196

The models of stable sea level rise make a lot of assumptions that are handwaving some large looming problems. They are mostly based on the past where it is presumed that no events are large enough to be significantly greater than average.

I just woke up and cannot recall off the top of my head the name of the ice sheet in question, but there is an enormous body of ice grounded under the sea in Antarctica that is eroding at the grounding edge in an exponential way. If the sea makes its way under the foot of that ice, the sheet or holds back is in a position to raise sea levels at a rate far greater than anything since the last ice age.

I like to follow some content creators that cover scientific papers, have academic credentials and maintain a credible reputation. These are my general entertainment. It keeps me somewhat up to date on the edge of research and what is happening without the filter of emo corporate narratives. If I recall correctly, when this info from Antarctica was published, shortly after that is when insurance in Florida was cut off. Regardless of anyone's narrative, the insurance aspect is a truth sayer I pay attention to. The party of exploitation would force insurance to change if they actually believed climate change was not real and were not the party of halfwits eating their own tail. Likewise if the only significant potential threat is a logarithmic curve, I expect insurance would have been pulled in stages. The way insurance regulation was handled, no one could make arguments for stable decline that could override the significance of variables of uncertainty. All the narratives about this are hollow words to me. I care about the actions taken and what that implies on a systems level. I look at this about like I how I did inventory planning and buying for a chain of bike shops. There is a ton of hype to deal with from all different directions but I only care about the sales history of my shops and interpreting meaning based upon this data alone.

The data points to certain plateaus of climate. That meshes well with what you see in geological rock formations. Those layers are sharp in transition. They don't record the turbulent times; only the times of stability. Still rock layers usually have strong stratigraphic differentiation where the change was not gradual. A thousand years is like a second on geological time scales, so it doesn't align perfectly. However, the atmospheric rate of change is unparalleled on these time scales. I expect an equally unparalleled rate of change from peripheral and linked systems. Just looking at the forecast in SoCal and how often the ocean is overtopping a bike trail now compared to daily riding from 15 years ago to now, things are changing far faster than models predict. The forecast is always too cool by nearly 5 degrees on a high end bike computer that is consistent. The temp in the past was usually within a degree or two of forecast. Terrible 5G radio emissions regulations that ruin the hydrogen line may be slightly to blame for bad forecasting, but the error rate is consistently one sided and I think that indicates a bad model. Weather forecasting models are also tied to climate change models now IIRC.

Again I don't mean to be chicken little here. It probably won't be catastrophic change. I would not buy property in Florida, and I tell my family there to leave.