News: 0178849110

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

30 Years of Satellite Data Confirm Predictions from Early Models of Sea Level Rise (tulane.edu)

(Sunday August 24, 2025 @04:34PM (EditorDavid) from the water-the-odds dept.)


"The ultimate test of climate projections is to compare them with what has played out..." says earth sciences professor Torbjörn Törnqvist, lead author on [1]a new study published in the open-access journal Earth's Future (published by the American Geophysical Union).

But after "decades of observations," he says his researchers "were [2]quite amazed how good those early projections were , especially when you think about how crude the models were back then, compared to what is available now."

> "For anyone who questions the role of humans in changing our climate, here is some of the best proof that we have understood for decades what is really happening, and that we can make credible projections...."

>

> A new era of monitoring global sea-level change took off when satellites were launched in the early 1990s to measure the height of the ocean surface. This showed that the rate of global sea-level rise since that time has averaged about one eighth of an inch per year. Only more recently, it became possible to detect that the rate of global sea-level rise is accelerating. When NASA researchers demonstrated in October 2024 that the rate has doubled during this 30-year period, the time was right to compare this finding with projections that were made during the mid-1990s, independent of the satellite measurements.

>

> In 1996, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published an assessment report soon after the satellite-based sea-level measurements had started. It projected that the most likely amount of global sea-level rise over the next 30 years would be almost 8 centimeters (3 inches), remarkably close to the 9 centimeters that has occurred.

>

> But it also underestimated the role of melting ice sheets by more than 2 centimeters (about 1 inch). At the time, little was known about the role of warming ocean waters and how that could destabilize marine sectors of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from below. Ice flow from the Greenland Ice Sheet into the ocean has also been faster than foreseen.

"The findings provide confidence in model-based climate projections," [3]according to the paper . Again, its two key points:

The largest disparities between projections and observations were due to underestimated dynamic mass loss of ice sheets

Comparison of past projections with subsequent observations gives confidence in future climate projections

Thanks to Slashdot reader [4]Mr. Dollar Ton for sharing the news.



[1] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025EF006533

[2] https://news.tulane.edu/pr/study-finds-sea-level-projections-1990s-were-spot

[3] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025EF006533

[4] https://slashdot.org/~Mr.+Dollar+Ton



There are three types of people (Score:5, Insightful)

by Baron_Yam ( 643147 )

1) People who accept climate change is real

2) People who accept climate change is real but promote denial for personal profit

3) People who listen to group 2.

Until we do something about group 2, we'll never make any real headway on reducing the root issue.

Re: (Score:3)

by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 )

Add # 4 4) People who accept climate change is real but don't see anyone talking the talk that has any intention/ability to walk the walk.

Re: (Score:2)

by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 )

This is just a different version of #3 because the last admin passed the largest climate bill in US history.

Re: (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

That's just a subset of #1 that's aware of #2.

Re: (Score:2)

by ZipNada ( 10152669 )

> let billions starve because evil carbon bad

Can we assume you are type #5? If so, utter bullshit.

Re: (Score:2)

by ZombieCatInABox ( 5665338 )

Billions will starve if we don't stop burning fossil fuels.

Re: (Score:2)

by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 )

This is just #3 with extra steps

Re: (Score:2)

by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 )

I guess we are at #6 by now, it's real but we just don't care much?

Re: There are three types of people (Score:1)

by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 )

More like, it's not all fake, but it's also not gonna kill us all tomorrow (or ever) and the guy telling me it is is a grifter selling tickets to heaven to gullible people.

Re: (Score:2)

by gtall ( 79522 )

No one is saying it will kill us all tomorrow. The grief you hear is for future generations and the critters in the environment.....you know, the ones that hold our kids, the critters, grand-kids, the grand-critters, etc. Get yer mind off your own sorry ass.

Re: There are three types of people (Score:2)

by blue trane ( 110704 )

What if we used the techniques critters have used to adapt to climate change in the past, i.e. free migration (open the borders and, since we have made money an essential resource in our social world, a strong basic income)?

Re: (Score:3)

by ZipNada ( 10152669 )

Global warming is already resulting in "38 trillion dollars in damages each year".

[1]https://www.sciencedaily.com/r... [sciencedaily.com]

"5 million deaths a year to abnormal temperatures"

[2]https://www.monash.edu/news/ar... [monash.edu]

[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240417131138.htm

[2] https://www.monash.edu/news/articles/worlds-largest-study-of-global-climate-related-mortality-links-5-million-deaths-a-year-to-abnormal-temperatures

Re: (Score:2)

by allo ( 1728082 )

People who think climate change won't be in their backyard.

Re: (Score:2)

by usedtobestine ( 7476084 )

Do the numbers match the RCP 8.5 projection? Do they vindicate Dr Mann's projections?

Re: There are three types of people (Score:2)

by Sique ( 173459 )

Yes and yes.

Why not mention plate tectonics? (Score:2)

by blue trane ( 110704 )

"The essential point: Sea level rise isnâ(TM)t just about the sea; itâ(TM)s also about the land. Various forces cause terra firma to sink or rise on its own, in a process called vertical land movement (VLM). In some Eastern states, settling sediments and groundwater extraction are making coastal lands subside, adding an estimated 1.3 to 1.9 millimeters a year to relative sea level rise on Marylandâ(TM)s coast and .84 millimeters at Boston .

Washingtonâ(TM)s story is very different. [...]

Re: (Score:3)

by Cyberax ( 705495 )

Plate tectonics on average do not contribute to the global sea level rise. They are important locally (like in PNW) but not on the global scope.

Re: Why not mention plate tectonics? (Score:2)

by blue trane ( 110704 )

Did they know plate tectonics affected sea level drop (in the PNW) at all in the 1970s? Wasn't the theory then rebound from the ice age? So if they used flawed models of local sea levels in thd 1970s models, is it just luck their predictions agree with observation?

Re: (Score:2)

by Cyberax ( 705495 )

Sigh. Why does it matter? Will an incorrect prediction (if it's indeed incorrect) in one spot on Earth somehow invalidate direct observations of _global_ sea rise?

Re: (Score:2)

by ZombieCatInABox ( 5665338 )

You will cling desperately to anything , any hypothesis, no matter how improbable or ludicrous, in order to refuse to accept what is literally staring you in the face.

Re: (Score:2, Informative)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

Why don’t you use the data and run your own simulation to prove everyone wrong?

Re: (Score:3)

by gtall ( 79522 )

Nice way you have of dismissing science.

You: Doctor, I have this pain in my ass, what's the problem?

Doctor: You have Watusi Ass. It is a serious condition.

You: Doctor, Doctor, can it be cured?

Doctor: Well, the data say that if you take these pills, the condition will clear up....about 90 % of the time. The mathematical modeling is imprecise. They are just guessing about the 90 %. Sure, 90 % of patients do pull out of it, if they take the pills, but you cannot count on the science. I cannot tell whether you

Re: Don't look at observations, look at my guess! (Score:2)

by blue trane ( 110704 )

So the Doctor should hard sell you on the pills, for profit?

Re: (Score:3)

by ZipNada ( 10152669 )

> it explicitly rejects scientific method. Including in this case, where it rejects observations that contravene the modelling

All you need is some evidence for your bizarre claims.

Re: (Score:3)

by ZombieCatInABox ( 5665338 )

All I read is "This science says things I don't wanna hear therefore it isn't real science".

Re: Don't look at observations, look at my guess! (Score:2)

by felixrising ( 1135205 )

Your comment misrepresents both climate science and data science. Climate models are not âoeguessesâ - theyâ(TM)re physics based simulations built on observed data, constantly tested against reality and refined when discrepancies appear. Thatâ(TM)s literally the scientific method at work. The cherrypicked âoeobservationsâ donâ(TM)t prove the models wrong: Food production is rising mainly due to technology, not because climate impacts are absent. Storm frequency may be s

It's all fake news.... (Score:1)

by LazLong ( 757 )

Just ask Dear Leader and his sycophants, fossil fuel backers, other miscellaneous MAGAts.

and then... (Score:1)

by cellocgw ( 617879 )

The Orange Caligula spoke thusly, "TorbjÃrn TÃrnqvist, you're fired."

Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)

by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 )

This is terrible, depressing news! Thank God the next round of satellites will be designed without the ability to measure such things - I only want to hear good news!

Regression analysis:
Mathematical techniques for trying to understand why things are
getting worse.