> In a 2021 update that incorporated additional factors into the simulations, DeConto and colleagues revised that estimate sharply downward, projecting less than 40 centimeters of sea-level rise by the century’s end under high-emission scenarios.
In essence, they have no idea.
That was some smooth propagandizing you just did, I wonder if anybody else noticed. Between less than .4 (0) and 1 (1) is a much bigger window than the one you invented wholesale in your reply.
I think the grandparent might be right, and your willingness to bend the statistics when they are literally on the same page as your comment, along with others like you doing the same thing for decades, is the reason your side is losing and continues to lose the public's trust.
If the problem is really so obvious and so serious you should not feel it necessary to exaggerate. So quit it.
Climate science is one of the most speculative fields of science, which for political reasons is rarely admitted towards the general public. The climate in 100 years is incredibly uncertain.
The general story of rising sea levels due to increased temperatures due to increased carbon in the atmosphere is of course very plausible. But it is just one of large number of effects at play and one of many ways the climate is changing. (Which isn't to say that the sum of these effects can not have server negative consequences)
Science communication around climate change has always been built around the obvious falsehood that climate models make good predictions, especially when it comes to long term trends. Instead of honestly communicating the actual state of science, which is that while specific predictions are hard, negative consequences of human intervention in the earths atmosphere likely will have sever negative consequences if they aren't mitigated, science communication has focused in on stories about "in X years Y will happen". When Y inevitably did not happen that was (and it is hard to blame people for this) taken es evidence that no negative consequences can be expected.
Edit: It is pretty surprising how anti science the crowd here is. These are just basic truths about he state of the science. Accurate climate models do not exist, if you disagree I suppose you should read a bit into the literature.
The uncertainty is "we do not know whether the amount of sea level rise due to human GHG emissions will be closer to 40cm, or closer to 100cm 75 years from now".
Science communication regarding this has generally always expressed uncertainty. Right wing entertainment masquerading as news frequently portrays it otherwise, but that's easy to do when unencumbered by a connection to reality.
Don't confuse what is most profitable to say, with what is most correct to say.
I do think it's telling that you felt the need to reach for things written in a foreign language to try to make your point on an English language discussion site
It is one of the largest German magazines, which certainly has the ambition and ability to shape public perception of issues. What they are saying matters more than any scientific journal.
>I'm talking about things written by scientists, not reporters or talking heads.
Then you just ignored my post. I was talking about how science is communicated, I was explicitly saying that how scientist talk about this issue and how journalists talk about it are different.
It is journalists who shape how an issue is perceived, not scientists. My point was, again, that the uncertainty scientists have in their models is not adequately reported.
>I do think it's telling that you felt the need to reach for things written in a foreign language to try to make your point on an English language discussion site
It is not a foreign language to me. I brought it up because it is what I am seeing. This is not far right propaganda, it is how the main stream center left is covering the issue of climate change in Germany.
In other words: bIvalqu'be'. 'ach pIch SoHbe'.
Am I just now allowed to share my perspective on anything, because the only sources I can point to on this specific topic are in my native language? How idiotic is that.
Your comment here would have been fine without the swipes at the beginning and end.
https://climatecosmos.com/climate-news/why-the-tropics-could...
it seems there will be big problems in the 50-75 year span.
Instead of freaking out about it, work to understand how we as a civilization can make it through the changes. Attempting to hold the environment stable is like plugging dikes with your finger.
Also, it’s pretty clear from the IPCC report that holding the environment stable isn’t an option. At this point about 0.5m minimum sea level rise this century is probably locked in. However a 1m rise might not be.
So yes, the issue is that either way policy planning needs to be considered in the long term.
You shouldn’t dismiss disaster scenarios since preparation for tail risks is important. But maybe don’t focus on them exclusively, either? It’s possible to keep multiple scenarios in mind, rather than focusing on one exclusively.
In California, there are wildfires, earthquakes, droughts, and (in some places) flooding to worry about, and this partly plays out via scarce and expensive property insurance.
A great example of just how extreme things can get was the last major climate change event ~10,000-20,000 years ago (which will likely be minuscule in comparison to what we're going through now in the geological sense once this plays out).
The Channeled Scablands of Eastern Washington[0] have a very distinctive geology. For many years it was believed that these features were carved out slowly over hundreds of thousands of years. It turns out they we created in hours, around 15,000 years ago (humans were already living in WA at that time). They were created by the Missoula floods. There used to be a glacial lake over what is now Missoula Montana which would have current day Missoula under 1,000 feet of water. The glacial damns holding back this lake started to break down resulting in frequent floods the scale of which it's hard to fathom. The peak flow is estimated to have been 6.5 cubic miles per hour (for context, the peak flow observed over Horseshoe falls was 0.0055 cubic miles per hour, the Amazon river flows at an average of 0.18 cubic miles per hour)
Imagine driving East on 1-90 from Seattle towards Spokane, then as you get through the Cascades you suddenly see a 200 foot wall of water racing towards you across the horizon.
That event was in the past and it still took us a long time to piece together what actually happened. As we head into states of climate never witnessed by humans, it's genuinely hard to predict what might happen other than "this probably won't be good". Humans have made a lot of progress in the last 10,000 years, but it's no coincidence that the last 10,000 years have been some of the most stable in the Earth's climate history.
To extend the though there, the main question is not if, not when, but how long it will take. Do you bet on 90 years, 90 months, 90 days, 90 hours? Even if the change happens over 90 months (about 7 years) is that enough time to rebuild major shipping ports, forget resettling a substantial portion of the human population.
jncfhnb•3h ago
simmerup•3h ago
jncfhnb•3h ago
michaelbuckbee•2h ago
jghn•2h ago
jncfhnb•2h ago
A lot of areas won’t make sense to insure due to storm risk well before they’re at risk from literal sea level risk.
quickthrowman•2h ago
lawlessone•2h ago
AnimalMuppet•2h ago
Muromec•2h ago
riffruff24•1h ago
Not in an emergency scenario but more like "it doesn't make sense to stay here anymore".
Noaidi•3h ago
Sea rise is not just about flooding, but it affects sewers and infrastructure well before affecting properties.
gmuslera•2h ago
Extreme weather, in the other hand can affect big areas for extended amount of time, right now. In 2022 a third of Pakistan ended flooded, in 2024 there were big floods in parts of Europe and South America. Droughts, extended forest fires, tornadoes and similar has been changing in area patterns and strength in the last years. And things may get extremer in the coming years
jeffbee•2h ago
deedree•2h ago
jacquesm•2h ago
For instance, Vanatu:
https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/sites/default/f...
There is nuisance flooding, which is definitely up already in many parts of the world, and then there is the kind of flooding that essentially makes it impossible to live in certain places. My own country (NL) has been working since a bad flood in 1953 to raise the various flood protection systems to account for rarer events and the mechanisms put in place have already been triggered several times. Right now they're working on raising the whole protection level another meter (three feet), and if necessary they'll do more than that but there are some complicating factors. At some point the rivers won't empty any more and you end up with either reverse flow or internal flooding simply because that river water has nowhere to go to.
ManBeardPc•1h ago