Sea-Level Rise Now Projected To Be More Intense Than Previously Imagined
Those with a solid background in science, one far deeper than my own, may be able to wade through a new study published by the journal Nature Communications, in which scientists affiliated with the organization Climate Central and Princeton University explain how and why sea-level rise is now believed to pose a far greater threat to humankind than was previously recognized.
Those with no background in science whatsoever can understand the basic issues: the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and the fact that incident photons from the sun have warmed up the oceans far more than the atmosphere itself, are causing both a) the thermal expansion of ocean waters, and b) the melting of the ice sheets of Greenland and the Antarctic.
In the meanwhile, the United States, the most powerful country on Earth, is taking bold action: propping up the fossil fuel industry, withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, and appointing a coal lobbyist to run the Environmental Protection Agency.
Shown below: What used to be a huge part of Southern Florida.
It’s not so much a science background that is needed to understand the article… it’s a cryptographic translation key for all of the initialisms (and possibly some acronyms) used.
The article is written as a jargon blast – the point being to show the sophistication of the writer rather than communicate to the reader.
But the point is that they used more sophisticated analysis to determine who is vulnerable to sea level rise based on varying sea-level rise scenarios… (If the sea level rises 1m, then X additional people will be vulnerable to flooding, while if sea level rises 2m then Y additional people will be vulnerable to flooding… etc…)
The problem with the previous analysis (insert initialism/acronym(?) here) is that it evaluated the topography based on the topmost surface as seen from satelite data. So the tops of trees in a forested area, or more importantly the tops of buildings in a high population city… So it recorded far too little of the high population regions (cities) as vulnerable to sea level rise since it “saw” that a majority of the “surface” was well above sea level. Using a more sophisticated analysis (insert different initialism/acronym(?) here) they evaluated based more correctly on estimated ground topography, and found a much higher percentage of humanity is vulnerable to flooding then previously considered under high sea-level rise scenarios.
Thus the jargon-blast. They are essentially stating that water is wet.
🙂
To be clear, I do respect the numerical breakdowns that this more accurate analysis produced. The numbers of persons potentially affected by sea level rise is useful, both in rhetoric for mitigation and preparation for accommodation.
But I dislike jargon blasts. The purpose of writing should be to communicate, and in articles like this the primary fact communicated is “I have studied this in much greater detail than you”… An assertion that I didn’t imagine challenging when I set forth to read the article.
Craig,
The article in Nature Communications contains no new information, just a rehash of existing theories preached as a sermon.
The evidence for sea-level rise is extremely dubious. The claims suffers from the usual flaw all such predictions suffer.
Because a proposition sounds logical, and fits with a particular already accepted scenario or belief structure, then it becomes ok to use selective facts, pseudo-scientific research and catch-phrase jargon to produce propaganda.
Sea level rises and coastline change are naturally occurring events. There is no evidence of voluminous increase in the world oceans, not any evidence of massive unexplained changes in coastlines.
Of the 38 major populated low lying island chains that were confidently predicted by the various authors of the article to be in peril due to sea-level rise, and should have been under several feet of water by now, none have sunk beneath waves.
In fact, 32 have actually increased in land mass!
Each year you confidently predict the perilous doom for beach side communities, and how much the world is alarmed, yet you still live by the beach and beach side property prices keep increasing!
You solemnly lambast the US for using “propping up the fossil fuel industry, withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord, and appointing a coal lobbyist to run the Environmental Protection Agency”. while still filling your car with gasoline!
The article, like so many propounded by the the leftist-green propaganda is Stalinist in the use of hyperbole.
The use of selective information to reinforce an existing agenda, coupled with ferocious derision and rabid denunciation of any dissent, is the trademark of those who have abandoned objective scientific analysis in favour of adherence to a new religion!