3 ms·

Go read James Hansen's 1981 predictions, and its match with current reality, and weep. Climate change is real, and is probably going to be disastrously signific

by MaysonL 15y ago

Go read James Hansen's 1981 predictions, and its match with current reality, and weep. Climate change is real, and is probably going to be disastrously significant in the lives of many now alive. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/now-this-is-interesting-a-climate-prediction-from-1981/255658/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/now-th...

nkurz 15y ago
I think we see this graph very differently. I see a linear rise in measured temperature, and a prediction that shows an inflection point at the year 2000. If I were trying to match the actual to the prediction, without knowing the labels, I'd probably match it to 2c. This turns out to be the hypothetical coal phaseout in 2000. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evalua... After looking for a bit, my questioning side kicks in: How did they choose the zero point for the overlay? Since it was published 1981, shouldn't the measured match up with the prediction until then? If not, why not? For that matter, what exactly is the overlay? Is the pink line a time smoothed average of the red or a pencil? Would it create a different impression if extended to 2012? In what way is a prediction that is 30% off a good prediction? Has it been long enough that we should have seen the change in slope? If anything it seems like it levels off. I don't think that I ask these questions because I'm a "climate skeptic", but because I'm "generally skeptical". If you tell me a graph tells me something, my first instinct is to doubt you, and then see if the evidence supports your position. This one feels more fuzzy to me than terrifying, and there are lots of things about the direction of the world that terrify me. What about it makes you weep more than the rest of the news?
- MaysonL 15y ago
  I agree with you about the rest of the news. This (and the whole climate denial[not skepticism]) is just one more piece of ongoing tragedy, which is going to get quite a bit worse before it gets better (if it does).

by MaysonL 15y ago

nkurz 15y ago

I think we see this graph very differently. I see a linear rise in measured temperature, and a prediction that shows an inflection point at the year 2000. If I were trying to match the actual to the prediction, without knowing the labels, I'd probably match it to 2c. This turns out to be the hypothetical coal phaseout in 2000. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evalua... After looking for a bit, my questioning side kicks in: How did they choose the zero point for the overlay? Since it was published 1981, shouldn't the measured match up with the prediction until then? If not, why not? For that matter, what exactly is the overlay? Is the pink line a time smoothed average of the red or a pencil? Would it create a different impression if extended to 2012? In what way is a prediction that is 30% off a good prediction? Has it been long enough that we should have seen the change in slope? If anything it seems like it levels off. I don't think that I ask these questions because I'm a "climate skeptic", but because I'm "generally skeptical". If you tell me a graph tells me something, my first instinct is to doubt you, and then see if the evidence supports your position. This one feels more fuzzy to me than terrifying, and there are lots of things about the direction of the world that terrify me. What about it makes you weep more than the rest of the news?

MaysonL 15y ago
I agree with you about the rest of the news. This (and the whole climate denial[not skepticism]) is just one more piece of ongoing tragedy, which is going to get quite a bit worse before it gets better (if it does).