3 ms·
What's sad is 60 seconds of googling would point him to a paper answering the exact question he believes cannot be answered: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/
by jotux 11y ago
What's sad is 60 seconds of googling would point him to a paper answering the exact question he believes cannot be answered: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13508.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13508.full.pdf
>Analysis based on previously published relationships linking emissions to warming and warming to rise indicates that unabated carbon emissions up to the year 2100 would commit an eventual global sea-level rise of 4.3–9.9 m
- usertaken 11y agoI've heard different years and that's why I bring it up....because the "science" has been disagreeing on this point. Does this take into account the emissions deal w/ China? Because that should push that figure out a couple years or decades from that 2100 figure, no? How much? It's science. Boils down to if you believe the authors are giving an unbiased viewpoint. They receive funding from someone, no? Do those sources benefit from taxing emissions?
- jotux 11y agohttps://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions....