Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures logoLink to Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures
. 2024 Nov 12;2:e16. doi: 10.1017/cft.2024.15

Perspective on Regional Sea-level Change and Coastal Impacts

Kathleen L McInnes 1,✉, Robert J Nicholls 2, Roderik van de Wal 3,4, David Behar 5, Ivan D Haigh 6, Benjamin D Hamlington 7, Jochen Hinkel 8,9, Daniella Hirschfeld 10, Benjamin P Horton 11,12, Angelique Melet 13, Matthew D Palmer 14,15, Alexander A Robel 16, Detlef Stammer 17, Abby Sullivan 18
PMCID: PMC12337607  PMID: 40881334

Abstract

We synthesize sea-level science developments, priorities and practitioner needs at the end of the 10-year World Climate Research Program Grand Challenge ’Regional Sea-Level Change and Coastal Impacts’. Sea-level science and associated climate services have progressed but are unevenly distributed. There remains deep uncertainty concerning high-end and long-term sea-level projections due to indeterminate emissions, the ice sheet response and other climate tipping points. These are priorities for sea-level science. At the same time practitioners need climate services that provide localized information including median and curated high-end sea-level projections for long-term planning, together with information to address near-term pressures, including extreme sea level-related hazards and land subsidence, which can greatly exceed current rates of climate-induced sea-level rise in some populous coastal settlements. To maximise the impact of scientific knowledge, ongoing co-production between science and practitioner communities is essential. Here we report on recent progress and ways forward for the next decade.

Impact statement

Rising sea levels are a major concern for low-lying coastal communities and ecosystems across the globe, yet planning for future sea-level rise is hampered by uncertainties in future greenhouse gas emissions, how ice sheets will respond and other potential climate tipping points that lead to a wide range of possible future projections. The World Climate Research Program Grand Challenge on ’Regional Sea-Level Change and Coastal Impacts’ was implemented to further advance understanding of natural and human contributions to sea-level rise, promote advances in observations and foster the development of sea-level information that assists coastal practitioners in planning for the future. Priority sea-level information for coastal practitioners includes both mid-range and high-end sea-level projections for future planning as well as information to assist with near-term planning. This includes information on extreme sea-levels and associated hazards and land subsidence, which, in some coastal locations, greatly exceeds current rates of climate-induced sea-level rise. This article summarizes recent progress and ways forward for the next decade.

Introduction

To meet urgent societal needs for useful information on sea-level rise (SLR), the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) implemented the theme ’Regional Sea-Level Change and Coastal Impacts’ as one of its cross-cutting science questions, or Grand Challenges (GC). The GC objectives were to: (1) establish a quantitative understanding of the natural and anthropogenic mechanisms of regional to local sea-level change and variability; (2) promote advances in observing systems required for integrated sea-level monitoring; and (3) foster the development of sea level information to further benefit coastal zone managers, who are dealing with the consequences of rising mean and extreme sea levels (Figure 1). An interdisciplinary program was developed encompassing global to regional and local scales. In particular, the program aimed for close interaction with relevant coastal stakeholders to increase the utility of scientific research for coastal zone management, and impacts and adaptation efforts. The program entailed work on paleo-timescale sea-level estimates, land-ice contributions to SLR, regional sea-level variability and change including extremes, regional sea-level predictability, sea-level science for coastal zone management, sea-level budget, and identification of practitioner needs from climate science through practitioner engagement.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Rising sea levels are raising extreme sea levels and exacerbating floods around most of the world’s coasts. Trends in (a) annual maximum and (b) annual-mean sea level at Southampton, UK from tide gauge data since 1935 showing a rising trend for both and the highest extreme occurring in 2024 (8/9 April). On this night, coastal floods occurred along about 100 km of the central English Channel coast, including (c) the High Street in Cowes, Isle of Wight, UK.

The GC facilitated many important publications. These include the identification of users’ needs for SLR information, including high-end SLR projections, in decision making (Hinkel et al., 2019), a transparent framework for developing high-end SLR projections (Stammer et al., 2019) subsequently applied to 2100 and 2300 for a low and high emission scenario in van de Wal et al., (2022). Sea-level variability and change on various spatiotemporal scales were the topics of a workshop and journal special edition (Ponte et al., 2019b and references therein), including a paper highlighting the large uncertainties associated with projected Antarctic mass loss (van de Wal et al., 2019). A consistent terminology for the sea level community, including vertical reference frames, SLR components and extremes, was addressed in Gregory et al., (2019). An international collaboration to assemble and assess the data quality of SLR sources, allowed estimates of land-based ice and thermal expansion over 1993-2018 to be refined, but uncertainty in the land water storage component remains (WCRP Global Sea Level Budget Group 2018).

Ponte et al., (2019a) reviewed observational platforms and modelling systems for simulating and predicting coastal sea level. A review of the status of coastal services to deliver sea level information in Le Cozannet et al., (2017), was followed by a dedicated workshop and a special journal edition on the topic (Le Cozannet et al., 2022 and references therein). Linked work evaluated the significance of subsidence in coastal cities and deltas, which demonstrated the prevalence of coastal residents in subsiding areas which, on average, experience relative SLR up to four times faster than that due to climate change alone (when weighted by population) highlighting the urgency of effective coastal adaptation (Nicholls et al., 2021). The GC also undertook the first global survey of coastal practitioners to understand whether and how SLR projections were being used and to ascertain other information practitioners require for coastal adaptation decision making (Hirschfeld et al., 2023).

Three significant international sea-level conferences and workshops were organised by GC members; an initial conference in New York in 2017, practitioner-led workshops in 2022, and the final (sunset) conference in Singapore, later in 2022. The 2017 conference highlighted research priorities that shaped GC activities in subsequent years. The need for stronger engagement with the practitioner community was identified as critical for providing salient information for future adaptation. The practitioner-led workshops, in turn, included identification of gaps and needs in the production and translation of climate science to support coastal resilience planning (see section 4.1). The final GC conference in Singapore enabled assessment of progress since 2017 and had a more prominent practitioner focus. Both the workshops and the Singapore gathering contributed to the launch of a global community of practice focused on coastal resilience, the Practitioner Exchange for Effective Response to Sea Level Rise (PEERS, www.peerscoastal.org).

In this article, which will serve as a legacy of the work of the GC, we take stock of the major advancements in sea level science over the past decade. We draw on presentations and discussions from the final Singapore conference to provide a perspective of the topics that continue to require urgent attention, particularly as we begin the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) seventh assessment cycle. In the remainder of this article, we address in more detail advances in data supporting sea level science (section 2), sea level science advances (section 3), practitioner perspectives and needs (section 4) and future priorities (section 5).

Sea-level observations and evidence from past climates

In-situ and satellite observations

Over the past decade, sea level observations have been sustained and improved. The launch of Sentinel-6A in 2020, sees the record of high precision, near-global sea-level measurements from conventional radar satellite altimetry now exceeding three decades (Donlon et al., 2021; Hamlington et al., 2023). The continuous record of this reference mission, supported by several satellites, has led not only to definitive estimates of rising regional and global sea levels, but also the increasing rate of global SLR (e.g., Nerem et al., 2018; Guérou et al., 2023). Overall accuracy has improved from one satellite to the next and improved technology and advanced processing approaches have led to better measurements of smaller scales of sea level variability, which now also extend closer to the coasts. The latter is particularly important for risk and adaptation assessments. During the GC, new missions in coastal altimetry (e.g., Cipollini et al., 2017, Birol et al., 2017, Vignudelli et al., 2019) and/or waveform retracking (e.g., Passaro et al., 2014, Birol et al., 2021) progressed substantially, enabling analysis of decadal coastal sea level trends (Cazenave et al. 2022). The large regional variations in SLR trends are illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Coastal and regional sea level trends (mm/yr) over October 1992-December 2023 (31-yr time span) from reprocessed Jason-1, 2 and 3 missions. Trends at tide gauges with at least 20 years data within the altimeter time period, sourced from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level are shown by circles, noting that tide gauge trends are calculated over the available time period. The background map shows regional sea level trends from the NASA SSH Gridded Dataset (Fournier et al., 2024).

In 2022, a breakthrough in satellite altimetry occurred with the launch of the Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) mission (Morrow et al., 2019). SWOT uses radar interferometry to measure ocean and surface water levels over a 120-km wide swath with a roughly 20-km gap along the nadir that is partially filled by a conventional radar altimeter. The orbit repeats every 21 days, but the swath measurements result in much of the globe having a revisit time that is significantly shorter while also filling in many of the gaps in the current observations of sea level. Initial analyses indicate a dramatic improvement in spatial resolution of sea-level data, including observations up to and through the coastal interface. In addition, other satellites have contributed to an increasingly dense network of higher resolution, altimeter measurements in polar regions in the past decade, including Cryosat-2, with a synthetic aperture interferometric radar altimeter (Wingham et al., 2006), Sentinel-3A, -3B (Clerc et al., 2020), Sentinel-6A with synthetic aperture radars, and ICESat-2 with a laser altimeter (Neumann et al., 2019).

Observations of ocean temperature and salinity profiles have increased and improved through increased numbers of ARGO floats and corrections of instrumental biases (Boyer et al., 2016). Gravimetry for ocean mass changes - barystatic sea-level changes (GRACE and GRACE-FO, Landerer et al., 2020) have also progressed. This has enabled improved understanding of SLR and the closure of the observed SLR budget at global (Fox-Kemper et al., 2021) and regional scales (Dangendorf et al., 2021; Marcos et al., 2019; Frederikse et al., 2020; Camargo et al., 2023), at least until 2016 (Nerem et al. 2018; WCRP Global Sea Level Budget Group, 2018).

For longer time scales, tide gauges are the major source of coastal SL observations monitoring most of the world coastlines (e.g., Marcos et al., 2019). The Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL), which was established in 1933, has been responsible for the collection of mean sea-level data from global tide gauges (Holgate et al., 2012) and produces monthly and annual mean sea level datasets. These have been used, with altimeter records, in most past mean sea-level trend and variability studies. The Global Extreme Sea Level Analysis (GESLA) provides high-frequency (at least hourly) sea-level information from tide gauge stations distributed worldwide. The first GESLA dataset was compiled in 2009, with a second update in 2015/16 (Woodworth et al., 2016) and a major third update in 2022/23, with the dataset currently comprising 91,021 years of data from 5,119 records (Haigh et al., 2023). The Joint Archive for Sea Level (Caldwell et al., 2015), established in 1987 and hosted by the University of Hawaii Sea Level Center (UHSLC), forms an important part of the GESLA dataset. For higher-frequency monitoring required for studying oceanographic processes like seiches, meteotsunamis, infragravity, and coastal waves, a 1-min SL dataset (Minute Sea-Level Analysis, MISELA) was developed at 331 tide gauges worldwide (Zemunik et al., 2021).

Synthesis Data Programmes

Several data programmes have been developed over the last decade to synthesize sea-level changes. The European Union’s Earth Observation Programme, Copernicus, provides information on sea-level changes through in-situ datasets, satellite observations (including from Sentinel missions), ocean reanalyses covering the past decades and near-term forecasts. Copernicus also provides ancillary fields needed to assess SLR-induced coastal risks (coastal land cover and land use, vertical land motion, digital elevation models, flood monitoring, etc.), to guide adaptation and support related policies and directives (see Melet et al., 2021). In addition to ongoing dataset improvements, Copernicus Services plan to improve their SLR products and services and associated risks through the addition of time-evolving satellite-derived coastal bathymetry and shoreline position, continuous monitoring of coastal floods, provision of longer-term past sea-level changes (i.e. extended reanalyses) and regionalized future climate projections (e.g., Chaigneau et al., 2022), attribution of extremes, and mapping of coastal defense structures across Europe’s coasts (Melet et al., 2021). A web platform, the Copernicus Coastal Hub, has been developed to provide the relevant core services of Copernicus to end-users.

Separately, the NASA Sea-Level Change Team has worked to both improve the understanding of sea-level change in the past and future through interdisciplinary research and to strengthening the connection to practitioners and end-users with the goal of advancing access to global sea-level data and information. This includes, for example, establishing partnerships with the IPCC to deliver the updated sea-level projections from the recent 6th Assessment Report (AR6; Fox-Kemper et al., 2021; https://sealevel.nasa.gov/ipcc-ar6-sea-level-projection-tool). Dedicated efforts to engage and support practitioners are ongoing, as are efforts to synthesize and integrate disparate Earth observations into improved information on sea-level change.

On the use of paleodata

The ice sheets, oceans and the solid Earth are the Earth system components that change most slowly under climate change. Consequently, the rapid changes since pre-industrial times are not in equilibrium with the current forcing of the climate system. One of the major challenges in ice sheet modelling is therefore to capture this imbalance. One option is to use observations of sea-level rates and high-stands in the warmer past (e.g. Eemian). A full understanding of Eemian high-stands is still missing as the contribution from Antarctica is poorly constrained for slightly warmer conditions than present-day, mainly due to a lack of understanding of the ice-ocean interaction, but also because the magnitude of the high-stand is also strongly dependent on the assumptions made to estimate the Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (Dyer et al., 2021). The physics behind basal melt is also important for explaining current rates of mass loss in West-Antarctica. The aim is that the physical processes constrained by modern and geological observations can be captured adequately. However, few studies have attempted to use paleo sea-level information to project SLR in future. Notable is the work by DeConto et al., (2021) where geological observations constrain model parameters, especially those controlling marine ice-cliff instability.

A further application of paleo data, important for stakeholders, is whether and when sea level started to accelerate. Sea-level reconstructions of the Common Era (last 2000 years) have been used to estimate the timing of the acceleration or inception of modern rates of SLR, since they extend the instrumental record back before the 20th century and have improved attribution of sea-level change (e.g. Kemp et al., 2011). Walker et al., (2022) used a global database of proxy sea-level records of the Common Era to show that globally, it is very likely that rates of SLR emerged above pre-industrial rates by 1863 CE (P = 0.9; range of 1825 [P = 0.66] to 1873 CE [P = 0.95]), which is similar in timing to evidence for early ocean warming and glacier melt, which caused most SLR over the 20th century.

Modelling and projections of sea-level change

State of the Art Sea Level Projections

Sea-level projections based on process models involve combining the contributions of ocean dynamic sea level from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) climate models, run to support the IPCC process, with other components of sea-level change. These include terrestrial water storage changes, Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA), spatial redistribution of sea level due to gravitational, rotational and deformational changes in the Earth in response to ice-sheet mass changes (sometimes referred to as sea-level fingerprints) and the SLR from dynamical processes that contribute to ice sheet and glacier mass loss, which are obtained from separate off-line models usually forced by output from CMIP climate models, thereby implicitly ignoring feedbacks between climate and ice sheet models.

State-of-the-art sea-level projections presented in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report of Working Group I (AR6; Fox-Kemper et al., 2021) incorporated several methodological advancements relative to IPCC AR5 (Church et al., 2013) and the IPCC Special Report on Oceans and Climate Change (SROCC; Oppenheimer et al., 2019. These included: (i) use of physically-based emulators, which allowed for sea-level projections that were consistent with the AR6 assessment of climate sensitivity (Forster et al., 2021) and also consistent inclusion of ice sheet modelling from previous assessments (Slangen et al., 2023); and (ii) use of coordinated community process-modelling efforts for the ice sheets (Goelzer et al., 2020, Levermann et al., 2020; Seroussi et al., 2020) and glacier response under climate change (Marzeion et al., 2020). Despite these advances, the ‘likely range’ projections, which characterize the central two-thirds of the probability distribution, remain broadly similar across AR5, SROCC and AR6 (Slangen et al., 2023). However, high-end sea-level change, caused by poorly understood physical processes inducing ice-mass loss of the Antarctic ice sheet, is uncertain. There is a low confidence, high-impact storyline based on expert elicitation and exploratory modeling presented in AR6 that could exceed 2 m of GMSL rise by 2100 and 15 m by 2300. More recently, an analysis emerging from the GC based on physical storylines arrived at lower values for both 2100 (1.27-1.55 m) and 2300 (up to 10 m) (Van de Wal et al., 2022). Figure 3 presents the estimated regional high-end values following the approach by Van de Wal et al., (2022).

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Regional high-end SLR projections based on van de Wal et al., (2022), for 2100 under RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5, with a global-averaged value of 1.55 m. Numeric values of SLR are provided for Honolulu, Seattle, Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Rio de Janeiro, Den Haag, Lisbon, Cape Town, Jakarta, Tokyo and Sydney.

On even longer time scales, Turner et al., (2023) developed SLR projections to 2500 that help to illustrate the multi-century commitment and long-term benefits of mitigation action. Similarly, Palmer et al., (2024) developed multi-century SLR projections in a flexible storyline framework that can be tailored to stakeholder needs or specific decision-making contexts.

Advances in ice sheet modelling

To constrain the low likelihood probabilities of SLR it is critical to develop ice models further. Most ice sheet models used for SLR projections still compare poorly to observations of ice sheet change over the last 20 years (Aschwanden et al., 2021) and during past warm periods (Dutton et al., 2015). However, through advances in model representation of processes occurring at the boundaries of ice sheets and model architecture, some individual models have greatly improved their fidelity to past observed changes (Nias et al., 2016, DeConto et al., 2021, Golledge et al., 2019, Gilford et al., 2020).

Surface mass balance models have improved in modeling firn compaction and water retention within snow (e.g. Lundin et al. 2017), and Earth System Models (ESMs) are performing better for Greenland. Similarly, simulated ocean melting of ice sheets has improved in contemporary models (Cowton et al. 2019, Lambert et al. 2023), but still disagrees with observations, particularly where ocean circulation interacts with subglacial discharge. Models which include ocean intrusion and melting underneath grounded ice sheets predict nearly twice the rate of future SLR (Seroussi et. al. 2019, Robel et al., 2022). Other models of rapid iceberg calving at tall ice cliffs (Bassis and Walker 2012; Crawford et al., 2021) have suggested the possibility of even higher future SLR (DeConto et al., 2021), though other calving models suggest such rapid calving states may be ephemeral (Clerc et al., 2019, Bassis et al., 2021). At the ice sheet base, models of glacial isostatic adjustment, gravitationally self-consistent sea level (Gomez et al., 2018, van Calcar et al., 2023) and subglacial hydrology (Schoof et al., 2010) have also raised the possibility of new negative feedbacks on future ice loss from both Antarctica and Greenland.

Several modeling centers have focused efforts on coupling ice sheet models with oceanic and atmospheric models or incorporating them fully into ESMs (Smith et al., 2021). Decades of progress in transient data assimilation in the weather and climate modeling communities are now translating to rapid improvements in the way ice sheet models are being initialized and calibrated (e.g., Goldberg et al., 2022, Van den Akker et al., 2024). Additionally, many ice sheet models now incorporate stochastic and neural-network parameterizations (Jouvet et al., 2022, Verjans et al., 2022, Ultee et al., 2023) to improve their speed and ensemble capabilities for better uncertainty quantification. All these ice-sheet model improvements will facilitate coupling in ESMs and better calibration with present-day observed environmental conditions, improving SLR projections mostly for the near future.

From Regional SLR to local projections of coastal hazards

Coastal adaptation requires SLR projections that are tailored to local conditions together with additional information on extreme coastal sea levels from which coastal hazards (e.g. flooding and erosion) may be calculated. While CMIP models provide information on local SLR changes due to ocean density and circulation, the typical 1° spatial resolution of the ocean models means they are unable to resolve complex circulations along continental shelves (Zhang et al., 2016; Van Westen and Dijkstra, 2021). The application of higher resolution global (Zhang et al., 2017; Jin et al., 2024) or regional ocean models (e.g. Toste et al., 2018; Hermans et al., 2021; Jin et al., 2021; Shin and Alexander, 2020; Chaigneau et al., 2022) is enabling improved representation of ocean circulation and better resolved dynamic SLR projections closer to the coast.

Coastal hazard assessments require information on sea-level extremes that consider astronomical tides, weather-induced storm surges and wind-waves (infragravity waves, wave setup, wave runup), their associated uncertainties expressed as probabilities of occurrence over different time periods and accurate digital elevation models (Hinkel et al., 2021). Advances have been made with global-scale hydrodynamic models of tides and storm surge (e.g. Muis et al., 2016, 2020), and tide-surge-waves (e.g., Mentaschi et al., 2023), with forcing provided by meteorological reanalysis (e.g. Dullaart et al., 2020) and tropical cyclones (Bloemendaal et al., 2019). Coordinated efforts are underway to progress global modelling efforts (Bernier et al., 2024). The combination of data from storm surges and tide models with wave setup derived from wave model reanalyses has enabled the derivation of extreme sea-level statistics for use in global coastal flood assessments (e.g. Rueda et al., 2017; Vousdoukas et al., 2018; Kirezci et al., 2020).

Although there have been advances in large scale assessments of coastal hazards, stakeholders often need localized information that may be limited or unavailable, such as elevation, bathymetry, vertical land movement (e.g. Nicholls et al., 2021) and river flows. Furthermore, the coincidence of high river flows and/or intense precipitation events with extreme coastal sea levels can cause compound flooding (e.g. Wahl et al., 2015, Bevacqua et al., 2019, Collins et al., 2019, Bevacqua et al., 2020, Couasnon et al., 2020, Hermans et al., 2024). Green et al., (2024) recently provided a comprehensive review of compound flooding in coastal regions. Establishing the probabilities of extreme sea levels from all contributing factors under present and future climate conditions is a major computational undertaking. To address this complexity, hybrid statistical-dynamical approaches akin to machine learning methods are being developed to estimate nearshore coastal hazards (e.g. Camus et al., 2014; Cagigal et al., 2020, Ayyad et al., 2023).

Engaging with the practitioner perspective

The GC considered practitioner and decision-making perspectives to facilitate use of the science results summarized in Sections 2 and 3. The main focus here is on risk assessment and adaptation decisions up to a century in the future, reflecting the practitioner needs that were expressed in the GC around practical action.

Challenges practitioners are facing

Preparing for SLR requires practitioners to understand the magnitude and rate of change, associated uncertainties, their local implications, and the societal context in which decisions are made. Practitioners bring relevant expertise, including local regulations and permitting processes, funding options, stakeholder perspectives including local politics, but generally lack time to follow evolving climate science. Therefore, no global standard in the uptake of SLR projections into planning exists and practitioner approaches vary widely (Hirschfeld et al., 2023). The myriad coastal hazards associated with SLR (erosion, flooding, salinisation, etc.) further complicate practitioners’ analysis. To better understand these issues, two global workshops were convened to share knowledge among practitioners on how SLR science is incorporated into decision-making, understand the state of coastal adaptation planning and action, and address communicating the case for action (Boyle et al., 2022; Hirschfeld et al., 2024). Lessons were shared at the WCRP GC SLR conference in Singapore (2022) and are summarized below.

Challenges working with observations and projections

Many practitioners lack access to relevant local observations or downscaled SLR projections with the Southern hemisphere and developing countries most deficient. The scientific literature requires translation by climate service providers or boundary workers (also referred to as knowledge brokers; Lomas, 2007; Harvey et al., 2012) working with practitioners to characterize knowledge and uncertainty into actionable information. This is particularly true for long-term high-end SLR projections, which are important for risk management (Hinkel et al., 2015; 2019) and attract strong practitioner attention. Recent high-end projections have caused confusion among practitioners (Boyle et al 2022), as authoritative sources published over the last 11 years have fluctuated by a meter or more at the high end, while median SLR projections remained relatively constant (Figure 4). A compounding issue is that the speed of planning/implementation - approximately two or three decades for major capital projects – is much slower than the release and adoption of new high-end projections in influential forums (Figure 4; Boyle et al., 2022; Lipscomb et al., 2024). This emphasizes the need for actionable science as discussed below.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Median and high-end SLR scenarios for the year 2100, produced by papers from 2012 to 2022. The high-end scenarios show large fluctuation compared to the median (see Supplemental Information for further details). Note the references for the above-mentioned reports: National Research Council (2012) -Dalrymple et al., (2012); Third National Climate Assessment, (2014) – Melillo et al., (2014); IPCC AR5 – Church et al., (2013); UKCP (2018) – Palmer et al., 2018; SROCC (2019) – Oppenheimer et al., (2019); IPCC AR6 (2021) – Fox-Kemper et al., (2021).

Barriers to understanding and communicating impacts

Beyond mean and high-end SLR projections, practitioners need to assess other related coastal information and hazards (Section 3.3), such as subsidence, sea-level extremes, erosion, saltwater intrusion and more. Compound threats are costly and difficult to assess and there is a gap between the science discussed earlier and the availability of localized compound information. Many practitioners lack access to high-resolution inundation models, which are a valuable visualization tool to communicate risk (Boyle et al., 2022). This widens the gap between places that are adapting and those that cannot. Despite facing existential risk, many small islands appear in the latter category. One partnership addressing this gap is a PEERS/NASA effort to coproduce inundation maps (https://peerscoastal.org/get-involved/inundation-mapping).

Elements for addressing practitioner challenges

The following needs were identified over the course of the GC:

  • Co-Production, robust climate services and boundary support - Increased collaboration between practitioners, boundary workers and climate scientists to co-produce knowledge was affirmed as essential to advancing global adaptation (Figure 5). Boundary workers play a critical role in the translation between practitioners and scientists, but climate services are poorly developed for coasts (Le Cozannet et al., 2017; 2022), hindering progress.

  • Development of actionable science - That is, science that is widely agreed upon in the scientific community (Bamzai-Dodson et al., 2021; Lipscomb et al., 2024). While IPCC reports in recent years have expanded the type of SLR projections to assist with risk assessment (e.g. SROCC, AR6), an unintended consequence has been to raise the profile of uncertain, experimental outputs not yet replicated by the broader scientific community without providing sufficient guidance for practitioner uptake. GC initiatives led to Stammer et al., (2019) and Van de Wal et al., (2022), which directly addressed practitioner needs by accentuating high-end SLR projections supported by multiple lines of evidence, transparency, and scientific confidence. Building on this work, an actionable science definition has been proposed: “A scientific claim is sufficiently accepted to justify adaptation action (i.e., near-term physical measures and financial investments) when it is supported by multiple, consistent independent lines of high-quality evidence leading to high or medium confidence, as determined by a diverse group of experts in an open, transparent process”. (Lipscomb et al, 2024). Efforts to develop consistent, clear approaches for translating SLR science into actionable information to underpin adaptation investment are needed, ideally featuring coproduction partnerships between practitioners and scientists.

  • Development of a community of practice - Needed to support practitioners developing leading practices in adaptation. PEERS was established in 2023 by participants of the global workshop and Singapore conference and at this writing has over 500 members in 59 countries with strong global North and global South participation.

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Open in a new tab

The three core steps of an idealised iterative workflow of developing actionable sea-level information (black boxes) and roles of the individuals involved (blue dashed boxes; practitioners, boundary workers and sea-level scientists). Boundary workers are involved in all three steps but with a focus on the decision making framework connecting the work of sea-level scientists and practitioners (CBA=Cost-benefit analysis, CEA=Cost-effectiveness analysis).

Co-production and boundary support

The GC developed a framework to facilitate the production of SLR information to meet practitioner needs (Hinkel et al., 2019). This starts with the practitioner’s decisions and associated context. These differ from case to case and require diverse decision-making frameworks and types of SLR information. The decision context includes: (1) the uncertainty tolerance; a low uncertainty tolerance equating to the preparation for unlikely but extreme outcomes; (2) the decision or time horizon, for planning, implementation and operation of the adaptation measures -- ranging from years (e.g., beach nourishment), to decades (e.g., protection infrastructure such as dikes, land reclamation in small islands), to a century or more (e.g., critical infrastructure such as nuclear power, long-term land-use planning) (Burcharth et al., 2014; Rigo et al., 2006; Hino et al., 2017; Wilby et al., 2011; Hinkel et al., 2023); and (3) the ability to adaptively manage the response, which is most relevant for long-term adaptation.

Three additional contextual aspects emerged in the practitioner workshops: culture, resources, and place (Hirschfeld et. al., 2024). Culture shapes how practitioners think and thus influences their needs (e.g., attitudes towards protection versus the environment), their uncertainty tolerance and decision horizons. Human, natural, and financial resources, or lack of resources, all influence a practitioner’s requirements from boundary scientists (Aylett, 2015). Practitioners also consider different physical attributes of places (e.g., topography, tidal range, etc.) and people (i.e., high density, medium density, etc.) influencing exposure and vulnerability and the information required.

The practitioner workshops identified that co-production between SLR scientists, practitioners and boundary workers is essential (see also Hewitt et al., 2017; Vincent et al., 2018). Initially, practitioner’s needs and decision requirements may be ill-defined, but become refined through an iterative process. Furthermore, coastal decisions are often characterized by conflicting stakeholder interests (Hinkel et al., 2018), which require the elaboration of joint perceptions, objectives, etc. Finally, users also require methods for applying information, including learning opportunities and technical assistance to address coastal resilience challenges (Tribbia and Moser, 2008; Hirschfeld and Hill, 2022).

The different participants in Figure 5 have different roles to play within the co-production process. Physical scientists need to place confidence judgments on the various SLR products available (Mastrandrea et al., 2011). Not all of these are equally plausible and practitioners need to choose actionable products that are well supported in the science community (van de Wal et al., 2022; Lipscomb et al., 2024) and match their approaches to risk management (Hinkel et al., 2019). The role of the practitioners and decision-makers is to express their context and needs, to assess their risk management approach, and to consider what adaptation options are feasible. The boundary worker’s role is to act as a bridge and ensure that decision analysis methods and available SLR products are integrated in a meaningful way to address the practitioner’s needs.

Adaptive decision making

Adaptive Decision Making (ADM) has been highlighted in coastal and more widely in climate adaptation (Hewitt et al., 2017; Vincent et al., 2018; Lawrence et al., 2018). ADM divides decisions into stages, implements flexible measures today and then progressively implements upgrades while learning how SLR unfolds (Ranger et al., 2013). Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways is a widely established framework for developing sequences of adaptation actions -- adaptation pathways -- and ranking them via multi-criteria analysis (Haasnoot et al., 2013). Additional ADM methods, including real-option analysis or optimal control are available, which find optimal economic trade-offs between adaptation investment today, including the cost of flexible design, versus delayed implementation while more is learned about SLR (Völz and Hinkel, 2023a). This approach is especially suitable for costly and long-lasting coastal adaptation decisions (e.g., dikes, surge barriers, land-use planning) (e.g., Woodward et al., 2014). Importantly, these approaches provide a framework for building adaptation measures iteratively, reducing the risk of maladaptation.

ADM frameworks are facilitated by a new class of SLR information which Hinkel et al (2019) termed learning scenarios. These estimate what additional information will be known at any given moment in the future about SLR beyond this moment (e.g., 2050 to 2100). They can be seen as a generalization of “normal” scenarios which provide information about future climate seen from a base year (i.e., today) and future moments in time. Within the GC, SLR learning scenarios based on IPCC AR6 scenarios were developed for the first time (Völz and Hinkel, 2023b) and applied to an economic assessment of adaptation pathways (Völz et al., 2024). Further practical research and implementation is required to fully explore the potential of ADM in coastal adaptation.

Future priorities

This article has highlighted progress on SL science and its use in adaptation over the past decade including activities fostered by the WCRP’s GC. These are summarised and research priorities are identified as the IPCC AR7 cycle gets underway.

Regarding observations, global sea-level data derived from satellite altimeters are now of sufficient length to provide evidence of accelerating SLR. New radar altimeter instruments are providing higher resolution sea-level observations in the coastal zone. Together with measurements of ocean volume change (temperature and salinity) and mass change (changes in earth gravity), the SLR budget has been closed, including at regional scale. Sustainment of satellite-based ocean observations into the future will be crucial to the ongoing monitoring of sea-level change including at the coastline, where additional forcing factors (local sea levels, waves, river flows and vertical land movement) interact with SLR to drive extremes. Ongoing curation of global tide datasets will enable monitoring and attribution of extreme sea-level change. The development of reliable global vertical land movement data from analysis of tide gauges, GNSS and In-SAR satellite data is a key future priority at the coast, particularly in urban areas where the rate of subsidence may be many times the rate of climate-induced SLR.

Methodological advances in the development of SLR projections occurred within the IPCC AR6 cycle, including the use of physical emulators to derive SLR projections consistent with the AR6 assessment of climate sensitivity, which could be extended on the component level. Ice sheet and glacier models for estimating the mass contribution to SLR have been improved by the advent of model intercomparison projects. These more comprehensive approaches yield likely ranges of SLR that are broadly similar to previous assessments, but low-likelihood, high-end projections differ widely. Ice sheet and surface mass balance models that contribute to SLR projections have improved with more dynamic processes associated with ice sheet disintegration being developed. Work must continue however, to improve the agreement of ice sheet models to recent observations and to include other feedbacks between the ice and the rest of the climate system. Sea-level information on paleo time scales remains an important data source to constrain these models and future advances will help narrow uncertainties in long term and high-end projections.

Modelling the processes that contribute to extreme sea levels, including regional SLR, waves, tides and storm surges at global scales has advanced considerably over the past decade. Ongoing work is required to better represent small scale and relatively low frequency phenomena such as tropical cyclones in historical and future climate contexts. At the local coastal scale, model-based coastal assessments that integrate multiple oceanic and terrestrial (e.g. river runoff) factors and capture non-linear interactions and compound hazards remain a challenge, which will require further development and adoption of machine learning methods to increase the tractability of the problem. It is also vital to consider compound flooding when assessing and designing flood management.

The GC provided a forum to establish collaborative networks within the practitioner community to provide sustained peer support and learning. This was achieved through a first-ever global survey on sea-level information used by practitioners and their needs, a series of regional workshops which deepened understanding of practitioners needs in different regional contexts, and a SL conference that provided a dialogue between practitioners and researchers. These activities have highlighted various ongoing needs. Coastal climate services that enable the co-production of SLR projections with practitioners that build upon IPCC reports is essential. This includes the interpretation of global scale (IPCC) projections, particularly at the high end, and operational services in underrepresented areas such as the global south, small islands and deltas. Informational needs include localized sea-level and related hazard products, including decadal variability in near term projections and SLR projections across the full range of plausible emissions beyond 2100. Crucial to bridging between the science and practitioner communities is the role of boundary scientists working between both communities to translate and contextualise sea-level science using clearly defined criteria to support adaptation action. More effort to refine these criteria and activities to co-produce successful outcomes remains a priority.

Understanding and projecting SLR and its associated hazards is a multidisciplinary science spanning many physical and social science topics. To ensure that progress on the key challenges raised in this perspective continues in a timely and efficient manner, it will be critical to build functional, durable partnerships bridging science and society to ensure strong coordination of global SLR activities through the WCRP and other institutions.

To be submitted to ‘Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures’ describing the WCRP Grand Challenge on Regional Sea Level Change and its Impacts, including the Singapore Conference in 2022.

The authors declare no competing interests in the preparation of this manuscript.

Supporting information

McInnes et al. supplementary material

McInnes et al. supplementary material

Acknowledgements

KM was supported by CSIRO and the National Environmental Science Program through the Earth Systems Science Hub. RN, RvdW and JH were supported by PROTECT (PROTECT contribution number 96), RN, AM and JH were supported by CoCliCo, and RN and JH were supported by Rest-Coast, all under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement numbers 869304, 101003598, and 101037097, respectively. RvdW was also supported by the Netherlands Polar Program. BPH was additionally funded by the Ministry of Education Academic Research Fund MOE2019-T3-1-004. IDH and RN acknowledge Associated British Ports for the sea level data supplied for use in Figure 1. M Alatieh helped draft Figure 3.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at http://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2024.15.

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2024.15.

Author contribution statement

KM, RN, RvdW and DB conceived the review, drafted sections of the paper and undertook analysis in support of figures. AM, BDH, BPH, DS drafted parts of section 2; MP, AR and DS drafted parts of section 3; DH, AS, JH drafted parts of section 4. DS contributed to sections 1 and 5. IDH contributed to Figure 1 and provided critical review of the manuscript.

References

  1. Aschwanden A, Bartholomaus TC, Brinkerhoff DJ and Truffer M (2021) Brief communication: A roadmap towards credible projections of ice sheet contribution to sea level. The Cryosphere 15(12), 5705–5715. 10.5194/tc-15-5705-2021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aylett A (2015) Institutionalizing the urban governance of climate change adaptation: Results of an international survey. Urban Climate 14, 4–16. 10.1016/j.uclim.2015.06.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ayyad M, Hajj MR and Marsooli R (2023) Climate change impact on hurricane storm surge hazards in New York/New Jersey Coastlines using machine-learning. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science 6(1), 88. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bamzai-Dodson A, Cravens AE, Wade AA and McPherson RA (2021) Engaging with stakeholders to produce actionable science: a framework and guidance. Weather, Climate, and Society 13(4), 1027–1041. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bassis JN, Berg B, Crawford AJ and Benn DI (2021) Transition to marine ice cliff instability controlled by ice thickness gradients and velocity. Science 372(6548), 1342–1344. 10.1126/science.abf6271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bassis JN and Walker CC (2012) Upper and lower limits on the stability of calving glaciers from the yield strength envelope of ice. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 468(2140), 913–931. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bernier NB, Hemer M, Nobuhito M, Appendini CM, Breivik O, de Camargo R, Casas-Prat M, Duong TM, Haigh ID, Howard T, Hernaman V, Huizy O, Irish JL, Kirezci E, Kohno N, Lee J-W, McInnes KL, Meyer EMI, Marcos M, Marsooli R, Oliva AM, Menendez M, Moghimi S, Muis S, Polton JA, Pringle WJ, Ranasinghe R, Saillour T, Smith G, Tadesse MG, Swail V, Tomoya S, Voukouvalas E, Wahl T, Wang P, Weisse R, Westerink JJ, Young I and Zhang YJ (2024) Storm Surges and Extreme Sea Levels: Review, Establishment of Model Intercomparison and Coordination of Surge Climate Projection Efforts (SurgeMIP). Weather and Climate Extremes, 100689. 10.1016/j.wace.2024.100689. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bevacqua E, Maraun D, Vousdoukas M, Voukouvalas E, Vrac M, Mentaschi L and Widmann M (2019) Higher probability of compound flooding from precipitation and storm surge in Europe under anthropogenic climate change. Science Advances 5(9), eaaw5531. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bevacqua E, Vousdoukas MI, Zappa G, Hodges K, Shepherd TG, Maraun D, Mentaschi L and Feyen L (2020) More meteorological events that drive compound coastal flooding are projected under climate change. Communications Earth & Environment 1(1), 47. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Birol F, Fuller N, Lyard F, Cancet M, Nino F, Delebecque C, Fleury S, Toublanc F, Melet A and Saraceno M (2017) Coastal applications from nadir altimetry: Example of the X-TRACK regional products. Advances in Space Research 59(4), 936–953. [Google Scholar]
  11. Birol F, Léger F, Passaro M, Cazenave A, Niño F, Calafat FM, Shaw A, Legeais J-F, Gouzenes Y and Schwatke C (2021) The X-TRACK/ALES multi-mission processing system: New advances in altimetry towards the coast. Advances in Space Research 67(8), 2398–2415. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bloemendaal N, Muis S, Haarsma RJ, Verlaan M, Irazoqui Apecechea M, de Moel H, Ward PJ and Aerts JCJH (2019) Global modeling of tropical cyclone storm surges using high-resolution forecasts. Climate Dynamics 52(7), 5031–5044. 10.1007/s00382-018-4430-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Boyer T, Domingues CM, Good SA, Johnson GC, Lyman JM, Ishii M, Gouretski V, Willis JK, Antonov J and Wijffels S (2016) Sensitivity of global upper-ocean heat content estimates to mapping methods, XBT bias corrections, and baseline climatologies. Journal of Climate 29(13), 4817–4842. [Google Scholar]
  14. Boyle J, Murphy N, Ide G and Martin A (2022) Same, same but different; three approaches to setting and defining thresholds, signals and triggers using Dynamic Adaptive Pathways Planning. Coastal Adaptation 33, 33. [Google Scholar]
  15. Burcharth HF, Lykke Andersen T and Lara JL (2014) Upgrade of coastal defence structures against increased loadings caused by climate change: A first methodological approach. Coastal Engineering 87, 112–121. 10.1016/j.coastaleng.2013.12.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cagigal L, Rueda A, Anderson D, Ruggiero P, Merrifield MA, Montaño J, Coco G and Méndez FJ (2020) A multivariate, stochastic, climate-based wave emulator for shoreline change modelling. Ocean Modelling 154, 101695. 10.1016/j.ocemod.2020.101695. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Caldwell PC, Merrifield MA and Thompson PR (2015) Sea level measured by tide gauges from global oceans —the Joint Archive for Sea Level holdings (NCEI Accession 0019568), Version 5.5. (accessed 05/15/2024).
  18. Camargo CML, Riva REM, Hermans THJ, Schütt EM, Marcos M, Hernandez-Carrasco I and Slangen ABA (2023) Regionalizing the sea-level budget with machine learning techniques. Ocean Sci. 19(1), 17–41. 10.5194/os-19-17-2023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Camus P, Menéndez M, Méndez FJ, Izaguirre C, Espejo A, Cánovas V, Pérez J, Rueda A, Losada IJ and Medina R (2014) A weather-type statistical downscaling framework for ocean wave climate. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 119(11), 7389–7405. 10.1002/2014JC010141. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cazenave A, Gouzenes Y, Birol F, Leger F, Passaro M, Calafat FM, Shaw A, Nino F, Legeais JF and Oelsmann J (2022) Sea level along the world’s coastlines can be measured by a network of virtual altimetry stations. Communications Earth & Environment 3(1), 117. [Google Scholar]
  21. Chaigneau AA, Reffray G, Voldoire A, Melet A (2022) IBI-CCS: a regional high-resolution model to simulate sea level in western Europe. Geoscientific Model Development 15(5), 2035–2062, 10.5194/gmd-15-2035-2022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Church JA, Clark PU, Cazenave A, Gregory JM, Jevrejeva S, Levermann A, Merrifield MA, Milne GA, Nerem RS and Nunn PD (2013) Sea level change. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., Qin D., Plattner G.-K., Tignor M., Allen S.K., Boschung J., Nauels A., Xia Y., Bex V. and Midgley P.M. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. PM Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  23. Cipollini P, Calafat FM, Jevrejeva S, Melet A and Prandi P (2017) Monitoring sea level in the coastal zone with satellite altimetry and tide gauges. Integrative study of the mean sea level and its components, 35–59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Clerc F, Minchew BM and Behn MD (2019) Marine ice cliff instability mitigated by slow removal of ice shelves. Geophysical Research Letters 46(21), 12108–12116. [Google Scholar]
  25. Clerc S, Donlon C, Borde F, Lamquin N, Hunt SE, Smith D, McMillan M, Mittaz J, Woolliams E, Hammond M, Banks C, Moreau T, Picard B, Raynal M, Rieu P and Guérou A (2020) Benefits and Lessons Learned from the Sentinel-3 Tandem Phase. Remote Sensing 12(17). 10.3390/rs12172668. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Collins M, Sutherland M, Bouwer L, Cheong S-M, Frölicher T, Jacot Des Combes H, Koll RM, Losada IJ, KL McInnes, Ratter E, Rivera-Arriaga E, Susanto RD, Swingedouw D and L T (2019) Extremes, Abrupt Changes and Managing Risk. In Pörtner DCR H.-O., Masson-Delmotte V., Zhai P., Tignor M., Poloczanska E., Mintenbeck K., Alegría A., Nicolai M., Okem A., Petzold J., Rama B., Weyer N.M. (ed), IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 589–655. [Google Scholar]
  27. Couasnon A, Eilander D, Muis S, Veldkamp TI, Haigh ID, Wahl T, Winsemius HC and Ward PJ (2020) Measuring compound flood potential from river discharge and storm surge extremes at the global scale. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 20(2), 489–504. [Google Scholar]
  28. Cowton TR, Todd JA and Benn DI (2019) Sensitivity of Tidewater Glaciers to Submarine Melting Governed by Plume Locations. Geophysical Research Letters 46(20), 11219–11227. 10.1029/2019GL084215. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Crawford AJ, Benn DI, Todd J, Åström JA, Bassis JN and Zwinger T (2021) Marine ice-cliff instability modeling shows mixed-mode ice-cliff failure and yields calving rate parameterization. Nature Communications 12(1), 2701. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Dalrymple RA, Breaker LC, Brooks BA, Cayan DR, Griggs GB, Han W, Horton BP, Hulbe CL, McWilliams JC, Mote PW, Pfeffer WT, Reed DJ and Shum CK (2012) Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. National Research Council. [Google Scholar]
  31. Dangendorf S, Frederikse T, Chafik L, Klinck JM, Ezer T and Hamlington BD (2021) Data-driven reconstruction reveals large-scale ocean circulation control on coastal sea level. Nature Climate Change 11(6), 514–520. [Google Scholar]
  32. DeConto RM, Pollard D, Alley RB, Velicogna I, Gasson E, Gomez N, Sadai S, Condron A, Gilford DM, Ashe EL, Kopp RE, Li D and Dutton A (2021) The Paris Climate Agreement and future sea-level rise from Antarctica. Nature 593(7857), 83–89. 10.1038/s41586-021-03427-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Donlon CJ, Cullen R, Giulicchi L, Vuilleumier P, Francis CR, Kuschnerus M, Simpson W, Bouridah A, Caleno M and Bertoni R (2021) The Copernicus Sentinel-6 mission: Enhanced continuity of satellite sea level measurements from space. Remote Sensing of Environment 258, 112395. [Google Scholar]
  34. Dullaart JCM, Muis S, Bloemendaal N and Aerts JCJH (2020) Advancing global storm surge modelling using the new ERA5 climate reanalysis. Climate Dynamics 54(1), 1007–1021. 10.1007/s00382-019-05044-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Dutton A, Carlson AE, Long AJ, Milne GA, Clark PU, DeConto R, Horton BP, Rahmstorf S and Raymo ME (2015) Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods. Science 349(6244), aaa4019. 10.1126/science.aaa4019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Dyer B, Austermann J, D’Andrea WJ, Creel RC, Sandstrom MR, Cashman M, Rovere A and Raymo ME (2021) Sea-level trends across The Bahamas constrain peak last interglacial ice melt. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(33), e2026839118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Forster P, Storelvmo T, Armour K, Collins W, Dufresne J-L, Frame D, Lunt D, Mauritsen T, Palmer M, Watanabe M, Wild M and Zhang H (2021) The Earth’s energy budget, climate feedbacks, and climate sensitivity. In Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai, P, Pirani, A and Zhou, B (ed), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 923–1054. [Google Scholar]
  38. Fox-Kemper B, Hewitt HT, Xiao C, Aðalgeirsdóttir G, Drijfhout SS, Edwards TL, Golledge NR, Hemer M, Kopp RE, Krinner G, Mix A, Notz D, Nowicki S, Nurhati IS, Ruiz L, Sallée J-B, Slangen ABA and Yu Y (2021) Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level Change. In Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P., Pirani A., Connors S.L., Péan C., Berger S., Caud N., Chen Y., Goldfarb L., Gomis M.I., Huang M., Leitzell K., Lonnoy E., Matthews J.B.R., Maycock T.K., Waterfield T., Yelekçi O., Yu R., and Zhou B. (ed), Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1211–1362. [Google Scholar]
  39. Frederikse T, Landerer F, Caron L, Adhikari S, Parkes D, Humphrey VW, Dangendorf S, Hogarth P, Zanna L, Cheng L and Wu Y-H (2020) The causes of sea-level rise since 1900. Nature 584(7821), 393–397. 10.1038/s41586-020-2591-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Gilford DM, Ashe EL, DeConto RM, Kopp RE, Pollard D and Rovere A (2020) Could the Last Interglacial Constrain Projections of Future Antarctic Ice Mass Loss and Sea-Level Rise? Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 125(10), e2019JF005418. 10.1029/2019JF005418. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Goelzer H, Nowicki S, Payne A, Larour E, Seroussi H, Lipscomb WH, Gregory J, Abe-Ouchi A, Shepherd A, Simon E, Agosta C, Alexander P, Aschwanden A, Barthel A, Calov R, Chambers C, Choi Y, Cuzzone J, Dumas C, Edwards T, Felikson D, Fettweis X, Golledge NR, Greve R, Humbert A, Huybrechts P, Le clec’h S, Lee V, Leguy G, Little C, Lowry DP, Morlighem M, Nias I, Quiquet A, Rückamp M, Schlegel NJ, Slater DA, Smith RS, Straneo F, Tarasov L, van de Wal RSW and van den Broeke MR (2020) The future sea-level contribution of the Greenland ice sheet: a multi-model ensemble study of ISMIP6. The Cryosphere 14(9), 3071–3096. 10.5194/tc-14-3071-2020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Goldberg DN and Holland PR (2022) The Relative Impacts of Initialization and Climate Forcing in Coupled Ice Sheet-Ocean Modeling: Application to Pope, Smith, and Kohler Glaciers. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface 127(5), e2021JF006570. 10.1029/2021JF006570. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Golledge NR, Keller ED, Gomez N, Naughten KA, Bernales J, Trusel LD and Edwards TL (2019) Global environmental consequences of twenty-first-century ice-sheet melt. Nature 566(7742), 65–72. 10.1038/s41586-019-0889-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Gomez N, Latychev K and Pollard D (2018) A coupled ice sheet–sea level model incorporating 3D Earth structure: variations in Antarctica during the last deglacial retreat. Journal of Climate 31(10), 4041–4054. [Google Scholar]
  45. Green J, Haigh ID, Quinn N, Neal J, Wahl T, Wood M, Eilander D, de Ruiter M, Ward P and Camus P (2024) A Comprehensive Review of Coastal Compound Flooding Literature. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01321 .
  46. Gregory JM, Griffies SM, Hughes CW, Lowe JA, Church JA, Fukimori I, Gomez N, Kopp RE, Landerer F, Cozannet GL, Ponte RM, Stammer D, Tamisiea ME and van de Wal RSW (2019) Concepts and Terminology for Sea Level: Mean, Variability and Change, Both Local and Global. Surveys in Geophysics 40(6), 1251–1289. 10.1007/s10712-019-09525-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Guérou A, Meyssignac B, Prandi P, Ablain M, Ribes A and Bignalet-Cazalet F (2023) Current observed global mean sea level rise and acceleration estimated from satellite altimetry and the associated measurement uncertainty. Ocean Science 19(2), 431–451. [Google Scholar]
  48. Haasnoot M, Kwakkel JH, Walker WE and ter Maat J (2013) Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change 23(2), 485–498. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Haigh ID, Marcos M, Talke SA, Woodworth PL, Hunter JR, Hague BS, Arns A, Bradshaw E and Thompson P (2023) GESLA version 3: A major update to the global higher‐frequency sea‐level dataset. Geoscience Data Journal 10(3), 293–314. [Google Scholar]
  50. Hamlington B, Willis J and Vinogradova N (2023) The emerging golden age of satellite altimetry to prepare humanity for rising seas. Earth’s Future 11(11), e2023EF003673. [Google Scholar]
  51. Harvey B, Lewin T and Fisher C (2012) Introduction: Is Development Research Communication Coming of Age? IDS Bulletin 43(5), 1–8. 10.1111/j.1759-5436.2012.00356.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Hermans TH, Busecke JJ, Wahl T, Malagón‐Santos V, Tadesse MG, Jane RA and van de Wal RSW (2024) Projecting changes in the drivers of compound flooding in Europe using CMIP6 models. Earth’s Future 12(5), e2023EF004188. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hermans TH, Gregory JM, Palmer MD, Ringer MA, Katsman CA and Slangen AB (2021) Projecting global mean sea‐level change using CMIP6 models. Geophysical Research Letters 48(5), e2020GL092064. [Google Scholar]
  54. Hinkel J, Church JA, Gregory JM, Lambert E, Le Cozannet G, Lowe J, McInnes KL, Nicholls RJ, van der Pol TD and van de Wal RSW (2019) Meeting User Needs for Sea Level Rise Information: A Decision Analysis Perspective. Earth’s Future 7(3), 320–337. 10.1029/2018EF001071. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Hinkel J, Feyen L, Hemer M, Le Cozannet G, Lincke D, Marcos M, Mentaschi L, Merkens JL, de Moel H, Muis S, Nicholls RJ, Vafeidis AT, van de Wal RSW, Vousdoukas MI, Wahl T, Ward PJ and Wolff C (2021) Uncertainty and Bias in Global to Regional Scale Assessments of Current and Future Coastal Flood Risk. Earth’s Future 9(7), e2020EF001882. 10.1029/2020EF001882. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Hinkel J, Garcin M, Gussmann G, Amores A, Barbier C, Bisaro A, Le Cozannet G, Duvat V, Imad M and Khaleel Z (2023) Co-creating a coastal climate service to prioritise investments in erosion prevention and sea-level rise adaptation in the Maldives. Climate Services 31, 100401. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hino M, Field CB and Mach KJ (2017) Managed retreat as a response to natural hazard risk. Nature Climate Change 7(5), 364–370. 10.1038/nclimate3252. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Hirschfeld D, Behar D, Nicholls RJ, Cahill N, James T, Horton BP, Portman ME, Bell R, Campo M, Esteban M, Goble B, Rahman M, Addo KA, Chundeli FA, Aunger M, Babitsky O, Beal A, Boyle R, Fang J, Gohar A, Hanson S, Karamesines S, Kim MJ, Lohmann H, McInnes K, Mimura N, Ramsay D, Wenger L and Yokoki H (2023) Global survey shows planners use widely varying sea-level rise projections for coastal adaptation. Communications Earth & Environment 4(1), 102. 10.1038/s43247-023-00703-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Hirschfeld D, Boyle R, Nicholls RJ, Behar D, Esteban M, Hinkel J, Smith G and Hanslow DJ (2024) Practitioner needs to adapt to Sea-Level Rise: Distilling information from global workshops. Climate Services 34, 100452. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hirschfeld D and Hill KE (2022) The landscape of sea-level rise adaptation resources: Applying grounded theory in California. Climate Services 28, 100332. 10.1016/j.cliser.2022.100332. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Hewitt CD, Stone RC and Tait AB (2017) Improving the use of climate information in decision-making. Nature Climate Change 7(9), 614–616. 10.1038/ncimate3378. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Holgate SJ, Matthews A, Woodworth PL, Rickards LJ, Tamisiea ME, Bradshaw E, Foden PR, Gordon KM, Jevrejeva S and Pugh J (2012) New Data Systems and Products at the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level. Journal of Coastal Research 29(3), 493–504. 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-12-00175.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Jin Y, Köhl A, Jungclaus J and Stammer D (2024) Mechanisms of projected sea-level trends and variability in the Southeast Asia region based on MPI-ESM-ER. Climate Dynamics 62(2), 973–988. [Google Scholar]
  64. Jin Y, Zhang X, Church JA and Bao X (2021) Projected sea level changes in the marginal seas near China based on dynamical downscaling. Journal of Climate 34(17), 7037–7055. [Google Scholar]
  65. Jouvet G, Cordonnier G, Kim B, Lüthi M, Vieli A and Aschwanden A (2022) Deep learning speeds up ice flow modelling by several orders of magnitude. Journal of Glaciology 68(270), 651–664. 10.1017/jog.2021.120. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Kemp AC, Horton BP, Donnelly JP, Mann ME, Vermeer M and Rahmstorf S (2011) Climate related sea-level variations over the past two millennia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(27), 11017–11022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Kirezci E, Young IR, Ranasinghe R, Muis S, Nicholls RJ, Lincke D and Hinkel J (2020) Projections of global-scale extreme sea levels and resulting episodic coastal flooding over the 21st Century. Scientific Reports 10(1), 11629. 10.1038/s41598-020-67736-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Lambert E, Jüling A, RSW van de Wal and Holland PR (2023) Modelling Antarctic ice shelf basal melt patterns using the one-layer Antarctic model for dynamical downscaling of ice–ocean exchanges (LADDIE v1.0). The Cryosphere 17(8), 3203–3228. 10.5194/tc-17-3203-2023. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Landerer FW, Flechtner FM, Save H, Webb FH, Bandikova T, Bertiger WI, Bettadpur SV, Byun SH, Dahle C and Dobslaw H (2020) Extending the global mass change data record: GRACE Follow‐On instrument and science data performance. Geophysical Research Letters 47(12), e2020GL088306. [Google Scholar]
  70. Le Cozannet G, Nicholls RJ, Hinkel J, Sweet WV, McInnes KL, van de Wal RSW, Slangen ABA, Lowe JA and White KD, 5, 49. (2017) Sea Level Change and Coastal Climate Services: The Way Forward. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 5, 49. [Google Scholar]
  71. Le Cozannet G, Nicholls RJ, van de Wal RSW, Sparrow MD, Li J and Billy J (2022) Editorial: Climate Services for Adaptation to Sea-Level Rise. Frontiers in Marine Science 9. 10.3389/fmars.2022.943079. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Levermann A, Winkelmann R, Albrecht T, Goelzer H, Golledge NR, Greve R, Huybrechts P, Jordan J, Leguy G, Martin D, Morlighem M, Pattyn F, Pollard D, Quiquet A, Rodehacke C, Seroussi H, Sutter J, Zhang T, Van Breedam J, Calov R, DeConto R, Dumas C, Garbe J, Gudmundsson GH, Hoffman MJ, Humbert A, Kleiner T, Lipscomb WH, Meinshausen M, Ng E, Nowicki SMJ, Perego M, Price SF, Saito F, Schlegel NJ, Sun S and van de Wal RSW (2020) Projecting Antarctica’s contribution to future sea level rise from basal ice shelf melt using linear response functions of 16 ice sheet models (LARMIP-2). Earth Syst. Dynam. 11(1), 35–76. 10.5194/esd-11-35-2020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Lipscomb WH, Behar D and Morrison MA (2024) Brief communication: Sea-level projections, adaptation planning, and actionable science. EGUsphere 2024, 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  74. Lomas J (2007) The in-between world of knowledge brokering. BMJ 334(7585), 129. 10.1136/bmj.39038.593380.AE. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Lundin JMD, Stevens CM, Arthern R, Buizert C, Orsi A, Ligtenberg SRM, Simonsen SB, Cummings E, Essery R, Leahy W, Harris P, Helsen MM and Waddington ED (2017) Firn Model Intercomparison Experiment (FirnMICE). Journal of Glaciology 63(239), 401–422. 10.1017/jog.2016.114. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Lawrence J, Bell R, Blackett P, Stephens S and Allan S (2018) National guidance for adapting to coastal hazards and sea-level rise: Anticipating change, when and how to change pathway. Environmental Science & Policy 82, 100–107. 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  77. Marcos M, Wöppelmann G, Matthews A, Ponte RM, Birol F, Ardhuin F, Coco G, Santamaría-Gómez A, Ballu V, Testut L, Chambers D and Stopa JE (2019) Coastal Sea Level and Related Fields from Existing Observing Systems. Surveys in Geophysics 40(6), 1293–1317. 10.1007/s10712-019-09513-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Marzeion B, Hock R, Anderson B, Bliss A, Champollion N, Fujita K, Huss M, Immerzeel WW, Kraaijenbrink P, Malles J-H, Maussion F, Radić V, Rounce DR, Sakai A, Shannon S, van de Wal RSW and Zekollari H (2020) Partitioning the Uncertainty of Ensemble Projections of Global Glacier Mass Change. Earth’s Future 8(7), e2019EF001470. 10.1029/2019EF001470. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  79. Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner G-K, Edenhofer O, Stocker TF, Field CB, Ebi KL and Matschoss PR (2011) The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: a common approach across the working groups. Climatic Change 108(4), 675. 10.1007/s10584-011-0178-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  80. Melet A, Buontempo C, Mattiuzzi M, Salamon P, Bahurel P, Breyiannis G, Burgess S, Crosnier L, Le Traon P-Y, Mentaschi L, Nicolas J, Solari L, Vamborg F and Voukouvalas E (2021) European Copernicus Services to Inform on Sea-Level Rise Adaptation: Current Status and Perspectives. Frontiers in Marine Science 8. 10.3389/fmars.2021.703425. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Mentaschi L, Vousdoukas MI, García-Sánchez G, Fernández-Montblanc T, Roland A, Voukouvalas E, Federico I, Abdolali A, Zhang YJ and Feyen L (2023) A global unstructured, coupled, high-resolution hindcast of waves and storm surge. Frontiers in Marine Science 10, 1233679. [Google Scholar]
  82. Morrow R, Fu L-L, Ardhuin F, Benkiran M, Chapron B, Cosme E, d’Ovidio F, Farrar JT, Gille ST, Lapeyre G, Le Traon P-Y, Pascual A, Ponte A, Qiu B, Rascle N, Ubelmann C, Wang J and Zaron ED (2019) Global Observations of Fine-Scale Ocean Surface Topography With the Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) Mission. Frontiers in Marine Science 6. 10.3389/fmars.2019.00232. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Muis S, Apecechea MI, Dullaart J, de Lima Rego J, Madsen KS, Su J, Yan K and Verlaan M (2020) A High-Resolution Global Dataset of Extreme Sea Levels, Tides, and Storm Surges, Including Future Projections. Frontiers in Marine Science 7. 10.3389/fmars.2020.00263. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  84. Muis S, Verlaan M, Winsemius HC, Aerts JC and Ward PJ (2016) A global reanalysis of storm surges and extreme sea levels. Nature Communications 7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Nerem RS, Beckley BD, Fasullo JT, Hamlington BD, Masters D and Mitchum GT (2018) Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(9), 2022–2025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Neumann TA, Martino AJ, Markus T, Bae S, Bock MR, Brenner AC, Brunt KM, Cavanaugh J, Fernandes ST, Hancock DW, Harbeck K, Lee J, Kurtz NT, Luers PJ, Luthcke SB, Magruder L, Pennington TA, Ramos-Izquierdo L, Rebold T, Skoog J and Thomas TC (2019) The Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite – 2 mission: A global geolocated photon product derived from the Advanced Topographic Laser Altimeter System. Remote Sensing of Environment 233, 111325. 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Nias IJ, Cornford SL and Payne AJ (2016) Contrasting the modelled sensitivity of the Amundsen Sea Embayment ice streams. Journal of Glaciology 62(233), 552–562. 10.1017/jog.2016.40. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  88. Nicholls RJ, Lincke D, Hinkel J, Brown S, Vafeidis AT, Meyssignac B, Hanson SE, J-L Merkens and Fang J (2021) A global analysis of subsidence, relative sea-level change and coastal flood exposure. Nature Climate Change 11(4), 338–342. 10.1038/s41558-021-00993-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  89. Oppenheimer M, Glavovic B, Abd-Elgawad A, Cai R, Cifuentes-Jara M, Deconto R, Ghosh T, Hay J, Hinkel J, Isla F, A.K. M, Marzeion B, Meyssignac B, Sebesvari Z, Smit AJ and van de Wal RSW (2019) Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities in In Pörtner H.-O. DCR, Masson-Delmotte V., Zhai P., Tignor M., Poloczanska E., Mintenbeck K., Alegría A., Nicolai M., Okem A., Petzold J., Rama B., Weyer N.M. (ed), IPCC Special Report on Oceans and Cryosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 321–445. [Google Scholar]
  90. Palmer MD, Harrison BJ, Gregory JM, Hewitt HT, Lowe JA and Weeks JH (2024) A framework for physically consistent storylines of UK future mean sea level rise. Climatic Change 177, 106 10.1007/s10584-024-03734-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  91. Passaro M, Cipollini P, Vignudelli S, Quartly GD and Snaith HM (2014) ALES: A multi-mission adaptive subwaveform retracker for coastal and open ocean altimetry. Remote Sensing of Environment 145, 173–189. [Google Scholar]
  92. Ponte RM, Carson M, Cirano M, Domingues CM, Jevrejeva S, Marcos M, Mitchum G, van de Wal RSW, Woodworth PL, Ablain M, Ardhuin F, Ballu V, Becker M, Benveniste J, Birol F, Bradshaw E, Cazenave A, De Mey-Frémaux P, Durand F, Ezer T, Fu L-L, Fukumori I, Gordon K, Gravelle M, Griffies SM, Han W, Hibbert A, Hughes CW, Idier D, Kourafalou VH, Little CM, Matthews A, Melet A, Merrifield M, Meyssignac B, Minobe S, Penduff T, Picot N, Piecuch C, Ray RD, Rickards L, Santamaría-Gómez A, Stammer D, Staneva J, Testut L, Thompson K, Thompson P, Vignudelli S, Williams J, Williams SDP, Wöppelmann G, Zanna L and Zhang X (2019a) Towards Comprehensive Observing and Modeling Systems for Monitoring and Predicting Regional to Coastal Sea Level. Frontiers in Marine Science 6. 10.3389/fmars.2019.00437. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  93. Ponte RM, Meyssignac B, Domingues CM, Stammer D, Cazenave A and Lopez T (2019b) Guest Editorial: Relationships Between Coastal Sea Level and Large-Scale Ocean Circulation. Surveys in Geophysics 40(6), 1245–1249. 10.1007/s10712-019-09574-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  94. Rigo P, Abdelnour R, Bulckaen D, Hiver JM, Daniel R, Chapital L, Daly F, De La Personne C, Lagache A, Dixon J and Wilkes D (2006) Design of Movable Weirs and Storm Surge Barriers. Report of WG 26. PIANC, World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure, Brussels. [Google Scholar]
  95. Robel AA, Wilson E and Seroussi H (2022) Layered seawater intrusion and melt under grounded ice. The Cryosphere 16(2), 451–469. 10.5194/tc-16-451-2022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  96. Rueda A, Vitousek S, Camus P, Tomás A, Espejo A, Losada IJ, Barnard PL, Erikson LH, Ruggiero P, Reguero BG and Mendez FJ (2017) A global classification of coastal flood hazard climates associated with large-scale oceanographic forcing. Scientific Reports 7(1), 5038. 10.1038/s41598-017-05090-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Schoof C (2010) Ice-sheet acceleration driven by melt supply variability. Nature 468(7325), 803–806. 10.1038/nature09618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Seroussi H, Nowicki S, Payne AJ, Goelzer H, Lipscomb WH, Abe-Ouchi A, Agosta C, Albrecht T, Asay-Davis X, Barthel A, Calov R, Cullather R, Dumas C, Galton-Fenzi BK, Gladstone R, Golledge NR, Gregory JM, Greve R, Hattermann T, Hoffman MJ, Humbert A, Huybrechts P, Jourdain NC, Kleiner T, Larour E, Leguy GR, Lowry DP, Little CM, Morlighem M, Pattyn F, Pelle T, Price SF, Quiquet A, Reese R, Schlegel NJ, Shepherd A, Simon E, Smith RS, Straneo F, Sun S, Trusel LD, Van Breedam J, van de Wal RSW, Winkelmann R, Zhao C, Zhang T and Zwinger T (2020) ISMIP6 Antarctica: a multi-model ensemble of the Antarctic ice sheet evolution over the 21st century. The Cryosphere 14(9), 3033–3070. 10.5194/tc-14-3033-2020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  99. Seroussi H, Nowicki S, Simon E, Abe-Ouchi A, Albrecht T, Brondex J, Cornford S, Dumas C, Gillet-Chaulet F, Goelzer H, Golledge NR, Gregory JM, Greve R, Hoffman MJ, Humbert A, Huybrechts P, Kleiner T, Larour E, Leguy G, Lipscomb WH, Lowry D, Mengel M, Morlighem M, Pattyn F, Payne AJ, Pollard D, Price SF, Quiquet A, Reerink TJ, Reese R, Rodehacke CB, Schlegel NJ, Shepherd A, Sun S, Sutter J, Van Breedam J, van de Wal RSW, Winkelmann R and Zhang T (2019) initMIP-Antarctica: an ice sheet model initialization experiment of ISMIP6. The Cryosphere 13(5), 1441–1471. 10.5194/tc-13-1441-2019. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  100. Shin S-I and Alexander MA (2020) Dynamical downscaling of future hydrographic changes over the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Journal of Climate 33(7), 2871–2890. [Google Scholar]
  101. Slangen ABA, Palmer MD, Camargo CML, Church JA, Edwards TL, Hermans THJ, Hewitt HT, Garner GG, Gregory JM, Kopp RE, Santos VM and van de Wal RSW (2023) The evolution of 21st century sea-level projections from IPCC AR5 to AR6 and beyond. Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures 1, e7. 10.1017/cft.2022.8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  102. Smith RS, Mathiot P, Siahaan A, Lee V, Cornford SL, Gregory JM, Payne AJ, Jenkins A, Holland PR and Ridley JK (2021) Coupling the UK Earth System Model to dynamic models of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems 13(10), e2021MS002520. [Google Scholar]
  103. Stammer D, van de Wal RSW, Nicholls RJ, Church JA, Le Cozannet G, Lowe JA, Horton BP, White K, Behar D and Hinkel J (2019) Framework for High-End Estimates of Sea Level Rise for Stakeholder Applications. Earth’s Future 7(8), 923–938. 10.1029/2019EF001163. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  104. Toste R, LPdF Assad and Landau L (2018) Downscaling of the global HadGEM2-ES results to model the future and present-day ocean conditions of the southeastern Brazilian continental shelf. Climate Dynamics 51, 143–159. [Google Scholar]
  105. Tribbia J and Moser SC (2008) More than information: what coastal managers need to plan for climate change. Environmental Science & Policy 11(4), 315–328. 10.1016/j.envsci.2008.01.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  106. Turner FE, Malagon Santos V, Edwards TL, Slangen ABA, Nicholls RJ, Le Cozannet G, O’Neill J and Adhikari M (2023) Illustrative Multi-Centennial Projections of Global Mean Sea-Level Rise and Their Application. Earth’s Future 11(12), e2023EF003550. 10.1029/2023EF003550. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  107. Ultee L, Robel AA and Castruccio S (2023) A stochastic parameterization of ice sheet surface mass balance for the Stochastic Ice-Sheet and Sea-Level System Model (StISSM v1. 0). EGUsphere 2023, 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  108. Van Calcar CJ, van de Wal RSW, Blank B, de Boer B and van der Wal W (2023) Simulation of a fully coupled 3D glacial isostatic adjustment–ice sheet model for the Antarctic ice sheet over a glacial cycle. Geoscientific Model Development 16(18), 5473–5492. [Google Scholar]
  109. van de Wal RSW, Nicholls RJ, Behar D, McInnes K, Stammer D, Lowe JA, Church JA, DeConto R, Fettweis X, Goelzer H, Haasnoot M, Haigh ID, Hinkel J, Horton BP, James TS, Jenkins A, LeCozannet G, Levermann A, Lipscomb WH, Marzeion B, Pattyn F, Payne AJ, Pfeffer WT, Price SF, Seroussi H, Sun S, Veatch W and White K (2022) A High-End Estimate of Sea Level Rise for Practitioners. Earth’s Future 10(11), e2022EF002751. 10.1029/2022EF002751. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  110. van den Akker T, Lipscomb WH, Leguy GR, Bernales J, Berends C, van de Berg WJ and van de Wal RSW (2024) Present-day mass loss rates are a precursor for West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapse. EGUsphere 2024, 1–25. 10.5194/egusphere-2024-851. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  111. van de Wal RSW, Zhang X, Minobe S, Jevrejeva S, Riva REM, Little C, Richter K and Palmer MD (2019) Uncertainties in Long-Term Twenty-First Century Process-Based Coastal Sea-Level Projections. Surveys in Geophysics 40(6), 1655–1671. 10.1007/s10712-019-09575-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  112. van Westen RM and Dijkstra HA (2021) Ocean eddies strongly affect global mean sea-level projections. Science Advances 7(15), eabf1674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  113. Verjans V, Robel AA, Seroussi H, Ultee L and Thompson AF (2022) The Stochastic Ice-Sheet and Sea-Level System Model v1.0 (StISSM v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 15(22), 8269–8293. 10.5194/gmd-15-8269-2022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  114. Vignudelli S, Birol F, Benveniste J, Fu L-L, Picot N, Raynal M and Roinard H (2019) Satellite altimetry measurements of sea level in the coastal zone. Surveys in Geophysics 40, 1319–1349. [Google Scholar]
  115. Völz V and Hinkel J (2023a) Climate learning scenarios for adaptation decision analyses: Review and classification. Climate Risk Management 40, 100512. 10.1016/j.crm.2023.100512. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  116. Völz V and Hinkel J (2023b) Sea Level Rise Learning Scenarios for Adaptive Decision-Making Based on IPCC AR6. Earth’s Future 11(9), e2023EF003662. 10.1029/2023EF003662. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  117. Vousdoukas MI, Mentaschi L, Voukouvalas E, Verlaan M, Jevrejeva S, Jackson LP and Feyen L (2018) Global probabilistic projections of extreme sea levels show intensification of coastal flood hazard. Nature Communications 9(1), 2360. 10.1038/s41467-018-04692-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  118. Vincent K, Daly M, Scannell C and Leathes B (2018) What can climate services learn from theory and practice of co-production? Climate Services 12, 48–58. 10.1016/j.cliser.2018.11.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  119. Völz, V, Hinkel J, Kupfer S, MacPherson LR and Wulff Norrby CJ (2024) Learning About Sea Level Rise Uncertainty Improves Coastal Adaptation Decisions. Earth’s Future 12(10), e2024EF004704. 10.1029/2024EF004704. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  120. Wahl T, Jain S, Bender J, Meyers SD and Luther ME (2015) Increasing risk of compound flooding from storm surge and rainfall for major US cities. Nature Climate Change 5, 1093. 10.1038/nclimate2736 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2736#supplementary-information. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  121. Walker JS, Kopp RE, Little CM and Horton BP (2022) Timing of emergence of modern rates of sea-level rise by 1863. Nature Communications 13(1), 966. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  122. Walker WE, Haasnoot M and Kwakkel JH (2013) Adapt or Perish: A Review of Planning Approaches for Adaptation under Deep Uncertainty. Sustainability, 5(3):955–979 doi: 10.3390/su5030955. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  123. WCRP Global Sea Level Budget Group (2018) Global sea-level budget 1993–present. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10(3), 1551–1590. 10.5194/essd-10-1551-2018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  124. Wilby R, Nicholls RJ, Warren R, Wheater HS, Clarke D and Dawson RJ (2011) Keeping nuclear and other coastal sites safe from climate change. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Civil Engineering.
  125. Wingham DJ, Francis CR, Baker S, Bouzinac C, Brockley D, Cullen R, de Chateau-Thierry P, Laxon SW, Mallow U, Mavrocordatos C, Phalippou L, Ratier G, Rey L, Rostan F, Viau P and Wallis DW (2006) CryoSat: A mission to determine the fluctuations in Earth’s land and marine ice fields. Advances in Space Research 37(4), 841–871. 10.1016/j.asr.2005.07.027. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  126. Woodward M, Kapelan Z and Gouldby B (2014) Adaptive Flood Risk Management Under Climate Change Uncertainty Using Real Options and Optimization. Risk Analysis 34(1), 75–92. 10.1111/risa.12088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  127. Woodworth PL, Hunter JR, Marcos M, Caldwell P, Menéndez M and Haigh I (2016) Towards a global higher-frequency sea level dataset. Geoscience Data Journal 3(2), 50–59. 10.1002/gdj3.42. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  128. Zemunik P, Šepić J, Pellikka H, Ćatipović L and Vilibić I (2021) Minute Sea-Level Analysis (MISELA): a high-frequency sea-level analysis global dataset. Earth system science data 13(8), 4121–4132. [Google Scholar]
  129. Zhang X, Church JA, Monselesan D and McInnes KL (2017) Sea level projections for the Australian region in the 21st century. Geophysical Research Letters 44(16), 8481–8491. 10.1002/2017GL074176. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  130. Zhang X, Oke P, Feng M, Chamberlain M, Church J, Monselesan D, Sun C, Matear R, Schiller A and Fiedler R (2016) A near-global eddy-resolving OGCM for climate studies. Geoscientific Model Development Discussions, 1–52. [Google Scholar]
Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2024.15.pr2

Recommendation: Perspective on Regional Sea-level Change and Coastal Impacts — R0/PR2

Editor: Kristen Splinter1

Dear Dr. McInnes and co-authors,

I have read your paper and along with the review feel that the paper can be suitable for publication in Coastal Futures upon addressing some minor comments. These are provided in the attached review by R1.

I also note that the paper exceeded the guidelines wrt length. I could not see specifics on what could be removed and R1 has actually asked for a bit more so I would encourage you to be succinct in any additions made at this time.

All the best,

Kristen Splinter

Handling Editor, Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2024.15.pr3

Decision: Perspective on Regional Sea-level Change and Coastal Impacts — R0/PR3

Editor: Tom Spencer1

No accompanying comment.

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2024.15.pr5

Recommendation: Perspective on Regional Sea-level Change and Coastal Impacts — R1/PR5

Editor: Kristen Splinter1

I do believe the authors have sufficiently responded to the review comments in this revised version within the limits of the word count allowed.

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2024.15.pr6

Decision: Perspective on Regional Sea-level Change and Coastal Impacts — R1/PR6

Editor: Tom Spencer1

No accompanying comment.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    McInnes et al. supplementary material

    McInnes et al. supplementary material

    S2754720524000155sup001.pdf (261.7KB, pdf)

    Articles from Cambridge prisms: Coastal futures are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

    RESOURCES