Incredibly misleading title. The expected ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise are, per the article:
26 cm (Assuming CO2 emissions from the Paris agreement)
51 cm (Assuming CO2 emissions in line with current emissions)
69 cm (Assuming CO2 emissions in line with current emissions and incorporation of thermal expansion)
The 2m value comes from the large error bars in the predictions. Global climate change is a huge problem, but misrepresenting results from a scientific study like this is just presenting ammunition to climate change deniers on a silver platter. I suggest replacing 'to' with 'may' in the title, as that is a better summary of the article.
I think you corrected the wrong axis, warming will continue for centuries even with the Paris agreement, even with no warming ice sheets will continue melting for quite a while until temperatures return to normal, the "by 2100" timeline is the most significant variable.
It’s definitely ammunition, deservedly so. This sort of misrepresentation is par for the course. “The world is ending in 12 years.” I seem to hear that every 12 years just when people have forgotten about how the world was supposed to have been flooded already. Activists seem to have a ha but if exagération, if not downright lying.
I understand. That said, in retrospect, we seem to be well ahead of "X will happen by Year Y" predictions. I guess my point is, better safe than sorry. Because as it is, we're fast-tracking to worst case.
Can you point to any scientifically demonstrated conclusion on how much humans affect climate via CO2 emissions? It's definitely some, but how much?
You won't find the answer and that should make the most critical thinkers amongst you to question how much you actually can rely on much of these predictions about the future 30-80 years out.
It seems like that would be a great place to start if you want to convince people that they should spend a lot of money on something that isn't even demonstrated to be a problem we can't handle already now.
What are you ready to do, who's money and freedoms are you ready to spend on being "safe rather than sorry"?
This is the real question we should be asking ourselves.
You have on hackernews a study from Exxon from 1978 that correctly predicted carbon in the atmosphere and global warming because of it correctly for today. I have started taking most of the studies numbers as conservative numbers as sadly because of billions spend by the oil industry on destroying research and science reputation related to global warming and carbon the researchers publish the most conservative numbers.
I'm not sure how this applies to my statement. My scope was simple: Time and again the predictions have been wrong, and the majority of the time milestones are being hit earlier rather than later.
_________________________________________________________________
Incredibly misleading title. The expected ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise are, per the article:
26 cm (Assuming CO2 emissions from the Paris agreement)
51 cm (Assuming CO2 emissions in line with current emissions)
69 cm (Assuming CO2 emissions in line with current emissions and incorporation of thermal expansion)
The 2m value comes from the large error bars in the predictions. Global climate change is a huge problem, but misrepresenting results from a scientific study like this is just presenting ammunition to climate change deniers on a silver platter. I suggest replacing 'to' with 'may' in the title, as that is a better summary of the article.