24 ms·

Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly

241 points by uptown 11y ago

cryptoz 11y ago
This is based on a new paper published today in Nature. Here is the NYTimes piece about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-ant... And direct link to the paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature17145.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature1... And note, this is separate from the paper last week by James Hansen et al, which discussed the newly researched effects of new feedback loops in ice-melt-surface-waters shutting down ocean circulation (and also increased the amount of sea level rise in shorter time periods). These are scary times.
- reitanqild 11y ago
  > And note, this is separate from the paper last week by James Hansen et al The one with a weird weird constants IIRC?
  - lr4444lr 11y ago
    Upvoted. I am not a AGW denialist, but I find it disturbing that every time I come across a new finding in atmospheric science in a press release it is in some way linked to James Hansen's research or advocacy. Can anyone point to a body of research for the layperson that is independent of his influence?
    - MaysonL 11y ago
      Take a look at ecological changes: range of species, growing season change, bird migration changes in timing and whether migration happens or not. All point toward significant warming. Hansen has very little to say about them.
    - acqq 11y ago
      How do you define "influence" in serious science? Do you really think scientists believe in one person instead of using the scientific methods? In the relevant climate science, Hanson is just one of the thousand scientists from the whole world who all perform their own research and then report and agree on the summary findings internationally, you surely can't assert that all are "influenced" by just one person. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change surely isn't accepting "only his" claims. If nobody of thousands of the scientists would have similar findings, nobody would accept his work as serious: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml Hint: the work of denialists is exactly that: not serious, as most of them can't even make the basic assumptions right. So what should you consider for a valid "body of research"? The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There's no better international organization of scientists who work on these topics. See their procedures: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtm... Then see their last report, on the level you can probably understand, but with a lot of fine details: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ Specifically, start from the summary: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FIN... Unless you read at least that, you won't even have an idea about the material for which you seem to believe you're against (even if you claim that "you're not a denialist.)" The report reflects the state of the art of that science.
      - lr4444lr 11y ago
        You missed the point of my comment. I personally am a little more familiar with the science than the average American's understanding. What I see published for the general audience however, (and I would not rank IPCC reports in that category, even the summary ones,) overwhelmingly references, quotes, or relates to Hansen. If I'm trying to open stubborn minds, and everything comprehensible I can give these people features a name that's readily tarred as a politically-motivated pariah in the denialist community, their distrust of the mainstream media reporting and belief in their own FUD only hardens.
        acqq 11y ago
  - duaneb 11y ago
    I'm looking at the paper. I don't understand the domain well enough to find the constants to which you're referring—do you have an example and why you find it weird?
    - Laforet 11y ago
      It may be a mix-up between Hansen 1988 vs Hansen 2016 https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-basic.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-basi...
James001 11y ago
they been saying this for years
- noir_lord 11y ago
  Given the timescales involved they'll be saying it for many more years and given the consensus amongst scientists the smart move is to work to correct. The worst case is they where wrong and we improved the planet for nothing...oh no.
  - refurb 11y ago
    I'd say the worst case is we spend billions of dollars (that could have been spent elsewhere, say improving human health) on something that makes no difference at all.
    - jug 11y ago
      On the other hand, spending billions of dollars on things carrying questionable benefits for humanity would not be news. At least the reason for this would be noble.
      - nickff 11y ago
        People who lose their children to curable or preventable diseases might hold a different view.
    - r0muald 11y ago
      It would seem reducing global air pollution, especially in areas that suffer enormously on a daily basis (China is a prime example), is at least as beneficial to human health as focused efforts in medical research. And that's even without asking how this hypothetical "spending elsewhere" is going to be regulated in your opinion, and that is not a rethorical question. After all, similar complaints are heard every time a robot lands on a planet or satellite in the Solar System.
    - ldom22 11y ago
mmastrac 11y ago
I think the unfortunate reality is that we're going to have to go through a major, catastrophic climate change event before the narrative of the American right (which is by far the most vocal denier of climate change) changes and we can start making some progress in reversing it. I only hope that whatever event(s) trigger this policy change are somewhat reversible. Earth is, ironically, going to be the first testbed for terraforming technology.
- emodendroket 11y ago
  I mean, climate change deniers don't help. But people accepting, at least notionally, that it exists are not, as a rule, doing enough either.
- joeld42 11y ago
  Like Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy? Or the streets of Miami flooding? I don't think anything is going to change a denier's minds if they don't want to. We just have to try and fix it without them.
  - pklausler 11y ago
    s/without/despite/
  - wainstead 11y ago
    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair
    - jballanc 11y ago
      The problem, of course, is that the salaries of most supporters of the Republican party would not be impacted at all by most measures that would be taken to curtail emissions. The salaries of the leaders (and, more importantly, their backers) on the other hand...
    - refurb 11y ago
Randgalt 11y ago
WE'RE GONNA DIE!!!!!! NO!!!!! RUN!!!!!!!
radarsat1 11y ago
Honest question, does Antartica have any, what you would consider as, inhabitants? My understanding is that it is only scientists from a variety of countries that live there on temporary stints. However, if the ice melts in any considerable way, I wonder if (some very extreme) individuals might start looking at moving there? It is a huge continent... if the ices melts, it's terrible in a way, but looking positivistically at the situation, there must be lots of potential. I'm sure there are some treaties etc on Antarctica that limit exploitation? What if a bunch of people went down there with some guns and claimed some land, what would happen?
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Antarctica does have exposed rock; it's not all just ice. Not sure why you were downvoted. What we do with it is an interesting question. There is little harm in looking for ways to adapt to climate change if we don't succeed in stopping it.
- losteric 11y ago
  The inhabitants of Antarctica are the least of our concerns. Millions of people around the world will be flooded out of their homes
  - tomkinstinch 11y ago
    Additionally, the ice and snowpack of Antarctica contain ~70% of the fresh water available on the entire planet.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      For some definition of "available". If I actually want to use fresh water, Antarctica's ice is not available at all - at least not until we start towing icebergs to Saudi Arabia or something...
    - gus_massa 11y ago
      Unless you were planning to transport a giant iceberg with a boat, it doesn't matter that there is a lot of fresh water in Antarctica. Water is very cheap, people need it. The important thing is to have available water near the people that is easy and cheap to process. So it's important to keep the big rivers as clean as possible, and use that water efficiently. If tomorrow all the ice in Antarctica magically disappears, it would not change the problems of the people that need water to drink or cultivate plants. (If the ice magically disappears, it will create other problems changing the climate patterns. If it just melt instead of truly disappearing, it will cause floods.)
jkot 11y ago
Is that climate model available in form of source code and original raw data?
- MooMooMilkParty 11y ago
  I haven't read through the paper in enough detail to see if the actual model used is mentioned, but I did see that they use CCSM forcings. You can see the relevant CESM models here: http://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/models http://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/models. They provide links to the various components as well as validated configurations for you to play with. If you are specifically interested in ice sheet models you could look at these: PISM - http://pism-docs.org/wiki/doku.php http://pism-docs.org/wiki/doku.php CISM - http://oceans11.lanl.gov/cism/ http://oceans11.lanl.gov/cism/ ISSM - https://issm.jpl.nasa.gov/ https://issm.jpl.nasa.gov/
zxcvvcxz 11y ago
> Climate Model I'll believe it when I see it. We have at least 40% larger ice sheets now than in 2012, and more than in 2006 [1]. See also [2]. These models have been shown to be wildly inaccurate at empirical prediction [3], so I think we need to work harder and exercise more scientific skepticism before creating alarmist headlines in the mainstream media. [1] https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/popular-culture/good-news-for-polar-bears-bad-news-for-al-gore-warming/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/popu... [2] http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12927 http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12927 [3] http://objectivescience.net/warming-predictions-vs-real-world-science-who-is-the-flat-earther/ http://objectivescience.net/warming-predictions-vs-real-worl... Edit - to the downvoters, please explain why I shouldn't exercise scientific skepticism relating to how the mainstream discusses climate change.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- bullfightonmars 11y ago
  You are referring to the extent of sea ice[1] much of which is formed and melts on an annual or slightly longer cycle. Sea ice is incredibly sensitive to warming. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center the Maximum winter extent of sea ice is now at the lowest recorded in the satellite record. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice [2] https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
  - zxcvvcxz 11y ago
    That's interesting because you're link [2] is the same source used in my link [2]. There's less ice in the arctic, more in the antarctic from what I can tell. The latter is a pretty big contradictory data point in the typical mainstream climate change narrative, particularly the one peddled by the likes of Al Gore et al. Here's what I think. People are being overly alarmist and it's driving policy. Nature goes it cycles, on the order of maybe hundreds or thousands (or more) years. It's been way colder in the past than it is now, and it's also been way warmer in the past than it is now. We should reduce CO2 emissions insofar as it affects the health of people, such as smog in China. But have we definitely teased out our effect on the temperatures from what the earth is doing on its own anyway? I'm still skeptical. Who knows, maybe there's a pattern in the earth's cosmic orbit that accounts for 99% of the warming. Or maybe it's only 1% and we're the 99% cause and Al Gore was right. But until I see this definitive proof, I have to stay skeptical.
lossolo 11y ago
Did you notice that there is more signs every year, that we are heading to catastrophe but we try not to think about it and feel like everything will be ok anyway - who cares? It's better to read what's up with Kardashians instead of facing the reality. Reality in this case means changing the way we live, dramatically, because there is no other way to stop what's coming. Politicians will not do this because it means economical decline, unemployment etc. On last conference in Paris NOTHING was done. All agreed that everyone will do what they "can" to work against global warming, which means every country in the world can say "we are doing what we can" while doing almost nothing.
- awt 11y ago
  Did you ever notice the conflict of interest in which government funded scientists predict disaster, requiring more research to be funded? Oh and did you ever notice how all of the solutions proposed give the government more control over the economy?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - cromulent 11y ago
    As opposed to the conflict of interest where the people who make money from the status quo, and the scientists on their payroll, say there is no problem? I understand the scepticism, but if there is a problem with the status quo, that is the only way to find out about it. The people making money off selling oil aren't going to volunteer to shut down.
    - Tycho 11y ago
      There's other ways. Let people put their money where their mouth is. If AGW is a real problem, then we ought to see certain insurance become expensive or coastal land value decreasing. People could even trade climate derivatives that start paying once temperature rises above a cap or something like that.
- nabla9 11y ago
StriverGuy 11y ago
What can the individual change about their lifestyle to help prevent this?
- chrisb 11y ago
  There's an interesting view on that here: http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
- PerfectElement 11y ago
  Reduce or eliminate your consumption of animal products. I think this is the easiest and most impactful step any individual can take. It doesn't rely on politicians or corporations. You just need some temporary will power to learn and change a few habits.
  - doctorcroc 11y ago
    This is an important point. In large part the california drought was exacerbated by how much water the livestock industry consumed: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-13/cows-suck-up-more-of-california-s-water-than-almonds http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-13/cows-suck-u...
- satellitec4t 11y ago
  When I needed a new car a few years ago, I passed on my 'dream car' for a more basic car because the flashy car took 50% more fuel. But in the end, that's small fries. I should be taking the bus to work if I really wanted to reduce my travel carbon footprint. My house probably produces way more CO2 than my car. Heating/cooling (use a programmable thermostat, wear warm clothes indoors in winter). Lights (I've mostly switched to CFL.. no LEDs yet, until the CFLs start dying). Laundry (use cold water.. new detergents work better in cold water anyway). Water heating (you'll never take my long hot showers from me!!).
- vancan1ty 11y ago
  Do not reproduce, encourage others to not reproduce. The 100% most effective way to reduce the human effect on the planet is to reduce the number of humans on the planet. But of course if you follow that philosophy that probably just means you lose the evolutionary lottery and someone else will have plenty of children to take your kids' place.
elgabogringo 11y ago
Antarctic Sea Ice is at record levels: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reache...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- placeybordeaux 11y ago
  In 2012-2014. Back to average levels in 2015.
- zajd 11y ago
  Extent is not volume and sea ice is way less of a problem than land ice http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
- 24gttghh 11y ago
  Yes, and heat stroke can give you chills. If we just keep giving the pendulum a boost, eventually the difference between extremes will become untenable.
- satellitec4t 11y ago
  Keep reading your link > “The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said. > Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). --- The sea level is currently rising at about 3mm/yr (~1.2in/decade). The sea level is about 8 inches higher now than in 1870, and the rate of rising is increasing (+0.016mm/yr^2).
jonstokes 11y ago
So, if that Boston map is correct, then MIT, Boston University, and chunks of Harvard will all be toast by the time my youngest is the age of her great-grandfater. Crazy.
awt 11y ago
CO2 is not a pollutant. Without it, plants, and thus animal life will die. In fact plant death nearly occurred recently on a geological timescale. More co2 = more life. There is no such thing as stasis wrt global climate, and I'm glad the climate does not appear to be moving in the direction of an ice age in the near term, although it looks as though in the long term this is inevitable.
- nabla9 11y ago
  Check the definition of polluntant and polluntant taxonomy. Polluntant is not the same as poison or harmful chemical. Carbon dioxide is a fund pollutant.
  - awt 11y ago
    OMG co2 is not harmful it is plant food. If there is more of it more plants grow. The earth has had insanely higher amounts of co2 in the atmosphere than are present today in which periods life thrived even more so than today.
    - cromulent 11y ago
      It's the level that we are interested in. Everything is a poison, what matters is the dose. It is good for plants, but it is also a greenhouse gas. Venus has a lot more CO2 than Earth, and a lot less life.
    - _ph_ 11y ago
      Water is also essential for life, still you can drown. Yes, we had higher levels of CO2 in geological times of the earths past. The problem is, we are changing the CO2 content at a rate where ecological systems might not be able to cope with it. Also, even if the ecological systems do not collapse, just flooding of the inhabited costal regions would create enough human suffering to justify strong countermeasures against raising CO2.
      - awt 11y ago
elipsey 11y ago
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/ Edit: lol why downvote? are you the only person on HN who doesn't like charts?
- exabrial 11y ago
  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/sea-ice/S/2 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/sea-ice/S/2 This does nothing but lend creedance to the flat earth theory. NORTH AND SOUTH POLE ARE THE SAME
  - bjz_ 11y ago
    Do note that the sea ice extent has little to do with what the ice sheets are doing. From what I last heard (my information might be out of date), the slight increase in sea ice extent in the south pole could be due to changes in winds or ocean currents in the southern ocean.
- danielvf 11y ago
  Note that you will need to select "Southern Hemisphere" at this link in order to see the Antarctic ice measurements. By default you are seeing something else.
  - elliottkember 11y ago
    Anartic?
    - danielvf 11y ago
      Phone keyboard, sorry.
      - thrownaway2424 11y ago
        Antartic ? :-)
medymed 11y ago
If excess energy consumption is a 'vice', we would be following Malthus's prediction of a vice-based catastrophe before a food based 'Malthusian' catastrophe: "The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world." Just like yeast die of alcohol (pollution) poisoning during fermentation before their food source is anywhere near depleted, we might have plenty of food but not do so hot. If yeast could only slow their reproduction they might last for a darn good while in the brew...but luckily they destroy themselves! Otherwise beer would be too slow, and that's unacceptable.
dd36 11y ago
As long as politicians remain cheap to purchase, there will never be a solution without catastrophe and maybe not even then. We need a well-funded super pac to more than offset the super pacs of the fossil fuel industry. A big stick that can go after every congress person, senator and governor relentlessly.
mombul 11y ago
I'm dumb when it comes to science. But if the worst case scenario happens, couldn't we build facilities to 'dispose' of the melted ice in any way, instead of letting the sea level rise?
- orf 11y ago
  The volume of water is staggering, and what exactly would you do with it?
  - jordanb 11y ago
    Maybe tow it beyond the environment.
    - historian1066 11y ago
      From Clarke and Dawe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
- yk 11y ago
  The problem is, dumping large volumes of melting water anywhere technically creates an ocean.
- craigyk 11y ago
  By my quick calculation, one meter of sea rise would be ~100,000 cubic miles of water. The great lakes hold ~5,500. So no, probably not.
- mrfusion 11y ago
  That's a really good question. Maybe we could pump it to a colder area of Antarctica? Or pump a corresponding amount of ocean water to a cold area of Antarctica.
  - craigyk 11y ago
    pumping melted, probably saline water over ice doesn't seem like a great way to refreeze the water, more like a good way to melt more ice.
codecamper 11y ago
Has anyone made an estimate of the total cost to convert to 100% renewable power in the US?
Taek 11y ago
I fear an Armageddon. We are changing the climate faster than we understand what's happening, and we're starting to get weirder and weirder weather patterns. We're threatening our food supply. We've destroyed most of the ocean's fish, and we're heavily dependent on livestock and crops for food. If we disrupt the weather too much, we're not going to be able to make food. People are going to starve, and not by the millions but by the hundreds of millions. Certainly enough strife to cause war between the countries that are actually trying to do something and the countries that are continuing to ramp their CO2 output. We don't know when we cross the line from 'severe' to 'dire', but we've got enough destructive technology that if it becomes a global problem, we may end up blowing ourselves up trying to resolve the conflict. I was recently in Africa, and I was shown the rate at which the country (Cote d'Iviore) was growing. Families with as many as 10 kids. But all I could see was deforestation. Miles and miles of deforestation, something like 30 minutes of driving through an urban area that had all been vegetation in 2011. This season's weather was weird, and it has made me very afraid of what's coming in the next 5 years. We're destroying our planet's methods of regulation, and at the same time we are increasing the rate at which we're introducing adversarial agents. It's going to be a disaster, because everyone reading this critically knows that the people in power aren't going to do anything about it until people in their own country are dying by the millions as a result. If you care about surviving the next 20 years, this should be your biggest concern. We depend on a stable climate. Without that, we will not have food. Be afraid.
- codecamper 11y ago
  If you were shocked to see 1 million crossing into Europe in 2015, imagine what it will be like in the near future when tens of millions face drought & famine. The general problem is that most of the world lacks the scientific understanding to know how big & bad of a problem this may turn out to be. Google & zuckerberg could just black out certain zip codes every so often. go to google.com & get a message about the impending doom & what the person can do about it. To me, people should not be able to pick & choose technology. If you enjoy using a cell phone & sending email then you should accept what scientists are saying. No more doubting. If software is eating the world, it should hurry up & start directing the herd.
katabasis 11y ago
For some context about what impact this could have on major U.S. cities, the NYTimes published an interactive a few years back[1]. I guess if this new model is accurate, the scenarios on that link which are projected for 100-300 years out could instead happen in a few decades. This would result in major areas of Miami, New Orleans, NYC, and Sacramento all going underwater. Scary stuff. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday/what-could-disappear.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday...
- haberman 11y ago
  Sacramento?? It is 50 miles inland. If that's right, that's crazy.
  - katabasis 11y ago
    Right, totally not what one would expect. But based on the geography of California, it's very vulnerable if the water levels were to go up significantly. There would essentially be a second Bay cutting deeper into the state, only it would probably be a toxic mess a few feet deep with acres of asphalt and buildings barely submerged.
    - buf 11y ago
      In all likelihood, Sacramento and SF bay would be fine because it would be inexpensive to levee. Florida, OTOH, would be lost.
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    Elevation of Sacramento is 30 feet....that's lower than the bay bridge.
  - mmanfrin 11y ago
    Central valley all used to be marshlands/lakes/extensions of the bay. The coastal regions of CA are hills. CA is basically a giant bowl (which flattens out towards the south).
joshkpeterson 11y ago
Maybe we can also liquidate the assets of oil companies to help pay for carbon-free energy research.
cozzyd 11y ago
Time to buy some property in Chicago I guess...
grandalf 11y ago
I wonder how much the public perception of the danger of large-scale ice melt is influenced by a lay understanding of the way phase changes can happen extremely suddenly.
- bjz_ 11y ago
  Probably not that much. What worries me is feedback loops like the melting permafrost, and collapse of the Amazon ecosystem. Or the loss of ice causing more sunlight to be absorbed. Or a sudden overflow of the ocean's ability to store energy (something that has been masking most of the warming so far). Things could run out of our control in a very short amount of time.
- markkat 11y ago
  I was talking about this to a fellow physicist friend the other day. Natural system with equilibrium points don't evolve away from them smoothly. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect the climate to be any different.
gdubs 11y ago
From what I understand, a carbon tax is one of the most immediate and effective things we could do to combat climate change. If I understand the Macroeconomics correctly, the supply side shouldn't feel too much of a hit. Low-income consumers could maybe write off the carbon tax. I.e., the revenue from the tax could either go towards infrastructure spending, or it could go back to people in the form of a tax offset somewhere else. Imagine if the money pouring into the American political process right now was channeled into electing Congressional leaders who, you know, believe in science. Or if some of the grassroots dollars being burned on TV ads for candidates A, B and C could be spent on a campaign to convince the public that a carbon tax would be good for us.
- satellitec4t 11y ago
  Yep, economists largely agree that a carbon tax is an effective strategy A couple polls of economists (nearly unanimous) http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_9Rezb430SESUA4Y http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-re... http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_8oABK2TolkGluV7 http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-re...
  - benjaminRRR 11y ago
    Australia was a good experiment on this and the effects were dramatic, equally dramatic when it was repealed (yes a major piece of legislation was rolled back, which is another problem in itself) http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/documents/australia-repealed-its-carbon-tax-%E2%80%94-and-emissions-are-now-soaring http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/documents/australia-repeale...
blueprint 11y ago
It's going to be a lot worse than this. Time to get realistic about the fact that the balance of the natural environment has been broken, and it will definitely lead to a collapse of the global ecosystem in a couple years. This problem is not being caused by CO2 alone. That's only a tiny part of it. There will be massive tectonic activity. Global warming is only the first step. It's like when a human gets a fever. 1°C of global temp increase is a huge amount of heat but does not show terribly dangerous symptoms. But 2 - 3°C increase means massive upheaval and risk of brain death. To solve this problem, we need to be looking into gravity, not just radiative transfer/greenhouse gasses. But perhaps a bigger problem than nobody knowing about the gravity problem is that at this stage, nobody wants to know, either. For that reason, nobody can prevent the coming period of change.
andy_ppp 11y ago
Does anyone know if these climate models are open source, how they work etc? It seems this is an area where we as software engineers can start to have a think about how accurate these simulations are and possibly think about ways of improving them...
- barbs 11y ago
  Good idea. For more ideas, here's Bret Victor's post "What Can A Technologist Do About Climate Change". http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
- codecamper 11y ago
  You should be. My cousin works on these models. He says they are written in Fortran and are really great big balls of mud. Also, feedback loops are something they have only very recently considered.
  - vram22 11y ago
    For those who might not know the meaning: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_ball_of_mud https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_ball_of_mud
- cwal37 11y ago
  It is possible to access many parts of most of these models, however I think it's not as easy as you might imagine to just dive in and improve them. Often, an individual needs a background in a specific scientific field in addition to some software engineering capabilities. Sometimes this means you have mathematicians and physicist pursuing higher degrees in atmospheric science, in other cases an ecologist gains a masters in CS. I think you might be underestimating the programming and numerical chops of people who are involved in making the models run, not everyone is a great programmer, but they do exist within the broad field. The overarching climate models also typically aren't individual monolithic models, but tend involve various multidisciplinary pieces spanning much of the physical sciences. Also, get ready to work in Fortran. I spent a summer at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and met some people there whose work was mostly the uncertainty quantification of outside climate models. My understanding at the time was that the lab specifically does not produce their own model, but rather, acts as an impartial testing ground for the major efforts from other global institutions. All of that aside, they do have plenty of problems, and people from the outside do come in and make improvements, it's just not necessarily easy to break into. If you wanted something more accessible to start thinking about, you could do worse than the edGCM from Columbia[1]. [1] http://edgcm.columbia.edu/software2/edgcm-climate-modeling/ http://edgcm.columbia.edu/software2/edgcm-climate-modeling/
ps4fanboy 11y ago
Unless China, USA and India start cutting emissions anything the smaller countries do to limit their emissions will likely dwarfed by the growth in these super polluter countries.
- api 11y ago
  Wouldn't the EU also rank if considered collectively?
  - thinkcontext 11y ago
    Yes, the EU will need to cut its emissions but it has a cap and trade system and political leaders are generally on board with the need to remake their economies without carbon. In addition, it is miles ahead of the US in terms of emissions. According to this article, in 2013, the EU had per capita emissions of 6.8 tons/person versus 16.5 for the US. Even more startling, it was lower than China, which weighed in at 7.2. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194
- jussij 11y ago
  And unless we stop thinking about this as a countries issue rather than a issue for humanity then we are all doomed.
  - ps4fanboy 11y ago
    Until countries give up their sovereignty it will always be a country issue.
    - jussij 11y ago
      I don't think the problem is sovereignty. The problem is vested interests, wealth and greed. I have no doubt that given the will, the problem of climate change is not an overly hard problem to fix. We humans have always been good at problem solving. We just need those vested interest to get out of the way and let that happen.
codecamper 11y ago
All these discussions are quite well spoken & well said, from both sides! Tay should read this page.
AnthonyMouse 11y ago
I'm tired of arguing about CO2. Let's make the Republican argument for a carbon tax. Buying oil enriches countries antagonistic to the US. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela. Oil is a global commodity. If we use less oil then those countries will lose twice: Once because they're selling fewer barrels of oil and then again because, with less demand, pre-tax price per barrel goes down. This also means we get free money at the expense of those countries. If we enter into a treaty with Europe and China to each put a $2/gallon tax on oil, that does not make gas go from $2 to $4, because the tax will reduce consumption (as intended), which reduces demand, which lowers prices. So instead of paying $2 of which $2 goes to the bad guys, you pay $3 of which $2 goes to Uncle Sam and $1 goes to the bad guys. Then that's $2 we can use to cut other taxes, $1 of which came from the bad guys. So not only is this revenue neutral, it's effectively a tax cut -- you pay $1 extra for gas and then pay $2 less in income tax. American taxpayers end up with more money in their pockets at the expense of Russia and Iran. And the higher we make the gas tax the more it reduces demand which transfers even more money from antagonistic foreign countries to US taxpayers. Somebody tell me why CO2 even matters when carbon tax justifies itself regardless.
- pitchka 11y ago
  Simple way of burning less oil is taking subsidies from all the industries that get them, like meat, dairy and eggs. Luxury foods are really the biggest greenhouse gas footprint. Cows produce more than 60% of our methane footprint, and on a 20 year scale methane is around 80 times more potent than CO2 for global warming. Taxes can be a solution but you have to take subsidies too.
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    Methane is very potent but there is also much less emitted than CO2. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/agriculture.html https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/agri... According to that link agriculture is 9% of CO2-equivalent emissions while electricity and transportation are 58%. Which isn't to say nothing should be done about agriculture, but it isn't the bulk of the problem, and it isn't what motivates climate change deniers.
protomyth 11y ago
So, why isn't some billionaire working on something to remove the CO2 from the air / ocean and collect the carbon and release the O2. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm actually interested in why, given the other scenarios, the technology isn't being developed for a energy efficient way to do this.
- schoen 11y ago
  A lot of people are actively researching ways to get CO₂ out of the atmosphere or prevent it from entering the atmosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
- satellitec4t 11y ago
  The energy requirements to do it make it impractical, like splitting water into hydrogen for fuel cells. Also, think about how much of the Earth is covered in plants that already do this -- I'm doubtful we could come up with something that could match the current CO2->O2 capacity of all the Earth's plants and algae.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    We need to spend money on this type of research since these articles keep saying it we've come too far. > Also, think about how much of the Earth is covered in plants that already do this -- I'm doubtful we could come up with something that could match the current CO2->O2 capacity of all the Earth's plants and algae. We need to make up the delta not replace what's there.
- dredmorbius 11y ago
  Scale. Costs. It costs about $550 to remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. Alternatives, such as sequestering CO2 from seawater, may be cheaper, around $150. I'm going to stick with the higher estimate. To just tread water we'd need to remove as much CO2 as we're adding presently. Current global emissions are 9.875 gigatons (billion tons).8 Let's call it 10 gigatons to make the math easier. That's 550 * 10 billion or $5,550 billion dollars per year in carbon sequestration. A thousand billion is better known as a trillion (in the US), and the US GDP is about $15 trillion. This would equal 1/3 of total US economic output. On a global scale, GDP is about $70 trillion, so we're looking at 1/12 of the global economy. Call it an 8% tax on everything. It's the sort of thing a unified international effort might accomplish, but it's well beyond the reach of even the single richest person or corporation. There's the additional problem that once you remove the CO2, you've got to hold on to it. That's 10 Gt you'd have to freeze or compress and essentially hold in storage for a few thousand years. That's a considerable warehousing project. Not releasing the CO2 in the first place may be strongly preferable. ------------ Correction: I'd read off the 10 Gt value not realising it was carbon, rather than CO2. Actual is 35 Gt CO2, so multiply dollar amounts and percentages by 3.5. That's $19.25 trillion, or more than the total US GDP, and 28% of total global GDP. Or a ~30% tax on everything.
dang 11y ago
We merged this thread and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11392246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11392246, but adopted the more neutral title of the latter. If people feel strongly about one URL being better than the other, we can change that.
Animats 11y ago
For the Western US, the problems aren't so bad. There's a coastal mountain range along most of the California coast. In LA, a few places such as Venice/Marina Del Ray may need seawalls, but except for a few areas areas, three blocks inland is at least 100 feet above sea level. LAX is 121 feet above sea level. The SF bay has more problems than the coast. Parts of San Francisco may need seawalls, and bayfront development such as Redwood Shores needs to be stopped. Google HQ is in trouble; they're on fill and only 10' above sea level. But once you're south of US101/CA237, you're OK in most of Silicon Valley. In the southeastern US, things are potentially much worse. There's no coastal mountain range. Florida is barely above sea level now. Miami floods regularly. New Orleans is partly below sea level already. A big question is what this does to Mississippi River flooding. A higher sea level means less river flow and more upstream flooding.
- kempbellt 11y ago
  I think the idea is to look at the actual problem causing climate change. Unless your post was satire. Putting seawalls up everywhere that might be affected seems like the wrong message to take away from the article.
  - Animats 11y ago
    No, I'm serious. I assume the problem won't be fixed globally, so we have to look at it locally. For the Western US, it's not that bad. Southeastern US, not so much. The northeastern US has populated low-lying areas; the low-value ones need to be evacuated and the high-value ones, like Manhattan, protected. Even Manhattan isn't very flat; seawalls only need to go up to 30th St or so. The US as a whole is in good shape; much of the US is way above sea level. Russia, which has almost no useful coastline, will be fine.
    - marcusgarvey 11y ago
      I appreciate your observations. I may be defeatist it seems too late to stop climate change. The last time political gridlock at the federal level was this bad, the U.S. had a Civil War, so I find it hard to envision a federal solution that happens soon enough. So instead, I'd like to know, "What comes next?"
biot 11y ago
I'm fairly ignorant in terms of the science behind this, and one thing in the article raises some questions for me: > Sea level has risen a lot — 10 to 20 meters — in warm > periods in the past Presumably this is in the distant, pre-industrial past. If so, what caused the warm period and, assuming sea level subsequently dropped afterwards, what caused the warm period to end? Other than human activity contributing to the current warm period, why is it different than previously?
- GrantS 11y ago
  There appears to still be active research about mechanisms that explain the historical data but here's a clearly written article [1] discussing a few factors such as: variation in solar radiation due to variation in Earth's orbit, changing ocean currents which may lead to huge upwellings of carbon dioxide from previously sunken dead algae. [1] https://blogs.princeton.edu/research/2013/04/30/how-the-ice-ages-ended/ https://blogs.princeton.edu/research/2013/04/30/how-the-ice-...
williesleg 11y ago
Ya gotta melt the ice sheet so you can say there's no more fresh water. That way you can go from global climate change to global water shortage seamlessly. I'll bet we get a new Algore in a few years to scare us about fresh water. All so they can get votes.
puppetmaster3 11y ago
What is the impact of Volcanoes or other natural things to the global warming?
- vixen99 11y ago
  What is the impact of CO2? We do not actually know its magnitude (on global temperature). We certainly know that the relationship is not one of direct proportionality. Climate literature shows that its interpretation (in terms of causation) is made exceptionally difficult by many other factors which if given a fair discussion would render virtually every popular account unreadable and most definitely outwith the reach of any rational policy making. Doubters should examine the Vostok core data and temperature data for 1880-2016. For sure, there's a story there but to claim there's a policy directive arising from this data is simply unjustified. To be clear - simplistic denial of <any> link is of course mere ignorance.
  - puppetmaster3 11y ago
    Hi Vixen. In science, debate is encouraged. Seems that some are scared of a debate.
- the_why_of_y 11y ago
  Answered in the 2013 IPCC report, on page 1008 (page 56 in the PDF): FAQ 11.2 | How Do Volcanic Eruptions Affect Climate and Our Ability to Predict Climate? http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chap...
tn13 11y ago
Those who want others to take climate change seriously must take these models with a boatload of salt. Be definition these are models based on data we don't fully understand and has very bad record of proving completely wrong. These models are very much life stock market predictions of boom and bust which seldom come true yet both booms and busts happen regularly.
dschiptsov 11y ago
The problem is that with enough math and big data it is possible to create a model with predicts everything one wishes. Any digree of disconnection from reality is easily attainable.
mizchief2 11y ago
Can this model even somewhat accurately predict the current conditions of our climate using past data?

241 points by uptown 11y ago

This is based on a new paper published today in Nature. Here is the NYTimes piece about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-ant... And direct link to the paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature17145.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature1... And note, this is separate from the paper last week by James Hansen et al, which discussed the newly researched effects of new feedback loops in ice-melt-surface-waters shutting down ocean circulation (and also increased the amount of sea level rise in shorter time periods). These are scary times.

reitanqild 11y ago
> And note, this is separate from the paper last week by James Hansen et al The one with a weird weird constants IIRC?
- lr4444lr 11y ago
  Upvoted. I am not a AGW denialist, but I find it disturbing that every time I come across a new finding in atmospheric science in a press release it is in some way linked to James Hansen's research or advocacy. Can anyone point to a body of research for the layperson that is independent of his influence?
  - MaysonL 11y ago
    Take a look at ecological changes: range of species, growing season change, bird migration changes in timing and whether migration happens or not. All point toward significant warming. Hansen has very little to say about them.
  - acqq 11y ago
    How do you define "influence" in serious science? Do you really think scientists believe in one person instead of using the scientific methods? In the relevant climate science, Hanson is just one of the thousand scientists from the whole world who all perform their own research and then report and agree on the summary findings internationally, you surely can't assert that all are "influenced" by just one person. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change surely isn't accepting "only his" claims. If nobody of thousands of the scientists would have similar findings, nobody would accept his work as serious: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml Hint: the work of denialists is exactly that: not serious, as most of them can't even make the basic assumptions right. So what should you consider for a valid "body of research"? The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There's no better international organization of scientists who work on these topics. See their procedures: http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtml http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtm... Then see their last report, on the level you can probably understand, but with a lot of fine details: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ Specifically, start from the summary: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FIN... Unless you read at least that, you won't even have an idea about the material for which you seem to believe you're against (even if you claim that "you're not a denialist.)" The report reflects the state of the art of that science.
    - lr4444lr 11y ago
      You missed the point of my comment. I personally am a little more familiar with the science than the average American's understanding. What I see published for the general audience however, (and I would not rank IPCC reports in that category, even the summary ones,) overwhelmingly references, quotes, or relates to Hansen. If I'm trying to open stubborn minds, and everything comprehensible I can give these people features a name that's readily tarred as a politically-motivated pariah in the denialist community, their distrust of the mainstream media reporting and belief in their own FUD only hardens.
      - acqq 11y ago
- duaneb 11y ago
  I'm looking at the paper. I don't understand the domain well enough to find the constants to which you're referring—do you have an example and why you find it weird?
  - Laforet 11y ago
    It may be a mix-up between Hansen 1988 vs Hansen 2016 https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-basic.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-basi...

James001 11y ago

they been saying this for years

noir_lord 11y ago
Given the timescales involved they'll be saying it for many more years and given the consensus amongst scientists the smart move is to work to correct. The worst case is they where wrong and we improved the planet for nothing...oh no.
- refurb 11y ago
  I'd say the worst case is we spend billions of dollars (that could have been spent elsewhere, say improving human health) on something that makes no difference at all.
  - jug 11y ago
    On the other hand, spending billions of dollars on things carrying questionable benefits for humanity would not be news. At least the reason for this would be noble.
    - nickff 11y ago
      People who lose their children to curable or preventable diseases might hold a different view.
  - r0muald 11y ago
    It would seem reducing global air pollution, especially in areas that suffer enormously on a daily basis (China is a prime example), is at least as beneficial to human health as focused efforts in medical research. And that's even without asking how this hypothetical "spending elsewhere" is going to be regulated in your opinion, and that is not a rethorical question. After all, similar complaints are heard every time a robot lands on a planet or satellite in the Solar System.
  - ldom22 11y ago

mmastrac 11y ago

I think the unfortunate reality is that we're going to have to go through a major, catastrophic climate change event before the narrative of the American right (which is by far the most vocal denier of climate change) changes and we can start making some progress in reversing it. I only hope that whatever event(s) trigger this policy change are somewhat reversible. Earth is, ironically, going to be the first testbed for terraforming technology.

emodendroket 11y ago
I mean, climate change deniers don't help. But people accepting, at least notionally, that it exists are not, as a rule, doing enough either.
joeld42 11y ago
Like Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Sandy? Or the streets of Miami flooding? I don't think anything is going to change a denier's minds if they don't want to. We just have to try and fix it without them.
- pklausler 11y ago
  s/without/despite/
- wainstead 11y ago
  "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" -- Upton Sinclair
  - jballanc 11y ago
    The problem, of course, is that the salaries of most supporters of the Republican party would not be impacted at all by most measures that would be taken to curtail emissions. The salaries of the leaders (and, more importantly, their backers) on the other hand...
  - refurb 11y ago

Randgalt 11y ago

WE'RE GONNA DIE!!!!!! NO!!!!! RUN!!!!!!!

radarsat1 11y ago

Honest question, does Antartica have any, what you would consider as, inhabitants? My understanding is that it is only scientists from a variety of countries that live there on temporary stints. However, if the ice melts in any considerable way, I wonder if (some very extreme) individuals might start looking at moving there? It is a huge continent... if the ices melts, it's terrible in a way, but looking positivistically at the situation, there must be lots of potential. I'm sure there are some treaties etc on Antarctica that limit exploitation? What if a bunch of people went down there with some guns and claimed some land, what would happen?

nitrogen 11y ago
Antarctica does have exposed rock; it's not all just ice. Not sure why you were downvoted. What we do with it is an interesting question. There is little harm in looking for ways to adapt to climate change if we don't succeed in stopping it.
losteric 11y ago
The inhabitants of Antarctica are the least of our concerns. Millions of people around the world will be flooded out of their homes
- tomkinstinch 11y ago
  Additionally, the ice and snowpack of Antarctica contain ~70% of the fresh water available on the entire planet.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    For some definition of "available". If I actually want to use fresh water, Antarctica's ice is not available at all - at least not until we start towing icebergs to Saudi Arabia or something...
  - gus_massa 11y ago
    Unless you were planning to transport a giant iceberg with a boat, it doesn't matter that there is a lot of fresh water in Antarctica. Water is very cheap, people need it. The important thing is to have available water near the people that is easy and cheap to process. So it's important to keep the big rivers as clean as possible, and use that water efficiently. If tomorrow all the ice in Antarctica magically disappears, it would not change the problems of the people that need water to drink or cultivate plants. (If the ice magically disappears, it will create other problems changing the climate patterns. If it just melt instead of truly disappearing, it will cause floods.)

jkot 11y ago

Is that climate model available in form of source code and original raw data?

MooMooMilkParty 11y ago
I haven't read through the paper in enough detail to see if the actual model used is mentioned, but I did see that they use CCSM forcings. You can see the relevant CESM models here: http://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/models http://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/models. They provide links to the various components as well as validated configurations for you to play with. If you are specifically interested in ice sheet models you could look at these: PISM - http://pism-docs.org/wiki/doku.php http://pism-docs.org/wiki/doku.php CISM - http://oceans11.lanl.gov/cism/ http://oceans11.lanl.gov/cism/ ISSM - https://issm.jpl.nasa.gov/ https://issm.jpl.nasa.gov/

zxcvvcxz 11y ago

> Climate Model I'll believe it when I see it. We have at least 40% larger ice sheets now than in 2012, and more than in 2006 [1]. See also [2]. These models have been shown to be wildly inaccurate at empirical prediction [3], so I think we need to work harder and exercise more scientific skepticism before creating alarmist headlines in the mainstream media. [1] https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/popular-culture/good-news-for-polar-bears-bad-news-for-al-gore-warming/ https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/popu... [2] http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12927 http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12927 [3] http://objectivescience.net/warming-predictions-vs-real-world-science-who-is-the-flat-earther/ http://objectivescience.net/warming-predictions-vs-real-worl... Edit - to the downvoters, please explain why I shouldn't exercise scientific skepticism relating to how the mainstream discusses climate change.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bullfightonmars 11y ago
You are referring to the extent of sea ice[1] much of which is formed and melts on an annual or slightly longer cycle. Sea ice is incredibly sensitive to warming. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center the Maximum winter extent of sea ice is now at the lowest recorded in the satellite record. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice [2] https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
- zxcvvcxz 11y ago
  That's interesting because you're link [2] is the same source used in my link [2]. There's less ice in the arctic, more in the antarctic from what I can tell. The latter is a pretty big contradictory data point in the typical mainstream climate change narrative, particularly the one peddled by the likes of Al Gore et al. Here's what I think. People are being overly alarmist and it's driving policy. Nature goes it cycles, on the order of maybe hundreds or thousands (or more) years. It's been way colder in the past than it is now, and it's also been way warmer in the past than it is now. We should reduce CO2 emissions insofar as it affects the health of people, such as smog in China. But have we definitely teased out our effect on the temperatures from what the earth is doing on its own anyway? I'm still skeptical. Who knows, maybe there's a pattern in the earth's cosmic orbit that accounts for 99% of the warming. Or maybe it's only 1% and we're the 99% cause and Al Gore was right. But until I see this definitive proof, I have to stay skeptical.

lossolo 11y ago

Did you notice that there is more signs every year, that we are heading to catastrophe but we try not to think about it and feel like everything will be ok anyway - who cares? It's better to read what's up with Kardashians instead of facing the reality. Reality in this case means changing the way we live, dramatically, because there is no other way to stop what's coming. Politicians will not do this because it means economical decline, unemployment etc. On last conference in Paris NOTHING was done. All agreed that everyone will do what they "can" to work against global warming, which means every country in the world can say "we are doing what we can" while doing almost nothing.

awt 11y ago
Did you ever notice the conflict of interest in which government funded scientists predict disaster, requiring more research to be funded? Oh and did you ever notice how all of the solutions proposed give the government more control over the economy?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- cromulent 11y ago
  As opposed to the conflict of interest where the people who make money from the status quo, and the scientists on their payroll, say there is no problem? I understand the scepticism, but if there is a problem with the status quo, that is the only way to find out about it. The people making money off selling oil aren't going to volunteer to shut down.
  - Tycho 11y ago
    There's other ways. Let people put their money where their mouth is. If AGW is a real problem, then we ought to see certain insurance become expensive or coastal land value decreasing. People could even trade climate derivatives that start paying once temperature rises above a cap or something like that.
nabla9 11y ago

StriverGuy 11y ago

What can the individual change about their lifestyle to help prevent this?

chrisb 11y ago
There's an interesting view on that here: http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
PerfectElement 11y ago
Reduce or eliminate your consumption of animal products. I think this is the easiest and most impactful step any individual can take. It doesn't rely on politicians or corporations. You just need some temporary will power to learn and change a few habits.
- doctorcroc 11y ago
  This is an important point. In large part the california drought was exacerbated by how much water the livestock industry consumed: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-13/cows-suck-up-more-of-california-s-water-than-almonds http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-13/cows-suck-u...
satellitec4t 11y ago
When I needed a new car a few years ago, I passed on my 'dream car' for a more basic car because the flashy car took 50% more fuel. But in the end, that's small fries. I should be taking the bus to work if I really wanted to reduce my travel carbon footprint. My house probably produces way more CO2 than my car. Heating/cooling (use a programmable thermostat, wear warm clothes indoors in winter). Lights (I've mostly switched to CFL.. no LEDs yet, until the CFLs start dying). Laundry (use cold water.. new detergents work better in cold water anyway). Water heating (you'll never take my long hot showers from me!!).
vancan1ty 11y ago
Do not reproduce, encourage others to not reproduce. The 100% most effective way to reduce the human effect on the planet is to reduce the number of humans on the planet. But of course if you follow that philosophy that probably just means you lose the evolutionary lottery and someone else will have plenty of children to take your kids' place.

elgabogringo 11y ago

Antarctic Sea Ice is at record levels: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reache...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
placeybordeaux 11y ago
In 2012-2014. Back to average levels in 2015.
zajd 11y ago
Extent is not volume and sea ice is way less of a problem than land ice http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
24gttghh 11y ago
Yes, and heat stroke can give you chills. If we just keep giving the pendulum a boost, eventually the difference between extremes will become untenable.
satellitec4t 11y ago
Keep reading your link > “The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said. > Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). --- The sea level is currently rising at about 3mm/yr (~1.2in/decade). The sea level is about 8 inches higher now than in 1870, and the rate of rising is increasing (+0.016mm/yr^2).

jonstokes 11y ago

So, if that Boston map is correct, then MIT, Boston University, and chunks of Harvard will all be toast by the time my youngest is the age of her great-grandfater. Crazy.

awt 11y ago

CO2 is not a pollutant. Without it, plants, and thus animal life will die. In fact plant death nearly occurred recently on a geological timescale. More co2 = more life. There is no such thing as stasis wrt global climate, and I'm glad the climate does not appear to be moving in the direction of an ice age in the near term, although it looks as though in the long term this is inevitable.

nabla9 11y ago
Check the definition of polluntant and polluntant taxonomy. Polluntant is not the same as poison or harmful chemical. Carbon dioxide is a fund pollutant.
- awt 11y ago
  OMG co2 is not harmful it is plant food. If there is more of it more plants grow. The earth has had insanely higher amounts of co2 in the atmosphere than are present today in which periods life thrived even more so than today.
  - cromulent 11y ago
    It's the level that we are interested in. Everything is a poison, what matters is the dose. It is good for plants, but it is also a greenhouse gas. Venus has a lot more CO2 than Earth, and a lot less life.
  - _ph_ 11y ago
    Water is also essential for life, still you can drown. Yes, we had higher levels of CO2 in geological times of the earths past. The problem is, we are changing the CO2 content at a rate where ecological systems might not be able to cope with it. Also, even if the ecological systems do not collapse, just flooding of the inhabited costal regions would create enough human suffering to justify strong countermeasures against raising CO2.
    - awt 11y ago

elipsey 11y ago

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/ Edit: lol why downvote? are you the only person on HN who doesn't like charts?

exabrial 11y ago
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/sea-ice/S/2 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/sea-ice/S/2 This does nothing but lend creedance to the flat earth theory. NORTH AND SOUTH POLE ARE THE SAME
- bjz_ 11y ago
  Do note that the sea ice extent has little to do with what the ice sheets are doing. From what I last heard (my information might be out of date), the slight increase in sea ice extent in the south pole could be due to changes in winds or ocean currents in the southern ocean.
danielvf 11y ago
Note that you will need to select "Southern Hemisphere" at this link in order to see the Antarctic ice measurements. By default you are seeing something else.
- elliottkember 11y ago
  Anartic?
  - danielvf 11y ago
    Phone keyboard, sorry.
    - thrownaway2424 11y ago
      Antartic ? :-)

medymed 11y ago

If excess energy consumption is a 'vice', we would be following Malthus's prediction of a vice-based catastrophe before a food based 'Malthusian' catastrophe: "The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world." Just like yeast die of alcohol (pollution) poisoning during fermentation before their food source is anywhere near depleted, we might have plenty of food but not do so hot. If yeast could only slow their reproduction they might last for a darn good while in the brew...but luckily they destroy themselves! Otherwise beer would be too slow, and that's unacceptable.

dd36 11y ago

As long as politicians remain cheap to purchase, there will never be a solution without catastrophe and maybe not even then. We need a well-funded super pac to more than offset the super pacs of the fossil fuel industry. A big stick that can go after every congress person, senator and governor relentlessly.

mombul 11y ago

I'm dumb when it comes to science. But if the worst case scenario happens, couldn't we build facilities to 'dispose' of the melted ice in any way, instead of letting the sea level rise?

orf 11y ago
The volume of water is staggering, and what exactly would you do with it?
- jordanb 11y ago
  Maybe tow it beyond the environment.
  - historian1066 11y ago
    From Clarke and Dawe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM
yk 11y ago
The problem is, dumping large volumes of melting water anywhere technically creates an ocean.
craigyk 11y ago
By my quick calculation, one meter of sea rise would be ~100,000 cubic miles of water. The great lakes hold ~5,500. So no, probably not.
mrfusion 11y ago
That's a really good question. Maybe we could pump it to a colder area of Antarctica? Or pump a corresponding amount of ocean water to a cold area of Antarctica.
- craigyk 11y ago
  pumping melted, probably saline water over ice doesn't seem like a great way to refreeze the water, more like a good way to melt more ice.

codecamper 11y ago

Has anyone made an estimate of the total cost to convert to 100% renewable power in the US?

Taek 11y ago

I fear an Armageddon. We are changing the climate faster than we understand what's happening, and we're starting to get weirder and weirder weather patterns. We're threatening our food supply. We've destroyed most of the ocean's fish, and we're heavily dependent on livestock and crops for food. If we disrupt the weather too much, we're not going to be able to make food. People are going to starve, and not by the millions but by the hundreds of millions. Certainly enough strife to cause war between the countries that are actually trying to do something and the countries that are continuing to ramp their CO2 output. We don't know when we cross the line from 'severe' to 'dire', but we've got enough destructive technology that if it becomes a global problem, we may end up blowing ourselves up trying to resolve the conflict. I was recently in Africa, and I was shown the rate at which the country (Cote d'Iviore) was growing. Families with as many as 10 kids. But all I could see was deforestation. Miles and miles of deforestation, something like 30 minutes of driving through an urban area that had all been vegetation in 2011. This season's weather was weird, and it has made me very afraid of what's coming in the next 5 years. We're destroying our planet's methods of regulation, and at the same time we are increasing the rate at which we're introducing adversarial agents. It's going to be a disaster, because everyone reading this critically knows that the people in power aren't going to do anything about it until people in their own country are dying by the millions as a result. If you care about surviving the next 20 years, this should be your biggest concern. We depend on a stable climate. Without that, we will not have food. Be afraid.

codecamper 11y ago
If you were shocked to see 1 million crossing into Europe in 2015, imagine what it will be like in the near future when tens of millions face drought & famine. The general problem is that most of the world lacks the scientific understanding to know how big & bad of a problem this may turn out to be. Google & zuckerberg could just black out certain zip codes every so often. go to google.com & get a message about the impending doom & what the person can do about it. To me, people should not be able to pick & choose technology. If you enjoy using a cell phone & sending email then you should accept what scientists are saying. No more doubting. If software is eating the world, it should hurry up & start directing the herd.

katabasis 11y ago

For some context about what impact this could have on major U.S. cities, the NYTimes published an interactive a few years back[1]. I guess if this new model is accurate, the scenarios on that link which are projected for 100-300 years out could instead happen in a few decades. This would result in major areas of Miami, New Orleans, NYC, and Sacramento all going underwater. Scary stuff. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday/what-could-disappear.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday...

haberman 11y ago
Sacramento?? It is 50 miles inland. If that's right, that's crazy.
- katabasis 11y ago
  Right, totally not what one would expect. But based on the geography of California, it's very vulnerable if the water levels were to go up significantly. There would essentially be a second Bay cutting deeper into the state, only it would probably be a toxic mess a few feet deep with acres of asphalt and buildings barely submerged.
  - buf 11y ago
    In all likelihood, Sacramento and SF bay would be fine because it would be inexpensive to levee. Florida, OTOH, would be lost.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  Elevation of Sacramento is 30 feet....that's lower than the bay bridge.
- mmanfrin 11y ago
  Central valley all used to be marshlands/lakes/extensions of the bay. The coastal regions of CA are hills. CA is basically a giant bowl (which flattens out towards the south).

joshkpeterson 11y ago

Maybe we can also liquidate the assets of oil companies to help pay for carbon-free energy research.

cozzyd 11y ago

Time to buy some property in Chicago I guess...

grandalf 11y ago

I wonder how much the public perception of the danger of large-scale ice melt is influenced by a lay understanding of the way phase changes can happen extremely suddenly.

bjz_ 11y ago
Probably not that much. What worries me is feedback loops like the melting permafrost, and collapse of the Amazon ecosystem. Or the loss of ice causing more sunlight to be absorbed. Or a sudden overflow of the ocean's ability to store energy (something that has been masking most of the warming so far). Things could run out of our control in a very short amount of time.
markkat 11y ago
I was talking about this to a fellow physicist friend the other day. Natural system with equilibrium points don't evolve away from them smoothly. It doesn't seem reasonable to expect the climate to be any different.

gdubs 11y ago

From what I understand, a carbon tax is one of the most immediate and effective things we could do to combat climate change. If I understand the Macroeconomics correctly, the supply side shouldn't feel too much of a hit. Low-income consumers could maybe write off the carbon tax. I.e., the revenue from the tax could either go towards infrastructure spending, or it could go back to people in the form of a tax offset somewhere else. Imagine if the money pouring into the American political process right now was channeled into electing Congressional leaders who, you know, believe in science. Or if some of the grassroots dollars being burned on TV ads for candidates A, B and C could be spent on a campaign to convince the public that a carbon tax would be good for us.

satellitec4t 11y ago
Yep, economists largely agree that a carbon tax is an effective strategy A couple polls of economists (nearly unanimous) http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_9Rezb430SESUA4Y http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-re... http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_8oABK2TolkGluV7 http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-re...
- benjaminRRR 11y ago
  Australia was a good experiment on this and the effects were dramatic, equally dramatic when it was repealed (yes a major piece of legislation was rolled back, which is another problem in itself) http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/documents/australia-repealed-its-carbon-tax-%E2%80%94-and-emissions-are-now-soaring http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/documents/australia-repeale...

blueprint 11y ago

It's going to be a lot worse than this. Time to get realistic about the fact that the balance of the natural environment has been broken, and it will definitely lead to a collapse of the global ecosystem in a couple years. This problem is not being caused by CO2 alone. That's only a tiny part of it. There will be massive tectonic activity. Global warming is only the first step. It's like when a human gets a fever. 1°C of global temp increase is a huge amount of heat but does not show terribly dangerous symptoms. But 2 - 3°C increase means massive upheaval and risk of brain death. To solve this problem, we need to be looking into gravity, not just radiative transfer/greenhouse gasses. But perhaps a bigger problem than nobody knowing about the gravity problem is that at this stage, nobody wants to know, either. For that reason, nobody can prevent the coming period of change.

andy_ppp 11y ago

Does anyone know if these climate models are open source, how they work etc? It seems this is an area where we as software engineers can start to have a think about how accurate these simulations are and possibly think about ways of improving them...

barbs 11y ago
Good idea. For more ideas, here's Bret Victor's post "What Can A Technologist Do About Climate Change". http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/ http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/
codecamper 11y ago
You should be. My cousin works on these models. He says they are written in Fortran and are really great big balls of mud. Also, feedback loops are something they have only very recently considered.
- vram22 11y ago
  For those who might not know the meaning: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_ball_of_mud https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_ball_of_mud
cwal37 11y ago
It is possible to access many parts of most of these models, however I think it's not as easy as you might imagine to just dive in and improve them. Often, an individual needs a background in a specific scientific field in addition to some software engineering capabilities. Sometimes this means you have mathematicians and physicist pursuing higher degrees in atmospheric science, in other cases an ecologist gains a masters in CS. I think you might be underestimating the programming and numerical chops of people who are involved in making the models run, not everyone is a great programmer, but they do exist within the broad field. The overarching climate models also typically aren't individual monolithic models, but tend involve various multidisciplinary pieces spanning much of the physical sciences. Also, get ready to work in Fortran. I spent a summer at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and met some people there whose work was mostly the uncertainty quantification of outside climate models. My understanding at the time was that the lab specifically does not produce their own model, but rather, acts as an impartial testing ground for the major efforts from other global institutions. All of that aside, they do have plenty of problems, and people from the outside do come in and make improvements, it's just not necessarily easy to break into. If you wanted something more accessible to start thinking about, you could do worse than the edGCM from Columbia[1]. [1] http://edgcm.columbia.edu/software2/edgcm-climate-modeling/ http://edgcm.columbia.edu/software2/edgcm-climate-modeling/

ps4fanboy 11y ago

Unless China, USA and India start cutting emissions anything the smaller countries do to limit their emissions will likely dwarfed by the growth in these super polluter countries.

api 11y ago
Wouldn't the EU also rank if considered collectively?
- thinkcontext 11y ago
  Yes, the EU will need to cut its emissions but it has a cap and trade system and political leaders are generally on board with the need to remake their economies without carbon. In addition, it is miles ahead of the US in terms of emissions. According to this article, in 2013, the EU had per capita emissions of 6.8 tons/person versus 16.5 for the US. Even more startling, it was lower than China, which weighed in at 7.2. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29239194
jussij 11y ago
And unless we stop thinking about this as a countries issue rather than a issue for humanity then we are all doomed.
- ps4fanboy 11y ago
  Until countries give up their sovereignty it will always be a country issue.
  - jussij 11y ago
    I don't think the problem is sovereignty. The problem is vested interests, wealth and greed. I have no doubt that given the will, the problem of climate change is not an overly hard problem to fix. We humans have always been good at problem solving. We just need those vested interest to get out of the way and let that happen.

codecamper 11y ago

All these discussions are quite well spoken & well said, from both sides! Tay should read this page.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago

I'm tired of arguing about CO2. Let's make the Republican argument for a carbon tax. Buying oil enriches countries antagonistic to the US. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela. Oil is a global commodity. If we use less oil then those countries will lose twice: Once because they're selling fewer barrels of oil and then again because, with less demand, pre-tax price per barrel goes down. This also means we get free money at the expense of those countries. If we enter into a treaty with Europe and China to each put a $2/gallon tax on oil, that does not make gas go from $2 to $4, because the tax will reduce consumption (as intended), which reduces demand, which lowers prices. So instead of paying $2 of which $2 goes to the bad guys, you pay $3 of which $2 goes to Uncle Sam and $1 goes to the bad guys. Then that's $2 we can use to cut other taxes, $1 of which came from the bad guys. So not only is this revenue neutral, it's effectively a tax cut -- you pay $1 extra for gas and then pay $2 less in income tax. American taxpayers end up with more money in their pockets at the expense of Russia and Iran. And the higher we make the gas tax the more it reduces demand which transfers even more money from antagonistic foreign countries to US taxpayers. Somebody tell me why CO2 even matters when carbon tax justifies itself regardless.

pitchka 11y ago
Simple way of burning less oil is taking subsidies from all the industries that get them, like meat, dairy and eggs. Luxury foods are really the biggest greenhouse gas footprint. Cows produce more than 60% of our methane footprint, and on a 20 year scale methane is around 80 times more potent than CO2 for global warming. Taxes can be a solution but you have to take subsidies too.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  Methane is very potent but there is also much less emitted than CO2. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/agriculture.html https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/agri... According to that link agriculture is 9% of CO2-equivalent emissions while electricity and transportation are 58%. Which isn't to say nothing should be done about agriculture, but it isn't the bulk of the problem, and it isn't what motivates climate change deniers.

protomyth 11y ago

So, why isn't some billionaire working on something to remove the CO2 from the air / ocean and collect the carbon and release the O2. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm actually interested in why, given the other scenarios, the technology isn't being developed for a energy efficient way to do this.

schoen 11y ago
A lot of people are actively researching ways to get CO₂ out of the atmosphere or prevent it from entering the atmosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage
satellitec4t 11y ago
The energy requirements to do it make it impractical, like splitting water into hydrogen for fuel cells. Also, think about how much of the Earth is covered in plants that already do this -- I'm doubtful we could come up with something that could match the current CO2->O2 capacity of all the Earth's plants and algae.
- protomyth 11y ago
  We need to spend money on this type of research since these articles keep saying it we've come too far. > Also, think about how much of the Earth is covered in plants that already do this -- I'm doubtful we could come up with something that could match the current CO2->O2 capacity of all the Earth's plants and algae. We need to make up the delta not replace what's there.
dredmorbius 11y ago
Scale. Costs. It costs about $550 to remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. Alternatives, such as sequestering CO2 from seawater, may be cheaper, around $150. I'm going to stick with the higher estimate. To just tread water we'd need to remove as much CO2 as we're adding presently. Current global emissions are 9.875 gigatons (billion tons).8 Let's call it 10 gigatons to make the math easier. That's 550 * 10 billion or $5,550 billion dollars per year in carbon sequestration. A thousand billion is better known as a trillion (in the US), and the US GDP is about $15 trillion. This would equal 1/3 of total US economic output. On a global scale, GDP is about $70 trillion, so we're looking at 1/12 of the global economy. Call it an 8% tax on everything. It's the sort of thing a unified international effort might accomplish, but it's well beyond the reach of even the single richest person or corporation. There's the additional problem that once you remove the CO2, you've got to hold on to it. That's 10 Gt you'd have to freeze or compress and essentially hold in storage for a few thousand years. That's a considerable warehousing project. Not releasing the CO2 in the first place may be strongly preferable. ------------ Correction: I'd read off the 10 Gt value not realising it was carbon, rather than CO2. Actual is 35 Gt CO2, so multiply dollar amounts and percentages by 3.5. That's $19.25 trillion, or more than the total US GDP, and 28% of total global GDP. Or a ~30% tax on everything.

dang 11y ago

We merged this thread and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11392246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11392246, but adopted the more neutral title of the latter. If people feel strongly about one URL being better than the other, we can change that.

Animats 11y ago

For the Western US, the problems aren't so bad. There's a coastal mountain range along most of the California coast. In LA, a few places such as Venice/Marina Del Ray may need seawalls, but except for a few areas areas, three blocks inland is at least 100 feet above sea level. LAX is 121 feet above sea level. The SF bay has more problems than the coast. Parts of San Francisco may need seawalls, and bayfront development such as Redwood Shores needs to be stopped. Google HQ is in trouble; they're on fill and only 10' above sea level. But once you're south of US101/CA237, you're OK in most of Silicon Valley. In the southeastern US, things are potentially much worse. There's no coastal mountain range. Florida is barely above sea level now. Miami floods regularly. New Orleans is partly below sea level already. A big question is what this does to Mississippi River flooding. A higher sea level means less river flow and more upstream flooding.

kempbellt 11y ago
I think the idea is to look at the actual problem causing climate change. Unless your post was satire. Putting seawalls up everywhere that might be affected seems like the wrong message to take away from the article.
- Animats 11y ago
  No, I'm serious. I assume the problem won't be fixed globally, so we have to look at it locally. For the Western US, it's not that bad. Southeastern US, not so much. The northeastern US has populated low-lying areas; the low-value ones need to be evacuated and the high-value ones, like Manhattan, protected. Even Manhattan isn't very flat; seawalls only need to go up to 30th St or so. The US as a whole is in good shape; much of the US is way above sea level. Russia, which has almost no useful coastline, will be fine.
  - marcusgarvey 11y ago
    I appreciate your observations. I may be defeatist it seems too late to stop climate change. The last time political gridlock at the federal level was this bad, the U.S. had a Civil War, so I find it hard to envision a federal solution that happens soon enough. So instead, I'd like to know, "What comes next?"

biot 11y ago

I'm fairly ignorant in terms of the science behind this, and one thing in the article raises some questions for me: > Sea level has risen a lot — 10 to 20 meters — in warm > periods in the past Presumably this is in the distant, pre-industrial past. If so, what caused the warm period and, assuming sea level subsequently dropped afterwards, what caused the warm period to end? Other than human activity contributing to the current warm period, why is it different than previously?

GrantS 11y ago
There appears to still be active research about mechanisms that explain the historical data but here's a clearly written article [1] discussing a few factors such as: variation in solar radiation due to variation in Earth's orbit, changing ocean currents which may lead to huge upwellings of carbon dioxide from previously sunken dead algae. [1] https://blogs.princeton.edu/research/2013/04/30/how-the-ice-ages-ended/ https://blogs.princeton.edu/research/2013/04/30/how-the-ice-...

williesleg 11y ago

Ya gotta melt the ice sheet so you can say there's no more fresh water. That way you can go from global climate change to global water shortage seamlessly. I'll bet we get a new Algore in a few years to scare us about fresh water. All so they can get votes.

puppetmaster3 11y ago

What is the impact of Volcanoes or other natural things to the global warming?

vixen99 11y ago
What is the impact of CO2? We do not actually know its magnitude (on global temperature). We certainly know that the relationship is not one of direct proportionality. Climate literature shows that its interpretation (in terms of causation) is made exceptionally difficult by many other factors which if given a fair discussion would render virtually every popular account unreadable and most definitely outwith the reach of any rational policy making. Doubters should examine the Vostok core data and temperature data for 1880-2016. For sure, there's a story there but to claim there's a policy directive arising from this data is simply unjustified. To be clear - simplistic denial of <any> link is of course mere ignorance.
- puppetmaster3 11y ago
  Hi Vixen. In science, debate is encouraged. Seems that some are scared of a debate.
the_why_of_y 11y ago
Answered in the 2013 IPCC report, on page 1008 (page 56 in the PDF): FAQ 11.2 | How Do Volcanic Eruptions Affect Climate and Our Ability to Predict Climate? http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chap...

tn13 11y ago

Those who want others to take climate change seriously must take these models with a boatload of salt. Be definition these are models based on data we don't fully understand and has very bad record of proving completely wrong. These models are very much life stock market predictions of boom and bust which seldom come true yet both booms and busts happen regularly.

dschiptsov 11y ago

The problem is that with enough math and big data it is possible to create a model with predicts everything one wishes. Any digree of disconnection from reality is easily attainable.

mizchief2 11y ago

Can this model even somewhat accurately predict the current conditions of our climate using past data?