Why does the Met Office need a new £850million computer to improve forcasting to 10 days (1 Viewer)

[busby]

So Busby, are you a climate change denier? are going to retort that the world has always gone through periods of change without a thought about man made climate change.

Of course not,,Climate on The Earth has always changed,,,Wonder what changed it before man populated the planet ? BUSBY??

 

[Coolcats]

Of course not,,Climate on The Earth has always changed,,,Wonder what changed it before man populated the planet ? BUSBY??

Clearly Man made Climate change is having an impact this is different to the Climate changes that happened in the previous periods.

 

[sallylillian]

Clearly Man made Climate change is having an impact this is different to the Climate changes that happened in the previous periods.

You recognise that cyclical climate change is phenomenon of the planet, how do you differentiate the current alleged period to those of the past, specifically what caused the previous events that enable you to be so confident that we may be experiencing an episode out of the usual cycle?
Michael

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[busby]

Clearly Man made Climate change is having an impact this is different to the Climate changes that happened in the previous periods.

Possibly but of course climate change pre human was not recorded,,it's only experts research and opinion that gives us an insight into it's extremes and effect on life on earth..It's 10000 years since the last proper ice age but the industrial revolution which is blamed today for our woes is quite recent,,circa 18 century onwards.BUSBY..

 

[MattR]

There is a theory that the big thinkers of the west recognising the inevitable exhaustion of fossil fuels had to devise a promotional platform for weaning the world from their addiction. To tell the populations that in 40 years, 50 years whatever that they will not be able to run their cars or heat their homes would have been received with a "not our problem attitude". So Climate Change was evolved as the motivation for the elimination of reliance on fossil fuels, a wizard wheeze that is working brilliantly and appealing to the impressionable masses, ably assisted by fracking which has prolonged the day of Armageddon (the running out of oil). Just as plausible in my opinion.
Michael

I think that you missed out the word "conspiracy" before the word theory in your first sentence. Many might summarise the "theory" as a load of bo11ocks perpetuated by people who have fallen for the climate change denial agenda supported by fossil fuel industries and other vested parties.

 

[Pausim]

You could ask the dinosaurs for their opinion?

Difficult they are all dead but I suspect that the dinosaurs were very happy in the carbon dioxide rich atmosphere of their time. They might even applaud our attempts to speed up a return to their hot house days by releasing green house gases.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Allanm]

You recognise that cyclical climate change is phenomenon of the planet, how do you differentiate the current alleged period to those of the past, specifically what caused the previous events that enable you to be so confident that we may be experiencing an episode out of the usual cycle?
Michael

Everyone knows the climate changes gradually over hundreds, thousands and millions of years.
That has never been in dispute.
Its the recent, quite clearly evidenced, unnatural speed of change that is the concern.

I have never seen a climate change denier putting forward any credible evidence to the contrary.

 

[MattR]

Everyone knows the climate changes gradually over hundreds, thousands and millions of years.
That has never been in dispute.
Its the recent, quite clearly evidenced, unnatural speed of change that is the concern.

I have never seen a climate change denier putting forward any credible evidence to the contrary.

Don't hold your breath waiting for any credible evidence from mmcc deniers. I've been asking for it for years but you'll either get no response, a statement that it is on the Internet if you know where to look for it or if was what they were told when they were at school back in the 1960s. You could supply lots of links to references to support your statements but apparently scientific experts aren't to be trusted....

 

[autorouter]

I can never understand how buying a super dooper computer makes the forecast more accurate. Unless you upgrade the programmers to superhumans, do you not just get the same answer much quicker?

The accuracy of the forecast depends on how many measurement points you start your computing from. And also how finely you divide the time intervals. Satellite technology can easily give us millions more measurements in places where ships and fixed instruments could not reach before, and on a regular timeline. What's needed is a huge computer to make sense of all the newly available measurements and churn out better predictions.

Us oldies remember the old-style weather forecasts, with a presenter drawing lines on a whiteboard map. Things have moved on amazingly since then, and this will be another step change

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

The BBC report says £1.2 Billion!
I cannot begin to imagine how it can cost so much.

If you had ever worked in a data centre you would know. I think this is actually a really cheap system relatively speaking.
Prices for supercomputers have fallen dramatically over the last 10+ years.

Here are a few facts.

£1.2 billion refers to the total expected investment from government. The expected contractual value for the supercomputing capability is £854 million. Other costs include investment in the Observations Network, exploiting the capabilities of the supercomputer and the programme office costs.

So the cost is 1200 - 854 = £346million.

The government investment will replace Met Office supercomputing capabilities over a 10-year period from 2022 to 2032.

So the cost is spread over 10 years so £34.6 million per year.[/quote]

The money is not just for the hardware, but for the data centre and running costs.

 

[Gromett]

how do you differentiate the current alleged period to those of the past, specifically what caused the previous events that enable you to be so confident that we may be experiencing an episode out of the usual cycle?

You look at the rate of change. Is the rate at which the change is taking place faster than any of the previous natural cycles?

That is just one example of many of the ways you can tell if it is man made or otherwise.

 

[tacr2man]

Communism, socialism, and capitalism are ideologies. I think the people of Calder Valley cleaning up after their third “100 year event” in 4 years might give it a practical name not one based on theory. Some of us see it as a dangerous reality.

Statistics being inaccurate would seem to be another explanation, some see the Quoran as the actual words of a prophet , that's another ideology , belief doesn't give certainty .

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Allanm]

I can never understand how buying a super dooper computer makes the forecast more accurate. Unless you upgrade the programmers to superhumans, do you not just get the same answer much quicker?

If people don’t understand what the old computer does or what the new one will be able to do, how can they possibly criticise the need for it!

 

[sallylillian]

You look at the rate of change. Is the rate at which the change is taking place faster than any of the previous natural cycles?

That is just one example of many of the ways you can tell if it is man made or otherwise.

I am open to being educated, I am not a zealot, but I will not simply believe because someone else does. When I did my maths O & A levels you could get the answer wrong and still pass if you showed correct "workings out". So that's my issue, we are now spending £1.2 billion to get a more accurate prediction on the next 10 days weather, yet I am supposed to believe that some scientists can accurately advise the equivalent of the weather from 100's of thousands of years ago within the tiny window of our educated time on earth. I read that its all about rate of change but who and how accurate has the rate of change been measured over those 100's of thousands of years. So in 1950 it was allegedly 300 parts per million and today its 400. OK we may well have measured that in 1950, I was not born then and we had not put a rocket into orbit, and why did someone choose to measure it then, and what about 1760 to 1840 or any arbitrary year in the industrial revolution, but OK. How did they measure 300,000 years ago at 300 parts per million and then a dip and then back to 300 ppm 400,000 years ago. And we still need £1.2 billion to work out the weather next Friday week. I know it sounds facetious but its not meant to be, I just do not get the sudden, possibly 10 years, where there is this hyperventilating of impending doom with what for me is a very flimsy set of "workings out".
The same type of science sources declared diesel engines better for the climate than petrol and we all pile in, (well GB told us to) now they are not and have become the devil incarnate and suddenly the electric car becomes the salvation, for how long?
I don't expect to be converted on here but polarisation of opinion leaves no place for those who need more than a sermon on the mount.
Michael

 

[The Wino]

I am open to being educated, I am not a zealot, but I will not simply believe because someone else does. When I did my maths O & A levels you could get the answer wrong and still pass if you showed correct "workings out". So that's my issue, we are now spending £1.2 billion to get a more accurate prediction on the next 10 days weather, yet I am supposed to believe that some scientists can accurately advise the equivalent of the weather from 100's of thousands of years ago within the tiny window of our educated time on earth. I read that its all about rate of change but who and how accurate has the rate of change been measured over those 100's of thousands of years. So in 1950 it was allegedly 300 parts per million and today its 400. OK we may well have measured that in 1950, I was not born then and we had not put a rocket into orbit, and why did someone choose to measure it then, and what about 1760 to 1840 or any arbitrary year in the industrial revolution, but OK. How did they measure 300,000 years ago at 300 parts per million and then a dip and then back to 300 ppm 400,000 years ago. And we still need £1.2 billion to work out the weather next Friday week. I know it sounds facetious but its not meant to be, I just do not get the sudden, possibly 10 years, where there is this hyperventilating of impending doom with what for me is a very flimsy set of "workings out".
The same type of science sources declared diesel engines better for the climate than petrol and we all pile in, (well GB told us to) now they are not and have become the devil incarnate and suddenly the electric car becomes the salvation, for how long?
I don't expect to be converted on here but polarisation of opinion leaves no place for those who need more than a sermon on the mount.
Michael

Yes why would you want to stop pollution if you don't need to how terrible leaving the next generation with a cleaner less polluted world

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[MattR]

I am open to being educated, I am not a zealot, but I will not simply believe because someone else does. When I did my maths O & A levels you could get the answer wrong and still pass if you showed correct "workings out". So that's my issue, we are now spending £1.2 billion to get a more accurate prediction on the next 10 days weather, yet I am supposed to believe that some scientists can accurately advise the equivalent of the weather from 100's of thousands of years ago within the tiny window of our educated time on earth. I read that its all about rate of change but who and how accurate has the rate of change been measured over those 100's of thousands of years. So in 1950 it was allegedly 300 parts per million and today its 400. OK we may well have measured that in 1950, I was not born then and we had not put a rocket into orbit, and why did someone choose to measure it then, and what about 1760 to 1840 or any arbitrary year in the industrial revolution, but OK. How did they measure 300,000 years ago at 300 parts per million and then a dip and then back to 300 ppm 400,000 years ago. And we still need £1.2 billion to work out the weather next Friday week. I know it sounds facetious but its not meant to be, I just do not get the sudden, possibly 10 years, where there is this hyperventilating of impending doom with what for me is a very flimsy set of "workings out".
The same type of science sources declared diesel engines better for the climate than petrol and we all pile in, (well GB told us to) now they are not and have become the devil incarnate and suddenly the electric car becomes the salvation, for how long?
I don't expect to be converted on here but polarisation of opinion leaves no place for those who need more than a sermon on the mount.
Michael

What information or sources of information would you need to convince you that man-made climate change is real?

 

[Gromett]

I am open to being educated, I am not a zealot, but I will not simply believe because someone else does. When I did my maths O & A levels you could get the answer wrong and still pass if you showed correct "workings out". So that's my issue, we are now spending £1.2 billion to get a more accurate prediction on the next 10 days weather, yet I am supposed to believe that some scientists can accurately advise the equivalent of the weather from 100's of thousands of years ago within the tiny window of our educated time on earth. I read that its all about rate of change but who and how accurate has the rate of change been measured over those 100's of thousands of years. So in 1950 it was allegedly 300 parts per million and today its 400. OK we may well have measured that in 1950, I was not born then and we had not put a rocket into orbit, and why did someone choose to measure it then, and what about 1760 to 1840 or any arbitrary year in the industrial revolution, but OK. How did they measure 300,000 years ago at 300 parts per million and then a dip and then back to 300 ppm 400,000 years ago. And we still need £1.2 billion to work out the weather next Friday week. I know it sounds facetious but its not meant to be, I just do not get the sudden, possibly 10 years, where there is this hyperventilating of impending doom with what for me is a very flimsy set of "workings out".
The same type of science sources declared diesel engines better for the climate than petrol and we all pile in, (well GB told us to) now they are not and have become the devil incarnate and suddenly the electric car becomes the salvation, for how long?
I don't expect to be converted on here but polarisation of opinion leaves no place for those who need more than a sermon on the mount.
Michael

I can't go into the details... Basically because my understanding is not detailed and because you could do the same research I did... My scientific/engineering background caused me to question this in the same way you have but many years ago. I have read multiple reports/documents/articles on the subject and although I am not convinced about the accuracy of any individual measurement, the overall trend and direction is convincing.

Roughly speaking... The temperature measurements are done using many, many different methods. The fact that the majority of these measurements agree using those different methods indicates the reliability of those measurements. You then take an average and use this to give a trend.

For example, If I was to measure the distance between two points in a room using a laser measuring device, an ultrasonic measuring device, an infrared measuring device and a home made ruler. If all those measurements agreed I could assume that my home made ruler was accurate within tolerance.

One example of how we can measure is this. We have a real record of CO2 levels going back a few decades now. So when you take an ice core you can measure the CO2 in each layer of ice and compare it to the real records. Based on those measurements and comparisons you can then take deeper cores and get CO2 levels going back further.

I hope this makes sense?

 

[sallylillian]

Thank you. So looking at the NASA CO2 chart for example are you saying they can determine the CO2 levels back 800,000 years? What from your understanding is the calibration of the measurements, ie 50,000 year steps, 20,000, 10,000 from their graphs it looks around 10,000 years. So on even say 5000 years how can a current 20 to 50 year spike to 400ppm in recent times be described as unprecedented as they would never have shown up historically and there would need to have been 1000's of years continuous 400ppm for the spike to have registered and interrupted the trend? I will examine further. Thanks again.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

I just do not get the sudden, possibly 10 years, where there is this hyperventilating of impending doom with what for me is a very flimsy set of "workings out".

I just wanted to respond to this bit separately.
The Greta global doom philosophy is not based on science and these kind of doom mongering scare stories are counter productive. 8 years to save the earth is a ridiculous argument and proves why she should be in school not being lauded by world leaders.

I am not a catastrophist. The earth will not die if we don't move fast enough. We will simply see more flooding, wilder storms and global sea rises that will hit hard in some places and not at all in others.
The sooner we take action the more we can limit these changes. However, it is not an 8 year time limit or we all die type scenario.

Like most debates there are those on the fringe who take extreme views. This happens everywhere whether it is Brexit with extreme remainers and leavers or on climate change with the deniers and catastrophists. The truth is usually somewhere near the middle.

My view is, yes there is climate change outside of the natural cycle and yes it is caused by humans. I think it is a serious issue that does need dealing with, but it is not catastrophic in the next 8 years. The current government targets of 2050 seem reasonable to me. It is 30 years away which is more than enough time to get close to carbon neutral. I don't think we will achieve it but we will get close. If we set the target further out it wouldn't have the immediacy necessary to prompt the required changes and if it was closer it would cause large economic impacts.

I support wind power and other renewable energy sources, I also support EV's and other clean forms of energy use. This is not purely because of Global warming, but because I don't think it is sustainable to keep sending money to the middle east and Russia. I think we have funded their terrorism long enough. I am also fed up of wars fought over oil. Finally digging something up to burn it is incredibly wasteful if we have viable alternatives. Oh and also, I hate noisy, smelly car and lorry engines. I look forward to a time when our transport doesn't stink and make loads of noise.

 

[Gromett]

Thank you. So looking at the NASA CO2 chart for example are you saying they can determine the CO2 levels back 800,000 years? What from your understanding is the calibration of the measurements, ie 50,000 year steps, 20,000, 10,000 from their graphs it looks around 10,000 years. So on even say 5000 years how can a current 20 to 50 year spike to 400ppm in recent times be described as unprecedented as they would never have shown up historically and there would need to have been 1000's of years continuous 400ppm for the spike to have registered and interrupted the trend? I will examine further. Thanks again.

I can't answer those questions without looking into it again sorry. But I wouldn't just look at NASA CO2 charts. I would look at other sources as well. It is not that I don't trust NASA, I do. But I want more than one source for my data to make my personal conclusion more viable.

But I will say one thing. If you look at the CO2 rises at the end of the last Ice age which was around 10-15,000 years ago you will see that the rate of change over those 1,000 years was a lot less than the rise over the last 60. I don't look at the start point or the end point simply at the rate of change. Does that make sense to you?

 

[sallylillian]

Gromett Balanced

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[DuxDeluxe]

They might even applaud our attempts to speed up a return to their hot house days by releasing green house gases.

Point of order...... a tyrranosaurus could not applaud......

 

[MattR]

I just wanted to respond to this bit separately.
The Greta global doom philosophy is not based on science and these kind of doom mongering scare stories are counter productive. 8 years to save the earth is a ridiculous argument and proves why she should be in school not being lauded by world leaders.

I am not a catastrophist. The earth will not die if we don't move fast enough. We will simply see more flooding, wilder storms and global sea rises that will hit hard in some places and not at all in others.
The sooner we take action the more we can limit these changes. However, it is not an 8 year time limit or we all die type scenario.

Like most debates there are those on the fringe who take extreme views. This happens everywhere whether it is Brexit with extreme remainers and leavers or on climate change with the deniers and catastrophists. The truth is usually somewhere near the middle.

My view is, yes there is climate change outside of the natural cycle and yes it is caused by humans. I think it is a serious issue that does need dealing with, but it is not catastrophic in the next 8 years. The current government targets of 2050 seem reasonable to me. It is 30 years away which is more than enough time to get close to carbon neutral. I don't think we will achieve it but we will get close. If we set the target further out it wouldn't have the immediacy necessary to prompt the required changes and if it was closer it would cause large economic impacts.

I support wind power and other renewable energy sources, I also support EV's and other clean forms of energy use. This is not purely because of Global warming, but because I don't think it is sustainable to keep sending money to the middle east and Russia. I think we have funded their terrorism long enough. I am also fed up of wars fought over oil. Finally digging something up to burn it is incredibly wasteful if we have viable alternatives. Oh and also, I hate noisy, smelly car and lorry engines. I look forward to a time when our transport doesn't stink and make loads of noise.

I agree in part but how would your perspective change if you had the view that we are already too late to stop man-made climate change. Anything we do from now on will reduce the impact but we have to do a lot more than we are doing to make a difference.

Ps. What evidence do you have that Greta's messages are not based on science?

 

[WillH]

Having spent many years working in the merchant navy, three of them solely in the North Atlantic, any advance in weather forecasting is welcome. The Met Office provides worldwide forecasts, we needed their expertise. Our routing was frequently decided by the forecast, many ships, and lives, are still lost in storms every year.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

I agree in part but how would your perspective change if you had the view that we are already too late to stop man-made climate change. Anything we do from now on will reduce the impact but we have to do a lot more than we are doing to make a difference.

Everything we do from now on will make a difference as you say. Whether it is enough, or done fast enough is an open question. No one actually knows the answer and anyone saying they do is full of you know what.

Ps. What evidence do you have that Greta's messages are not based on science?

ok, I have gone to get an exact quote for the 8 year catastrophic prediction. And I will correct myself. She does use scientific predictions as a basis for her speech but she goes way beyond what the climate scientist are saying.

“In the IPCC’s SR1.5 report that came out last year, it says ... that to have a 67-per-cent chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees of global temperature rise, the best odds given by the IPCC, the world had 420 gigatonnes of [carbon dioxide] left to emit back on Jan. 1, 2018,” Thunberg said.

“And today, that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatonnes.”

One gigatonne is a billion metric tonnes, and carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas most commonly linked to climate change.

“With today’s emissions levels, that remaining [carbon dioxide] budget will be entirely gone within less than eight and a half years,” Thunberg said.

So the entire CO2 budget will be gone in 8 years.... I don't see how she leaps from this to we have 8 years to save to the world... The world will not die in 8 years or anytime after.

 

[MattR]

Everything we do from now on will make a difference as you say. Whether it is enough, or done fast enough is an open question. No one actually knows the answer and anyone saying they do is full of you know what.


ok, I have gone to get an exact quote for the 8 year catastrophic prediction. And I will correct myself. She does use scientific predictions as a basis for her speech but she goes way beyond what the climate scientist are saying.



So the entire CO2 budget will be gone in 8 years.... I don't see how she leaps from this to we have 8 years to save to the world... The world will not die in 8 years or anytime after.

Apologies, your post is worthy of a better reply but I've just finished a large volume of wine so I won't be responding with references but if it is claimed that we don't know the answer, how can we say that someone claiming that we are not doing enough is wrong?

The world won't die in 8 years but if we don't limit emissions sufficiently within this time, it will change significantly and we will experience many more changes than if climate change didn't happen.

 

[Paddywack]

I just wanted to respond to this bit separately.
The Greta global doom philosophy is not based on science and these kind of doom mongering scare stories are counter productive. 8 years to save the earth is a ridiculous argument and proves why she should be in school not being lauded by world leaders.

I am not a catastrophist. The earth will not die if we don't move fast enough. We will simply see more flooding, wilder storms and global sea rises that will hit hard in some places and not at all in others.
The sooner we take action the more we can limit these changes. However, it is not an 8 year time limit or we all die type scenario.

Like most debates there are those on the fringe who take extreme views. This happens everywhere whether it is Brexit with extreme remainers and leavers or on climate change with the deniers and catastrophists. The truth is usually somewhere near the middle.

My view is, yes there is climate change outside of the natural cycle and yes it is caused by humans. I think it is a serious issue that does need dealing with, but it is not catastrophic in the next 8 years. The current government targets of 2050 seem reasonable to me. It is 30 years away which is more than enough time to get close to carbon neutral. I don't think we will achieve it but we will get close. If we set the target further out it wouldn't have the immediacy necessary to prompt the required changes and if it was closer it would cause large economic impacts.

I support wind power and other renewable energy sources, I also support EV's and other clean forms of energy use. This is not purely because of Global warming, but because I don't think it is sustainable to keep sending money to the middle east and Russia. I think we have funded their terrorism long enough. I am also fed up of wars fought over oil. Finally digging something up to burn it is incredibly wasteful if we have viable alternatives. Oh and also, I hate noisy, smelly car and lorry engines. I look forward to a time when our transport doesn't stink and make loads of noise.

One issue of not acting quickly enough is the dominoe effect, just one of those dominoes is the permafrost. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ing-it-could-speed-up-climate-change-feature/

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gromett]

One issue of not acting quickly enough is the dominoe effect, just one of those dominoes is the permafrost. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ing-it-could-speed-up-climate-change-feature/

I am aware of that. Plus things like the icecaps melting reducing the albedo effect and thus creating a self reinforcing feedback loop. Also there is a limit to how much CO2 the ocean can absorb. Once this limit is reached and temperatures rise further this will force existing CO2 to be released also potentially causing a cascade effect. I can quote most of the scare stories. But what I don't know is any secondary and tertiary effects that may counterbalance this...

I am a huge science fiction fan and 20 years ago I read a book By Ben Bova where the precipice effect had kicked in and global warming was rampant. This is what triggered my initial interest in this subject. It got me interested because I was brought up in the 70's and early 80's to believe there was an imminent ice age. You can tell where my scepticism now comes from

I just looked for the book.

The Precipice: The Asteroid Wars I eBook : Bova, Ben: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store

The Precipice: The Asteroid Wars I eBook : Bova, Ben: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store

amzn.to

I can recommend Ben Bova books to any SciFi fans. The first one I read of his was Orion which I loved and is still one of my favourites today. Really must re-read his books.

 

[Coolcats]

Possibly but of course climate change pre human was not recorded,,it's only experts research and opinion that gives us an insight into it's extremes and effect on life on earth..It's 10000 years since the last proper ice age but the industrial revolution which is blamed today for our woes is quite recent,,circa 18 century onwards.BUSBY..

I agree in part, but the damming evidence of mans current ongoing impact is not just opinion, it is a science fact rather than opinion, how man chooses to deal with the situation remains to be seen.

 

[MattR]

I am aware of that. Plus things like the icecaps melting reducing the albedo effect and thus creating a self reinforcing feedback loop. Also there is a limit to how much CO2 the ocean can absorb. Once this limit is reached and temperatures rise further this will force existing CO2 to be released also potentially causing a cascade effect. I can quote most of the scare stories. But what I don't know is any secondary and tertiary effects that may counterbalance this...

I am a huge science fiction fan and 20 years ago I read a book By Ben Bova where the precipice effect had kicked in and global warming was rampant. This is what triggered my initial interest in this subject. It got me interested because I was brought up in the 70's and early 80's to believe there was an imminent ice age. You can tell where my scepticism now comes from

I just looked for the book.

The Precipice: The Asteroid Wars I eBook : Bova, Ben: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store

The Precipice: The Asteroid Wars I eBook : Bova, Ben: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store

amzn.to

I can recommend Ben Bova books to any SciFi fans. The first one I read of his was Orion which I loved and is still one of my favourites today. Really must re-read his books.

The imminent ice age predicted in the 1970s was based on media reports and a few scientific reports. The majority of studies reported that the global temperature would increase.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

<p>1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.</p>

skepticalscience.com

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}