4 ms·

> The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown. The actual increase has bee

> The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown. The actual increase has been even less than 1 degree. How can one have the same trust in the same warnings now?

bluejekyll 3y ago
Is this your data source on that being less than 1? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... It looks like the trend is pretty obvious if not the magnitude.
- docdeek 3y ago
  The trend is clear but the miss on the magnitude seems significant if it's the person making the prediction is asking for trust and billions of dollars.
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    Right, not to mention that the magnitude is what has largely been used to put blame on one thing or another over the decades following.
  - rigid 3y ago
    It's not that absolutely no countermeasures were taken since 1985. Just take Chinas renewable boom alone. There's a few things that wouldn't have happened without that prediction. Also don't misinterpret a range. It doesn't say "5-7 degrees", it says "1-7 degrees" covering a best-case and worst-case scenario. It's not less credible just because the worst case is so bad.
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      I think to credit these guys you'd really have to ignore a lot of factors that were discovered decades later than this outburst, including many previously unknown natural phenomena that would have curbed their estimates had they been discovered prior. Especially in hindsight, it's alarmist.
      - vasco 3y ago
        Luckily we've finished understanding all the natural phenomena and processes that affect a planetary climate model so we should be good to go now.
        trimethylpurine 3y ago
        Haha!
    - docdeek 3y ago
      It actually says that 1 to 7 degrees are the most conservative predictions: > The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown. This at least implies (though doesn’t confirm) that the ‘worst-case scenarios’ from the less-conservative predictions were higher than 7 degrees in 30 years.
      - rigid 3y ago
        Why would a higher temperature be the more optimistic estimate?
        defrost 3y ago
        Here 'conservative' means the least extreme best case assumptions. Here higher tempretures are the pessimistic worse case predictions.
        rigid 3y ago
        I don't think so. Conservative ethymologically means "preserve the current state". Hence the opposite would be pessimistic. Another person mentioning that these are Farenheit units, makes it clear. There were publications in the 80s predicting much higher numbers and shorter timelines.
        defrost 3y ago
        Tempreture rises higher than 7 F degrees were the pessimistic least conservative estimates of the time. Lower tempreture rises were conservative estimates based on "preserving the current levels of CO2" emissions. I am indeed one of the "another person"s that mentioned these are F units.
        rigid 3y ago
        Nah, a more optimistic prediction would already be "-2 to 5" degrees. "Conservative" in this context relates to the method, not the outcome. You're still ignoring the range-characteristic of the outcome and talk like it was "5-7" degrees.
    - vasco 3y ago
      > There's a few things that wouldn't have happened without that prediction. This is how I think most climate activists think, that even if they exagerate, it's all good, we just over prepare or over-correct.
      - rigid 3y ago
        Where's the exaggeration? When a scientists says "1-7" and in the end it's 3, there was no exaggartion. Also, it's not a way how "climate activists think". It's called "Preparedness paradox" [1] and has been well researched, e.g. with flood disasters and their countermeasures. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox
ben_w 3y ago
> The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago Sounds like they're talking Fahrenheit, not Celsius. The change has been about 1 F, which is 0.555 C: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Glob... Ice core derived temperature graph: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png#mw-jump-to-license https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperatur...
defrost 3y ago
It's very probable he was using Farenheit as his unit (given he's a lifelong US citizen) and given he's not a scientist of the physical or vaguely numerical type he's likely sloppy on his baseline and ranges. None the less: The 2022 surface temperature was 1.55 °F (0.86 °Celsius) warmer than the 20th-century average of 57.0 °F (13.9 °C) and 1.90 ˚F (1.06 ˚C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900). So the earth was up a degree and half F within 30 years relative to the 20th Centuray average. and: Dr Noel Brown is the former Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, North American Regional office. Dr Brown holds a B.A. in Political Science and Economics from Seattle University, an M.A. in International Law and Organization from Georgetown University and Ph. D. in International Relations from Yale University. He also holds a diploma in International Law from The Hague Academy of International Law. https://www.pace.edu/sites/default/files/files/commencement/hdr-2003-dr-noel-j-brown.pdf https://www.pace.edu/sites/default/files/files/commencement/... So, not a STEM person and not a climate scientist.
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  "not a STEM person and not a climate scientist. " Are you saying that the head of the United Nations Environment Program was speaking out of ignorance? That seems a very weak defense....
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    That's not what the comment you're replying to is saying? They're saying said person was probably using F as unit of measure, and everything else was explanatory text to explain why they thought that.
  - defrost 3y ago
    You can read what I wrote and you can read their biography. Both myself and the references do indeed state that the director of the New York office of UNEP holds political and legal qualifications and no STEM qualifications. Neither they nor myself claim that he is the Head of UNEP or speaks from ignorance. It's clear, though, that in an AP article he uses non SI units and doesn't clarify expected ranges and probabilities.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lern_too_spel 3y ago
The report mentioned in TFA says 1.5 to 4.5 degrees celsius from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, which was projected for 2075. We can have the same trust in the warnings because we can read and understand. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/70000A5V.PDF?Dockey=70000A5V.PDF https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/70000A5V.PDF?Dockey=7000... "Carbon cycle modelers and energy economists generally expect the concentration of C02 to increase 50 percent by 2050 and to double by 2075." "All projections of future concentrations have been based on the assumption that current trends will continue and that governments will not regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. However, in the fall of 1987, most of the industrial nations agreed to cut emissions of the chlorofluorocarbons by 50 percent over the following decade. Moreover, the United Nations has created an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to develop strategies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in general. Nevertheless, curtailing emissions will be difficult. There is considerable doubt regarding the global warming that would result from a doubling of carbon dioxide. There is general agreement that the average temperature would rise 1.2°C if nothing else changed. However, warmer temperatures would allow the atmosphere to retain more water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas, increasing the warming. A retreat of ice cover would also amplify the warming, while possible changes in cloud cover could increase or decrease the warming. Two reports by the National Academy of Sciences have developed a consensus estimate that the average warming will be 1.5 to 4.5°C, and that the polar areas will warm two to three times as much."
nabla9 3y ago
>Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C (likely between 0.8°C and 1.2°C) above pre-industrial levels in 2017 . source: IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/ Annual records are 2016 1.01°C 2020 1.02°C Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ I reverse the question. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄?
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  I read that as the warning was that the temperature would rise by 1 to 7 degrees during the next 30 years (i.e. 1989-2019), not since ~1850. It has definitely risen by >1 degree since ~1850, but most of that had already happened by 1989.
  - nabla9 3y ago
    These scenarios are based on the "The Business-as-Usual" assumption that is not 100% valid. In IPCC 1990 business-as-usual scenario C02 emissions are roughly 45 Gt today, in reality, it's 37 Gt. Probably the most important factor is that coal use has not increased to the levels predicted, because actions have been taken in the last decade or so.
cm2187 3y ago
I agree, I have very little trust in all those climate projections, even today. That being said the industrial rise of China and South-East Asia happened since, and I doubt those were baked into any prediction in 1989 (like I doubt any prediction for the evolution of the world for the next 30y will be worth anything). If you look at the evolution of co2 emissions over that period, those two regions represent the bulk of the increase, with western countries rather dropping. So you can argue that the world we are looking at now is definitely worst that the world they were contemplating then. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...

bluejekyll 3y ago

Is this your data source on that being less than 1? https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/... It looks like the trend is pretty obvious if not the magnitude.

docdeek 3y ago
The trend is clear but the miss on the magnitude seems significant if it's the person making the prediction is asking for trust and billions of dollars.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  Right, not to mention that the magnitude is what has largely been used to put blame on one thing or another over the decades following.
- rigid 3y ago
  It's not that absolutely no countermeasures were taken since 1985. Just take Chinas renewable boom alone. There's a few things that wouldn't have happened without that prediction. Also don't misinterpret a range. It doesn't say "5-7 degrees", it says "1-7 degrees" covering a best-case and worst-case scenario. It's not less credible just because the worst case is so bad.
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    I think to credit these guys you'd really have to ignore a lot of factors that were discovered decades later than this outburst, including many previously unknown natural phenomena that would have curbed their estimates had they been discovered prior. Especially in hindsight, it's alarmist.
    - vasco 3y ago
      Luckily we've finished understanding all the natural phenomena and processes that affect a planetary climate model so we should be good to go now.
      - trimethylpurine 3y ago
        Haha!
  - docdeek 3y ago
    It actually says that 1 to 7 degrees are the most conservative predictions: > The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown. This at least implies (though doesn’t confirm) that the ‘worst-case scenarios’ from the less-conservative predictions were higher than 7 degrees in 30 years.
    - rigid 3y ago
      Why would a higher temperature be the more optimistic estimate?
      - defrost 3y ago
        Here 'conservative' means the least extreme best case assumptions. Here higher tempretures are the pessimistic worse case predictions.
        rigid 3y ago
        I don't think so. Conservative ethymologically means "preserve the current state". Hence the opposite would be pessimistic. Another person mentioning that these are Farenheit units, makes it clear. There were publications in the 80s predicting much higher numbers and shorter timelines.
        defrost 3y ago
        Tempreture rises higher than 7 F degrees were the pessimistic least conservative estimates of the time. Lower tempreture rises were conservative estimates based on "preserving the current levels of CO2" emissions. I am indeed one of the "another person"s that mentioned these are F units.
        rigid 3y ago
        Nah, a more optimistic prediction would already be "-2 to 5" degrees. "Conservative" in this context relates to the method, not the outcome. You're still ignoring the range-characteristic of the outcome and talk like it was "5-7" degrees.
  - vasco 3y ago
    > There's a few things that wouldn't have happened without that prediction. This is how I think most climate activists think, that even if they exagerate, it's all good, we just over prepare or over-correct.
    - rigid 3y ago
      Where's the exaggeration? When a scientists says "1-7" and in the end it's 3, there was no exaggartion. Also, it's not a way how "climate activists think". It's called "Preparedness paradox" [1] and has been well researched, e.g. with flood disasters and their countermeasures. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox

ben_w 3y ago

> The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago Sounds like they're talking Fahrenheit, not Celsius. The change has been about 1 F, which is 0.555 C: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Glob... Ice core derived temperature graph: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png#mw-jump-to-license https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperatur...

defrost 3y ago

It's very probable he was using Farenheit as his unit (given he's a lifelong US citizen) and given he's not a scientist of the physical or vaguely numerical type he's likely sloppy on his baseline and ranges. None the less: The 2022 surface temperature was 1.55 °F (0.86 °Celsius) warmer than the 20th-century average of 57.0 °F (13.9 °C) and 1.90 ˚F (1.06 ˚C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900). So the earth was up a degree and half F within 30 years relative to the 20th Centuray average. and: Dr Noel Brown is the former Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, North American Regional office. Dr Brown holds a B.A. in Political Science and Economics from Seattle University, an M.A. in International Law and Organization from Georgetown University and Ph. D. in International Relations from Yale University. He also holds a diploma in International Law from The Hague Academy of International Law. https://www.pace.edu/sites/default/files/files/commencement/hdr-2003-dr-noel-j-brown.pdf https://www.pace.edu/sites/default/files/files/commencement/... So, not a STEM person and not a climate scientist.

readthenotes1 3y ago
"not a STEM person and not a climate scientist. " Are you saying that the head of the United Nations Environment Program was speaking out of ignorance? That seems a very weak defense....
- cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  That's not what the comment you're replying to is saying? They're saying said person was probably using F as unit of measure, and everything else was explanatory text to explain why they thought that.
- defrost 3y ago
  You can read what I wrote and you can read their biography. Both myself and the references do indeed state that the director of the New York office of UNEP holds political and legal qualifications and no STEM qualifications. Neither they nor myself claim that he is the Head of UNEP or speaks from ignorance. It's clear, though, that in an AP article he uses non SI units and doesn't clarify expected ranges and probabilities.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lern_too_spel 3y ago

The report mentioned in TFA says 1.5 to 4.5 degrees celsius from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, which was projected for 2075. We can have the same trust in the warnings because we can read and understand. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/70000A5V.PDF?Dockey=70000A5V.PDF https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/70000A5V.PDF?Dockey=7000... "Carbon cycle modelers and energy economists generally expect the concentration of C02 to increase 50 percent by 2050 and to double by 2075." "All projections of future concentrations have been based on the assumption that current trends will continue and that governments will not regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. However, in the fall of 1987, most of the industrial nations agreed to cut emissions of the chlorofluorocarbons by 50 percent over the following decade. Moreover, the United Nations has created an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to develop strategies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in general. Nevertheless, curtailing emissions will be difficult. There is considerable doubt regarding the global warming that would result from a doubling of carbon dioxide. There is general agreement that the average temperature would rise 1.2°C if nothing else changed. However, warmer temperatures would allow the atmosphere to retain more water vapor, which is also a greenhouse gas, increasing the warming. A retreat of ice cover would also amplify the warming, while possible changes in cloud cover could increase or decrease the warming. Two reports by the National Academy of Sciences have developed a consensus estimate that the average warming will be 1.5 to 4.5°C, and that the polar areas will warm two to three times as much."

nabla9 3y ago

>Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C (likely between 0.8°C and 1.2°C) above pre-industrial levels in 2017 . source: IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/chapter-1/ Annual records are 2016 1.01°C 2020 1.02°C Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ I reverse the question. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄?

marcus_holmes 3y ago
I read that as the warning was that the temperature would rise by 1 to 7 degrees during the next 30 years (i.e. 1989-2019), not since ~1850. It has definitely risen by >1 degree since ~1850, but most of that had already happened by 1989.
- nabla9 3y ago
  These scenarios are based on the "The Business-as-Usual" assumption that is not 100% valid. In IPCC 1990 business-as-usual scenario C02 emissions are roughly 45 Gt today, in reality, it's 37 Gt. Probably the most important factor is that coal use has not increased to the levels predicted, because actions have been taken in the last decade or so.

cm2187 3y ago

I agree, I have very little trust in all those climate projections, even today. That being said the industrial rise of China and South-East Asia happened since, and I doubt those were baked into any prediction in 1989 (like I doubt any prediction for the evolution of the world for the next 30y will be worth anything). If you look at the evolution of co2 emissions over that period, those two regions represent the bulk of the increase, with western countries rather dropping. So you can argue that the world we are looking at now is definitely worst that the world they were contemplating then. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...