Per Prof West's comments -- In some cases you state degrees F and in others the scale is unspecified. It is good to keep the scale consistent. The IPCC uses degrees C.
For a good overview of the IPCC (including brief summaries of models) see the wikipedia page. Since the IPCC is a large group which operates by consensus their summaries and predictions are conservative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report For what to do, consider Project Drawdown. They interviewed multiple stakeholders and created models which were then ranked by effectiveness. https://www.drawdown.org/ >From my understanding, most of the difference between early models and actual data was due to: oceans warming (i.e. absorbing heat) and global dimming. If you are interested I can send links. IMHO it is great that the models are evolving, and that things (so far) are slower than prediction. Like many others, the current data on tipping points is very concerning to me. Curt On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 10:45 AM Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > Questions, that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of climate > change. > > In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that because > of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 > degrees Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 > degrees Fahrenheit by 2020. > > The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature > increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations > being 3-5 by the year 2020. > > The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100. > > The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the end > of domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020. > > The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 degree. > > Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate, > argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly > incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, > and over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or > simply "circulation" motives. > > In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar everyone > expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush? > > Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the > proposed "solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?" > > Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to carbon > scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human > socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them? > > Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, > how do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our > chances? > > davew > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
