Climate Change Caused By Carbon Dioxide Concentration Prediction From 1967 Evaluated

Submitted by: punko 1 week ago in News & Politics Science


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."

The original paper discussed the relationship between CO2 concentrations and atmospheric temperature and predicted the rise in temperature should certain levels of CO2 concentration be reached. 

When this paper was published, no warming had been detected in 20 years of climate data, but within 5 years predicted rise began and continues today.
There are 28 comments:
Male 1,469
Yeah.  Fakers gonna fake.  If you take data like this article's and only show the right years, it looks pretty scary.  But if you instead look over a longer time line:





You can see that the data foisted on us by leftist climatologists is anything BUT proven fact.  Much more UNBIASED research has to go on before conclusive facts will emerge!
We are still coming out of "the little ice age", so OBVIOUSLY things are warming up.
-1
Reply
Male 2,675
spanz 
Why does your graph stop 95 years 'before present'? I would expect the timescale to stop at 0.

And by using an interval of 436 years on the left, but 113 years on the right, the trend is distorted.
1
Reply
Male 5,213
jaysingrimm Bingo. It's a bullshit chart, designed to deceive. "Present" in climatology is almost always defined as 1950 AD. This chart ends 95 years before 1950--in 1855, more than a hundred years before anthropogenic global warming became detectable out of the statistical noise.

There are other things wrong with the chart as well. Most notably, it's presenting temperature data from one location--the center of Greenland--as if that data were globally applicable. It's not. Even if the chart included the data from the past 100 years--something it conveniently chops off--it would have little value in explaining what's been going on globally. It's called global warming for a reason.

It's ironic--and par for the course, sadly--that the person presenting this chart is unaware of how deceptive it is and worse, seems to think it has more validity than the data he says climatologists have "foisted on us." Basically, this is a bullshit chart designed to masquerade as science and feed the prejudices of people who are more motivated by politics than science.
0
Reply
Male 3,600
oh boy 
0
Reply
Male 969
This was the graph I like showing how well the data from '67 predicted where we are:


1
Reply
Male 4,316
The world population was estimated to have reached 7.6 billion as of October 2017. it was 2.5 billion in 1950. That is the cause of every problem on earth. 

-1
Reply
Male 4,281
dm2754 It amazes me that that fact escapes so many. 
0
Reply
Male 10,125
trimble so you agree that humans are the cause of global warming?
-1
Reply
Male 4,281
holygod I agree that humans and human activity produce CO2 but that humans are the sole cause of global warming? No, that notion is foolish. Earth is a greenhouse planet.
0
Reply
Male 6,224
First i want to say, that's  a really, really nice graph style.  whoever did that, a++

Second, this has been known this since the 80s.  its not like we need to clue in 35 years later, nows the time to pull the knife out.
0
Reply
Male 969
monkwarrior The graph that hit it for me was:


0
Reply
Male 41,157
But AGW Fanatics tell me all the time that the CO2 started rising in 1900, or 1800 (whichever is more convenient) and the temps were rising since the Industrial Revolution started, or 1900 (whichever is more convenient).

And the 70's saw all that 'warning' about Global Cooling (which AGW fanatics claim never happened, no scientists said it they say, despite many scientists saying it).

We should do everything in our power to lower CO2 to under 100! Save the planet!
-7
Reply
Male 8,071
5cats But AGW Fanatics tell me all the time that the CO2 started rising in 1900, or 1800 (whichever is more convenient) and the temps were rising since the Industrial Revolution started, or 1900 (whichever is more convenient).
When you say "is more convenient" you mean what the data tells us?  

I know you aren't a big fan of facts or critical thinking but because of critical thinking and facts we have the advances in society that we have.  Even if your inability to understand Climate science much less your inability to heed scientific advice FROM scientists that doesn't stop you from trolling endlessly about how AGW is fake and isn't happening.  

Imagine if we had a world of people who thought like you we'd still be living in the medieval era.
4
Reply
Male 41,157
normalfreak2 No, I mean these "start times" vary depending on how they want the data to look. In other words: all cherry picked.

I understand climate science well enough to know lies and bullshit when I see it. The science is settled though! Lock the dissenters in prison!

You're a big fan of obeying orders, repeating propaganda. If people thought like me? Now you have ESP again? Fuck off.
-3
Reply
Male 10,125
We're all fucked and half the country would rather listen to bloggers and political pundits than scientists.
4
Reply
Male 518
holygod Both sides are complicit. Giving up modernization for the sake of a nebulous global goal has not been embraced by anyone. Recycling is spitting into the wind at this point...
0
Reply
Male 10,125
toetagmodel2 if we would have invested in solar, wind, and geo thermal power in the 80s and 90s the way we invested in computer technology we would be much less dependent on fossil fuels.

You don't have to give up modernization. My house is completely powered by solar and I drive a prius.
1
Reply
Male 1,593
holygod If you drive a Prius, you're still part of the problem. Two different types of drive systems instead of one efficient one just isn't helping. The better option is to use fully electric, or internal combustion that runs on bio-diesel and even that is basically a stopgap measure.

I'm not JUST talking about pollution either. There's a resource problem looming over the near horizon that will make global warming take a back seat. (Yea, I know "We'll never run out of oil!" blah, blah, blah..)

Personally, I've always wanted an electric car that used a hydrogen fuel cell. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and I still can't figure out why we aren't using it for not only vehicles, but also home power production in addition to wind and solar where they are viable. (I'd love to have solar power, but seeing as this area doesn't get sufficient sunlight 8 months out of the year, it's not worth the expense. Hell, my solar pathway lights don't last beyond an hour after sundown this time of year.)

Then there's the whole power plant issue. No one wants Thorium power plants, even though they are a very efficient (and extremely inexpensive, compared to Uranium) source of electrical power. 

There's alternatives, but people aren't willing to accept that there needs to be a transition that isn't instantly gratifying.

I don't know if we are or aren't directly causing the C02 levels to rise and honestly, it doesn't matter since nothing will ever be done to change it. We have those that don't want to change things because they don't believe we are responsible. Then we have those that say we ARE responsible and just want to watch the economy burn by doing stupid shit like shutting down all the coal power plants with NOTHING to replace them and just shrugging and saying "oh well, sucks to be you" when people start being raped by their power bill. 

For any real change to happen, there has to be a time where we're both doing responsible and irresponsible things at the same time so we don't end up making the entire planet look like a third-world country.


Either that or become a type 1 civilization as quickly as possible.
0
Reply
Male 10,125
squidbush my next car will be a Tesla. It was just a bit of a financial stretch 3 years ago when I bought my prius.

However, I get around 50 mpg. So I absolutely do not agree that it isn't at least a step or two in the right direction. 

The reason we don't have solar panels that work for you and hydrogen cars is because the fossil fuel industry uses the Republican party to convince half the country that AGW is a myth.
0
Reply
Male 518
holygod More to the point, everything you mention takes a massive energy investment to create. Solar panels and batteries rely on energy intensive processes and mined rare earth minerals. All this costs resources. The plastic in the Tesla comes from fossil fuels. It all adds up. Pretending that the solution is some half measure isn't any solution at all. Its just smug.
0
Reply
Male 10,125
toetagmodel2 You're absolutely right. No sense in trying to make better choices. There is no difference between getting your energy from the sun or from a coal plant. No difference between a 50mpg prius and a 12 mpg SUV. If you aren't living in a cave hunting and gathering then you are just a smug strain on the environment.
0
Reply
Male 518
holygod Smug was a reference to the South Park episode. 

My only point is if you owe a dollar and pay your debtor 1 cent or fifty cents you are still in debt. Fifty cents is closer but at the end of the day, if it is pay back your 1 dollar or forfeit your life, you still lose. 
0
Reply
Female 8,127
squidbush well- I use a bike, and public transport. Public transport was declined because more people have cars- a viscious cycle- but with modern computig techniques, self driving vans an efficient system could be rolled out.  
0
Reply
Male 10,125
madduck I'd love to not drive. Unfortunately I can't currently live on public transit alone.
0
Reply
Female 8,127
holygod lots of people find themselves in the same boat- so they buy a car, so public transport inexorably declines. It really is an issue easily solved by nudge- invest heavily in improving public transport and subsidise it with swingeing taxes on private car usage. I kinda remember fuel stands at just over a pound a litre- treble it- force Park and ride by banning cars from town centres, heavily fine single drivers, make sure any journey that could be made on public transport becomes too expensive to do in a private car- and put every penny of the money back into a transport system. Reverse the trend..
0
Reply
Male 10,125
madduck You live in England right? I would imagine if I lived in England I would not have a car. I live in Phoenix. There is insane sprawl. I used to take a bus when I could and we have lightrail downtown, but there is no option to get from where I live to where I work usually. I freelance all over.

If gas was $5 a gallon instead of $2.50 a gallon things might change much faster.
0
Reply
Female 8,127
holygod Oh- for sure it differs, the US is huge. The point is still valid, and you'd HAVE to use nudge, but nodal systems would work, it just needs massive investment but I'm not sure we have anu other optionsas its not just removing the filthy objects, but weaning people away from the idea of fossil fuelsand individual rights on transport, collectivism alters not just the way we use cars, but the way we think about stuff like that. It has to be convenient, Supermarkets doing internet shopping means I never need to visit a out of town place, the one I use has no public stores- just warehouses.  My non-local shopping ( I use local independent traders where possible- butcher, green grocer chemist) is done on my phone. 
0
Reply
Male 8,071
holygod 100% agreed
2
Reply