waterthrowaway

I think I would describe it as a visualization of how sea level, snow cover and vegetation will change given a change in surface temperature. The trouble is it is not an accurate visualization of climate change . I am on mobile now, but if you would like I could offer more detailed scientific critique later

I hope I have not come across as too snarky. I am a climate scientist and modelling and visualization are a passion of mine so I am excited you are interested in it too. I just am a stickler and think for climate change in particular it is essential we communicate the best possible information we have to the public. I worry that projects like this can detract from more accurate scientifically grounded projections which climate scientists have spent decades on.

Have a good rest of your day.

Here is an online alternative to visualizing climate scenarios: https://mscm.dkrz.de/overview_i18n.html?locale=EN

Here is a sea level rise viewer for the USA: https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/

This does not simulate climate change and you should not describe it as such

Yes, I was agreeing with you. I apologize for being unclear.

Hmmm... I see a legend

For a USA county level assesment of climate risk I reccomend this site https://map.climatevulnerabilityindex.org/map/cvi_overall/us...

As a researcher in this general area I would not say 2m by 2100 is a consensus view of the worst case scenario see [1].

Here is a useful scenario for understanding what different SLR scenarios mean for the states [2]

[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/chapter-4-sea-level-rise-a...

[2] https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/

("most of the Florida peninsula will be under water in 50-100 years" is certainly not true, however, Miami would be in a very difficult spot at 2m SLR)

As a physical oceanographer, the destruction of these observing systems is horrific.

It is hard to stress enough how intentionally OMB is trying to disassemble American science. The new OMB guidelines prohibit international collaboration without pre approval for example. They also codify a political grant approval process. https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/05/the-office-of-manage...

Additionally, OMB is not releasing the congressional appropriated funds that they are required to. This is currently tanking the post-doctoral researcher market and eventually will wipe out a generation of researchers if it isn’t stopped. https://grant-witness.us/funding_curves_nsf.html

Please call your elected representatives! It is so so important! https://5calls.org/issue/federal-financial-assistance-scienc...

I would be curious if you have any source for this. I spent about 30 minutes looking through google scholar looking for studies from the 1980s which included snow projections under climate change to no avail.

I even got an account to a british newspaper database website [1] to try to find popular discussion of this claim. I was unable to find anything in maybe 10 minutes of looking.

[1] https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/198...

EDIT: I will also drop this citation for the general question of whether change is happening slower than previously predicted https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201...

see also: https://www.science.org/content/article/nsf-and-nih-suspend-...

These grants make up about 75-80% of all NSF grants

KDE+arch works perfectly out of the box

This is really cool! Thank you for submitting it!

It is worth noting this is for the purpose of video games or visual effects not for scientific/operational simulations of the ocean.

Daily operational wave forecasts are available from NOAA's WaveWatch3 model here https://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/waves/wavewatch/ . These data products are wildly used by a variety of services including surf forecasts.

NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory also publishes nice graphics of the WaveWatch3 forecast for the great lakes https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/emf/waves/WW3/

EDIT: So many interesting scales of wave research too!

Here is a very small scale study: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/201...

Rossby waves are fascinating waves in the earth's climate system that are not due to gravity like surface water waves but rather the rotation of the earth. They play a very important role in weather and climate.

In the field of Geophysical Fluid Dynamics it is an important distinction as there are other very important waves. Rossby waves are not gravity waves and extremely important to the global climate (see their role in ENSO dynamics). Compressive waves (acoustic waves) are everywhere of course. There are also topographic Rossby waves, internal waves and Kelvin waves (note: kelvin waves and internal waves are gravity waves as well). Oh, and inertial waves!

In this case it seems ocean heat content is a depth integrated measure (see page 11 of this document I found by following links in the above article https://upper-ocean-dynamics.earth.miami.edu/_assets/pdf/atb...). Seems like that OHC measure uses some reanalysis model but surface temperatures can be measured by satellite, and temperatures below can be measured from moorings in the Gulf (https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/obs.shtml) and argo floats currently in the region (https://argo.ucsd.edu/about/status/). I would expect them to all show similar trends.

The AMOC is one of the most studied climate phenomenon. We have known for decades that with a large enough freshwater forcing in models you can shut it down. The question is how big is the forcing needed and do the models accurately represent the important processes (namely convection in the North Atlantic which is difficult to get right). Unfortunately, there is a long history of sensationalized AMOC headlines.

See the link below for expert responses:

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-modell...

The scientific consensus according to the IPCC AR6 is that the AMOC is currently slowing down not shutting down but models disagree wildly on the magnitude of that slowdown

“ The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) will very likely decline over the 21st century for all SSP scenarios. There is medium confidencethat the decline will not involve an abrupt collapse before 2100. For the 20th century, there is low confidence in reconstructed and modelled AMOC changes because of their low agreement in quantitative trends. The low confidence also arises from new observations that indicate missing key processes in both models and measurements used for formulating proxies and from new evaluations of modelled AMOC variability. This results in low confidence in quantitative projections of AMOC decline in the 21st century, despite the high confidence in the future decline as a qualitative feature based on process understanding. {9.2.3}” https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-9/

Quick clarification: the noise is applied as a perturbation of their model which is meant to tease out its response to high frequency variation in sst. It is not really a limitation of their model but part of its design.

I believe noise here just refers to high frequency variation in atmospheric forcing. The ocean can be thought of as adding inertia to the climate system like a massive flywheel. This means it reacts slowly to change. This paper is arguing the ocean is becoming quicker to respond to changes it sees (or that’s my interpretation after a first read)

This paper is tangentially related https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1976...

If you are interested in the irreducible imprecision of climate models this paper is fun too

https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709

Hello!

I’m a physical oceanographer which means my job is to figure out how the water moves and delivers heat through things like math and models. Paleoclimate isn’t my expertise but I figured I’d chime in on some of the climate skepticism here.

Oceanographers would be the first to admit that modeling-predicting changes in the ocean is very hard. Especially more regional features like an intensified warming in the Labrador Sea. That is because even state of the art models have coarse resolution and our initial conditions for far in the past are poor. However, anthropogenic climate change is not a regional effect.

It’s like if first I asked you, what will happen if I hit this window with a hammer? It will break. Now what if I ask you where every piece will go?

Also I’ve seen in this thread people saying that global climate change has been overhyped. From the science side this paper does a great job of evaluating our models from the past:

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/288430943.pdf