Without knowing the original article context, it's really hard to know what the exact prediction is. It seems clear from looking around that most people who reference the article are global-denialists as I haven't found anyone verify that the newspaper reporter was accurate in the report.
So, I looked for the report. I believe it's "The State of the World Environment 1989 - UNEP/GC.15/7/Add.2" dated April 1989 at https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/28295/... . The prediction on p23./paragraph 68 is:
> Even then, estimates of temperature increase vary widely—from 0.7°C to 9.6°C. Recent studies agree, however, that doubling the carbon dioxide concentration from the pre-industrial level of 270 ppmv will probably increase global mean temperature by 1.5°C to 4.5°C (47, 48, 49)—but most likely by 2°C.
+0.82°C is larger than 0.7°C, so well within that predicted range - certainly on the low-end, but not enough to be rejected as "shit" given how the report explicitly states the uncertainty.
The 1 degree could have been 0.82°C rounded (up) to the nearest degree, or 1.476°F rounded (down) to the nearest degree.
I don't see an estimate of when, but figure 5 shows an estimate of 3°C rise by 2050, of which about 0.8°C come from CFC - CFCs weren't yet banned at that time. Which means Brown's prediction in the news article likely included a CFC component that didn't happen.
Thanks for the link to the original paper, I've never seen it myself either
The shit is now starting to hit the fan.
The predictions are that there's going to be a lot more shit hitting the fan, and these predictions are constantly being checked and re-checked.
The news reports first that the shit bombardment is coming, and now it's here.
And you complain about those news reports, and not those actually shitting on the planet?
You know the metaphor "bikeshedding", yes? The idea that there can be a lot of vigorous arguments over the materials, paint color, etc. to use for a bike shed?
The flip side of that metaphor, which I'll coin "atomicpowerplanting", is that few want to dig into the details to make a good decision. Going back to the original bikeshed email:
> an atomic plant is so vast, so expensive and so complicated that people cannot grasp it, and rather than try, they fall back on the assumption that somebody else checked all the details before it got this far.
So, starting 40 years ago people started talking about the problems in graphite atomic piles, and made vague mentions of the Wigner effect, but the atomic power plant is important for national security and so it is built and put into operation.
This goes on for years. People point out some of the problems, and its knowledge is suppressed.
More years pass. And then the Windscale fire happens.
Perhaps the warnings are really important, but so complex that it's easy to atomicpowerplant?
I'm trying to point out that "shit bombardment" might be appropriate, if everything is going to shit.
Do you think there is substantial global warming caused by humans?
Do you think it's serious enough that we need to take drastic measures to reduce CO2 emissions?
Do you think the evidence was strong enough in the 1980s that they were right to be concerned about the future?
Do you think their claims - bearing in mind the range of the predictions as in the 1989 document I found - been shown to be substantially correct?
You haven't committed either which way, only to say that you've been bombarded by shit by the news. The 1989 article you pointed to, however, doesn't seem like shit. Why do you think it is?
There's no way you can claim that this is vindication of that prediction.