That’s debatable.
Not what Science Writer Peter Hadfield (aka Potholer) is telling you. The typical range is between 1 and 2 meters, and this paper is the one that is pointed as the typical:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/51/21527.full
But the notorious thing is that once again, that is for the low emission scenario, for higher ones and with the added acceleration observed recently the number will be higher, the silliness here is that you think that reporting that going over the average height of an human is wrong, only because it is not precise, but that is misleading, do you really think it will be ok to see a rise of the ocean between 1 to 2 meters? Mind you, that was for the early conservative research, with the acceleration added we are looking at higher levels. But it is clear that you will continue to harp on those new estimates as wrong simple because they are not exact.
What it is clear is that you ignore the fact that the denier sources you look at told you to trust them when they said that no acceleration was going to be observed. Well they did mislead many with the talking point about the ice increasing. It just means that indeed the high end is the most likely thing that we will get… and more if we let the disinformers like the Kochs to continue with no repercussions to them.
The point here is that the scientists could be wrong with those conservative numbers, because the latest research shows the numbers are more likely to be higher.
It is really silly to think that most people will agree with the opposition… when their house is likely to end under water than just close to being underwater.
What’s-his-name said that 1 to 2 meters was the expected max if the ice caps melted. You claim that the numbers could be higher. If the ice caps have melted, where do you expect the additional sea rise to come from? If you, a true believer, do not believe the 1m - 2m claim, what are the skeptics gonna think?
(bold and underline added)
Could be wrong? Conservative numbers? Latest research indicates even higher numbers? What’s the matter, weren’t the original guesstimations scary enough?
I’ll suggest that the global warming zealots spend too much time trashing the opposition and undermining their own “scientific” findings.
That’s what happens in science when you continue to get more and better data and continue to improve your analytical procedures. Your results get more accurate.
Did you pay attention in high school?
A very ignorant thing to say as the science writer you are insulting pointed before at what would happen if the ice caps melted. Just as NASA recently reported and Dr Baxter (already cited) told us in the 1950s:
http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/447
The mistake you make now is to think that was the max, Peter Hadfiel (and most scientists) was referring to conservative estimate that we likely see at the end of the century.
I only suspected it, but now it is clear that that was one of the dumbest things said in the SDMB, once again it is a very ignorant thing to say because it ignores that it is referring to the conservatively expected melting that was reasonable until recently, in the long run most scientists agree that the a full melt of the ice caps will us not only the loss of coastal cities, but entire countries. That is likely to take 200-400 years. If we do not a concerted effort to minimize that.
So besides being wrong on what I and the experts claim you are still piling up the silly stuff, there is no universe were the people will think that the deniers were correct if the likely will happen and by end of the century we will see 1-2 meter rise, what if the numbers are higher? The deniers will still not be the ones getting pats in the back, they will be then more wrong. That is why your point is very dumb.
I was too poor to pay attention in high school.
Indeed, “if you think education is expensive try ignorance” - Derek Bok
No coffee yet, so lets clarify that:
The mistake you make now is to think that was the max, Peter Hadfiel (and most scientists) was referring to the conservative estimate of what we are likely see at the end of the century.
I only suspected it, but now it is clear that what you posted was one of the dumbest things said in the SDMB, once again it is a very ignorant thing to say because it ignores that scientists are referring to the conservatively expected melting that was reasonable until recently. In the long run most scientists agree that the a full melt of the ice caps will give us not only the loss of coastal cities, but entire countries. That is likely to take 200-400 years. If we do not a concerted effort to minimize that.
So besides being wrong on what I and the experts claim you are still piling up the silly stuff, there is no universe were the people will think that the deniers were correct if the likely will happen and by end of the century we will see 1-2 meter rise, what if the numbers are higher? The deniers will still not be the ones getting pats in the back, they will be then more wrong. That is why your point is very dumb.
(post shortened)
By ignorant, do you mean I don’t know the answer? I don’t know the answer. That’s why I inquired as to what the maximum sea rise would be if the pole ice disappeared and you trotted out Hadfiel. Hadfiel admits that he, personally, doesn’t know. He only reports what he’s read in scientific papers. Some papers he agrees with and some papers he disagrees with.
Is it 1 to 2 meters? Is it higher? You claim it’s higher. The question hasn’t changed and the question hasn’t been answered. Your snarky remarks suggest that you can’t answer the question. Why should the undecided and the skeptics accept your non-answer as proof of anything?
Because this is all about scaring people, of course.
Wrong on even how wrong you are.
You insisted that Hadfield was claiming that the 1-2 meters was the likely result if the ice caps melted, that was very ignorant to say because they are talking about the end of the century and the observed glacier melt (no complete ice cap melt… yet) .Even 60 years ago scientists reported that the estimates are much higher if the ice caps melt and on a larger scale, we will have to assume here that then you do not think other years will come after the end of the century.
No, what it shows is the ignorance you have, you ignore that science changes based on the evidence, and the latest evidence shows that the ice loss is accelerating, meaning that the ocean rise will be more than the old estimates by the end of the century.
Because you were wrong, so your claim of a non-answer is also dumb, and again, there is no universe were the contrarians will be congratulated if the ocean rises more than the conservative estimate by the end of the century, they will be more wrong.
If the AGW true believers can’t provide answers to the simple questions, how are they going to convince the public that they’re correct about their predictions?
That supposes that the public will not notice when contrarians are getting even simple things wrong and assuming that the answer already offered (what the peer reviewed science is telling us) was not offered. In reality most people see how ignorant the fake skeptics are.
Science can be complex and it’s prone to revision. That’s one of the things people take advantage of when they’re bullshitting the public about science. Of course if scientists said “sea levels will rise by precisely 1.54 meters and we won’t budge on that number,” people would find that suspicious.
There seems to be a difference of opinion about which side is bullshitting the public about science.
I assume that the people who are using actual sea rise numbers (1ft, 3ft, 3m, 7m, etc.) to promote CO2-is-evil can actually provide the math they used to arrive at their favorite total.
Trust them, they are scientists, isn’t much of a confidence builder based on the number of errors the global warming zealots have made in the past.
Fake skeptics? Skeptics who aren’t really skeptics?
It seems to me that the global warming zealotry had more support in the past. It seems to me that the credibility of the global warming, no wait, the climate change zealots, no, no wait, it’s the global warming zealots again, that has been reduced.
(post shortened)
I asked what the sea rise would be if the pole ice disappeared. You provided Hadfield. And then disagreed with what Hadfield had really meant to say???
Yes, I assume they can. Are you suggesting otherwise? If so, why?