3 ms·
Worth noting that (a) this is an analysis of scientific consensus, so environmental effects (like the "arctic methane positive feedback loop") should already be
by mattb314 11y ago
Worth 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.