forecasting critical understanding formulating predictive predictions delivering critical wisdom delivering accurate understanding aggregating critical estimations mapping the future delivering predictive understanding modeling contingent understanding exploring probable futures delivering calibrated futures delivering quantitative understanding generating precise forecasts modeling definitive predictions forecasting calibrated futures

Question

Metaculus Help: Spread the word

If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

2˚C global warming by 2100?

At the Paris climate accord, world leaders promised to keep the global temperature increase this century (relative to pre-industrial levels) "well below 2 ˚C" and if possible below 1.5 ˚C. Many experts are skeptical about this goal being feasible, stating that even if all Paris targets are met, global warming may reach levels up to 3 ˚C above pre-industrial levels. Furthermore, with the coming departure of the United States from the agreement, the meeting of global targets may be in jeopardy.

Therefore, it is asked:

Will there, by 2100, have been a period of at least 5 consecutive years, in which the average global temperature in each year was at least 2.0 ˚C greater than the average global temperature in 1880.

(Note that 1880 isn't exactly pre-industrial, but earlier data is highly unreliable, and there should really not have been much warming by then.)

Data for resolution shall come from NASA, if possible. Note that the data in the link is normalised relative to the 1951-1980 baseline, on which 1880 stands at -0.2. Therefore, the critical value to look for with this specific NASA dataset will be 1.8 ˚C. It is likely, though, that the link will no longer be active in a few decades, so a different dataset may have to be used anyway.

The last possible set of 5 years to satisfy the requirement would be 2095-2099, so the last possible resolution date would be around mid-2100, in order to make sure that there are no uncertainties regarding the 2099 climate data.

{{qctrl.predictionString()}}

Metaculus help: Predicting

Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.

The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available. With tachyons you'll even be able to go back in time and backdate your prediction to maximize your points.

The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.

This question is not yet open for predictions.

Thanks for predicting!

Your prediction has been recorded anonymously.

Want to track your predictions, earn points, and hone your forecasting skills? Create an account today!

Track your predictions
Continue exploring the site

Community Stats

Metaculus help: Community Stats

Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.

When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.