Australian climate scientists have built a computer simulation model to predict sea level rises in a variety of scenarios.
The headline result is a 1.32m rise in mean global sea levels by 2100, if no further progress is made in reducing CO2 emissions.
One of the more frustrating aspects of climate science is the dearth of rational, respectful discussion of predictions such as this. Climate Change has become a hugely-polarising subject, where either side of the debate shout into their respective echo chambers.
To even ask the questions we will pose below is to risk being labeled “anti science” or the deliberately provocative “denier” (provocative because we all know the only other instance that noun is regularly used).
We will pose some questions nonetheless, if for no other reason than to have it on record in the WayBackMachine that there were some who were somewhat sceptical of the accuracy of the computer models.
Questions which might be interesting to learn the answers to;
1. This latest computer model makes a prediction of sea level rises based on the computer models of other climate scientists which predict global temperature rises. Therefore to accept the 1.32m computer prediction, one must also completely accept the results of the other computer model. What has been the track record of the methodology employed by that computer model compared with observations?
2. What has been the long term trend of sea rises (or falls) and is there precedent for such a rapid rise as predicted by the computer model? If so, did this rise precede or follow a rise in atmospheric CO2?
3. What was the observed impact to life on the planet during this previous period of rising sea levels?
4. The conclusion of the report is that a 1.32m sea rise is probable by 2100 if no further improvements are made to reducing global CO2 emissions. Given that the majority of people who are alive today may not be alive by 2100, which is the more logical course of action; hobbling the global economy, particularly nations transitioning from mainly agrarian economic models and thus slowing the rate of relief from desperate poverty for their populations, OR planning for a gradual transition of populations from low-lying coasts?
To accept the narrative that we must deliberately slow economic growth to protect the environment requires us to believe several, increasingly unlikely propositions in serial, namely;
1. That the climate is changing.
2. That this climate change is predominately due to an increase in atmospheric CO2.
3. The climate change will be catastrophic for the planet.
4. That, by halting or severely reducing CO2 emissions, the change to the climate can be halted or retarded to a “safe” level.
5. That this halting of emissions can be achieved by governmental policy.
6. That, despite no historical evidence of any similar agreement and implementation ever occurring before in human history, enough global consensus will be achieved that the previous 5 statements are correct and what the precise mitigating action should be.
Anyone familiar with betting parlance will understand that what we’ve just described above is an accumulator. They will also know why these don’t pay out very often.