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.
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.
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
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.
The difference here is that there is a mechanistic explanation, the physical properties of CO2, while in trading you just have people twiddling knobs getting functions to fit or AI to converge. That is what makes climate research science and trading voodoo.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Here's a nice demonstration how the greenhouse effect of CO2 works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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.