12 ms·
West Antarctica Begins to Destabilize with ‘Intense Unbalanced Melting’
- ajmurmann 10y agoWhat's the best way to profit from rising sea levels? Investing in land that's higher up in our nearby coastal cities?
- bergie 10y agoLand reclamation companies, or buy a boat
- 13of40 10y agoYeah, I think a lot of places are going to react by building dikes, at least at first, so if you could get into that business...
- oliv__ 10y agoThis better be sarcasm
- logicallee 10y agoI don't see anything even slightly objectionable, unless ajmurmann were throwing around billions and helping regulate to ensure continuing rising sea levels. This poster is obviously viewing it as an inevitable externality and asking how they can invest profitably. They mention investing in higher land - but since coastal properties will literally disappear underwater, there could be other ways to profit. Additionally, solar power (which might be heavily subsidized), electric cars, even something insane like fusion-powered electric airplanes (a pipe dream, it's ridiculous) would all be reasonable answers. I mention the airplane thing as jetliners are a leading cause of Co2 emissions which is thougth responsible for this rising sea level. -- as literally trillions of dollars in seaside property become uninhabitable due to flooding (literally trillions, this is not an exaggeration) society might decide to instead spend $10,000,000,000,000 (that's $10 trillion) to halt it today. It's reasonable for OP to ask how given that society will be feeling a push to spend $10,000,000,000,000 - how he/she can be better off with this analysis done today. Zero objection and there is no moral component whatsoever to their question. EDIT: I'd like someone to explain the downvoting behavior (of my comment). As multiple of my examples show, the investment can be in alternative energy, for example, when obscene expanses of valuable coastland are being flooded and people are simply 'forced' to act. I don't understand why the question or my defense of it were downvoted.
- tjic 10y agoTrying to make a profit is the most effective way of helping people. I hope that it is NOT sarcasm.
- jmcmichael 10y agoIt's this kind of delusional faith in 'free market' capitalism and its profit incentive that has led us to the climate disaster that we face.
- ajmurmann 10y agoI'm not saying I want to make climate change worse or lobby for it out anything. Unfortunately climate change is happening and there are indicators that we already crossed the line to runaway climate change (methane coming out of the permafrost). Why should I not try to make a profit from this fact as long as I don't make it worse? How is this different than running a funeral home?
- wott 10y agoI don't think it is: we are on HN :-/
- nonbel 10y agoI don't think it would be the rising sea levels. It is the continent sized areas around the poles filled with previously inaccessible resources. So look at eg polar mining, drilling, shipping.
- throwaway729 10y agoRenewable energy. Once things get bad enough the world will wake up and renewables will become huge.
- maxerickson 10y agoRenewables are already huge. Once batteries get a bit better and solar gets a bit cheaper, things will really get going. The deployment won't wait for the world to wake up about global warming.
- the_why_of_y 10y agoIEA raises its five-year renewable growth forecast as 2015 marks record year: https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2016/october/iea-raises-its-five-year-renewable-growth-forecast-as-2015-marks-record-year.html https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2016/october/iea-raises-it... "Last year marked a turning point for renewables. Led by wind and solar, renewables represented more than half the new power capacity around the world, reaching a record 153 Gigawatt (GW), 15% more than the previous year. Most of these gains were driven by record-level wind additions of 66 GW and solar PV additions of 49 GW."
- ajmurmann 10y agoI am wondering if by the time we wake up it's too late for renewable energy. Given that the methane is literally exploding out of the ground in Siberia it already might be too late. I am afraid it might be a likely scenario that the hod outs especially in the US will go from denial to resignation.
- irrational 10y agoWhy are you afraid of the hod outs going from denial to resignation? At least if they are experiencing resignation they will be willing to admit there is a problem and do something about it (admittedly, it will be too late, but...)
- 10y ago
- IsaacL 10y agoCoastal cities are unlikely to be flooded in our lifetimes. We're looking at about 1m [1] sea level rise in 100 years, or 50cm in our lifetime. That means coastal cities will face more severe storms, not ending up submerged. [2] "Pfeffer adds estimates of sea level rise due to thermal expansion and ice melting to calving approximations and concludes that SLR by the end of the century will range 0.8 to 2.0 m above present with an emphasis on the lower area of this range (Figure 7)." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_sea_level#Sea-level_at_the_end_of_the_21st_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_sea_level#Sea-level_at_... [2] http://uk.businessinsider.com/cities-exposed-to-rising-sea-levels-2014-4?r=US&IR=T http://uk.businessinsider.com/cities-exposed-to-rising-sea-l...
- maze-le 10y ago> Coastal cities are unlikely to be flooded in our lifetimes. We're looking at about 1m [1] sea level rise in 100 years, or 50cm in our lifetime. Thats true, but what most people don't know is that sea level rise don't necessarily mean catastrophic floods. A far bigger problem -- in our lifetime -- is aquifer salination, that is the intrusion of saltwater into coastal freshwater aquifers. This is already happening, in the Nile-valley, Benin and Cyprus but also in Louisiana and California. When the salinity of coastal Freshwater aquifers reaches a critical level, growing crops in coastal areas can be all but impossible.
- pmyjavec 10y ago"That means coastal cities will face more severe storms, not ending up submerged. [2]" How does that work? Coastal cities will have more than half a meter more water to deal with and additionally have to face larger more powerful storm surges on top of those 50cm. Don't forget at certain times of the year we see stronger tides. I also wonder if in 2007, the IPCC were more optimistic about our ability to curb emissions and took into account some of the feedback looks which are kicking in?
- irrational 10y agoIsn't Miami already having problems with flooding at high tide? It doesn't seem like it would take that big of a change from them to have flooding problems when it isn't high tide.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jonnycowboy 10y agoShorting insurance companies.
- hash-set 10y agoYou have no idea how hard it is to short something do you?
- vidarh 10y agoThat depends on what companies you want to short and your broker. I've shorted plenty where I just had to enter a few numbers and press a button... There's also any number of companies that let you do the equivalent via CFD's (Contract For Difference). Be warned: Many of them allow crazy levels of leverage that can wipe you out with tiny little swings. You're right it's not a given that you'll be able to "just" short whichever share you want, but it's hardly difficult to find a way of betting against a given company.
- tajen 10y agoThere is the option of running a charity, one that would be ready to help at the right places by reurbanisng and reorganising territories. If you benefit from the charity (=if it gives you credit for politics or if you get a salary for the full-time job), then you're profiting. Be a consultant in XXIth century urbanization, be it to save energy, reduce pollution or to prepare for the worst. Once we get +2 degrees, countries might understand why +6 degrees might be harmful and massively subscribe to your services. Or start a weapon industry. See that Daesh thing? That's what happens when there's a slight draught every summer. Start a boat people company. They'll be in very much demand in 20 years. You'll object that you have much more money than that and you're not aiming for a mere salary. Well, you'll be happy to have the skill everyone needs when the rest of the world is fighting for survival. Just imagine what if the world votes on a complete ban on petrol and puts the world on an energy diet. Which is the only thing we must do.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- sesqu 10y agoInvesting in coastal construction, maintenance and emergency recovery seem fine ideas, as well as things like portable energy and long-distance shipping.
- Spooky23 10y agoWait for a couple of years of heavy flooding/storm activity, buy distressed beachfront property at a discount, and flip it when you have a few years with no flooding.
- rch 10y agoBuy land in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. You'd be in good company.
- h4nkoslo 10y agoGiven all of these market mechanisms & broad consensus about GW effects amongst a certain wealthy & market-moving slice of the population (coastal landowners) it is extremely odd that they continue to, eg, pump money into Miami real estate. And AFAICT there is no macro-hypothesis global warming hedge fund with any significant level of assets, so hey, money on the table. Their revealed belief would seem to be that the effects will be mitigated one way or another.
- applecore 10y agoReal estate. Invest in an area that can withstand or recover quickly from a significant sea-level rise and extreme weather conditions[1]. [1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/science/9-cities-to-live-in-if-youre-worried-about-climate-change.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/science/9-cities-to-live-i...
- gjolund 10y agoGuns.
- kafkaesq 10y agoI wouldn't mess with real estate speculation. The best route would be to look into ways to profit from protracted regional conflicts, massive (forced) dislocations of whole populations, famine, despair and hopelessness, generally. Because those are slated to be (and according to some measures, already are in certain areas) the primary impacts of climate change, for the geographically unlucky.
- mzw_mzw 10y agoFind the people who are claiming that the sea levels will rise and destroy our cities, and attempting to sell you things based on that. Buy stock in their company.
- ommunist 10y agoBlockchain and AI. Pack your consciousness into undeletable network of computers distributed in outer space and go take a break on Mars. My grandgrandsons will do ok by flintknapping, the usual means of exchange will be booze. There will be plenty of water for it.
- vkou 10y agoInvest into munitions manufacturers.
- youeeeeeediot 10y agoInvestment in coastal flood prevention technology for major city centers that can legitimately be helped. Places below sea level today - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_on_land_with_elevations_below_sea_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_on_land_with_el... - need to be abandoned.
- pmyjavec 10y agoWon't a lot of this coastal flood protection infrastructure just add emissions to the atmosphere, thus grossly exacerbating the problem? Seems like way to little, way to late. Trying to just "build a wall" around cities just doesn't sound like it's going to work, I even saw designs where buildings in Manhattan will have to be built on stilts, but how much environmental environmental damage will all this new construction do? Probably best off to just start relocating these cities and find new homes for the inhabitants. This combined with other issues like fracking, leaking methane into the atmosphere aren't exactly filling me with confidence.
- stale2002 10y agoYou are overestimating the effects of climate change. Sea levels will rise by a meter over the next hundred years. That's really not very much in the scheme of things.
- pmyjavec 10y agoHave a read of these: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-... http://uk.businessinsider.com/cities-exposed-to-rising-sea-levels-2014-4?r=US&IR=T http://uk.businessinsider.com/cities-exposed-to-rising-sea-l... I'm going to say you're underestimating the affects of climate change if you think a one meter rise in sea level globally isn't a big deal. Not to mention a selfish point of view, considering some peoples homes are already being inundated and the catastrophic effects it will have on coral reef systems.
- alanpca 10y ago
- cardiac 10y agoYet another money grab by greedy bull shitting scientists and enabling media. Ice on the continent as a whole is growing.
- corey_moncure 10y agoGrowing, in what dimension(s)? Mass? Area? Volume?
- cardiac 10y agoThat's a great question. Nearly all of the measurements in the field are by area which is a horrible metric.
- cardiac 10y agoAn ice berg sunk the Titanic and "science" doesn't bother to measure the part that did the sinking.
- nonbel 10y agoI didn't read the paper, but this got me wondering something. What are the units of "destabilization" being used?
- staticelf 10y agoI think you mean bullshitting. But it is you who are doing that, unfortunately.
- cardiac 10y agoOh snap, he-she said. Can you say 'gimme money for a grant pleeeeeeaaaasssseeeee.' http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/ http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reache...
- throwaway729 10y ago
- staticelf 10y agoThis is why big countries suck. They are slow to change and a wrong move is horribly damaging. Look at the US or China, no matter how I or all my countrymen live in Sweden it won't really matter if climate change deniers get in charge in the US for example. I just think it's so sad to see everything go to shit due to some greedy assholes that won't invest in solutions that are effective AND sustainable. I plan to become a climate change prepper in the future because shit will hit the fan sooner or later.
- ocschwar 10y agoChina halts work on partly built coal plants. http://dailytimes.com.pk/business/23-Oct-16/china-axes-part-built-coal-power-plants http://dailytimes.com.pk/business/23-Oct-16/china-axes-part-...
- toomuchtodo 10y agoAnd their renewables deployment is so fast, overcapacity is a concern. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/chinas-growth-in-renewable-energy-raises-overcapacity-concerns-iea-2016-10-25 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/chinas-growth-in-renewable-... EDIT: I'm not ready to call climate change solved yet, but at the deployment trajectory China is on, the rest of the world will have no choice but to follow, as China is pushing renewable generation costs very low (which undercuts nuclear and fossil fuels, pushing their prices higher making renewables even more competitive). Solar and wind are both below 3 cents/kWh unsubsidized, with wind expected to fall another 15% in the next 2-3 years, and solar another 25% in the same time period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter
- mzw_mzw 10y agoAnd as we all know, if there's any nation whose official economic statistics are completely trustworthy, it's China. Why, even if China's famously open and transparent government did feel the urge to mess with the statistics, their dynamic free press, unfettered by government controls, would be all over it.
- ocschwar 10y agoGrow bamboo. Harvest it. Bury it. That's the sort of thing we have to start thinking about.
- reneherse 10y agoWhy bury it when you can use it as a building material and textile?
- rwmj 10y agoI wonder if the carbon released by digging holes and cutting down the bamboo is greater than the carbon sequestered this way? At any rate I'd suggest not bothering to bury the bamboo, you can just pile it up somewhere.
- M_Grey 10y agoWhat a depressing, predictable series of events. Just wait until people start connecting the dots between climate change and global instability. I predict useless hysteria.
- E6300 10y agoWhat, exactly, is "West Antarctica"?
- irrational 10y agoThe half in the Western Hemisphere?
- E6300 10y agoDoes it then follow that the half between meridians +90° and -90° is "Northern Antarctica"?
- irrational 10y agoI've never heard of Northern Antarctica. The questions was about West Antarctica, which makes total sense since the globe is laterally made up of a western and eastern hemisphere. But since Antarctica is in the southern hemisphere, talking about Northern Antarctica doesn't make much sense other than talking about any point away from the south pole. Maybe you are confused by the concept of a hemisphere?
- E6300 10y agoI am merely objecting to referring to the "Western" part of a landmass that occupies a complete parallel line. Talking about the laterality of a quasi-spherical object is tenuous, as well.
- mikeash 10y agoDespite your objections, the terms "western hemisphere" and "eastern hemisphere" have been used for centuries without much trouble.
- raattgift 10y agoThere is an infinity of coordinate systems that can be used to describe a roughly axisymmetric rotating body like the Earth (or practically any body in gravitational hydrostatic equilibrium). There are several in widespread use for this planet, some of which are detailed at and below https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Geographic_coordinate_system#/Cartesian_coordinates https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Geographic_coordinate_system#/Ca... When using systems of coordinates that require an arbitrary choice of origin point, one generally has to simply state what the choice is. For the system of coordinates being discussed in this thread, the origin point is defined as the prime meridian, and it forms half of one of an infinite number of geodesics that bisect Antarctica. But because that particular geodesic is elevated to a special status by an arbitrary choice in the setting of the system of coordinates, when using that system of coordinates, it is perfectly reasonable -- under the conventions of that system -- to discuss masses that would be on one half or the other of the planet if it were divided into two parts through that geodesic. But nobody seriously argues that the geodesic is in any way special physically compared to the infinity of others passing through the same two points (near the mean rotational poles); the Prime Meridian is a convention, and so an eastern and western hemisphere each bounded by a plane perpendicular to the meridian extended to a great circle. Moreover, there is nothing special about this particular system of coordinates on the Earth, and the Prime Meridian does not really even have much local meaning more than a few metres away from the Greenwich Observatory, which is firmly set in what locals universally call "East London" or even "South-East London". So, "Western Antarctica" is simply absorbing a particular choice of coordinate system on the Earth, which in turn has a defined origin point for one axis that was chosen arbitrarily. The label "Western Antarctica" is not invariant under a change of coordinates (whether by changing where there Prime Meridian is by an angle that (in radians) is not an integer factor of \pi, or by changing to a wholly different set of coordinates that use different axes altogether), and so isn't a physical feature of Antarctica, but then there's nothing physical -- in the sense of invariant under change of coordinates -- about the U.S. midwest, or Western Australia either. However, conventional sets of coordinates on any physical system make descriptions of coordinate-invariant features easy for people who accept the convention, and understand its features and limits. (For instance, the lat-long-alt system is not very useful very close to the coordinate singularity; but that singularity vanishes under change of coordinates, and it is only a deliberate choice in matching the coordinate singularity to a point near the (approximate) line of (approximate) axisymmetry that leads to confusion like the one that appears to be gripping you when dealing with features near the coordinate singularities.)
- ommunist 10y agoBloomberg rarely does proper math. Melt both polar caps and the ice of Greenland, and you barely get global sea level rise by very few inches. Antarctics as a whole is 90% of the world land-based ice. 29 mln cubic km. All of the floating ice is around 3 mln cubic km. It may look that it can cause 60m high sea level rise, but most of this will be evaporated into milder global climate and stronger rivers. We shall have larger Caspian Sea, larger Aral Sea, perhaps green Sakhara, and perhaps come catastrophic rains in the temperate zone. Picture is very distant and very different from global warming speculations anyway. The Earth seen past with no polar caps, it also seen ice ages, these will inevitably happen again.
- rndmind 10y agoI disagree with your comment, the massive ocean gyres and global weather patterns will be severely impacted, with results that are totally unpredictable, including a drastic mix of ecosystems and acidification of the oceans. On top of this... for the love of all that is holy, basic english would be "*HAS seen".
- ommunist 10y agoNo prob, we'll see. I shall put English Grammar to my testament, to enable our grandgrandchildren decide who was right. I doubt, however that this grammatical norm will survive the next global glacial event.
- orf 10y agoWell then everything is fine, what could go wrong.
- ommunist 10y agoOn a scale, the only thing that really goes is biological evolution. And it blooms after stress events.
- vkou 10y agoYou're forgetting thermal expansion (And it takes decades for increases in atmospheric temperatures to cause a likewise increase in water temperatures.)
- Pica_soO 10y agoWe cant stop it, can we at least do ecology transplants? Little patches of nature system, taking from destabilizing temperature zones to areas where they could thrive? Basically, give up the concept of a invasive species, and speed a adaption up that would occur anyway?