You are so out of your depth here, Stanislaw. You are posting the same old uninformed misinformation that has been posted here ad nauseum since the S&M forum first started (and even before that). You really should get your facts right. You know what they say, you do not have the right to your own facts. You are primed for the button, sir.
One example: "C02 LAGS TEMPERATURE CHANGE" - in the geological past as the earth warmed extremely slowly, CO2 was expired from the oceans, so the ice cores show a several hundred year lag between temperature rising and CO2 going up. That is a different scenario to today where CO2 is the main forcing of temperature change rather than perturbations in the earth's orbit around the sun causing the warming and cooling cycles of the past. (I think I have gone over that old chestnut here on HC about 50 times, and counting... and quite frankly I am over it.)
Flats - they are modelling six different scenarios, not one single scenario. There are six levels of uncertainty just there. In total there are 40 different SRES scenarios and they do not cover all the possible emission outcomes. There is a lot of uncertainty just in the different scenarios and you have the gall to ignore that and simply state that the models are wrong.
No prognostications of imminent doom? On a related matter, from the Age today:
The next leaked IPCC report from the 2nd working group "...noted that a 1.1-metre rise in sea levels would put at risk some $226 billion in residential and commercial assets along Australia's coasts. These include some 274,000 homes. It noted that significant coastal infrastructure would also be at risk from a sea-level increase of just half a metre."
If you're an old buzzard with property/assets on the coast then you may not care. If you want to leave it to your children or grand children then you may start to care. But you are right, its not doom for all, the planet will continue on its merry way whether our retirement homes are standing or not.
