Actually, I'm selling their audience short. When real scientists present the real data dispassionately, I think the average person gets quickly confused and tunes out. Those that dumb it down enough to be understood invariably underrepresent or outright misrepresent the problems. With so many unscientific voices out there trying to out shout the real data for their own purposes, real scientists fudging the data is near criminal because it's only more ammunition for deniers.

Yes, if you or I heard them lecture, we would likely hear that and even more, but the average, unscientific American would hear "taking in more energy than is leaving" as a good thing, free energy. If they explained the mechanisms involved, their eyes would glaze over as they just wished someone would tell them it's all lies so they could ignore what they can't understand fully. These people are, imo, the majority in the U.S.. They are why we need emotional delivery of simplified science from a charismatic young woman who knows her stuff.
Edit: For example, I had read the published summaries of the recent U.N. report saying we had 12 years to be carbon neutral to stay below 1.5degree rise, they were far from clear that this was only a 50% chance of achieving that minimal temperature rise, or that we only had 8 years of current emission levels to have a 66% chance, still bad odds. I understood they were also using horrendous models for ice melt and other factors to reach those optimistic numbers, and didn't take feedback loops we already see in action into account, nor did they make allowances for feedbacks we don't know about yet. The average reader only got 12 years to conserve before we are locked into 1.5 degree. They don't even know that's when known feedback loops are expected to outpace human inputs, making it exponentially harder if not impossible to turn around, or that 1.5 degree rise by 2050 likely means closer to 3 degree by 2100, and higher afterwards.

Mating habits for European swallows?! How did we get from the relationship of climatology and sociology to discussing the red light district?

@newtboy said: "a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections."

Lies.

The most recent IPCC report(AR5) has their section on sea level rise here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

In the summary for policy makers section under projections they note: " For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m"

And to give you maximum benefit of doubt they also comment on possible(unlikely) exceeding of stated estimates:" Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century. "

So, to summarize that, the worst case emissions scenario the IPCC ran(8.5), has in itself a worst case sea level rise ranging 0.5-1.0m, so 1.5 to 3ft. They do note a potential allowance for another few tenths of a meter if unexpected collapse of antarctic ice also occurs.

Let me quote you again: "3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections"

and yet the most recent collaborative summary from the scientific community states under their most pessimistic projections have a 3 ft as the extreme upper limit...

You also did however state "IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates)", so it does seem you almost do admit having low opinion of the scientific consensus and prefer cherry picking the most extreme scenarios you can find anywhere and claiming them as the absolute golden standard...

I remember when Staples Center had to switch between its basketball court, concert, and NHL ice ring within days during the playoffs a few years ago!

Trump, and all other people.
Even then, it's going to be a tough time for life if trends don't reverse quickly. Far more than an inconvenience. I heard (unconfirmed) data that suggests Iceland will lose all of it's ice even if all greenhouse gas emissions stopped today. Enough feedback loops are kicking in sooner than expected that we may be in a runaway situation already no matter what we do.
This business will get out of control, it will get out of control and we will be lucky to live through it.

True, but that's not the case here.
Edit: I was simply explaining why changing the laws, while the right method, might not be a possibility even though it's supported by a majority. Democracy in America is broken, as I explained, and obstructionism is rampant. People shouldn't be forced to suffer because of that fact if it can be avoided, imo.

No sir. It's his job and sworn duty to follow and uphold the law. Ignoring the words, words that stated the law and legal rights, is the same as ignoring (flaunting) the law, their rights, his job, and his sworn duty.

There's no such duty for the average citizen, who may recognize the failure and obstruction of democracy and, to avoid inhumane treatment of friends and family, stand on their legal rights to deny ice agents the opportunity to abuse their powers and lie about their authority in order to trick the ignorant into not availing themselves of the protections they enjoy under the law. (It's obvious that changing the law to force them to be honest about people's rights and the law is a non starter, since police and prison guard unions are the biggest non corporate lobbyist groups, and they are consistent in their insistence that they be allowed to lie to citizens about the law and rights.) That is not flaunting the law, it's availing oneself of their rights under it, granted it's sometimes in an effort to help others flaunt it.

Often those flaunting the rules of the state regarding who can and cannot enter and stay in the country are the ICE or border agents themselves, as exemplified in this video and many others....but smugglers, who also fit that bill, aren't doing good either, imo.

This person, however, was not flaunting the rules of the state, he was insisting the police follow them if they wish to arrest people, even suspected undocumented immigrants. You agree with that action, I hope.

That ends-means stuff has been used to justify some pretty awful, disturbing behavior. By that same argument the ICE officer, using your mores but from a different perspective, would be justified in ignoring the words, forcing open the door, and arresting the illegals. Violation of rights, sure, but it got the job done, right?

*promote
*quality

Interesting--I can't actually tell if the ICE guy KNOWS he's bluffing--or if he isn't sure of precisely what the document in his hand actually lets him do

Congratulations! Your video, Ice Tsunami Comes Crashing In, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 340 Badge!

Your video, Ice Tsunami Comes Crashing In, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I have to agree, since they also claim NO other starving polar bears were seen in 2017, and that sea ice didn't break up early, but in fact it was measured at around 5000km3 in September 2017 and the mean volume since 1979 is around 12000km3 in September, and average ice thickness was the lowest ever recorded for most of the year in 2017....when these articles were published.

The truth is, that IS what climate change LOOKS like, very few articles actually attributed this particular bears condition to climate change. Only those wishing to intentionally misread in order to contradict their own intentional misunderstanding didn't understand that. Lies indeed.

It reminds me of my brother denouncing the numbers on mass school shootings because in some, only one person was killed (but multiple shot), claiming that "mass shooting" meant "mass murder" was his way of debunking the argument and then denying there is a problem.

Right wing debate strategy....Step one, misrepresent a claim. Step two, prove that misrepresentation wrong. Step three, claim that debunks the entire argument the claim was supporting.

The wolf is not at the door, it's inside the house....you keep insisting that's just grandma with those big teeth....new dentures, you say....grandma has always been hairy, you say....wolves don't exist and are fake news, you say.

Once again you misunderstood and misstated the science....12 years (+-) before the feedback loops make reversing the trend impossible, not 12 years until all ice melts, not 12 years before everyone dies. You just can't help but shout your ignorance from the bell tower. Thankfully, most here know just how often you are correct and gauge your comments with that in mind.

Didn't see any obvious evidence of two technologies but I sort of assume they are there---
1) "Bubblers" under the bow to put air under the ice before the weight of the ship cracks it and pushes it aside (ice with air under it is easier to break)
2) bow design that take the weight of the ship up above and onto the ice to crush from above (complements #1)...

Congratulations! Your video, song of vanilla ice-game of thrones-ice ice baby, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 30 Badge!

Your video, song of vanilla ice-game of thrones-ice ice baby, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Basic human empathy?

I can't predict the future accurately, but I can say that there is a high probability (certainly more likely than not) that climate change is going to hit humanity hard.

Now I suspect we'll get through it. We've survived ice ages and so on. It's just gonna suck for a few decades/centuries.

In fact, the only real solution I see to climate change is to significantly extend the average human lifespan. If everyone alive was suddenly going to be here for the next 200 years, you might see some actual policy change at the highest levels.