gwern comments on Svante Arrhenius's Prediction of Climate Change - Less Wrong

7 Post author: JonahSinick 10 July 2013 11:00PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (22)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 10 July 2013 11:14:40PM 1 point [-]

Arrhenius predicted that global warming would have positive humanitarian impacts, for reasons that are retrospectively wrong, and instead global warming appears to have negative humanitarian impacts.

This seems like an oversimplification. It would seem more accurate that Arrhenius thought on balance it would have a net positive humanitarian impact and current consensus is that it is net negative.

Comment author: gwern 10 July 2013 11:44:30PM 0 points [-]

Do we know whether Arrhenius was right at the time that it was a net positive? 1896 was quite a long time ago, as far as populations and economies go.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 11 July 2013 12:27:58AM 1 point [-]

No idea. I have no idea if anyone has looked into this in that much detail. My guess would be that he was wrong, since agriculture would have been even more insensitive to change in many parts of the world (although less so in other areas since monocropping wasn't as common).

Comment author: DanArmak 13 July 2013 12:34:36AM *  0 points [-]

He was writing soon after the end (in retrospect) of the Little Ice Age, which I think is generally agreed (then and now) to have had negative effects. So a predicted return to warmer temperatures would be a good thing - it's not called the Medieval Climate Optimum for nothing!

The difference between the Optimum and the LIA was less than 1C, so saying warming up another 1C would be even better was extrapolation. But Arrhenius probably didn't have historical climate data of that precision, and it may have been the reasonable prediction to make.

The LIA and the Optimum weren't global - some places cooled down, others heated up. (As is true of most climate change). But again, Arrhenius wouldn't have known that. The last 800 years of history up to his time, on either side of the North Atlantic, were of gradual cooling down with deleterious effects.

Comment author: gwern 13 July 2013 01:30:04AM 0 points [-]

Yes, the Little Ice Age was part of what I was thinking of, although I was unsure it was really relevant - the Little Ice Age should've ended at least 50 years before Arrhenius seems to have done his relevant work.