Even 50-Year-Old Climate Models Correctly Predicted Global Warming (sciencemag.org) 407
sciencehabit writes: Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn't accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models -- some half a century old -- shows most of them were indeed accurate. "How much warming we are having today is pretty much right on where models have predicted," says the study's lead author, Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley.
The researchers compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to the surface temperatures predicted in 17 forecasts. Those predictions were drawn from 14 separate computer models released between 1970 and 2001. In some cases, the studies and their computer codes were so old that the team had to extract data published in papers, using special software to gauge the exact numbers represented by points on a printed graph. Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters. Seven older models missed the mark by as much as 0.1C per decade. But the accuracy of five of those forecasts improved enough to match observations when the scientists adjusted a key input to the models: how much climate-changing pollution humans have emitted over the years.
The researchers compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to the surface temperatures predicted in 17 forecasts. Those predictions were drawn from 14 separate computer models released between 1970 and 2001. In some cases, the studies and their computer codes were so old that the team had to extract data published in papers, using special software to gauge the exact numbers represented by points on a printed graph. Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters. Seven older models missed the mark by as much as 0.1C per decade. But the accuracy of five of those forecasts improved enough to match observations when the scientists adjusted a key input to the models: how much climate-changing pollution humans have emitted over the years.
Geez (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone turns 50 doesn’t mean they can’t do good work.
The fact that the models have held up pretty well isn't even new; Forbes looked back at the predictions of the 1967 Manabe and Wetherald model when it turned 50, and found it held up remarkably well: https://www.forbes.com/sites/s... [forbes.com]
What's interesting here is that they look at a fourteen different climate models that have been published over the years, and they're all pretty good.
This is not particularly unexpected; Manabe and Wetherald got the basic physics down on a global scale, and the later models ju
Re:Geez (Score:4, Insightful)
the accuracy of five of those forecasts improved enough to match observations when the scientists adjusted a key input to the models: how much climate-changing pollution humans have emitted over the years.
This sentence sets of alarm bells for me. 17 models, 2 weren't predictive and 10 models predicted climate change accurately WITHOUT adjusting for the actual human inputs?
That's a problem. The models can't just be positively predictive, they must be negatively predictive as well. If you change the inputs from the actual observations, the model should make the wrong prediction.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps.
More likely, most of the predictions already spanned a range of emissions that included what we actually ended up emitting.
Pretty much every forecast I've ever seen has had (at least) a "best case" and "worst case" predictions depending on how our emissions changed over time. Some researchers though intentionally underestimated the worst-case emissions to avoid generating predictions that would get them labeled as alarmists.
However, since our actual emissions have actually been pretty much in-line
Re: (Score:3)
Falsifiability is the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong. That capacity is an essential component of the scientific method and hypothesis testing.
If they "spanned a range of emissions," how were they falsifiable?
Re: (Score:3)
Mostly you don't have to do that though, because the actual emissions pretty closely matched the "alarmist" worst-case projections, so feeding the actual data in would be redundant.
Well, If you ignore the margin of error, then sure the models can be shown as accurate. Ever wonder why both the Alarmist and the Deniers can use the same data to show their arguments? Statistics, Damn Statistics, and lies.
Denial (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models.
Not quite.
Climate change doubt funders have a a favorite target: climate models.
Most of the "doubters" are just parroting what the funders are posting online out of fear that they might have to drive a tiny car or become vegetarian or something (whatever evils the FUD spreaders are telling us will happen to us if we lift a finger to do something...)
More info here: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If an overwhelming amount of politicians are telling me A, I will inmediately turn to B, C or D.
Re:Denial (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's put it this way:
If an overwhelming amount of politicians are telling me A, I will inmediately turn to B, C or D.
Right... so if you own B, C and D then you go on social media pretending to be a politician telling people A.
Geddit?
What you need to do is stop listening to politicians and think:
If 999 doctors tell you you have cancer and one doctor doesn't then what should you do, fixate on the one? Go around repeating that the 999 are liars?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If 999 doctors tell you you have cancer and one doctor doesn't then what should you do, fixate on the one? Go around repeating that the 999 are liars?
You ask them what should be done to treat the cancer.
I've been asking what should be done about global warming and it seems the people able to show their work all come to roughly the same conclusion, but they are all variations on a theme. We find energy sources to replace fossil fuels. Those energy sources will have to be affordable, safe, plentiful, low in CO2 emissions, high in energy return on investment, and be a technology we know how to reproduce at a meaningful scale. Those energy sources are ons
Re: (Score:2)
I've been asking what should be done about global warming
Put a price on carbon and let the market solve the problem. Make it revenue neutral so that income and sales tax can be reduced. Two birds with one stone.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you put the tax on third world countries? How do you get Russia, China, India, and Brazil to all agree on this? What do you do if they don't pay?
Economic sanctions only work up until those countries combined has a larger market than US and EU, after which sanctions will hurt you a lot more than it hurts them, and your own people are going to vote against both the tax and the sanctions.
Re: (Score:3)
That literally does nothing for the trade between those countries.
Re: (Score:3)
The Paris agreement does not force those countries to reduce emissions. They are allowed to set their own emission goals, which could be anything. That's why they were happy to agree to it.
We did not mess up the first step. It was a wrong step to begin with. Trying to reduce emissions through international agreements was a non-starter except to people living in the same fantasy land as those who think communism can work in anything other than village-sized or post-scarcity societies.
If you want to affect dr
Re: (Score:3)
Put a price on carbon and let the market solve the problem.
"When buying and selling is controlled by legislation, the first thing bought and sold is legislators."
Re:Denial (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Denial (Score:3)
Solving it on paper is not sufficient. The problem comprises social and societal issues, as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Claiming we have "solved" the problem of global warming is like connecting a hamster wheel to a motor out of your kid's toy car and claiming you fixed the blackout.
We have to actually deploy the solutions at a scale that actually replaces the carbon emitting old tech before we get to say we've solved anything.
Then we have to figure out how to deal with the remaining problems that are now inevitable thanks to the foot draggers.
Re:Denial (Score:4, Interesting)
Science and medicine is not a democracy. It does not matter how many people agree on something to be true, it matters if it is true. And that can be proven beyond a doubt by simple experiments or it will forever be a contested subject that will never be settled unless that simple experiment or overwhelming evidence is produced.
It is aggravating when people take the biggest, most complicated problem of geology and physics, "climate change", a problem on a planetary scale with billions of inputs and even more variables and observations, and compare it to topics that are absolutely trivial in comparison, like "is the Earth round" or in your case "does a cancerous mass exist in a human body". That doesn't mean cancer is easy to cure, sadly, that is still far away for most of the people who would fall ill to it, but in comparison to "climate change", it is easy to locate and detect with a high or absolute degree of certainty.
Nothing regarding "climate change" is easy to detect, formulate and it's even harder to solve, even if we could agree on the tenets of its existence.
Science is never settled and if you believe a problem on a planetary scale with billions of data points is easy to detect and easier to solve with one single input ("just emit less carbon, duh"), you have absolutely zero idea what constitutes science and what size and complexity the problem and its measurement actually have. That means you're not the tiniest bit qualified to decide about the solution, which like all problems is orders of magnitude harder than the detection, especially not if the proposed "solution" includes the initiation of force by the state towards untold millions of human beings.
We have seen what happens when the government assumes power to initiate force upon individuals in the name of the greater good.
Re:Denial (Score:5, Insightful)
Science and medicine is not a democracy. It does not matter how many people agree on something to be true, it matters if it is true
And in the case of climate change, how would you determine what is true, assuming for the moment that you are not a scientist yourself ?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I live squarely in the land of "deniers", but funny thing. The overwhelming majority of them have not denied climate change for the better part of a decade. They deny the suggested causes (or the percentage of influence of those causes).
But for whatever reason, the argument against them is always framed as 999 out of 1000 scientist agree in climate change, rather than 750 scientists out of 1000 (or whatever the actual number is) agree that man made pollutants are the primary cause of climate change.
Re: (Score:3)
The overwhelming majority of them have not denied climate change for the better part of a decade. They deny the suggested causes (or the percentage of influence of those causes).
My question was broader than just the fact whether climate change is occurring. Suppose you want to know the answer to every reasonable question about climate change, including how much, where, the contribution of various factors, and the possible policies that we can implement. How would you find out these answers ?
Yes, deniers exist [Re:Denial] (Score:5, Insightful)
The overwhelming majority of them have not denied climate change for the better part of a decade. They deny the suggested causes (or the percentage of influence of those causes).
Sorry, but I know a lot of them-- including posters on slashdot-- who do exactly that: they deny climate change, they say all the data showing it's real is faked, and all the scientists are either in a conspiracy to hide this, or are sheep that just parrot what one or two famous names say.
(I think that they don't have the slightest notion how many climate scientists, or how many different institutions are studying climate. Thousands of climate scientists would have to be in on the conspiracy, and tens of thousands of scientists would have to be working in fields close enough that they would notice. This is simply not credible.) But, for the most part, they don't care if what they are saying is credible. The purpose is to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) on the science. A dumpster of garbage is as useful as a dumpster of credible arguments in the "argue by the dumpster load" approach.
But, basically, what you're saying is that some of the people who are defending fossil fuel usage have simply moved on to the next phase of defense, "ok, it's real, but we don't know humans cause it". And the line of defense beyond that: "ok, it's real, we're causing it, but it's not actually harmful." And they have more lines of defense behind those; you'll see these pretty soon.
My question was broader than just the fact whether climate change is occurring. Suppose you want to know the answer to every reasonable question about climate change, including how much, where, the contribution of various factors, and the possible policies that we can implement. How would you find out these answers ?
Re:Yes, deniers exist [Re:Denial] (Score:5, Funny)
How many of them aren't focused on *antropomorphic* climate change?
Climate change hates being called anthropomorphic.
Consensus is unimportant (Score:5, Interesting)
Permit me to change your mind on why consensus matters. I will offer you an example which will change your mind; I encourage you to do the research yourself and come to your own conclusions. You can easily find the story below with an internet search. Here's the story:
There is a professor at the University of Chicago who blogs under the pseudonym, "Fencing Bear at Prayer". A while back (a few years, perhaps) she published an essay, "Three Cheers for White Men" in which she detailed how white men in the middle ages (she's a medievalist) made life more tolerable for women. You might think that feminists would be on board with making life better for women, but you'd be wrong. Said professor found herself in a debate regarding what happened in the middle ages, and because she didn't toe the feminist line, was denounced by 1500 fellow academics as a white supremacist. Fortunately, she's tenured, and the University of Chicago believes in free speech, so she kept her job.
However, think about this for a moment. More than a thousand academics were willing to say something provably false about her because she recounted events from the historical record which did not agree with their political slant. Instead of changing their minds about the middle ages, they shot the messenger and denied the message. Might climate scientists do the same?
People who believe that political pressures have no bearing on science are holding on to an idealized notion of science which is, unfortunately, naive. The problem isn't that the scientific method works, but that scientists are actual human beings subject not merely to desire for truth, but also to the political pressure to deny it.
Re:Consensus is unimportant (Score:4, Insightful)
Social science is not science. It's a circle jerk at best and voodoo at worst.
You cannot compare that to climate science, which, despite having some political influences, is still based on evidence.
Re: Consensus is unimportant (Score:3)
Google "particles for justice" to see how a thousand PHYSICISTS deny hard data.
Lecturer shows with bibliography data that women are not under promoted in the field but over promoted. They get a position ahead of males with two times or more higher credentials (articles, impacts etc.).
He did it on a conference about the "awful oppression" of women in the field. Showed them it's the opposite. Destroyed, cancelled, gone.
BTW, some of the names on that list of "scientists" who destroyed their reputations and cre
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't about denying the facts that are in the essay, but that the presentation and manner gives the opposite impression from reality. Almost all of the problems of women were caused by the white man, and a few things weren't bad. The title alone is implying that the net result of the actions of white man was beneficial. The fa
Re:Denial (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right that science is never "settled", as in it's always open to improvement no matter the current accuracy of measurements and predictions, but that does NOT imply that the current measurements are below a confidence threshold needed to be useful in evaluating risk. Frankly, that mark was passed in the 1970s. So in those terms, the science is settled on what is happening and why, and pretty settled on the degree (no pun intended) to which it will happen. What is not settled is the precise distribution of weather events, (how many conventionally 100-year storms will this particular region get in 2070?) which will keep getting more accurate as models run on finer and finer grids with more computation.
And you draw attention to billions of data points, as if this crazy amount of samples is increasing the uncertainty. This is certainly a red herring. What you should be worried about is if global predictions are being made with mere hundreds of samples. You WANT the grid size of these simulations to be as small as possible. You WANT the terrain, albedo, temperature, wind, humidity measurements as fine as possible. In short, trillions of data should make you more confident in any projection.
I believe what you may be trying to convey is that if a theory rests on a super complex hypothesis model, it's likely brittle and prone to misprediction. That is not the case with climate science. The formulae for radiative balance, humidity, etc are quite concise and as rigorously proven as any law of physics we have. Global Climate Models are not making any assumptions other than the first-principles laws of physics, with one exception: within grid simulation cells there are heuristics as to what happens. This is the area of research most debated, and accounts for differences in predictions of different models. Increasing the granularity of the grid cells requires enormous computation, but will continue to yield more dependable first-principles predictions as time passes.
Science is never settled and if you believe a problem on a planetary scale with billions of data points is easy to detect and easier to solve with one single input ("just emit less carbon, duh"), you have absolutely zero idea what constitutes science and what size and complexity the problem and its measurement actually have.
Now this is perfect nonsense. Note that you don't specify at all what is wrong with the prognosis "emit less carbon" because you cannot. Carbon dioxide (and to a lesser degree methane, sulfates) regulate the radiative equalibrium of the atmosphere. Water vapour too, but it's a closed cycle of condensation/evaporation and CO2 is the only long-lived substance being added en-mass to the atmosphere that has such radiative properties.
We have seen what happens when the government assumes power to initiate force upon individuals in the name of the greater good.
You mean like rule of law, mandatory education, zoning laws to keep us from pollution, air quality controls, you name it? Yeah I guess we have seen.
Placebo Effect (Score:2)
Science and medicine is not a democracy. It does not matter how many people agree on something to be true, it matters if it is true.
That's certainly true for science but somewhat less true for medicine due to the placebo effect.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing regarding "climate change" is easy to detect, formulate and it's even harder to solve, even if we could agree on the tenets of its existence.
What a ridiculous strawman! Sure, you can move the goalposts of "easy", but the basic science and observations are easily articulated.
For the cause, you do s simple experiment. Take sealable tubes, add air to both, then add a bit more CO2 to one of them. Put them in the sun for a while, then measure temperature. The one with added CO2 will be warmer. Cross-check these figures with the observable CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, compare with fossil fuel consumption, and voila.
As for *detectin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With that basic nugget of truth, it's easy to extrapolate that the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more the atmosphere will heat up.
Next we have proof that there is more in the atmosphere from ice core samples and the sampling of the CO2 in our atmosphere.
Lastly we can show without a doubt how much CO2 we as humans emit and sho
Re: You know you lost (Score:2)
...it needs some fixin'
Yeah, a hammer.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes they do.
They are often paid to push particular drugs. There is a lot of evidence that doctors push the drugs that they learned about in the pharmaceutical company's conference in the plush resort.
Re: (Score:2)
If an overwhelming amount of politicians are telling me A, I will inmediately turn to B, C or D.
So you don't like to think for yourself ?
Re:Denial (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's a big congregation of professional liars agreeing on something there's something very fishy going on there.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, agreeing with politicians is how people think for themselves.
Hint: thinking for yourself does not involve any politicians at all.
Re: Denial (Score:2)
Politicianâ(TM)s do not exist in a vacuum. Their opinions translate to policies that affect your life. Policies in turn can change some of the parameters one uses to come to an opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm rather siding with politicians than oil company shills. With the former, I can at least pretend they should have my interest on their mind, with the latter, unless I own their stock, they don't even have to pretend they give a shit about me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models.
Not quite.
Climate change doubt funders have a a favorite target: climate models.
Most of the "doubters" are just parroting what the funders are posting online out of fear that they might have to drive a tiny car or become vegetarian or something (whatever evils the FUD spreaders are telling us will happen to us if we lift a finger to do something...)
More info here: https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
You are clearly a polite person with lots of people skills and I respect that, I however have none of those skills so I'm gong to call climate change doubters what they are: useful idiots. Given the amount of data supporting man made climate change these people might as well be 'gravity doubters'.
Re: (Score:2)
frankly the planet would be warming right now without any human activity at all
The planet was actually cooling very slightly for the last couple of millennia.
Re: Gravity VS global climate oversimplifications (Score:2)
"frankly the planet would be warming right now without any human activity at all"
I'm a fourth grader. Please tell me where I can see the data that points to this conclusion.
Re:Denial (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm all ears for evidence-based, constructive ideas on how capitalism can turn on a dime to prevent the current production model from self-destroying and taking the ecosystem with it.
Capitalism solved the problem of global warming by producing solar power cheaper than coal, offshore wind power cheaper than natural gas, and electric cars cheaper to own than gasoline burners. From here on out the use of fossil fuels will keep falling as "greedy capitalists" pick the products that make them the most money.
Re: Denial (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, most of that tech was developed in government funded universities, and is being deployed in subsidized projects.
Free market firms are paying free scientists to say whatever the highest bidder tells them to.
So, according to the average American, communism gave us wind and solar, capitalism is destroying it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Denial (Score:4, Insightful)
Solar power is actually MORE convenient, if done properly.
Grid power requires you to tie yourself to fixed sources, in fixed places. Solar, by and large, really doesn't. You could, theoretically, build the outside skin of an RV with solar panels and NEVER BUY ENERGY FROM ANYBODY ELSE
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Denial (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with actually building things yourself is what exactly?
Re: Denial (Score:3)
Capitalism solved the problem of global warming by producing solar power cheaper than coal
People solved it. Your abstract notions are just that.
Re:ahem Chinese Commies (Score:4, Informative)
ahem Chinese Commies actually did all those things.
Actually not. The current production is mostly in Asia (not just China) but the technology was developed in research funded by the US Department of Energy (and, before then, the Energy Research and Development Agency (ERDA) back in the late 70s).
Re:ahem Chinese Commies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Where do you think the government got the money?
Borrowed it from China?
Re: (Score:3)
So none of you have a plan do you? This is what makes you part of the problem. You run around in circles screaming, shouting, and waving your hands over your head. But when you are asked what your plan is, you have nothing but to attack the people asking the questions.
.
Re: (Score:2)
The science doesn't depend in any way on your opinions about politics or what you think about communists.
He's a troll. ignore him.
Re: (Score:2)
The chart in this [realclimate.org] article shows how most models performed.
"We found that climate models – even those published back in the 1970s – did remarkably well, with 14 out of the 17 projections statistically indistinguishable from what actually occurred."
Re: (Score:2)
well to be perfectly honest a lot of old models were totally bullcrap.the most famous models especially.
I like that you don't give any references or even say which models you're referring to, just make an assertion with no facts behind it.
The "most famous" model is, of course, the first one, Manabe and Wetherald 1967 [wordpress.com], and turns out it's been performing remarkably wall.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly [forbes.com]
alternate source: https://medium.com/starts-with... [medium.com]
good to see (Score:2)
good to see at least one thing that is going according to schedule.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that's good. Nobody panics as long as everything goes according to the plan [youtube.com].
Never-ending (Score:2)
17 forecasts out of 14 models (Score:2, Informative)
They had 14 different models, with 17 variations of forecast outputs.
Seven of them were completely incorrect, and only returned the correct number after they "adjusted" the models by a large amount (they were off by 0.1 C per decade, so they were off by 0.5 C out of 0.9 C observed).
So they were actually at 50% accuracy (using one forecast per model) from their cherry-picked "good" models (which were obviously the "lowball" models that were off by 0.1 C per decade, not the ones missing by 0.3 C or more per d
Re:17 forecasts out of 14 models (Score:5, Informative)
Seven of them were completely incorrect, and only returned the correct number after they "adjusted" the models by a large amount (they were off by 0.1 C per decade, so they were off by 0.5 C out of 0.9 C observed).
They didn't adjust the models. They adjusted the inputs to the models based on up-to-date information.
Re: (Score:3)
Assume I create a model of how much mileage I can get from a car. I might use this to estimate how far I can get on a trip before I need gas. On the actual trip, I can precisely record various things like the speed. Turns out my model is much more accurate using the actual speeds as opposed to estimated speeds. I can confirm this by looking at how much gas was used. This in no way invalidates my model.
no statistically significant difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
What the hell does that mean? The error bars on the actual measurements are so wide that the models fall within them? The models have error bars so wide that the climate has fallen within it or the two? Meh, anyways "statistically significant" is in the eye of the beholder. 95% correlation might be good enough for you but not for me.
That said imo if even the old models give good (TM) results when supplied with what the real variables were its a good sign. We still have the problem of people running off and applying models of what the inputs will be in the future to use the model to predict what the outputs will be. Ie we prodict a 10%/yr increase in CO2 to 2050 followed by a 0.5% per year reduction ... tada the world will be 5C hotter by 2060 or whatever. But I guess you use that to compare different policies to try to steer regulation. Just seems like a very complicated mess: policies have unintended consequences, you can guess at near term tech innovation but really no idea about future tech (we are supposed to have been ruled by robots and flying in cars 20 yrs ago).
As long as (Score:2, Funny)
As long as climate change kills environmentalists I'm fine with it.
Questionable arguements (Score:2)
The way I see this is like like two mountain climbers where one claims if you jump without a parachute or something you'll probably die while the second climber claiming that's false because your finger might not be broken on impact. Point is, this climate change has been predicted for years and it's only been getting more and more accurate with time.
Re:Except that they didn't (Score:5, Informative)
In the 1960s and early 1970s the looming threat wasn't Global Warming but, in fact, Global Cooling!
No it wasn't.
https://skepticalscience.com/7... [skepticalscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
REVISIONIST HISTORY. You need to be more skeptical of a website called "skeptical science"- scientists are never skeptical enough of their own methods.
Re: (Score:2)
In the 1960s and early 1970s the looming threat wasn't Global Warming but, in fact, Global Cooling!
No it wasn't. https://skepticalscience.com/7... [skepticalscience.com]
REVISIONIST HISTORY. You need to be more skeptical of a website called "skeptical science"- scientists are never skeptical enough of their own methods.
How about the American Meteorological Society? Should you be skeptical of them, too?
THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS [ametsoc.org]
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5x9q42X96s [youtube.com]
The hockey stick lies. The problem with ametsoc is that they revised their own history.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was alive in the 60s and 70s and old enough to remember all but the earliest of the 60s quite well. Nobody I knew or heard of (including tv news, radio, newspapers, and magazines) was talking about global warming, and we were definitely worried about a new ice-age/cooling.
I won't even bother to follow your link, because i'm sure it focuses on the one or two studies that ended up being correct rather than the majority of popular studies that indicated the opposite and which all of the media focused on.
Re:Except that they didn't (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Except that they didn't (Score:4, Informative)
quoteI won't even bother to follow your link, because i'm sure it focuses on the one or two studies that ended up being correct rather than the majority of popular studies that indicated the opposite and which all of the media focused on.
So someone provides data to back up their point and your "solution" to having to address it is burying your head in the sand? I find your credibility lacking here...
From just skimming the intro of the article we have this nice little graphic which details total papers published on global cooling and papers published on warming. https://static.skepticalscienc... [skepticalscience.com] . Given that you have no credibility with me I'll take this data over your anecdote.
Re:Except that they didn't (Score:4, Insightful)
You're not going to convince anyone that their own personal experience is not real, no matter how many articles you dig up.
The real blame lies with journalists. There was no social media back then so if all the newspapers, radio and TV are telling them the globe is cooling, then that's what they believe.
Sceptical of "Skepticalscience" (Score:2, Interesting)
I am not at all convinced by "skepticalscience": science is not a democracy so counting papers is dubious at the best of times but it becomes even more dubious when the journals those papers are published in are not gi
Re:Except that they didn't (Score:5, Informative)
In the 1960s and early 1970s the looming threat wasn't Global Warming but, in fact, Global Cooling! Back then they were predicting an impending ice age.
One of the biggest proponets of Global Warming, up until 2010 when he passed, was Dr. Stephen Schneider. His 1971 paper, Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate, said:
It is projected that man's potential to pollute will increase six- to eightfold in the next 50 years. If this increased rate of injection of particulate matter in the atmosphere should raise the present background opacity by a factor of 4, our calculations suggest a decrease in global temperature by as much as 3.5 K. Such a large decrease in the average temperature of Earth, sustained over a period of few years, is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age. However, by that time, nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production.
And in the same wikipeda article [wikipedia.org] you just quoted, 2 lines down:
Shortly afterwards, Schneider became aware that he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosols, and underestimated the warming effect of CO2 by a factor of about three. He had mistakenly assumed that measurements of air particles he had taken near the source of pollution applied worldwide. He also found that much of the effect was due to natural aerosols which would not be affected by human activities, so the cooling effect of changes in industrial pollution would be much less than he had calculated. Having found that recalculation showed that global warming was the more likely outcome, he published a retraction of his earlier findings in 1974.
Re:Warming during an interglacial period (Score:5, Insightful)
that may have been ongoing for 17,000 years.
How many degrees/year has it been warming over those years ?
So what we have here is a minuscule 50 year snapshot in time
How many degrees/year has it been warming over those years ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Warming during an interglacial period (Score:5, Informative)
All signals have noise, and all we've measured so far is noise. You can't extrapolate.
The signal is stronger than the noise:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis... [nasa.gov]
Re: Warming during an interglacial period (Score:2, Insightful)
Fact: the current inter-glacial period is approximately half over (based upon previous inter-glacial duration clues)
Conclusion: half way through a warming cycle the temperature is near a maximum. Conclusion is reinforced by noticing previous estimates for previous inter-glacial warming.
Are we warming the planet by a measurable amount ? Probably.
Will it prevent the next glacial period - almost zero chance !
Should we make knee jerk reactions which will negati
Re: (Score:2)
short period of sample data collection to"correct" a system that we have virtually zero control over, and extremely poor understanding of ?
We understand very well the properties of CO2 to let through visible light from the Sun, and block some of the IR trying to escape to space. We also control the amount of CO2 we produce. We are less clear on the feedback mechanisms such as water vapor and the distribution of the heat.
Assuming we agree on the properties of CO2, how much sample time do you think we need to confirm that warming is happening at the predicted rate ?
Re: Warming during an interglacial period (Score:4, Informative)
CO2 is not polar either, so if it's stopping IR from coming out, it's stopping IR from getting in.
Right, but most of the energy from the Sun is not in the IR band, whereas most of the energy from Earth is.
Re:Change a value? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Change a value? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Change a value? (Score:2)
You armchair science critics are so cute.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have the education to actually interpret the data yourself, so why believe anything? Take the data and analyze it.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to have the education to actually interpret the data yourself, so why believe anything? Take the data and analyze it.
I did that. It tells me that we solved the problem.
The solution is electricity from onshore windmills, hydroelectric dams, geothermal, and nuclear fission. For transportation fuels we will need synthesized hydrocarbon fuels from nuclear fission power. It has to be nuclear fission power because anything else cannot get hot enough to efficiently drive the process, costs too much to bother, or is a fossil fuel.
We have the technology already, it is cheaper than fossil fuels, all that is left to do is allow a
Re:What are we supposed to do about it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because a solution exists doesn't mean that the problem is solved. This is akin to the joke where a mathematician finds himself in a burning room, sees a fire extinguisher, declares "there is a solution" and turns around to go back to sleep.
Re: Lies in the subject title. (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, the actual studies and models are referenced, so you can gather them, repeat the study yourself and then check the claim to prove or disprove their findings.
Or you could sit on your fat ass and yell "Lies!" while Dorito crumbs fly from your mouth.
Re: (Score:3)
You misread the graph.
That downward slope is not a cooling, it's a deceleration of warming.
In absolute temperature graphs, that shows up as a flattening of the warming trend.
It lasted from about 1940 to about 1979.
The final trend line for the whole period was very slightly negative, but the lowest mean temperature for the entire period was still higher than the mean for all of recent history prior to about 1920.
Re: P.189:
They go at length to discuss the nature of glacial/interglacial perio
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Uo8zm6E_hQ [youtube.com]
Re:Yeah, right (Score:5, Insightful)
By Sweet grant money, you mean barely minimum wage after expenses?
If Climate change is a Liberal Hoax, I really have to give credits to these liberals who seem to be able to run a long running conspiracy, Heck the GOP seem to be unable to hide comparatively much smaller problems.
So either real Science shows climate change is man made, or the Liberals are such effective leaders they can manage a large scale long running conspiracy for some really unknown agenda.
Re: (Score:3)
Scientists, a group of people that basically make their bones (rep and career) by being able to disprove the work of others in their field.
A group that is composed of people from many different countries, some of which seriously hate each other, differe
Re: Headline Should be (Score:5, Informative)
"Hausfather found that most of this overshoot was caused not by a flaw in the model’s basic physics, however. Instead, it arose because pollution levels changed in ways Hansen didn’t predict. For example, the model overestimated the amount of methane—a potent greenhouse gas—that would go into the atmosphere in future years. It also didn’t foresee a precipitous drop in planet-warming refrigerants like some Freon compounds after international regulations from the Montreal Protocol became effective in 1989.
When Hausfather’s team set pollution inputs in Hansen’s model to correspond to actual historical levels, its projected temperature increases lined up with observed temperatures."
Model made prediction based on predicted pollution levels. Predicted levels of pollution did not matched observed levels. Thus the model overshot the predicted increase in global temperatures. When pollution inputs were set to the observed levels of pollution, the model accurately predicted the temperature increases.
Re: Headline Should be (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that is interesting. Your argument is essentially that
accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures
is equivalent to
scream 'GROABR WALMING!'
Makes you think, doesn't it?
Well, proabaly not, but to a reasonbable person it would.
Re: (Score:2)
Idiot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)