4 ms·

I mean the planet is as warm as it was predicted to be 50 years ago based on the emissions scenario that played out. Considering the earth is hotter than it's b

I mean the planet is as warm as it was predicted to be 50 years ago based on the emissions scenario that played out. Considering the earth is hotter than it's been in 100,000 years I would say that's one of the greatest predictions in the history of earth sciences.

momirlan 3y ago
you have a link to that prediction ?
- breakyerself 3y ago
  https://eos.org/features/a-50-year-old-global-warming-forecast-that-still-holds-up https://eos.org/features/a-50-year-old-global-warming-foreca...
  - momirlan 3y ago
    given the rate of publishing climate models, each predicting a certain temperature, one will eventually hit the right point. it's as inevitable as carpet bombing, and it doesn't prove anything.
    - breakyerself 3y ago
      Nailing the correct amount of warming is the norm for climate scientists not the exception. It's the contrarians who continually make bad predictions. https://youtu.be/tPSIvu0gQ90 https://youtu.be/tPSIvu0gQ90
nvm0n2 3y ago
This sort of thing gets claimed a lot (by climatologists) but isn't true. 50 years ago is in the 1970s and there were plenty of climatologists predicting a new ice age back then. Here's an example: https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/18/archives/the-genesis-strategy-a-chilling-prospect.html https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/18/archives/the-genesis-stra... There's plenty of evidence from other fields that says the Earth isn't hotter now than in the past either. Archaeological evidence, even evidence from written histories, points towards it having been warmer in the past than today. Climatologists don't have answers for that, they just ignore all that evidence. And paleoclimatology is very corrupt. One of them even stated at one point in response to allegations she was cherry-picking data, that "if you want to make a cherry pie you have to pick some cherries"! Not even a denial. You really cannot take anything paleoclimatologists say at face value unfortunately. They are constantly faced with self-contradictory data and just toss anything that doesn't match what they want.
- breakyerself 3y ago
  From 1965 - 1979 there were only 7 scientific papers predicting a cooling climate. Compared to 42 predicting human caused global warming (Peterson 2008). Since then the global average temperature has climbed to 1.8F above preindustrial levels. It's warmer now than it has been in over 100,000 years and those scientists who predicted warming 50 years ago accurately forecasted Earth would be this warm by now with the co2 levels we have. The hypocrisy to claim Paleo-climate reconstruction is cherry picked, but to also claim there's evidence that it was warmer in the past. Which seems to always rely on cherry picked local data which isn't indicative of global average temperatures. I'm sorry, but I'll continue to rely on the peer reviewed climate reconstructions over the blog posts of climate deniers. Multiple different teams of scientists have come to the same conclusion independently that current temps are above anything seen in the holocene and rates of warming are unprecedented. If you want to gamble the future of humanity on the longshot bet that an entire field of science is wrong, but that the fossil fuel industry funded bloggers who oppose them are right then you're bad at risk analysis.

momirlan 3y ago

you have a link to that prediction ?

breakyerself 3y ago
https://eos.org/features/a-50-year-old-global-warming-forecast-that-still-holds-up https://eos.org/features/a-50-year-old-global-warming-foreca...
- momirlan 3y ago
  given the rate of publishing climate models, each predicting a certain temperature, one will eventually hit the right point. it's as inevitable as carpet bombing, and it doesn't prove anything.
  - breakyerself 3y ago
    Nailing the correct amount of warming is the norm for climate scientists not the exception. It's the contrarians who continually make bad predictions. https://youtu.be/tPSIvu0gQ90 https://youtu.be/tPSIvu0gQ90

nvm0n2 3y ago

This sort of thing gets claimed a lot (by climatologists) but isn't true. 50 years ago is in the 1970s and there were plenty of climatologists predicting a new ice age back then. Here's an example: https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/18/archives/the-genesis-strategy-a-chilling-prospect.html https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/18/archives/the-genesis-stra... There's plenty of evidence from other fields that says the Earth isn't hotter now than in the past either. Archaeological evidence, even evidence from written histories, points towards it having been warmer in the past than today. Climatologists don't have answers for that, they just ignore all that evidence. And paleoclimatology is very corrupt. One of them even stated at one point in response to allegations she was cherry-picking data, that "if you want to make a cherry pie you have to pick some cherries"! Not even a denial. You really cannot take anything paleoclimatologists say at face value unfortunately. They are constantly faced with self-contradictory data and just toss anything that doesn't match what they want.

breakyerself 3y ago
From 1965 - 1979 there were only 7 scientific papers predicting a cooling climate. Compared to 42 predicting human caused global warming (Peterson 2008). Since then the global average temperature has climbed to 1.8F above preindustrial levels. It's warmer now than it has been in over 100,000 years and those scientists who predicted warming 50 years ago accurately forecasted Earth would be this warm by now with the co2 levels we have. The hypocrisy to claim Paleo-climate reconstruction is cherry picked, but to also claim there's evidence that it was warmer in the past. Which seems to always rely on cherry picked local data which isn't indicative of global average temperatures. I'm sorry, but I'll continue to rely on the peer reviewed climate reconstructions over the blog posts of climate deniers. Multiple different teams of scientists have come to the same conclusion independently that current temps are above anything seen in the holocene and rates of warming are unprecedented. If you want to gamble the future of humanity on the longshot bet that an entire field of science is wrong, but that the fossil fuel industry funded bloggers who oppose them are right then you're bad at risk analysis.