> 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?
The actual increase has been even less than 1 degree. How can one have the same trust in the same warnings now?
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).
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.
So, 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....
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.
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.
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/Glob...
Ice core derived temperature graph: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperatur...
Annual records are
2016 1.01°C
2020 1.02°C
I reverse the question. 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄?
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.
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=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."
It looks like the trend is pretty obvious if not the magnitude.
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.
> 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.
Here higher tempretures are the pessimistic worse case predictions.
Another person mentioning that these are Farenheit units, makes it clear. There were publications in the 80s predicting much higher numbers and shorter timelines.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...