Submission + - The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly (forbes.com) 2
Layzej writes: 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:"
Cue the torches and pitchforks (Score:2)
Cue the torch-and-pitchfork people to stomp all over everyone who doesn't agree with their agenda.
If you don't like the proposed solutions, you're a "climate change denier". Anti science, why can't you realize that is necessary to stave off catastrophe?
(Even though you believe in climate change, but don't agree that the proposed solution is viable.)
If you point out potential flaws in the data, you get a snoot full of insults for being stupid. (For example, when pointing out that overwhelmingly more "hot" o
Re: (Score:2)
You get a lot of people who reject the science because they don't like the implications. If you want to engage in a substantive discussion you should provide sources. Simply making unsubstantiated and unverifiable statements is not all that convincing.
For instance, you state that
"overwhelmingly more "hot" outliers were removed in historical data and overwhelmingly more "cold" outliers were removed in more recent data."
As far as I know, that's not a thing. If a bias in the data is found then it is addressed, but probably not by removing outliers. There are many data sources for temp data including weather balloon networks, surface station ne