3 ms·

"70 cm is smaller than regular tide heights, smaller than wave heights, it's just not very significant for most coastal cities" You understand of course, that

"70 cm is smaller than regular tide heights, smaller than wave heights, it's just not very significant for most coastal cities" You understand of course, that now the tides and the waves will be a meter higher. As will storm surges from future storms. You also understand, of course, that part of the alarm is because that the more data that's collected and the more mature the models get, the faster and steeper the see level rise projections get (DeConto & Pollard, 3/2016, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature17145.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature1...). Another part of the alarm is the extent that the 2016 climate data thus far is worse than models predicted.

Hondor 11y ago
If the more mature models show higher sea level rises, then why didn't the IPCC just include that "meta trend" in the current models - predicting both the climate and the future models? That would be extremely risky. We obviously can't know what future models will show, no matter how they've been changing in the past. 2106 data is meaningless. It's only a few months out of a many decades trend filled with noise. If you count that, then you also have to count all the months which had lower than predicted temperatures and use them to show the models are wrong. This is the bias I'm talking about. Cherry picking any bit of data that shows it's bad. Of course a higher mean sea level means higher peaks too. But so what? New York survives occasional floods, and it can survive slightly more.
- throwaway5752 11y ago
  2016 data specifically refers to Arctic Sea ice coverage, which - if you research it for yourself - you'll find is very significant.
  - Hondor 11y ago
    I see. But it's still not clear if it's part of a trend or not. What if the maximum arctic sea ice coverage is higher next year? That will show that 2016 record low wasn't part of the trend and maybe was an anomaly. We can't know that until more years have passed. I'm sure every year isn't a new record low. By the way, while I was researching that, I also found the "global greening" effect. This is what I'd like to see more of in mainstream media - interesting things happening with global warming that aren't all bad. It would show less of a bias.

Hondor 11y ago

If the more mature models show higher sea level rises, then why didn't the IPCC just include that "meta trend" in the current models - predicting both the climate and the future models? That would be extremely risky. We obviously can't know what future models will show, no matter how they've been changing in the past. 2106 data is meaningless. It's only a few months out of a many decades trend filled with noise. If you count that, then you also have to count all the months which had lower than predicted temperatures and use them to show the models are wrong. This is the bias I'm talking about. Cherry picking any bit of data that shows it's bad. Of course a higher mean sea level means higher peaks too. But so what? New York survives occasional floods, and it can survive slightly more.

throwaway5752 11y ago
2016 data specifically refers to Arctic Sea ice coverage, which - if you research it for yourself - you'll find is very significant.
- Hondor 11y ago
  I see. But it's still not clear if it's part of a trend or not. What if the maximum arctic sea ice coverage is higher next year? That will show that 2016 record low wasn't part of the trend and maybe was an anomaly. We can't know that until more years have passed. I'm sure every year isn't a new record low. By the way, while I was researching that, I also found the "global greening" effect. This is what I'd like to see more of in mainstream media - interesting things happening with global warming that aren't all bad. It would show less of a bias.