1981 Climate Change Predictions Were Eerily Accurate

[TalkingDog]

www.universetoday.com/94468/1981-climate-change-predictions-were-eerily-accurate/

A paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future climate change and anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the authors’ projections have proven to be rather accurate — and their future is now our present.

The paper, written by a team of atmospheric physicists led by the now-controversial James Hansen at NASA’s Institute for Space Studies at Goddard Space Flight Center, was recently rediscovered by researchers Geert Jan van Oldenborgh and Rein Haarsma from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI). Taking a break from research due to illness, the scientists got a chance to look back through some older, overlooked publications.

snip

Even though the paper was given 10 pages in Science, it covers a lot of advanced topics related to climate — indicating the level of knowledge known about climate science even at that time.

“The concepts and conclusions have not changed all that much,” van Oldenborgh and Haarsma note. “Hansen et al clearly indicate what was well known (all of which still stands today) and what was uncertain.”

/snip

[izquierdista]

1. Eerily?

There is nothing "eery" about accurate science. When a scientific model is made, and predictions are drawn from it, it is a necessary part of the scientific process to go back and check those predictions and see how accurate they are. If there is a lot of error, the model needs to be adjusted, maybe it has internal parameters to do just that. If it is "rather accurate" it means THE SCIENCE WORKS, and that disagreeing dumbfucks should shut their pieholes.

Science is not law. The disagreeing dumbfucks don't get to keep yapping away in another venue, until they reach the ultimate keepers of the dogma. There is no "infallible 5" that gets the final word in saying what the correct interpretation of the science is.

Science doesn't give a shit about money. Sure, it costs money to do good science, but you can't buy the result you want, even if you have all the resources of the tobacco industry or the Koch brothers. This is just one more indication of the erosion of American education that the public even thinks there IS a controversy about some science that is well established.

[bemildred]

2. What's "eery" is the morons that don't want to do anything about it. nt

[Junkdrawer]

5. If you've convinced yourself that geo-engineering is a quick, easy, but politically incorrect fix...

what would you do?

Yep, that's exactly what they're doing: jawboning the problem to death until geo-engineering is the only way out.

[bemildred]

6. That should be an excellent excuse to retain power too.

It's a win-win.

[saras]

3. "Global Warming" was coined in 1969. We had accurate models by 1981. The rest is politics...

[Geoff R. Casavant]

4. The concept goes back even further.

I have a non-fiction book by Isaac Asimov written in 1960 that mentions the idea of global warming, even if it doesn't call it by that name.

And the original hypothesis dates back to 1903.

[Uncle Joe]

7. Here's an oldie but goodie from 1958, I wonder if this was produced by the same Frank Capra of

"It's A Wonderful Life" fame?