5 ms·
EDIT: The title has been updated: it used to say: "Ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise to exceed 2m by 2100" _____________________________________
by evandijk70 7y ago
EDIT: The title has been updated: it used to say: "Ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise to exceed 2m by 2100"
_________________________________________________________________
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.
- briandear 7y agoIt’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.
- coldpie 7y agoPlease read the IPCC reports, not ... whatever your current source is.
- chiefalchemist 7y agoI 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.
- ThomPete 7y agoCan 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.
- xbmcuser 7y agoYou 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.
- ThomPete 7y agoSo in other words, you dont have anything.
- Oletros 7y agoIPCC report predictions have been correct, do they count as demonstration?
- chiefalchemist 7y agoI'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. I said nothing about CO2, who and/or why.
- ThomPete 7y agoIt was your better safe than sorry statement I reacted too. Sorry if that was unclear.
- flukus 7y agoI 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.