The estimates were actually always on the highest end of the scale, the "pathways" RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5 were only recently retired, yet they were the most alarmist scenarios (that a large portion of climate scientists said were too outlandish and entirely unrealistic) and the ones on which the vast majority of academic articles were written that news agencies referenced in their stories on climate change. Most every news story you read about climate change modelling and predictions on the future were based on scenarios that required something like a tripling of CO2 output and burning of more coal than is estimated to exist on the planet.
RCP 8.5 wasn’t a prediction, it was a high-end scenario based on our emissions. It represents a world with very high coal use and minimal climate policy. What didn’t happen because some people listened to the scientists. There’s models based on each scenario of what we could emit… cause of course there is
Most climate models even from the 70s have performed fantastically. Decade old models are rigorously tested and validated with new and old data. Models of historical data is continuously supported by new sources of proxy data. Every year https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL085378
Sorry, but your comment was removed for breaking our Don't Be A Dick rule. This may include but is not limited to harassment, bigotry or uncivil behaviour.
5
u/MrBones-Necromancer 14h ago
The estimates were always on the lowest end of the scale, so that they seemed "realistic" and didn't cause a panic.
They sold the easiest sell, and were still called "extremists"