1981 Paper's Predictions for Global Temperatures Spot-On 371
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.'"
Re:What about the rest? (Score:5, Funny)
What? (Score:5, Funny)
Shit I'm old.
You asked for it! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Extrapolation (Score:2, Funny)
http://xkcd.com/605/ [xkcd.com]
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.
Re:monkeys throwing darts... (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re:monkeys throwing darts... (Score:3, Funny)
Right, and scientists never formulate questionable theories for political or monetary reasons. At all. Ever.
Re:monkeys throwing darts... (Score:5, Funny)