Interesting notion, I'd never come across that before. I've seen many demos of what the Earth could look like with all the ice melted but I'm not sure any of them took what you're describing into account.

I'd think that "between 0.5 and 1 meters" is an idea. Like, we aren't worried about sea level dropping, and we aren't worried about +10m by 2100. This is still useful info, even if there's some uncertainty remaining.

But they know that it is coming and we need to plan for it. 40 centimeters is still half a meter. If you filled my office with half a meter of water it would be between my butt and my ankle where I'm sitting. There are a lot of berms that couldn't withstand king tides 40 centimeters higher, especially with storm swell factored in. A lot of seaside infrastructure where I live needs to be relocated even with a lower estimate.

Obviously you get downvoted for this here, but you are absolutely correct.

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 models are always wrong. It's virtually impossible to model something with an impossible amount of unknown inputs. Even accurately measuring the Earth over time is a joke. Unfortunately the models are presented in pop science and mainstream culture as accurate or something that we should use to create public policy.

I'm not so sure, ground water will turn salty and make large swaths of land unlivable and river mouths will change stream upwards so all dike infrastructure as it is now will be unusable.

A very large fraction of humanity lives in zones that will end up being flooded, this is already happening in some parts of the world.

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.

Do you know the populations of the world that will be displaces, and the amount of real esate that will be affected by this?

Sea rise is not just about flooding, but it affects sewers and infrastructure well before affecting properties.

It will be a big one for people living near the coast. Basically all port infrastructure will need to be moved. Of course there a things like extreme heat waves, cold snaps, lack of rain or floods that will make a lot of land unlivable too. Lack of food will be another thing. But land being under water is not a lesser thing at all, as it makes the land unavailable.

As long as you don't live on an island or have coastal property...

It can be measured.

The whole argument that "just because the sun rises today, does not mean it will rise tomorrow", line of reasoning is pedantic at best.

"see pockets of high heat and pockets of deep freezes" does not at all contradict a statement that overall global temperature is rising. In fact, one would expect that an overall rise in temperature would lead to local pockets of colder temperatures.

Despite this comment being an ignorant throwaway, the irony is that markets can sometimes force the price of scarce natural resources up, which attracts investments because the goods are becoming scarce. In the short term, it could cause a spike in coastal property prices that would cause superficial analyses to conclude that there is no problem whatsoever, further fueling an exploitative short term bubble.

What will definitely be affected is insurance prices. Those are a better gauge of what the actuaries think is going to happen. We are already seeing that in Florida today and on the eastern seaboard, as insurance prices have skyrocketed. Some places are not even insurable.

I wonder how many activists own ocean front properties? Not of course counting wealthy people who are concerned about climate change but are not activists.

But you should start worrying now. As someone who has been exposed to the environment all over the United States the change is here. And farmers are already adapting to it, they just do not believe it is caused from humans.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-do-farmers-t...

What?

This is one of those comments that evokes an emotional response, but is devoid of actual content.

Is there some sinister plot involving activist beachgoers!?

What kind of data would anyone even have on whether or not climate change activists own oceanfront property and what percentage they own?

What would it even matter?

If anything, one would imagine that oceanfront property owners would in fact care more about the effects of climate change because they are most impacted, lol.

Someday they will realize that we are still in an ice age.

Humans are causing a change to the environment drastically faster than any normal ebb and flow. In the same way that you can get from 0-60 either by pushing on the gas pedal, or being hit by a train, rates of change matter a lot.

I don’t think anyone here is advocating for freaking out about it, and I do not see any suggestion we should that you’re replying to.

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.

[dead]