 |
| Can you see the surfer? |
A somewhat astounding statement in a recent Nature paper declares:
"Our study reveals fundamental misalignment issues of sea level and coastal elevation throughout a wide body of scientific literature, which introduces errors and creates large uncertainties in the vast majority of coastal hazard and SLR and/or RSLR impact assessments. From all evaluated studies, more than 99% did not use sea-level information, omitted or made errors during sea-level datum conversion and missed crucial datum and processing documentation, rendering the studies irreproducible. In most cases, the encountered methodological issues lead to an underrepresentation of coastal sea-level height, causing existing assessments to underestimate the spatial extent and timing of future RSLR and coastal hazard impacts. This raises concerns about the correctness and reliability of existing assessments and calls for re-evaluation of the workflows and results. At present, we risk that global efforts to improve sea-level measurements and projections to mm accuracy (see, for example, refs. 4,47) are nullified by erroneous sea-level and elevation data implementation in coastal hazard and SLR impact assessments. Our findings reveal a community-wide blind spot, which calls for a systemic change in how we deal with sea-level and (coastal) land elevation data in the global scientific community and beyond."
(Sea level much higher than assumed in most coastal hazard assessments, emphasis added). Ouch, are those "fighting words" or a long overdue approach?
I emailed one of the authors:
"Greetings, I read your paper in Nature (April 2026). There were no references to SLF (sea level fall). It is real (The Gravity of Sea Level Change). see video by Dr. Mitrovica (Proof of Concept - 2). Professor Mitrovica was voted into the Academy of Sciences last year. SLF has been elaborated on since 1888 (Woodward, 1888). This subject has been exhausted in Dredd Blog posts for over a decade (SEA LEVEL CHANGE). FYI, Dredd"
That author replied:
"Thank you for your email. I am currently fully occupied with work and have to move. Hence, my response may be delayed. I will come back to you as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience and your understanding. Kind regards, Katharina Seeger"
I must say that regular readers of Dredd Blog who agree with the general series of posts on this subject would think that the aforesaid Nature paper "dove tails" with general Dredd Blog concepts.
See today's appendix for one list of those said "general Dredd Blog concepts" (APNDX How Much SLC?).
And thanks to Nature and to the authors for that Nature paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment