Prognostication: Global Seas Could Maybe Possibly Rise By 4 Feet By 2100

This won’t happen if you stop eating meat, stay home and only use solar power, only flush once a day, and give up your money and freedom to Government, you know

Climate crisis: Sea level ‘on course to rise by one metre by 2100’ if global emissions targets are missed

Sea levels could rise by more than one metre by the year 2100 and 5m by 2300 if global emissions targets are not achieved, according to a study.

Scientists at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore modelled projections from over 100 international experts for the global average sea level changes based on two climate scenarios.

In the low emissions scenario, in which global warming is limited to 2C above pre-industrial levels, experts estimate a rise of 0.5m by 2100 and 0.5m to 2m by 2300.

That’s 1.6 feet by 2100, despite sea rise being exactly average, 7-8 inches, over the 20th Century, and not accelerating at all so far in the 21st. Oh, and the temps not even rising by 1C over the last 170 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age.

In a high emissions scenario where global warming rises by 4.5C, the estimates surged between 0.6m and 1.3m by 2100 and 1.7m to 5.6m by 2300.

The study, which was published in science journal Nature, notes that melting ice shelves in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are the “largest potential contributors” to global mean sea level rise, as the biggest reservoirs of land-based ice on earth.

Of course, the high emission scenario is what all the articles yapping about this are pushing in their headlines.

It adds: “The multimeter global mean sea level rise (GMSL) rise projected by some experts… would expose up to hundreds of millions of people to coastal flooding and devastate coastal ecosystems.

“However, the expert projections also clearly illustrate the potential for evading such large GMSL rise through successful reduction of emissions.”

See? If you are made to cooperate things will only get slightly bad, not really bad. BTW, are there ever any penalties for scientists and such making prognostications that never materalize?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Prognostication: Global Seas Could Maybe Possibly Rise By 4 Feet By 2100”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Teach predicts that transitioning from fossil fuels to non-CO2 emitting sources will lead to famine, authoritarianism, poverty, mind control… human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!!

    BTW, are there ever any penalties for conservabloggers and such making prognostications that never materialize?

    • Kye says:

      He has made no such prognostication. He stated that the price for transitioning from fossil fuel to non CO2 emitting sources will necessitate a Powerful Authoritarian Government which historically and provably leads to famine, poverty, mind control authoritarianism, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria but most importantly, Gulags and mass graves. Or have you failed to notice that in the history of your communist utopias?

      What he is saying, which you foolishly ignore is that if we want to attain the goal you stated we need to find a NON AUTHORITARIAN WAY. Is that so hard to understand? IT’s not the GOAL Teach hates, it’s your method for achieving it.

      Trump 2020 Don’t let dogs and cats live together!

    • Dana says:

      Transitioning to non-emitting energy sources will be a good thing . . . when the technology is developed enough to allow replacement.

      This is a part of the problem with the “Green New Deal”: we do not have sufficiently mature technology to provide the power we need, on a consistent and reliable basis. It makes perfect sense to replace, when we reasonably can, but to do so willy-nilly, as the warmunists are demanding means energy shortages and tremendously increased costs.

      • Dana says:

        Kye wrote:

        Trump 2020 Don’t let dogs and cats live together!

        Now wait a minute here! We have a dog and cats living together!

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Dana,

        No reasonable person advocates abruptly stopping fossil fuel use, hence the descriptor, ‘transition’.

        But we can support the development of new technologies. The energy markets prompted the transition from coal by natural gas, which reduced CO2 emissions per unit of energy produced. Improvements in nuclear technology (safety, cost and efficiency) and the threat of global warming make nuclear more desirable.

        ALL energy sources have pros and cons. Fossil fuels are energy dense (6 lbs of gasoline can propel a 3000 lb vehicle 30 miles at 60 mph!), portable, relatively cheap and relatively safe. The cons are pollution, health effects and global warming. We humans tolerated pollution, COPD, asthma, cancer balanced against the pros, but now recognize the global problems associated with warming. Likewise, solar, wind and nuclear have their cons as well, e.g., not portable, not always available, requires mining rare minerals, cost, safety and pollution. Unobtanium mining required the subjugation of the Na’vi.

  2. Kye says:

    From Elwood’s link:
    “But there is a vehicle for investigation — the independent press, where investigative journalists are highly motivated to seek out details and witnesses and where competing views will be aired.”

    Hahahaha. Like the “independent press” is independent? Where were the “investigative journalists” when Blasey-ford was yapping? They investigated NOTHING. Where were they when the entire DOJ was LYING to us, Congress and the world about Russian collusion? We had to wait for the statements to be released by the DOJ to see IN THEIR OWN HANDWRITING they were lying and setting up members of the administration.

    Let me ask you this Elwood, would you believe a word the “independent press” said if they were 97% conservative? Well that’s about where we are vice versa. There is NOTHING independent about a press that acts as the propaganda arem of the DNC and in the case of the Wuhan Virus, the Chicoms.

    That’s not independent, that’s corrupt. And it goes all the way back to the lying Pulitzer winner Walter Duranty. That’s how long the NYT has been corrupt. Now, wanna talk Dan Rather? The exploding trucks? The Duke Lacross team? Hillary’e Emails?

    Independent press, indeed. Pravda had more independence that our current press has.

    https://i0.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2020/05/NYT-Prize-corrected.jpg?resize=469%2C600&ssl=1

    Trump 2020 For shit you won’t hear in the “independent press”

Bad Behavior has blocked 5319 access attempts in the last 7 days.