Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Twitter Facebook YouTube Mastodon MeWe

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Recent Comments

Prev  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Comments 501 to 550:

  1. The Big Picture

    Bart @ 87:

    Thank you for your clarification of your position, and for providing such an excellent example of your complete incompetency in this matter.

    Yes, 12.5 is larger than zero.

    The problem is that your 12.5 magic number is a percent. As in "1 is 12.5% of 8", or "25 is 12.5% of 200".

    In my comment 86, I am looking at the figure you provided in comment 84. The zero value in that figure has units of mm/yr. A value of zero means no difference from the global mean. If you want to convert any of those numbers to a percent, you need to know what the global mean value is, in mm/yr.

    ...except for one of those values. Regardless of what the global mean value is, a location where the relative sea level change differs from the global mean by 0.00 mm/yr will have a sea level rise that is 100% of the global mean.

    So, the skill-testing question is:

    • Which is larger? 12.5% of the global mean, or 100% of the global mean?

    Remember, you've already claimed that 12.5% is higher.

  2. The Big Picture

    Rob @ 89:

    Sorry, yes, I'm sure you understand the process. The way you'd worded it left it open to others thinking you questioned the gravitational effects, rather than just questioning the effect on The Netherlands, 3000km away.

  3. Rob Honeycutt at 03:04 AM on 19 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart @84... If you were to actually read the paper you got those images from (like I just did) you would find the authors state, "There is a negligible impact on the rest of northern Europe including the Netherlands, Atlantic coastline of Germany and along theArctic coastline of Russia (Fig. 2a)." [emphasis added]

    That's very different from what you're claiming. You're claiming, "Netherlands are close enough to Greenland to take profit of this effect..."

    "Negligible impact" and "close enough to take profit" are very different conclusions, the former being the conclusions of the researchers and the latter being something you're making up on your own without the benefit of a full understanding.

    Negligible means "so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant."

  4. Rob Honeycutt at 02:50 AM on 19 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart @84... You were doing so well in your explanation up to the point you started making up stuff on your own, like: "Netherlands are close enough to Greenland to take profit of this effect..."

    The Netherlands are 3000km away. 

    Here is a map from NASA, created through the JASON and TOPEX satellite missions to measure SLR over the past 23 years. This map represents the change in SLR over that period. Blue/white areas are where SL has fallen or stayed the same. Orange/red are SLR.

    Now, look close at the area between Greenland and The Netherlands.

  5. Rob Honeycutt at 02:24 AM on 19 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bob @76... I'm very aware of the gravitational effects of the ice sheet. I'm just curious is Bart actually believes it has a substantive effect on The Netherlands 3000km away.

  6. The Big Picture

    Speaking of Greenland, what is described in the following news article does not bode well for the future of the Greenland ice sheet...

    Greenland temperatures surge up to 50 degrees above normal, setting records by Ian Livingston & Kasha Patel, Weather, Washington Post, Mar 8, 2023

    The lede for this article:

    The record-breaking warmth is raising concerns about melting summer ice.

  7. The Big Picture

    So, now michael sweet @72 says my 12.5% was too low, and Bob Loblaw @86 says it was too high. Who is right? One thing is for sure, it can't be me. 

  8. The Big Picture

    In fact, looking closely at the upper right diagram of Bart's comment # 84, we see that The Netherlands falls pretty close to the 0.0 relative sea level change boundary in the colour code (light blue vs. light yellow).

  9. The Big Picture

    Bart @ 84: "but not enough to avoid sea level rise from Greenland completely."

    ....and none of these diagrams or papers you refer to support your original claim that The Netherlands would only see 12.5% of the global mean sea level rise.

  10. The Big Picture

    MA Rodger @82 your quote is about the global sea level rise, not the local SLR. 

    This is how it works. The Greenland Ice Sheet has a lot of mass, so it attracts sea water. Due to that, the sea level in a large area around Greenland is higher then it should be without the mass of the ice. When the ice starts to melt a part of this effect disappears. So, around Greenland the sea level will drop, not rise. Netherlands are close enough to Greenland to take profit of this effect, but not enough to avoid sea level rise from Greenland completely.


    Sea Level and Gravitation

  11. The Big Picture

    Bart @ 81: "Well, that's great. Do you really think I would write about Greenland when I didn't know how it works? "

    I only know as much about you as I have read in your comments here. Based on what you have written here, my overwhelming impression is that yes, you would write about Greenland when you don't know how it works.

  12. The Big Picture

    Bart Vreeken @80,

    That is a curious quote about the Greenland contribution to Netherland SLR given the KNMI Report also says on P22:-

    The mass loss of the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland and glaciers continues unabated. Since 1993, this component has been the largest contributor to sea level rise.

    The idea that the melt water from Greenland, part of the largest contribution to SLR, should somehow choose to avoid the seas off the Netherlands is somewhat silly. I think the idea being expressed is that (as explained within the KNMI Report) SLR is not appearing so much off Netherlands due to altered weather in the North Sea and so the 'Greenland melt' is being used in your quote synonymously for SLR.

  13. The Big Picture

    Bob Loblow @75 you said: 

    "Another clue for you: losing ice at lower altitudes around the perimeter of the ice sheet, and gaining ice at the higher altitude is Business As Usual for continental ice sheets. There is this thing called "glacial flow" that moves ice from the accumulation zone to the ablation zone"

    Well, that's great. Do you really think I would write about Greenland when I didn't know how it works? 

    My turn then. The mass change of Greenland by year. Cherry-picking? Maybe, but I use all the available data of GRACE. Over a longer period (altimetry data) there is an increase of mass loss. Don't pay too much attention to the trendline, for the data have a lot of noice. But there is a similarity with Antarctica: more snowfall in the last years, caused by less sea ice. 

    Greenland Mass Change By Year

  14. The Big Picture

    Thank you michael sweet @72 for the map of Greenland, based on altimetry. I didn't know this one, it's different from what I expected. I was too quick with my map of the SMB anomaly of only this year, it turns out to be untypical. Never the less we don't expect so much contribution from Greenland here. From the KNMI-report we discussed before:

    "Many factors have been taken into account in the calculation of sea level rise on the Dutch coast, including the expansion of the oceans due to warming, self-gravitation, the changes in salinity, and the mass loss of glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Because the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet hardly contributes to the sea level rise off the Dutch coast, we expect that the increase here will lag slightly behind the world average."

  15. The Big Picture

    michael sweet @78

    Good summary of the gravity point. I hope that it's clear for everyone now.

    About the KNMI-report: the 2 meter sea level rise is not in the summary on page 2. Mayby you were confused by the european notation of the number? "de zeespiegel kan tot 1,2 meter stijgen" means: "the sea level can rise up to one point two meter.

    An other thing is that the report has changed from the original version. We don't know what was in the original version now.

    KNMI Klimaatsignaal21

  16. michael sweet at 12:36 PM on 18 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    It is a real phenomenom that when the great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctia melt that means there is less gravity there and the sea flows away.  I remember that around Greenland itself that could be tens of meters less water and more around Antarctia.  There are papers describing where in the globe there will be less water and where there will be more water (ths article describes the affect).  By looking at the pattern of sea level rise (upthread I posted a map of sea level  rise) and seeiing where it is higher and where it is lower scientists can get an idea of where the water is coming from.

    Bart Vreeken posted a map upthread, it is probably accurate.  They suggested that melting in the Antarctic will result in higher sea level  rise than the global average but melting in Greenland will result in less sea level rise than the global average in Holland.  Different parts of Greenland affect Holland differently.

    There are other effects on sea level rise that are not intuative.  The Gulf Stream carries water from North America to Europe.  Sea level in Europe is about 1 meter (!!!) hgher than off North America.  If the Gulf Stream stopped, sea level in Europe would decrease substantially while the East coast of the USA would flood.  Who wudda thunk.

  17. One Planet Only Forever at 11:54 AM on 18 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    peppers @69,

    I will offer the following response to your departure.

    Claiming that a person who is twice as harmful as all other individuals is acceptable because thetotal imp[act of 3 of those others would be more harmful is ... so many applicable terms, none of them compliments.

    I will add that the 'more harmful' are not discovered by evaluating the total impacts of a group. Identifying the most harmfully impacting people within any group is the proper action. The problem for any group is when its leadership is taken over by the most harmful and misleading members of the group. And that is more likely to happen in a group with a higher per capita level of harmfulness.

  18. The Big Picture

    Rob @ 74:

    Yes the horizontal gravitational pull is indeed a factor that will affect regional sea level around Greenland.

    Less mass in Greenland should mean less gravitational pull towards Greenland, so more sea water to spread elsewhere. I'll leave it to Bart to try to explain why less water around Greenland would lead to less sea water in The Netherlands. (I don't expect it to be a logical or rational explanation.)

  19. The Big Picture

    Bart @ 62:

    In addition to pointing out what Rob said to you at comment 64 about the error in using Surface Mass Balance, I note that you have also given a map of SMB for a single winter season. Do you not bother looking at the ful captions of the figures you pick up? This one does not need translation from Dutch - it is dated March 16, 2023, and states "Accumulated anomaly since Sep 1, 2022".

    You're back to the same basic error that you made in your very first post here at SkS on March 9, regarding Antarctic ice. Treating a single year of data as if it represents a long term trend.

    At least you honestly say " the Greenland Icesheet reshapes at the moment..." Now all you need to figure out is that "the moment" is not enough to make predictions about the future.

    Another clue for you: losing ice at lower altitudes around the perimeter of the ice sheet, and gaining ice at the higher altitude is Business As Usual for continental ice sheets. There is this thing called "glacial flow" that moves ice from the accumulation zone to the ablation zone. You should read about it some time.

  20. Rob Honeycutt at 11:20 AM on 18 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Hang on. Am I missing something or is Bart actually thinking that the gravitational mass of Greenland is going to pull sea level away from The Netherlands, when it's 3000km away, making their impacts of SLR nominal?

    Surely not.

  21. michael sweet at 10:44 AM on 18 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart Vreeken,

    I am sorry, the summary page showing 1.2-2.0 meters of sea level rise is page 2 of the document I linked.  This was widely reported in newspapers like here, here and here.  When a number is in the summary page at the start of a report many people do not read the rest of the report.  I have difficulty reading the report, my computer does not translate PDF's.  

  22. michael sweet at 10:24 AM on 18 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Here is a map of surface height change in Greenland.  That includes snowfall, melt runoff, ocean melting  and iceberg calving.

    greenland surface change

    The caption reads: 

    Maps of elevation change from satellite altimetry reveal where the Greenland Ice Sheet is changing mass. Map created using data acquired by the CryoSat-2 satellite radar altimeter. Credit: CPOM


    I note that the major areas of ice loss are on the west and northwest side of the island, the opposite of Holland.  

  23. Rob Honeycutt at 10:10 AM on 18 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Peppers, I will also note that you never responded to my corrections to your C-P extinction statement that "Everything died, except the microorganizms around the rim of the oceans, around the world."

  24. Rob Honeycutt at 10:06 AM on 18 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Peppers @69... "No one could forsee a rise in Co2 being a side effect to solving almost ever ailment of mankind..."

    Give it a rest (rolls eyes). You're presenting fossil fuels as if they were the messiah. 

    Fossil fuels have merely been one form of energy in a long line of sources of energy through human history. They are not the "reason" for humanity solving problems nor have we solved "almost ever[y] ailment of mankind." 

    As pointed out before, without acknowledgement, we now have access to cheaper, more abundant forms of energy than fossil fuels and those sources are cleaner, safer, and do not emit CO2. And eventually even those forms of renewable energy will be replaced with fusion energy.

  25. The Big Picture

    Hi One Planet,

    We are not so far apart, as a growing human presence is bringing more co2 to the surface.

    I depart with the vilification of part of the population as being most harmful-per person. Every segment has grown, and the greatest contributors are not the highest per person emitters. China is 4 times the population of the USA, and they are at 7.5 per capita to  the USA's15.5pc, and therefore emits twice as much as the USA. If the USA were to halve thier emissions to match China's pc the USA would be at 7% of the worlds emisions. Its just not going to do anything against the new emitters being born and growing. 

    Great interactive chart:

    There are 15 nations as higher emitters pc than USA, including Canada and Australia. They are 1/3 in population total (of the USA) yet emit 1/2  that again of the USA. Blaming nieghbors so can scold them is what needs to be lost, when you realize it was population that has caused more co2 to be emitted.

    I would be in a camp for any and all aid in helping people adapt to the forseable new environment. No one could forsee a rise in Co2 being a side effect to solving almost ever ailment of mankind, except cancer pretty much. More live to adulthood, and they live much longer too. Conquering infant mortality and pennicillin has take us from 1 to 8B and rising. There are  no villians is my point. We need to be of help, not blaming. Co2 is going to continue to rise for a while.

    Thanks, tons, David

  26. One Planet Only Forever at 08:58 AM on 18 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    The comments have improved my understanding of sea level rise.

    Thank you Rob, Bob and Michael.

    Though I lack detailed background knowledge regarding sea level rise I feel confident about pointing out that the 'peak sea level rise', not 'sea level rise by 2100', is what the future of humanity will have to deal with.

    From an ethical and moral perspective, the people who benefit(ed) most from causing the harmful result should be responsible for paying for the required mitigation and adaptation. The more that they suffer because of the 'mitigation actions to rapidly end the harmful impact' the less they will have to pay in advance for the required adaptations. This avoids the problem of 'benefiting from harm done while evading the consequences of the harm done'.

    What is happening today is serious unethical and immoral attempts to make the future impacts worse and avoid paying for the required repairs and adaptations. The 'highest harming' portion of the global population is not building CO2 removal devices now required to bring harmful impacts back down to 1.5 C levels of warming. And that group is also not planning to pay for the required adaptation in places like Bangladesh (or the island nations being submerged).

    I will go one step further on the point of the real problem being the peak impact that has to be adapted to. There is uncertainty regarding how much adaptation is 'enough'. As a structural engineer I am very familiar with the requirements for all load resisting aspects of a structure to have a very low probability (less than 2%) that very severe potential future impacts would exceed the performance capability of the aspects of the structure. And aspects of the structure that are Primary, where their failure would cause significant overall structure failures, would have redundant mechanisms that would keep the structure system from collapsing due to the failure of a Primary element.

    Sea level rise impacts would be equivalent to impacts on Primary Structure elements. So the sea level rise that the biggest beneficiaries of fossil fuel use in the current generation are ethically obligated to build globally, for all of the inhabited areas affected by the future sea level rise that they benefited from causing, would be the 'peak sea level increase' that has far less than 2% chance of being exceeded.

    The big question is not the different evaluations (uncertainty) regarding the ways that Greenland and Antarctica will respond to human caused global warming. The big question is: What level of warming is almost certain to be the maximum level of the harmful human impacts.

  27. Rob Honeycutt at 08:48 AM on 18 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Yes, Bart, they are different for important reasons. Once again, you're trying to cherry pick information to support your position without fully (or even partially) understanding what you're talking about.

    Once again, your own citations are saying The Netherlands are at greater risk of sea level rise, not less.

  28. The Big Picture

    Michael sweet, are you playing games? In your link at 39 I see the town of Hindeloopen on the cover, behind a dike. The figure I posted comes from this report, it's on page 30. Please have a look. No 1-2 m sea level rise there.

    Rob Honeycutt, offcourse SMB is different from the total mass balance. But not very different. The negative anomaly along the coast comes from high temperatures, not from shortage of precipitation. So the discharge will also have a negative anomaly there. 

  29. The Big Picture

    Peppers @36

    "I disagree, but if population is the cause (of global warming) we may be better oriented to aid in adaptation to the changes.

    'Population' is not the cause of global warming. The cause is largely the fossil fuel energy we elect to use because it causes a warming effect. If 8 billion people had been using carbon neutral fuel source we would not have global warming to anything like the extent we have, all other things being equal. So population is not a primary cause of warming.

    That fossil fuel energy choice has at most lead to a particularly large population, in a positive feedback loop - but it is still not the cause in any fundamental sense. And your comments are wrong for another reason. We have alternative sources of energy that would eliminate the problem, if we can find a will to develop them more quickly. How can you say population is the cause when we can fix the problem with alternative energy sources? It doesnt make sense logically.

    You can behave like a stubborn, over confident egotistical crank if you want - or you can accept sensible explanations. 

  30. Rob Honeycutt at 08:14 AM on 18 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart... (sigh) That is surface mass balance. Not total mass balance. The two are very different. Surface mass balance is a subset of total mass balance.

  31. michael sweet at 08:13 AM on 18 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart Vreeken,

    My link at 39 appears to be the KNMI climate change report published at the end of 2021.  It contains the new sea level rise projections.  On the cover it gives 1.2-2.0 meters as projected sea level rise.  It was widely reported in the newspapers at the time.  My link at 38 was to a newspaper summary of the KNMI report.

  32. The Big Picture


    "You have no justification for saying that the mass loss will come from the southern part of Greenland."

    When we look at the anomaly of the Surface Mass Balance of Greenland of this moment then I think that it gives a good idea of how the Greenland Icesheet reshapes at the moment. The lower parts and the southern parts are losing ice, and the higher part can gain ice due to more precipitation.

    Greenland SMB anomaly March 2023

  33. The Big Picture

    @ Michael sweet, 

    Unfortunately you didn't give a link to the KNMI site, but to some Turkish site. Here's a proper link (please use Google translate):

  34. The Big Picture

    Bart @ 57:

    Yes, I could use Google Translate, but why should I? You are the one trying to make a case here, and if you can't be bothered to provide proper references, proper indications of what you expect people to see in those references or diagrams, then why should we make the effort to guess at what you are trying to show us?

    Now that you have provided a translation of the caption and some of the text for the figure that shows "the magical 12.5% figure", I see that the main text says "the rise in the Netherlands could amount to 60% of the global average sea level rise". No 12.5% there, and a direct refutation of your 12.5% claim.

    What about the caption? It says that the map is showing "the consequences on the Dutch coast of the disappearance of ice in different parts of the Greenland ice sheet".

    The values on that map range from maybe -30% to over +45%. You stated "The mean value of the southern half of Greenland is someting like 12,5%. My assumption is that the mass loss in this century will come from the southern part."

    So, that diagram does not demonstrate that sea level rise in The Netherlands from Greenland ice melt will be 12.5% of the global average. The 12.5% value is a value you picked out of the figure purely on the basis of that's what you want to believe. You have assumed your conclusion.

    Once again, you have no scientific basis for your claim. You have no justification for saying that the mass loss will come from the southern part of Greenland.

    It is obvious that you are just making stuff up, with a smattering of out-of-context quotes or diagrams, with no real understanding of any of the processes.

  35. Rob Honeycutt at 07:01 AM on 18 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart... Do you understand the meaning of "disproportionately affected"?

  36. michael sweet at 07:01 AM on 18 March 2023
    The Big Picture


    I do not see the graph you posted at 35 in your paper.  You have a graph at 52 that shows considerably more sea level rise than your graph at 35, but still much less than the KNMI report.

    The KNMI report that I linked was put out after the IPCC updated their sea level rise projections in 2021.  Apparently the paper you link was written before the IPCC updated their projections.  

    The Netherlands National Weather Institute's (KNMI) most recent projections, made after the publication of the paper you linked, are 1.2 - 2.0 meters of sea level rise in Holland by 2100.  If you prefer to look at outdated projections by lesser authorities that is your business.  Every time sea level projections are updated they are increased.  I suggest you try to keep more up to date.

    At 35 you said " I don't see many projections between 1-2 meters here."  That is incorrect, the Dutch National Weather service best estimate is 1.2-2.0 meters.

    Rob at 42: The link to Tamino (copy of link) that I posted at 30 shows the sea level data and explains why you cannot use the average of 1900-2020 to project to the future with a straight line.  He used the data from 1970-2020 and a quadratic fit for the most accurate projection. 

    Peppers: Tamino explains how to project future sea level rise.  He only projects to 2050 because the uncertainty bars become too big after that.

  37. The Big Picture

    Hi Bob, with Google Translate you can read the text in English. Here's a screenshot of the translation:

    Magical 12.5 percent figure

  38. The Big Picture

    Well that source is in Dutch (I presume).

    Please prove a translation of the caption in figure 2.

  39. The Big Picture

    Bob Loblaw, the magical 12,5% figure comes from this message:

    In Figuur 2 we see the influence of the melting of different parts of Greenland to the sea level rise in the Netherlands. As we see, melting at the east coast of Greenland gives a sea level decline in the Netherlands becourse it's at a short distance. The mean value of the southern half of Greenland is someting like 12,5%. My assumption is that the mass loss in this century will come from the southern part.

  40. The Big Picture

    Actually, I see that Bart's 13cm is the proportion of the overall total of sea level rise that is due to Greenland.  That's not in the figure he refers to. He must be getting that from a different source - one he has not provided a reference to.

    On top of that, he's said  "12.5% of this comes to the Netherlands, that's 1,6 cm." That is a claim that appears to be a figment of his imagination.

    Where does this magical 12.5% figure come from, Bart?

  41. The Big Picture

    Bart @ 52:

    Really? I don't see anything in your figure in #35 that indicates 13cm in 2100. In the diagram you provided, in 2100, the lowest coloured zone is closer to 25cm, and the red ones (SSP5-8.5) range from 55cm to 120cm. The last time anything in that diagram was below 13cm was before 2050.

    You can't even read your own graphs properly.

    Of course, maybe you're still using 13cm from some bogus extrapolation of historical data.

  42. The Big Picture

    Bob Loblaw @50

    "let's start with you explaining what you think makes The Netherlands any different from any other part of the globe that is a long way away from Greenland?"

    Why should I explain it when you know allready know the answer? Back to @35. There we see the projection of the sea level rise for the Netherlands, according to IPCC.

    Also according to IPCC the addition to the global sealevel rise by Greenland in the SSP5-8.5 scenario in 2100 is 13cm. 12,5% of this comes to the Netherlands, that's 1,6 cm. Not very much to be worried about. 

    Sea level contribution

  43. The Big Picture

    Rob @ 49: [questioning Bart]:

    Did you read the paper, or are you just looking at charts without understanding the full context of their meaning?

    That's not an either-or question, Rob. It's quite possible that Bart read the paper and still doesn't understand the full context of the meaning of the charts.

  44. The Big Picture

    Bart @ 44:

    do I have to explain basic geophysics here? When the ice in Greenland melts then only 10 - 15% of it will make the sealevel rise in The Netherlands. That's due to the self gravitation of the ice sheet.

    You have yet to say anything in any of your comments here that represents anything that you can teach me, but let's start with you explaining what you think makes The Netherlands any different from any other part of the globe that is a long way away from Greenland?

    Do you actually think that the people that do sea level rise for a living are missing some aspect of geophysics that only you understand? Do you actually think that they do not know about the factors affecting regional patterns of sea level rise? That's the way you are coming across.

  45. Rob Honeycutt at 04:35 AM on 18 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart, you didn't answer my question. Did you read the paper, or are you just looking at charts without understanding the full context of their meaning?

  46. The Big Picture

    Rob @47 The answer is in Figure 2 and Figure 3. You are right, some of the projections (or the upper end of the uncertainty range) are between 1-2m by 2100. However, the average of all the projections for the RCP8.5 scenario is ca 0.9 meter.

  47. Rob Honeycutt at 03:49 AM on 18 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Bart @45... Have you read this entire paper? I ask because just reading the abstract it looks to me it supports projections of 1-2m by 2100.

  48. One Planet Only Forever at 03:17 AM on 18 March 2023
    The Big Picture

    Peppers @36,

    In spite of all that you have claimed the evidence-based understanding continues to be:

    1. The climate impact problem of developed human activity is real.

    2. The climate impact to date has already seriously compromised the future of humanity, especially due to the locking in of significant sea level rise). And because of the inertia of harmful developed over-consumption by the most harmful portion of the population things will be worse before humans stop making it worse. The continued harmful activity requires more repair (adaptation). And ‘adaptation effort’ delays human development of sustainable improvements. And the required adaptations will not be done for every body (I see not plans for the current portion of the population responsible for the rising sea levels to build flood mitigation systems that will be required for Bangladesh). And in some cases the harm is not repairable (The rising sea level impacts on Bangladesh may not be possible to adaptively mitigate).

    3. The problem is the portion of the total population that is most harmful per-person. The total population increasing is a concern. But the problem of the total harm done is the real concern. And that can be understood to be due to the portion of the population that has developed a liking for over-consumption, not just unnecessary energy over-consumption. And the problem within that problematic ‘highest harm’ portion of the population is the portion that has less interest in learning about the harm caused (or the risk of harm) by their pursuits of ‘more personal enjoyment or benefit’

    4. The problem can be solved. It just requires all people, even with an increasing population, to understand and accept the need to limit how harmful they are and to want to be more helpful to Others. There is a planetary limit on how many humans can live sustainably, concurrently live basic decent lives into the distant future. Many studies have established a consensus understanding that the maximum sustainable global population is a function of how much harmful over-consumption develops within the population. The planet can sustainably support more than 10 billion humans living basic decent lives (doing what is needed to live a decent basic live, and limiting the harm done by that essential activity). The planet cannot sustainably support the current 8 billion (or the most harmful 800 million) because of the developed harmful over-consumption within the population (and not just the harmful climate change impacts). Also, the developed systems fail to ensure that every body has the necessities of a basic decent life, including failing to provide basic minimum energy needs to every body and failing to have the ‘needed energy’ be as harmless as possible.

    What is tragically missing from most discussion of the climate change problem, and other human harmful impact problems, is that the solutions require everybody to be governed by the desire to learn to be less harmful and more helpful to others. Some people 'doing their best to be less harmful and more helpful, and trying to help others be less harmful and more helpful' face the uphill challenge of overcoming the harm done by 'people who have developed other interests and related harmful misunderstandings'.

  49. The Big Picture

    The link above does not work. Next try:

    A. B. A. Slangen, M. Haasnoot, G. Winter, 2022

    Rethinking Sea-Level Projections Using Families and Timing Differences

  50. The Big Picture

    michael sweet @ 39 

    I took my figure (@35) from exactly this report. And here you find an overview of all the different kind of sea level projections (april 2022):

    Bob Loblaw @40

    do I have to explain basic geophysics here? When the ice in Greenland melts then only 10 - 15% of it will make the sealevel rise in The Netherlands. That's due to the self gravitation of the ice sheet. 

Prev  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2023 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us