Articles | Volume 19, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-793-2025
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-793-2025
Brief communication
 | Highlight paper
 | 
21 Feb 2025
Brief communication | Highlight paper |  | 21 Feb 2025

Brief communication: Sea-level projections, adaptation planning, and actionable science

William H. Lipscomb, David Behar, and Monica Ainhorn Morrison

Related authors

A framework for three-dimensional dynamic modeling of mountain glaciers in the Community Ice Sheet Model (CISM v2.2)
Samar Minallah, William Lipscomb, Gunter Leguy, and Harry Zekollari
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4152,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4152, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Present-day mass loss rates are a precursor for West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse
Tim van den Akker, William H. Lipscomb, Gunter R. Leguy, Jorjo Bernales, Constantijn J. Berends, Willem Jan van de Berg, and Roderik S. W. van de Wal
The Cryosphere, 19, 283–301, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-283-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-283-2025, 2025
Short summary
A topographically controlled tipping point for complete Greenland ice sheet melt
Michele Petrini, Meike D. W. Scherrenberg, Laura Muntjewerf, Miren Vizcaino, Raymond Sellevold, Gunter R. Leguy, William H. Lipscomb, and Heiko Goelzer
The Cryosphere, 19, 63–81, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-63-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-63-2025, 2025
Short summary
Interactive coupling of a Greenland ice sheet model in NorESM2
Heiko Goelzer, Petra M. Langebroek, Andreas Born, Stefan Hofer, Konstanze Haubner, Michele Petrini, Gunter Leguy, William H. Lipscomb, and Katherine Thayer-Calder
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3045,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3045, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Antarctic climate response in Last Interglacial simulations using the Community Earth System Model (CESM2)
Mira Berdahl, Gunter R. Leguy, William H. Lipscomb, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, Esther C. Brady, Robert A. Tomas, Nathan M. Urban, Ian Miller, Harriet Morgan, and Eric J. Steig
Clim. Past, 20, 2349–2371, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-20-2349-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-20-2349-2024, 2024
Short summary

Related subject area

Discipline: Ice sheets | Subject: Ocean Interactions
Local forcing mechanisms challenge parameterizations of ocean thermal forcing for Greenland tidewater glaciers
Alexander O. Hager, David A. Sutherland, and Donald A. Slater
The Cryosphere, 18, 911–932, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-911-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-911-2024, 2024
Short summary
Modelling Antarctic ice shelf basal melt patterns using the one-layer Antarctic model for dynamical downscaling of ice–ocean exchanges (LADDIE v1.0)
Erwin Lambert, André Jüling, Roderik S. W. van de Wal, and Paul R. Holland
The Cryosphere, 17, 3203–3228, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-3203-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-3203-2023, 2023
Short summary
Basal melt rates and ocean circulation under the Ryder Glacier ice tongue and their response to climate warming: a high-resolution modelling study
Jonathan Wiskandt, Inga Monika Koszalka, and Johan Nilsson
The Cryosphere, 17, 2755–2777, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-2755-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-2755-2023, 2023
Short summary
Can rifts alter ocean dynamics beneath ice shelves?
Mattia Poinelli, Michael Schodlok, Eric Larour, Miren Vizcaino, and Riccardo Riva
The Cryosphere, 17, 2261–2283, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-2261-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-2261-2023, 2023
Short summary
Large-eddy simulations of the ice-shelf–ocean boundary layer near the ice front of Nansen Ice Shelf, Antarctica
Ji Sung Na, Taekyun Kim, Emilia Kyung Jin, Seung-Tae Yoon, Won Sang Lee, Sukyoung Yun, and Jiyeon Lee
The Cryosphere, 16, 3451–3468, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-3451-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-3451-2022, 2022
Short summary

Cited articles

Bamber, J. L. and Aspinall, W. P.: An expert judgement assessment of future sea level rise from the ice sheets, Nat. Clim. Change, 3, 424–427, https://doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1778, 2013. a
Bamber, J. L., Oppenheimer, M., Kopp, R. E., Aspinall, W. P., and Cooke, R. M.: Ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise from structured expert judgment, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 116, 11195–11200, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817205116, 2019. a, b, c
Bassis, J. N., Berg, B., Crawford, A. J., and Benn, D. I.: Transition to marine ice cliff instability controlled by ice thickness gradients and velocity, Science, 372, 1342–1344, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf6271, 2021. a
Behar, D.: Challenges and Opportunities in Adapting to Climate Change: Perspectives from Utilities, in: Proceedings of the First National Expert and Stakeholder Workshop on Water Infrastructure Sustainability and Adaptation to Climate Change, 6–7 January 2009, EPA-600-R-09-010, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 5–6, https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NRMRL&dirEntryId=203725 (last access: 5 February 2025), 2009. a
Boston Research Advisory Group: Climate Ready Boston: Climate Change and Sea Level Projections for Boston, https://www.boston.gov/sites/default/files/file/2023/03/2016_climate_ready_boston_report.pdf (last access: 21 October 2024), 2016. a
Download
Co-editor-in-chief
For most countries dealing with the consequences of sea-level rise, a constructive discussion about actionable science is critical. There is a need to strengthen the lines of evidence for sea-level projections and at the same time there is a strong need for practitioners to understand which science they should rely on to plan adaptation actions. This manuscript outlines when scientific results may be considered actionable and discusses the risks in using novel results to inform decision-making. The case study discussed in the manuscript is also valid for other climate-change-related fields.
Short summary
As communities try to adapt to climate change, they look for "actionable science" that can inform decision-making. There are risks in relying on novel results that are not yet accepted by the science community. We propose a practical criterion for determining which scientific claims are actionable. We show how premature acceptance of sea-level-rise predictions can lead to confusion and backtracking, and we suggest best practices for communication between scientists and adaptation planners.
Share