Which frankly we don't. We see a more linear rise.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-rise-will-threaten-thousands-of-california-homes/

This is the same with Australia and the weather phenomena which drive its cycles of droughts and floods, the long term rise in temperature has led to more droughts and also more rainfall

Not even more unstable waterways and tsunamis and stuff, literal flooding

The Scientific American article says California should be experiencing more floods by 2035, not now, again it's because of the long term rise in temperature

(floodplains)

If we're talking about short term predictions a lot of factors come into place which can influence weather phenomena and temperature

Do you realisticly believe that not only will it rise exponentially (which we don't see) and that it will literally flood California lowlands in 15 years?

Short term predictions are not the problem

It's the long term predictions. And the Cult effect it has as if it's cast in stone and not a (prediction)

The article talks about how the San Francisco Bay Area will be more exposed to floods in the future, it doesn't claik that the entirety of it will be under water by 2035

I didn't say that, but it also didn't say "susceptible" it said will.

Will as in confirmed as in certain.

That's fearmongering.

It just talks about the risk of property damage such floods will cause, no one is claiming that the entirety of San Francisco will be under water, what is being claimed, however, is that a lot of properties close to the beaches of the SF Bay Area are at risk of getting damaged by floods by 2035

I just said I didn't say that.

It's not fearmongering if it's bringing up an actual legitimate concern

This right here is what I'm talking about, they make predictions by assuming variables instead of current data.

If it was exponential we would have seen it by now.

So why assume in the future it will be?

What do you want to bet that scientific American used a trend like the red line instead of the green one.

It's always worse case scenario and least likely one that is published in overall findings. They want it to be there.

The studies which assess the sea level rise of the future are taking into account the melting ice polar sheets, whose mass lose has been exponential

That green line doesn't look exponential to me cheif

Literally proved my point.

Projected to be exponential except it wasn't for the last 60 years

Because that's assuming a scenario where the ice sheets only melt at a constant rate

As I said, it depends entirely on the mass loss of the ice sheets

No you are assuming it's exponential, even though there is no fact real data to support it.

This is fact

But the data clearly says that the projected rise is based on how the ice sheets will melt

This is wishful thinking. Yes wishful

But "projected". No previous fact do not support future predictions.

The world industrialized massively from 1950 to 2000 exponentially in fact.

Thus it would have done the same for the sea levels.

Projections are not based on the previous trends, they are based on the current trends and how they will change in the future

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/680587502918041623/687599328713637994/Sea_Level_Rise.png

I see now it's the green one again that's the real one. It's just the bottom of the green indicator.

But you think that people are using the green and real data for policy decisions and public information?