100 metres

The NZ Herald quotes a visiting scientist who is quoted as saying:

Dr Huber said if greenhouse gas emissions carried on as they were, CO2 levels would be high enough to melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets in 100-200 years, making the sea rise about 100m.

Oh no, flee, flee – we’re all doomed. Well not quite all. I’m on the fifth floor so might be okay if I buy a rowboat.

But this 100 metre rise in sea levels is scaremongering of the worst kind. The UN IPCC has a number of scenarios for 2100, and the best case is 19 cm and the worst case is 69 cm.

So Dr Huber is predicting a rise in sea level 150 times greater than the IPCC worst case scenario.

As I have said before, I accept that excessive greenhouse gas emissions lead to an increase in temperatures and a rise in sea levels. I also think the prudent thing to do is look to reduce emissions over time through a price on carbon.

But I am sick of hysterical claims about 10 metre, 20 metre and 100 metre sea level rises in the near future. It’s crap. Would be nice to see a reporter challenge someone the next time they start talking about 100 metre increases and ask them why they are predicting an increase 150 times grater than the IPCC. Is there not a duty to also include the far more modest IPCC prediction in an article, so readers can judge the credibility of the claimed 100 metre increase?