Slashdot Mirror
How Two Scientists Accurately Predicted Global Warming in 1967 (medium.com)
Slashdot reader Layzej shares an article from this spring marking the 50th anniversary of the first accurate climate model:
Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel looks at a climate model (MW67) published in 1967 and finds "50 years after their groundbreaking 1967 paper, the science can be robustly evaluated, and they got almost everything exactly right."
An analysis on the "Climate Graphs" blog shows exactly how close the prediction has proven to be: "The slope of the CO2-vs-temperature regression line in the 50 years of actual observations is 2.57, only slightly higher than MW67's prediction of 2.36" They also note that "This is even more impressive when one considers that at the time MW67 was published, there had been no detectable warming in over two decades. Their predicted warming appeared to mark a radical change with the recent past:"
An analysis on the "Climate Graphs" blog shows exactly how close the prediction has proven to be: "The slope of the CO2-vs-temperature regression line in the 50 years of actual observations is 2.57, only slightly higher than MW67's prediction of 2.36" They also note that "This is even more impressive when one considers that at the time MW67 was published, there had been no detectable warming in over two decades. Their predicted warming appeared to mark a radical change with the recent past:"
A way to distinguish the one prediction that's going to be right from the millions that aren't.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I've lived in houses for 42 years, and have yet to have one burn down on me. As a rough approximation, we could say that the probability of my house burning down next year is less than 1 in 42, or less than 2.4%. Yet I have fire insurance, because it is worth it.
Same thing with climate change. The chances of catastrophe are small, but the best estimates put it about 2.4%. And real world experience has shown that the cost of doing something is, net, almost nothing. Sure there are winners and losers, and the losers are big carbon companies, who are behaving exactly like tobacco companies when faced with the same calculus.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I've lived in houses for 42 years, and have yet to have one burn down on me. As a rough approximation, we could say that the probability of my house burning down next year is less than 1 in 42, or less than 2.4%. Yet I have fire insurance, because it is worth it.
Must be liberal arts grad. Your neighbor too lived for 40 or 50 years without burning down a house. Now suddenly your upper bound drops to 1%. And then add more and more people and you will find a few who lost houses to fire. Your sample might eventually include Betram Wooster who burnt down two houses, (or was it three?). Pretty soon you can get a very good estimate of actual likelyhood of you losing a home to fire in the next one year. The insurance company has this actuarial statistic and priced you insurance premium accordingly.
The actuarial science actually dates back to 1700s when the mortality of the priests in England was calculated with surprising accuracy.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Definitely denialist handwaving. When even Exxon-funded scientists admit that climate change is being driven by humans, why insult your own intelligence with the "gosh this is toooo hard to understand!" shtick.
Traders who make money on fees whether the market goes up or down. A market driven by human psychology, something climate DGAF about.