We are at emergency levels

Originally posted by madamswer: ↑

“Interesting, I was looking at the chart provided, but now I see it was from 2017”

It strikes me that it happened to be a 2017 chart from which you took your cue was the least source of your comprehension problem.

I suspect the problem arose from the fact that the graph represents a totally incomplete data set, containing only 17 countries.

That someone can look at that chart and draw the sort of conclusion you did is quite bemusing.

Did it not occur to you that there might be a few names missing from that graphic?

“Do you think the improvements you cite in Australia and other developed countries are likely to save the planet from a sea level rise of at least 1m this century?“

You’re quizzing someone about the making of definitive predictions in relation to certain parameters of open, non-linear, multi-variate, complex, chaotic, physical and chemical macro systems, over a forecast period spanning several decades?

Are you for real?

Anyone remotely conversant with statistics, actuarial practice or scientific methodology will know that any such predictions - no matter how well-intentioned and impartial they are - will not be worth a bucket of warm spit due to the compounding effect of even the smallest of forecast errors.
(Certainly, the professional and technical credibility of anyone who does deign to make forecasts of that long-dated nature should be called into question, because any self-respecting scientific practitioner will realise the folly of doing so.)

Expand

Yes the chart I quoted is lacking big emitting countries as you say. Am surprised a bunch of deniers didn’t leap at this golden opportunity to go for the jugular and call me out as a fraud poster.

No it didn’t occur to check as I wouldn’t have posted such anerror. I am not a denier who has no problem using distorted information on purpose.

“Do you think the improvements you cite in Australia and other developed countries are likely to save the planet from a sea level rise of at least 1m this century?“
You’re quizzing someone about the making of definitive predictions in relation to certain parameters of open, non-linear,multi-variate, complex, chaotic, physical and chemical macro systems, over a forecast period spanning several decades?

Are you for real?

I asked a simple question and put on the armour and go defensive with a passive aggressive, statistically embedded hyper mathematical response!

As someone who purports to be a level-headed and thorough in these threads, I am disappointed you didn’t stop to think—how can I answer such an open question when predicting the future?

It is hard enough and this alarmist has the gall to ask if we will have a 1m sea level change by the end of this century.
Maybe I should say, that is not an easy question to answer, but the way climate change is going and the issue of CO2 levels still rising, then that is distinct possibility.

Anyone remotely conversant with statistics,actuarial practice or scientific methodology will know that any such predictions - no matter how well-intentioned and impartial they are - will not be worth a bucket of warm spit due to the compounding effect of even the smallest of forecast errors.
Finally you picked yourself up and decided to go for the kill!
And have rammed home your point that I’ve got no idea about statistics. So I will have another go at the question for someone like you who is familiar with many of the pitfalls when using statistics.

Do you think the world is doing enough to avert a 1m sea level rise at the end of this century as predicted by a vast majority of climate scientists?