Slashdot Mirror
1981 Paper's Predictions for Global Temperatures Spot-On
Layzej writes "The Register reports on a paper published in Science in 1981 projecting global mean temperatures up to the year 2100. 'When the 1981 paper was written, temperatures in the northern hemispheres were declining, and global mean temperatures were below their 1940 levels. Despite those facts, the paper's authors confidently predicted a rise in temperature due to increasing CO2 emissions.' The prediction turns out to be remarkably accurate — even a bit optimistic. The article concludes that the 1981 paper is 'a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test.'"
Care to cite one? Since it sounds like you're so well-informed.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
The eighties was 30 years ago?
Shit I'm old.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
So, in yesterday's story about predicting the collapse of civilization, multiple posters snarked about how convenient it is to make predictions about what will happen 30 years from now, 'cause no one will remember you made those predictions--so you'll never be called to account for your oh-so-incorrect doomsday predictions.
I now calmly await for yesterday's posters to issue "I can see now that I was wrong" statements.
"Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
I love extrapolation.
http://xkcd.com/605/
Seriously, things don't go in a straight line forever. Further, they were quite totally wrong, in that their predictions were too low. I don't know what the big deal is, other than AGW people glorying in their own selection bias.
So I guess in climate science, if 25% of your prediction is 30% off, that's "spot-on". Sounds like if the quantities are not ambiguous, the criteria for judging the accuracy of them certainly is.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Right, and scientists never formulate questionable theories for political or monetary reasons. At all. Ever.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Well, that is a nice example of "proof by anal extraction". Care to actually cite the thousands of not-useful ones? I mean, like, doing science and stuff? Or do you just create your reality by decree ex cathedra?
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.