4 ms·
". But if you go by scientific consensus, we're looking at 1-3 feet. Lol you can't just invent things and call it consensus, or disregard actual sources as "hi
by criley2 11y ago
". But if you go by scientific consensus, we're looking at 1-3 feet.
Lol you can't just invent things and call it consensus, or disregard actual sources as "histrionics" because what they say is inconvenient for you.
Here's actual consensus:
>With successful, strong mitigation measures, the experts expect a likely rise of 40-60 cm in this century and 60-100 cm by the year 2300. With unmitigated warming, however, the likely range is 70-120 cm by 2100 and two to three meters by the year 2300 [Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004381 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113... ]
10-15 feet, or 2-3 meters, is the currently accepted consensus estimate of a worst case scenario (total polar ice melt). It's also conveniently the consensus estimate of historical water levels before the current ice age millions of years ago.
The water on Earth being 3 meters higher than today is not revolutionary, is not without precedent, and will absolutely certainly occur on this planet in the future.
Of course, once we warm enough for the arctic methane positive feedback loop to rapidly warm the climate, the worst case scenario becomes far more likely in the 100 year window instead of 300 year window. Only with strong mitigation does scientific consensus agree that we can delay the worst case 2-3m estimates caused by total polar ice melt.
- mattb314 11y agoWorth noting that (a) this is an analysis of scientific consensus, so environmental effects (like the "arctic methane positive feedback loop") should already be included in the numbers if such effects are significant, and (b) GP was referring 1-3 feet in the next century, which matches your quoted numbers of 70-120 cm reasonably closely. Still, interesting source.
- criley2 11y ago"(b) GP was referring 1-3 feet in the next century, which matches your quoted numbers of 70-120 cm reasonably closely." Critical difference is that 1-3 feet is consensus in one case: dramatic mitigation measures. 1-3 feet is NOT the estimate for 100 years of no-action. In that case, "histrionics" as the other poster condescendingly and incorrectly called it, are far closer to reality than rosy projections of strong mitigation that simply is not manifesting in any industrialized nation. Heck, with the global recession of 2008 depressing economies and fuel usage and thus carbon emissions, many nations believe they have made progress when economic downturn is the source. We are not mitigating at all so 1-3 feet is hopelessly optimistic under today's reality...
- vonmoltke 11y agoRead it again. 70cm - 120cm is for "unmitigated warming", per your source. The person you are quoting is correct.
- douche 11y ago> 10-15 feet, or 2-3 meters, is the currently accepted consensus estimate of a worst case scenario In what archaic system of measurement is a meter five feet? 1m ~= 3.28 ft