<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Our New Paper Raises the Sea Level &#8220;bar&#8221;	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://johnenglander.net/our-new-paper-raises-sea-level-bar/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://johnenglander.net/our-new-paper-raises-sea-level-bar/</link>
	<description>Sea Level Rise Expert</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2021 00:33:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: John Englander		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/our-new-paper-raises-sea-level-bar/#comment-3189</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Englander]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jan 2021 00:33:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/?p=12607#comment-3189</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://johnenglander.net/our-new-paper-raises-sea-level-bar/#comment-3186&quot;&gt;Scott Murray&lt;/a&gt;.

Thanks Scott.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://johnenglander.net/our-new-paper-raises-sea-level-bar/#comment-3186">Scott Murray</a>.</p>
<p>Thanks Scott.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Scott Murray		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/our-new-paper-raises-sea-level-bar/#comment-3186</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Murray]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2021 14:27:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/?p=12607#comment-3186</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Planning for the worst and hoping for the best makes sense. Since results point to the higher part of the range of estimates it reinforces that a major a prudent path.  Communicating the range and a simple way of pointing to the most likely case based on current understanding would be helpful, while basing planning on a reasonable probably worst case. The  earthquake and hurricane analogy help explain the reasoning, while considering costs and benefits involved. With Sea level rise the cost part of that gets enormous. So prudent land use planning and other policy and insurance practices can be used as tools to reduce those future costs.  Bottom line is we need to accelerate mitigation efforts to transition away from fossil fuels. I don’t see fossil fuel companies willingly paying for all the costs associated with sea level rise that their products are helping to cause. Their efforts seem to mostly still be centered around delaying and slowing needed changes. That includes efforts with the IPCC. And then there are the human costs to consider. As a stakeholder you’d
Think ethics would guide them to be a bigger part of the solution with assistance and support of a speedy transition to clean energy and machines to run off that.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Planning for the worst and hoping for the best makes sense. Since results point to the higher part of the range of estimates it reinforces that a major a prudent path.  Communicating the range and a simple way of pointing to the most likely case based on current understanding would be helpful, while basing planning on a reasonable probably worst case. The  earthquake and hurricane analogy help explain the reasoning, while considering costs and benefits involved. With Sea level rise the cost part of that gets enormous. So prudent land use planning and other policy and insurance practices can be used as tools to reduce those future costs.  Bottom line is we need to accelerate mitigation efforts to transition away from fossil fuels. I don’t see fossil fuel companies willingly paying for all the costs associated with sea level rise that their products are helping to cause. Their efforts seem to mostly still be centered around delaying and slowing needed changes. That includes efforts with the IPCC. And then there are the human costs to consider. As a stakeholder you’d<br />
Think ethics would guide them to be a bigger part of the solution with assistance and support of a speedy transition to clean energy and machines to run off that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: John Englander		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/our-new-paper-raises-sea-level-bar/#comment-3169</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Englander]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2020 18:17:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/?p=12607#comment-3169</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://johnenglander.net/our-new-paper-raises-sea-level-bar/#comment-3165&quot;&gt;Scott Elaurant&lt;/a&gt;.

Generally models are built up, element by element -- like building a wall, brick by brick. In models it is algorithm by algorithm. Unknowns and uncertainties tend to be excluded in science models until they can be quantified with good certainty. As you cite, looking at the paleo record allows us to back into the figure, but since we can&#039;t assume the change was evenly spread over decades or even centuries, the climate models that extend to 2100 generally will not include such evaluations.
Also, engineering and design solutions can take a different approach of allowing for uncertainties in the interest of having a margin of safety.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://johnenglander.net/our-new-paper-raises-sea-level-bar/#comment-3165">Scott Elaurant</a>.</p>
<p>Generally models are built up, element by element &#8212; like building a wall, brick by brick. In models it is algorithm by algorithm. Unknowns and uncertainties tend to be excluded in science models until they can be quantified with good certainty. As you cite, looking at the paleo record allows us to back into the figure, but since we can&#8217;t assume the change was evenly spread over decades or even centuries, the climate models that extend to 2100 generally will not include such evaluations.<br />
Also, engineering and design solutions can take a different approach of allowing for uncertainties in the interest of having a margin of safety.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Friso Heidinga		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/our-new-paper-raises-sea-level-bar/#comment-3167</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Friso Heidinga]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2020 08:06:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/?p=12607#comment-3167</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Very good article, thanks. 

I also read this article, also about the uncertainty you discuss, and the consequences for policy decisions in The Netherlands https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab666c. 
It is stated that &#039;To deal with uncertainties about the future and to minimize regret of investment decisions as the future unfolds, decision makers are urged to take an adaptive approach&#039;. 
I guess the big issue here is to fine tune the needed investments with future predictions, investing too much too soon  will be politically difficult, but after 2050 the time frame in which adaptations can be taken will be too short (won&#039;t it?). And I understand that convincing the public will be hard when as you stated the science is not clear yet. 
But on the other hand, isn&#039;t certain that sea level will rise to several meters beyond the year 2100 in any scenario (in papers the future stops at 2100), so would&#039;t it be clearer to take a 150 year time frame, which will then show that measures will have to be taken anyhow?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very good article, thanks. </p>
<p>I also read this article, also about the uncertainty you discuss, and the consequences for policy decisions in The Netherlands <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab666c" rel="nofollow ugc">https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab666c</a>.<br />
It is stated that &#8216;To deal with uncertainties about the future and to minimize regret of investment decisions as the future unfolds, decision makers are urged to take an adaptive approach&#8217;.<br />
I guess the big issue here is to fine tune the needed investments with future predictions, investing too much too soon  will be politically difficult, but after 2050 the time frame in which adaptations can be taken will be too short (won&#8217;t it?). And I understand that convincing the public will be hard when as you stated the science is not clear yet.<br />
But on the other hand, isn&#8217;t certain that sea level will rise to several meters beyond the year 2100 in any scenario (in papers the future stops at 2100), so would&#8217;t it be clearer to take a 150 year time frame, which will then show that measures will have to be taken anyhow?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Scott Elaurant		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/our-new-paper-raises-sea-level-bar/#comment-3165</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Scott Elaurant]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2020 23:41:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/?p=12607#comment-3165</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[John thanks for your work and merry christmas.  I have wondered about this issue.  I live in South Australia.  There is a geological research site in the south of our state, Naracoorte Caves, where paleontological study has recorded past sea level rises.  12,000 years ago the sea level rose 20 metres in 500 years, or 4 metres per century.  I know there was more glacial ice to melt then, but I have never understood why it was not possible to get faster sea level now than IPCC suggest, given the rise in temperature is likely swifter.  What is the basis for model assumptions that large ice sheets must melt very slowly?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John thanks for your work and merry christmas.  I have wondered about this issue.  I live in South Australia.  There is a geological research site in the south of our state, Naracoorte Caves, where paleontological study has recorded past sea level rises.  12,000 years ago the sea level rose 20 metres in 500 years, or 4 metres per century.  I know there was more glacial ice to melt then, but I have never understood why it was not possible to get faster sea level now than IPCC suggest, given the rise in temperature is likely swifter.  What is the basis for model assumptions that large ice sheets must melt very slowly?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: John Englander		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/our-new-paper-raises-sea-level-bar/#comment-3164</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Englander]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2020 19:17:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/?p=12607#comment-3164</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://johnenglander.net/our-new-paper-raises-sea-level-bar/#comment-3163&quot;&gt;Kit withers&lt;/a&gt;.

There is likely some of that at work, but the reasons for these low estimates of future sea level rise are more complex than that.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://johnenglander.net/our-new-paper-raises-sea-level-bar/#comment-3163">Kit withers</a>.</p>
<p>There is likely some of that at work, but the reasons for these low estimates of future sea level rise are more complex than that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Kit withers		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/our-new-paper-raises-sea-level-bar/#comment-3163</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kit withers]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:06:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/?p=12607#comment-3163</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Is it not true that us members of ipcc have been persuaded by fossil fuel interests to block realustic estimates of climate change?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is it not true that us members of ipcc have been persuaded by fossil fuel interests to block realustic estimates of climate change?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Charlie Madden		</title>
		<link>https://johnenglander.net/our-new-paper-raises-sea-level-bar/#comment-3162</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Charlie Madden]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:14:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://johnenglander.net/?p=12607#comment-3162</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thank you for that. It is not so important how much the sea will rise as how well prepared are we for the consequences.
One of the first is sea ingress and wells flooding. 
We want to make tide powered desalination units.
Regards
Charlie
TideWater Pty ltd]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for that. It is not so important how much the sea will rise as how well prepared are we for the consequences.<br />
One of the first is sea ingress and wells flooding.<br />
We want to make tide powered desalination units.<br />
Regards<br />
Charlie<br />
TideWater Pty ltd</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>