ohdearno
That said, you did exactly what I described originally: took bad reporting of statements and presented them as factual. Thanks for demonstrating it so well.
Firstly, his 1980s testimony talked about worst case scenarios. That was one of them. As I said previously. His 1988 speech and report to congress says no such thing about New York, neither does your linked article. What it says is that, in conversation with another person, he discussed that as a possible outcome (or perhaps a likely one, if we didn't change course somewhat... which we did). 3rd hand reporting of his words without ANY context. But you took it as fact and repeated it as such.
Secondly, that newspaper article doesn't quote him for your statement about the arctic sea ice, it simply alludes to it being something he said. With no quote and context we can't know what he actually was talking about, just how the journalist took it and decided to summarize it. Again, see the previous post for where I talked about this.
However, it is worth noting that, since satellites first began monitoring the Arctic in 1979, the average area covered by sea ice has shrunk by at least 40%. The past 15 years have seen the 15 lowest summer sea ice minimums on record. It's entirely likely he was, again, talking about worst case (or simply just bad) scenarios. It's also possible he was talking about point-of-no-return (which some believe we may have reached with arctic ice, as it's almost all 'young' ice now).
We can't know, it's not reported. What we do know thought is that what you said is false.
Again, thanks for perfectly demonstrating my point. I urge you to actually look into the sources rather than reading PopSci reporting. It will help you to not make these mistakes again.
The fact is - we can see the rate of change of the sea levels start changing in the mid-90s, though the graph you're using compresses the Y-axis to minimize how obvious that is (deliberately, I'd say, given the source).
Which, given its a lagging indicator of the result of rising CO2, makes sense it would happen after.
So, even accounting for the dishonesty of the presentation (and make no mistake, it's VERY dishonest) it actually demonstrates the exact opposite of what you claim.
Fun fact: the slowest its been in the last century was when we did a crap-ton of dam projects in the 50s-70s, still rose, but very little.
Guess what (eventually) causes glacial ice to melt? CO2.
The science never really said that. Bad PopSci reporting did. The science said that was a worst case possibility. Kind of "if we do the worst things possible as much as possible, then this is the worst case scenario".
Then you read hacks--and paid disinformation spreaders, which we have documentation of various oil companies in particular doing I might add--reporting that as if it was a sure thing. Because clickbait isn't a new concept.
Also - we actually DID change what we did. We did things like ban CFCs, etc. It made a significant difference to models! Hooray us for doing the bare minimum.
We're not quibbling over millimeters, not unless you're completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting the topic anyhow. We're pointing out the rate of change is increasing and we haven't even seen the worst case effects yet (like CO2 release from the oceans, Greenland melting, etc).
The global temperature is going up, rapidly, and we're at the point were these effects are already starting to be seen. That's... a tipping point.
A best you could say "a few, in areas that are losing glaciers, which is expected due to basic physics"