Not exact matches
Research group Climate Central has created a plug - in for Google Earth that illustrates how catastrophic an «extreme»
sea -
level rise scenario would be if the flooding happened
now, based on
projections in a 2017 report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA).
Recent evidence of faster rates of global
sea -
level rise suggests that these
projections may be too low.3, 4,5 Given recent accelerated shrinking of glaciers and ice sheets, scientists
now think that a
rise of 2.6 feet (80 centimeters) is plausible — and that as much as 6.6 feet (2 meters) is possible though less likely.16
Rahmstorf told IRIN, «It is remarkable that IPCC has
now come to its much higher
sea level rise projections with their preferred method, independently of the semi-empirical models.
But there are two climate - related issues that we need to consider
now:
rising sea level (which is already affecting the magnitude of storm surges, which in practice do much of the damage in hurricanes and other coastal storms), and
projections that the incidence of very intense hurricanes should increase in the 100 - year time scale.
Rahmstorf told IRIN that the models used to make
projections of the possible impact of climate change on
sea -
level rise «are
now much better than at the time of the last report».
Global warming has been stuck in neutral for more than a decade and a half, scientists are increasingly suggesting that future climate change
projections are overblown, and
now, arguably the greatest threat from global warming — a large and rapid
sea level rise (SLR)-- has been shown overly lurid (SOL; what did you think I meant?).
Such solecisms throughout the IPCC's assessment reports (including the insertion, after the scientists had completed their final draft, of a table in which four decimal points had been right - shifted so as to multiply tenfold the observed contribution of ice - sheets and glaciers to
sea -
level rise), combined with a heavy reliance upon computer models unskilled even in short - term
projection, with initial values of key variables unmeasurable and unknown, with advancement of multiple, untestable, non-Popper-falsifiable theories, with a quantitative assignment of unduly high statistical confidence
levels to non-quantitative statements that are ineluctably subject to very large uncertainties, and, above all, with the
now - prolonged failure of TS to
rise as predicted (Figures 1, 2), raise questions about the reliability and hence policy - relevance of the IPCC's central
projections.