We can see therefore that by the 1930s the fundamental science behind AGW had not only been proposed theoretically, but observed objectively. At this point there was genuine scientific skepticism of the ultimate results of the model, though the basic principles were recognized. Still, it was not considered a serious problem nor a completely settled scientific matter.
That changed in the 1950s. Increases in scientific funding, and massive technological advances (especially in computing), suddenly resulted in the ability to collect far more data, assess it far more accurately, and process more of it faster. Significant breakthroughs were made during this time, especially with regard to the question of how much CO2 would be absorbed by the ocean, which had previously been considered a carbon sink large enough to alleviate and offset any anthropogenic CO2 increase. Unfortunately it was discovered that the ocean was not absorbing CO2 at the rate which had been anticipated, and the realization that this massive ‘safety valve’ was in fact not going to be any such thing, was a cause for concern. However, even at this stage it was generally assumed that the effects would not become problematic for hundreds of years.
The science was good. The theories had been vindicated, and now the scientific community was taking serious notice. At this point it was understood that AGW could be ‘a serious problem to future generations’ (Gilbert Plass), and warnings were beginning to filter through to the government and public media (Roger Revelle, Bert Bolin). During this time Gilbert Plass made three predictions with regard to climate change due to CO2 increase (global warming, CO2 levels, and the temperature of the planet).Just over fifty years later, all of them were proved true.