, when crowds of 20 million Americans gathered on what was (maybe) coincidentally Russian communist leader Vladimir Lenin’s birthday.
- “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald
- “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
- “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich
- “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
- “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
- “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine
- “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
- “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweek magazine
- “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt
As we can see, not every omen came true in 1970, so it’s quite possible that not every prediction related to climate change made today will be accurate.
And not every outcome of climate change will be negative, a concept that gets little acknowledgment.
Read rest at EnergyNow
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Barry
| #
Always good for a laugh to read all these rediculous claims born in 58 I have lived through a lot of these bogus predictions. It amazes me that people still believe that these great seeers are smarter than everyone else when in reality they only tell lies and don’t care if they are proven wrong in their own lifetime. We still can’t predict our chaotic wx past three or four days with any degree of accuracy and yet a large percentage of our population think that these agw cultists can see what the wx going to be in a hundred years. Is the general public really this stupid and gullible,I’m afraid so
Reply
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
THE FOLLOWING WILL EARN ME A NOBEL PRIZE, AND MANY HONORARY DOCTORATES…
Greater than 94% of the energy contained within nitrogen and oxygen are unaccounted for by the ‘climate change’ narrative, informing us of the massive scientific fraud taking place, the purpose of the fraud to further weaken the West’s economies.
[On March 16 Trump directed the nation to stay home for 15 days(!), his Marxist economic sabotage directive still in play. Immediately following Trump’s directive, governors/mayors declared illegal Executive Orders to lockdown the nation, thereby proving Marxist coordination between Federal/State/Local governments.
No new investments will be taking place because investments require recouping the investments, and with the spectre of the fake COVID-19 returning, or equally fake new pandemics, future lockdowns are in the future, therefore no investments are on the horizon. In short, the United States has been turned into a Banana Republic overnight.]
Nitrogen and oxygen constitute, by volume, 99.03% of the atmosphere’s gasses, while the trace gases account for 0.97%, or just under 1% of the atmosphere’s gasses. If we include water vapor (H2O) in the atmosphere, which accounts for, on average, 2% of the atmosphere’s gases by volume, we therefore subtract this 2% from the atmosphere’s gasses, where nitrogen and oxygen will constitute 97.0494%, and the trace gasses will constitute 0.9506%.
Nitrogen and oxygen don’t absorb much infrared radiation (IR) emitted from the ground, and assuming they absorb 100% of thermal energy from the surface, constituting approximately 5% of Earth’s energy budget, we’re left with a massive energy deficit for nitrogen and oxygen, confirming that those two molecules derive their energy from thermal ground/ocean emissions instead, but since the ‘climate change’ narrative identifies such emissions as not thermal but IR, we have proof that the energy being emitted isn’t IR but thermal because nitrogen and oxygen absorb a miniscule amount of IR.
Nitrogen and oxygen obtain 5.1% of their heat energy from thermal energy emanating from the surface…
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1200px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
…and another .078% of their heat energy from outgoing infrared radiation, leaving an energy deficit of approximately 94.8%.
Since nitrogen and oxygen constitute by volume 97.0494% of the atmosphere’s gasses (when water vapor is included in the calculations making for a more precise calculation), they must therefore retain that volume amount of heat energy, but 18.4 Wm2 only constitutes 5.1% of the Earth’s energy budget of 358.2 Wm2. Nitrogen and oxygen’s absorption of infrared radiation only infinitesimally affects this missing heat energy.
The missing energy levels for nitrogen and oxygen direct our attention to another aspect of the scientific fraud taking place: Misidentified outgoing energy types. IR is assigned an energy magnitude of 358.2 Wm2, and thermals 18.4 Wm2. The opposite is closer to the truth, where IR is assigned 18.4 Wm2, and thermals 358.2 Wm2.
Hence why:
THERMODYNAMICS IS AWOL
Climate change mechanics conspires to do away with the physics of the atmosphere, where action and reaction is abandoned. When a new gas molecule is introduced into the dense troposphere, dislocation takes place, where if the new molecule is denser than the atmosphere (contains less heat energy), such as carbon dioxide, the gas molecule sinks displacing upwards the warmer nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation. Conversely, if the new gas molecule has more heat energy than the nitrogen-oxygen based atmosphere (such as methane), the new molecule rises, displacing relatively cooler nitrogen and oxygen molecules downwards, which displaces upwards relatively more heat retaining nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation. Thermodynamics in action in the atmosphere that keeps the Earth cool when increased radiation isn’t the new variable introduced.
At my blog, bead the articles…
‘House of Cards: The Collapse of the ‘Collapse’ of the USSR’
‘Playing Hide And Seek In Yugoslavia’
Then read the article, ‘The Marxist Co-Option Of History And The Use Of The Scissors Strategy To Manipulate History Towards The Goal Of Marxist Liberation’
Solution
The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology/blackmail, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
My blog…
https://djdnotice.blogspot.com/2018/09/d-notice-articles-article-55-7418.html
Reply
Michael
| #
Ok Somewhat off topic, but I have a breakthrough theory that alters everything!
Watch this space!
Reply
Moffin
| #
I have been watching this space for over three hours. Not much has altered.
Reply
m
| #
Oops. Two hours. Daylight saving
Reply
MattH
| #
“sea levels will rise 0.3 meters, or 11.8 feet, which is ” Of course, 11.8 inches is the intended conversion.
I would run my boat aground with your conversion. And possibly crush a totally innocent clam.
Reply
LLOYD
| #
Glad you beat me to that error!
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dean,
The Nobel Prize and Honorary Degrees are not given for advancement in physics but for maintaining the position of the giver as the authority on what constitutes “correct” physics. The are an impediment to the advancement of physics and only serve to promote orthodoxy. Physicists now try to find something to confirm the beliefs of those who act as judges rather than make new discoveries about reality. They should be an embarrassment to those being awarded them. (They are not earned but awarded.)
Your comment is based on the mistaken belief that because nitrogen and oxygen do not absorb visible light or IR they do not absorb radiated energy from the sun. This is nonsense. All objects absorb radiated energy and all objects above absolute zero radiate energy.The oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere are absorbing the shorter x-rays and uv emitted by the sun. They convert this energy into kinetic energy. The ionosphere, nitrous oxide, and ozone in the atmosphere are a result of the bonds of the gas molecules being broken when the absorbed energy exceeding the bond energy of the molecules.
The problem is that a thermometer is useless in determining energy. It is calibrated using water (which is a completely inappropriate medium) and misses 86% of the energy needed to convert 0 C ice to 100 C steam. It is designed to have one material (mercury) absorb energy and another (the glass body) radiate energy. In order to measure the energy in a liquid there needs to be a constant number of molecules (mass) transferring energy to the one material (mercury). In a unconfined gas (like the atmosphere) when the energy of the molecules change the number of molecules (mass) also changing creating two variables and making a thermometer useless in comparing energy.
This has lead to the absurd belief that the atmosphere at lower altitudes is warmer because gravity adds energy to the molecules. It is the kinetic energy of the molecules that create the atmosphere and the greater the energy, the greater the volume. When a gas molecule loses energy it descends in the atmosphere because it succumbs to gravity losing energy, not gaining it. In order to determine the kinetic energy of the gas molecules in the atmosphere you must use the universal gas law (Pressure which confines the atmosphere and resists its expansion is gravity (NOT atmospheric pressure) and can be treated as a constant.) Divide the temperature at an altitude by the density at that altitude to compare kinetic energy.
Herb
Reply