That depends on if 0.5m of sea level rise is a severe problem or not.
And whether we are going to get .5m of sea level rise.
Whether that much of a rise is a problem depends on how long it takes to happen. If it happens in a year its a big problem. If it happens in a century, probably not.
At current rates of melting it would take some time to get that .5m. And there is some evidence that as far as Greenland goes the melting may be slowing. Even if that evidence is true its still continuing, and of course the melting could speed up again, but it could also slow down even more, or potentially even reverse.
So, if I may try this again, how much do you think sea levels will rise by 2100? Oh, I forgot, you will just say "I don't know and neither do you". Sorry, I agree with the IPCC
I don't know, and neither do you, and neither does the IPCC. They may have a lot more information than I do, but if I have a quadrillionth of the needed information and they have a billion times as much (which is being very generous to them), then they are still fairly clueless.
They aren't economists and even economists don't know how CO2 production will respond to rising oil prices and various carbon taxes, or trading schemes.
They are not experts on the sun, and even physicists and astronomers who specialize in the appropriate areas don't know exactly how the level of solar radiation will change over time.
They are mostly climatologists, but climatologists have a rather uncertain understanding of weather and climate.
I'm not trying to slam the IPCC. The collective knowledge of the scientists participating in it is apparently the most extensive collection of relevant knowledge that we have. But best that we have can be, and in this case is, far from enough. |
