This is too funny. So many levels

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/c...level-rise

Quote: Climate Consensus-the 97%

What a great lead in, two mangina journalists who hope to get lucky by telling girls the world is going to end, reference a discredited study.

So how do they think science should be done? You take a vote!

Quote:It looks like past IPCC predictions of sea level rise were too conservative; things are worse than we thought. That is the takeaway message from a new study out in Quaternary Science Reviews and from updates to the IPCC report itself. The new study, which is also discussed in depth on RealClimate, tries to determine what our sea levels will be in the future. What they found isn't pretty.

Predicting of sea level rise is a challenging business.

Of course it is.

Quote:... First, we can look at the deep past and see how sea level changed with Earth temperature long ago.

A second way to predict the future is through computational models.

Uh, wouldn't these be based on #1? No? Just better to tinker I guess.

Quote: These models are computer programs which create a virtual-reality of the Earth. These virtual reality models are very useful because they allow scientists to play "what if" scenarios; but, they have their weaknesses as well. One of their weaknesses is that they don't necessarily capture all of the phenomena which cause sea level rise. It is believed by most scientists that the computer programs are too conservative.

I guess these guys can't even tinker with their models well enough to get really really bad meaningless results. Of course, all missed phenomena mean too conservative; no chance that the missed phenomena point to models that are too extreme in their dire results.

Quote:How does this all relate to the current study? Well the authors took a different approach. They decided to ask the scientists themselves.

Excellent! Nothing says "science" more than having people guess how many jelly beans are in a jar! Why waste time w/ all those experiments, measurements, and modeling complex systems? Just take a straw poll!

Quote: What do they think sea level rise will be by 2100 and 2300 under different greenhouse gas scenarios?

Excellent! Virtually none of us will be alive then to check on the results. No way to be shown right or wrong. What a great scientific breakthrough!

Quote: The authors found 360 sea-level experts through a literature survey. They then worked to find contact information for these scientists and finally, they sent a questionnaire. After receiving 90 expert judgments from 18 countries, the results were tallied. So, what do experts think?

According to the best case scenario (humans take very aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gases), the experts think sea level rise will likely be about 0.4–0.6 meters (1.3–2.0 feet) by 2100 and 0.6–1.0 meters (2.0–3.3 feet) by 2300. According to the more likely higher emission scenario, the results are 0.7–1.2 meters (2.3–3.9 feet) by 2100 and 2.0–3.0 meters (6.5–9.8 feet) by 2300. These are significantly larger than the predictions set forth in the recently published IPCC AR5 report. They reflect what my colleagues, particularly scientists at NOAA, have been telling me for about three years.

How should we plan for this rise? Some areas can be protected by expensive walling off of ocean water. Other locations simply cannot be saved. Particularly, in areas that have porous subsurfaces, it isn't possible to stop the rising waters. Dealing with the costs of relocation, storm surges, and rising waters will be expensive. This is just another reason why reducing emissions is the best, most cost effective way of adapting to climate change.

Well it's now proven so absolutely...how could anyone think otherwise?