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.
This paper is arguably the origin of the modern disinformation campaign against carbon pollution. This is the point where politically powerful interests realized that their core business model was in danger and that they needed to do something to stop it. Now we have an entire political party who's official position is to ignore the blatantly obvious and to be actively hostile to the kind of research that produced this paper.
I read the internet for the articles.
ad 2nd: CO2 did raise far before the warming. The numbers were 270 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere in 1899 (Anatole Leduc, Nouvelles Recherches sur les Gaz, 1899), 330 ppm in the 1970ies, and are 400 ppm now. Warming took of in the 1970ies, when half of the CO2 increase until now had happened already.
ad 3rd: The global temperature level of the Eem Interglacial (the last warm period before the last Ice Age) is already reached.
[sarcasm]Clearly there is no way that scientists came up this research with decades ago and that they debated it for decades before consensus. No this was all invented by China recently to cover up their involvement with the Kennedy assassination and the Lindberg kidnapping.[/sarcasm]
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
NASA wants to set max CO2 levels in the ISS at ~13X what it is on Earth right now. I think they have a bit of an interest in keeping astronauts clear-and-level headed, and apparently levels around 5000ppm are acceptable. Given most navies allow up to 8000ppm long-term in their submarines, it's probably a safe level for critical thinking,
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yes. Because science doesn't dabble in truth, it deals with evidence, and likelihoods. Truth may be unchanging, but the most probable scenario has to change as you obtain more evidence.
From the 1940s to around 1980, the globe actually cooled because of industrial aerosol emissions, which reflect solar energy back out into space. From around 1910 to around 1960, CO2 mediated warming was believed to be impossible because (a) atmospheric CO2 was mistakenly believed to be in a stable equilibrium with ocean dissolved CO2 and (b) CO2's emission spectrum was mistakenly believed to overlap that of water vapor, which is much, much more common.
In the 1950s both those beliefs were disproven, by Roger Revelle's study of ocean CO2 chemistry and by more precise spectrographic instrumentation. This meant CO2-mediated warming was physically possible, however in the 1960s cooling was still the consensus because at that time scientists thought aerosol cooling would outpace CO2 warming. That was easy to believe, because the Earth was cooling before our very eyes.
In the 1970s measurements of increasing CO2 along with newly available computer modeling techniques tipped the balance of scientific consensus toward warming in the upcoming decades even though we were still in a aerosol-mediated cooling phase.
This is about as robust as a scientific result gets: an accurate prediction of a reversal of current trends. Were the predictions being made perfectly precisely correct? Of course not. But on the whole the prediction of a reversal of current temperature trends was correct. There was still significant dissent about the direction of future climate in the 80s, but by 1990 it was clear to virtually everyone in the climate research field that CO2 warming was overwhelming aerosol cooling.
Again, that's how science works. It's about reasonable extrapolations from evidence, not eternal and unassailable truths.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yes, because high school science teachers are such vanguards of scientific knowledge...
Ezekiel 23:20
The medium.com article is very good by the way. Read it!
Maybe... it is around $500 million to send a person into space, and about $30,000 per pound of supplies they need. So whilst it may be a few dozen at the ISS, the cost per person is easily in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year per person.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Or he did hear that being taught, just like I did in the late 70s and heard the exact same thing being taught - even in the Weekly Reader (those under 40 or so probably have no clue what that even is). The last theory I heard before the "next Ice Age" theories died out was that cooling was going to be caused particulate pollution in the atmosphere keeping sunlight from hitting the ground. Looking back it doesn't make a lot of sense, IMO, but that was the theory.
Weak trolling attempt, dude...
You're either very badly mistaken or flat-out dishonest. Most of the studies in the 1970's predicted warming. The few that didn't have been discredited or retracted.
Read and learn:
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Here's a nice demonstration how the greenhouse effect of CO2 works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They hysteria about it lasted less than a month, and then other scientists had come forward saying that it was the opposite.
IOW, it was not during the 60s and 70s, but about 1 month in the 70s and then it disappeared, and instead, scientists were saying we do not know, but it looks more like a major warming.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
These arguments always tend to revolve around whether global warming is real or not. That is not the right question.
Let us assume that global warming is real. The fallacy is when people assume that global warming is BAD.
Yes, but that is a different question.
The relentless assault on climate science and on climate scientists-- using words like "hoax" "scam" and "fraud" in referring both to the science and the scientists-- is still continuing. But now the attack has forked, with attacks on the scientists continuing, but now another branch of the attack saying "well, but maybe warming is good."
I'd pay more attention to them if they weren't pretty much the same people (and funded by the same oil companies) who were saying "climate science is a hoax and climate scientists should be put in jail."
I notice you don't sign your name, Mr. Anonymous Coward. So, to be clear: do you accept the evidence that global warming is real, and anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the major contributor? Or are you just doing a new attack on a new front?