Working at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in the 1960s Syukuro Manabe started creating scientific models to predict climate changes.

Some of the predictions that match current observable trends are:

The overall magnitude of observed global warming due to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Stratospheric cooling due to carbon dioxide-driven warming at lower altitudes.

Changes in the Artic referred to as “Arctic amplification”.

The Land-ocean contrast which predicts a decoupling of the rate of temperature increase of the land and the ocean.

The Delayed Southern Ocean warming.

Hopefully, if predictions made by climate models developed 50 years ago reflect current data then predictions from more sophisticated models deserve considerable consideration

There is not enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for plant fertilisation (Prof. Ian Plimer). You are getting desperate using a 93 year old Japanese gentleman, whom nobody has heard of, and whose ‘findings’ have never been used to prop up modern myths about the cause of perfectly natural climate change.

Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with global warming. There is not a single piece of evidence that it does.

Of course there will be some warming as we come out of a long ice age.

But, if you search on Google long enough, you will find all sorts of weird stuff to suit your individual obsessions, and spread them as facts.

Wtf?

yet again ttbn quotes Plimer. His often outrageous comments made on platforms such as youtube have been debunked many times even here on OLO.

As George Monbiot said many years ago: "This professor of denial can't even answer his own questions on climate change... His book Heaven and Earth, which purports to destroy the science of climate change, contains page after page of schoolboy errors and pseudoscientific gobble-degook".

Plimer challenged Monbiot to a debate. When Monbiot agreed Plimer then refused.

Syukuro Manabe has a Noble Prize in Physics.

Exactly right, WTF.

Manabe’s work is one of the most powerful rebuttals to the claim that climate science is all “hype” or unreliable guesswork. His 1967 model was primitive by today’s standards - basic radiative-convective equations run on early computers - but the core physics were sound.

And that’s the point.

The success of early models like Manabe’s lies in their ability to isolate and simulate key climate mechanisms:

- CO2-induced surface warming
- Stratospheric cooling
- Greater warming over land than oceans
- Arctic amplification
- Delayed Southern Ocean response

These weren’t vague predictions - they were quantitative, mechanism-based, and falsifiable. And they held up.

For anyone still clinging to “the models are always wrong” as a talking point, Manabe’s legacy is a hard one to wave away. If a slide-rule-era model captured this much correctly, what does that say about today’s high-resolution, data-assimilating, ensemble-based climate models?

Some predictions from newer models may still contain uncertainty (especially around regional feedbacks), but the broad strokes are clear - and they’re being painted exactly as forecast decades ago.

The science was never about crystal balls. It was about understanding physical laws and watching them unfold.

You could fill a greenhouse with the irony there, ttbn.

You dismiss a Nobel Prize-winning physicist as an obscure nobody while citing IaN pLiMeR - whose claims have been dismantled by actual geologists, physicists, and climate scientists across the spectrum.

Plimer isn’t even working in climate science. His arguments aren’t just outdated, they’re riddled with factual errors, selective quotes, and misrepresentations of basic physics.

//Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with global warming. There is not a single piece of evidence that it does.//

And yet:

- It’s been empirically shown in lab experiments to absorb infrared radiation.
- Satellite data shows less longwave radiation escaping at CO2 absorption frequencies.
- Ice core data and isotope analysis confirm the correlation and mechanism.
- The stratospheric cooling observed aligns exactly with CO2-driven warming predictions (something greenhouse theory uniquely accounts for.)

As for "plant fertilisation," that’s another red herring.

Yes, CO2 can enhance photosynthesis under controlled conditions - but in the real world, benefits are limited by water, nutrient availability, and heat stress. It’s like giving a starving man vitamins and calling it a feast.

You wave away Manabe’s legacy, but his model predicted not just warming - but where and how it would manifest: more over land than ocean, more at higher latitudes, stratospheric cooling, Arctic amplification… all now observed.

That’s the kind of long-term, predictive success real science aspires to.

It’s no wonder climate denial is increasingly left to decades-old arguments from the likes of Plimer and pasty, neckbeard YouTube conspiracy cranks with usernames like xxx_pussydestroyer69 and FauciHatesFreedom420.

You don't 'science,' do you?

"As for "plant fertilisation," that’s another red herring."

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort,.... "

Oh dear.