What part of which IPCC report says that has a remote chance of happening?
I really don't know how many times I have to explain this.
I never claimed this, and I made no mention of the IPCC. You made this up and then attacked it. That's called a strawman.
My point is that there is enough ice to raise sea levels by 70 meters. That's a fact. Whether it all melts in a hundred years or a million years, I don't know, nobody knows,
and I never claimed otherwise.....
Still skirting the issue, using lame dodges, and goalpost shifting?
Here is what you said.
Regardless, sea levels will rise because the majority of the ice is not currently in the sea, but above it. When it all melts, sea levels will rise by around 70 meters.Now you claim what? That it will all melt, but you don't know when? What facts, if any, do you have to support the wild fantasy that all the ice will melt?
I'm sure you've got some facts, right?
If not, then let me suggest it's okay to simply admit that you believe in the cause, and may have exaggerated to create a fear and trembling effect. Or alternately, it's okay to admit that you just get paid by the post. Others have. No big deal. Have a nice day!
Sure. Yes I certainly can ignore your harping shrilly on one obscure article. Any reasonable person would do just that, when someone is trying to grab their attention with wild hysteria rants.
But since you are interested in 5 sigma events, perhaps you would be interested in more 5 sigma events. Turns out CRU temperatures are trimmed by convention when they exceed 5 sigma...Now are you reading a study based on the results of datasets with trimmed data series?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/05/analysis-cru-tosses-valid-5-sigma-climate-data/Realistically, I don't have the impression that you have a training in science and the scientific method. It tends to make one very very humble about what conclusions can be drawn and with what data....