8 ms·

As no one has mentioned it in the comments, the belief that this is concerning is related to the "Clathrate gun hypothesis"[1]. Essentially, low temperatures h

As no one has mentioned it in the comments, the belief that this is concerning is related to the "Clathrate gun hypothesis"[1]. Essentially, low temperatures have allowed vast quantities of methane and carbon dioxide containing compounds to accumulate for millennia. If the temperatures rise above a critical threshold, a positive feedback loop would exist between temperatures and global warming. Positive feedback loops are scary. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

dmix 10y ago
Interesting. Can anyone recommend a book that gives a good overview of current climate science? And what hypothetical scenarios may exist in the future?
- josho 10y ago
  An excellent introductory book is Storms of My Grandchildren by James Hansen. It speaks to the science and directly addresses the common objections that deniers bring up. What surprised me is that the science comes at this from multiple angles, so even if someone were to dispute the computer models, then we have other lines of science that still back the theories, e.g. looking at the environment over geologic time scales where we can see what the climate was like under certain CO2 levels.
  - basurihn 10y ago
    James Hansen is the Doctor Oz of climate change. Dude will release study after study before they hit peer review. He's a god damn charlatan. https://theconversation.com/study-predicts-multi-meter-sea-level-rise-this-century-but-not-everyone-agreeshttp://mashable.com/2015/07/22/james-hansen-scary-new-climate-study/#rYDDN3Gdwsq7 https://theconversation.com/study-predicts-multi-meter-sea-l...
    - giardini 10y ago
      More like the Wizard of Oz of climate change - Hansen is an outright alarmist. I'm afraid my mad-hatter friend (whom I posted of earlier) has been reading Hansen's book with all critical faculties disabled.
      - josho 10y ago
        I hoped that on hacker news folks would provide a reason for why his research/conclusions are wrong, rather than simply offer up character attacks. Do you have an example of where his research is wrong or his conclusions were overly pessimistic?
        giardini 10y ago
        It is a mistake to believe - that there is anyone lurking on HN who is able to argue on this topic as authoritatively as James Hansen and - that such a person would be willing to educate you here. You might try http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+james+hansen+wrong%3F http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+james+hansen+wrong%3F or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Criticism
        josho 10y ago
        If you had googled it for me then you'd have seen that much of the search results echo what you said earlier--that people take issue with Hansen's advocacy, but say very little about his science. When it does speak to the science (the first result refutes a 1988 paper), it seems a quick validation shows that his predications were not correct in 2010 when the article was written, but his prediction is inline with current temperatures reported. So, yeh, I did look into this already, and haven't found a good critique. So, rather than blindly repeat claims that Hansen is wrong or an alarmist, I urge you to critically read the topic before spreading others lies further.
    - josho 10y ago
      Be careful, as your sources are suspect and don't speak to his research. Your mashable link is a summary of a piece from Glover Park Group, in their own words they turn 'strategies into outcomes', so they seem to be a firm that gets paid to shape public opinion. For that reason alone we should dismiss the messenger. While your 'the conversation.com' link seems broken, but searching on their site for Hansen returns a first result that is critical of carbon tax programs, seemingly favoring emissions trading. Yet, emissions trading is largely seen as benefiting banks to give them a new financial instrument to trade while not actually reducing carbon emissions. So, I'm left somewhat skeptical about conclusions coming from that site as well. What I'd rather see is a critique of Hansen's papers coming from the scientific community. I would give that an honest read and open consideration.
- akuchling 10y ago
  I always suggest Spencer Weart's extensively hyperlinked "The Discovery of Global Warming", available online from the American Institute of Physics: http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
- basurihn 10y ago
  If you want an initial overview without all the hype, try:http://www.amplifier.gatech.edu/contributors/blogs/posts/2016/10/nature-unbound-i-glacial-cycle http://www.amplifier.gatech.edu/contributors/blogs/posts/201...
  - basurihn 10y ago
    And the sequel:https://enjeuxenergies.wordpress.com/2017/02/17/nature-unbound-ii-the-dansgaard-oeschger-cycle/ https://enjeuxenergies.wordpress.com/2017/02/17/nature-unbou...
- coldpie 10y ago
  The latest IPCC report summary for policymakers is a relatively quick and easy read of the current-ish state of the art.
- pas 10y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g
idoh 10y ago
The feedback loop peaks out at a global temperature increase of 5-8 degrees celsius, if the models and past events are to be believed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maxim...
- neotek 10y ago
  Isn't a 5 - 8 degree rise catastrophic though? Genuine question.
  - Mizza 10y ago
    For any Americans paying attention, please keep in mind that that's 8C, not 8F.
    - vtange 10y ago
      8C ~= 14.4F for reference
  - lisper 10y ago
    Depends on what you consider catastrophic. 5-8C means you lose both the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps, so you get 60m (200 ft) sea-level rise, so you totally lose all the coastal cities, and the current round of civilization is almost certainly done for. But homo sapiens will probably survive, and so civilization will probably eventually be rebuilt. It won't be the end of life on earth under any circumstances. Actually, the biggest danger is that political instability brought on by climate change will lead to nuclear war. That would be much worse than losing civilization to climate change because it would happen much faster, essentially instantaneously. That is not at all unlikely even under much more modest warming scenarios.
    - hueving 10y ago
      Why would civilization be over? The sea rise wouldn't happen over night and people would move or build walls.

dmix 10y ago

Interesting. Can anyone recommend a book that gives a good overview of current climate science? And what hypothetical scenarios may exist in the future?

josho 10y ago
An excellent introductory book is Storms of My Grandchildren by James Hansen. It speaks to the science and directly addresses the common objections that deniers bring up. What surprised me is that the science comes at this from multiple angles, so even if someone were to dispute the computer models, then we have other lines of science that still back the theories, e.g. looking at the environment over geologic time scales where we can see what the climate was like under certain CO2 levels.
- basurihn 10y ago
  James Hansen is the Doctor Oz of climate change. Dude will release study after study before they hit peer review. He's a god damn charlatan. https://theconversation.com/study-predicts-multi-meter-sea-level-rise-this-century-but-not-everyone-agreeshttp://mashable.com/2015/07/22/james-hansen-scary-new-climate-study/#rYDDN3Gdwsq7 https://theconversation.com/study-predicts-multi-meter-sea-l...
  - giardini 10y ago
    More like the Wizard of Oz of climate change - Hansen is an outright alarmist. I'm afraid my mad-hatter friend (whom I posted of earlier) has been reading Hansen's book with all critical faculties disabled.
    - josho 10y ago
      I hoped that on hacker news folks would provide a reason for why his research/conclusions are wrong, rather than simply offer up character attacks. Do you have an example of where his research is wrong or his conclusions were overly pessimistic?
      - giardini 10y ago
        It is a mistake to believe - that there is anyone lurking on HN who is able to argue on this topic as authoritatively as James Hansen and - that such a person would be willing to educate you here. You might try http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+james+hansen+wrong%3F http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+is+james+hansen+wrong%3F or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen#Criticism
        josho 10y ago
        If you had googled it for me then you'd have seen that much of the search results echo what you said earlier--that people take issue with Hansen's advocacy, but say very little about his science. When it does speak to the science (the first result refutes a 1988 paper), it seems a quick validation shows that his predications were not correct in 2010 when the article was written, but his prediction is inline with current temperatures reported. So, yeh, I did look into this already, and haven't found a good critique. So, rather than blindly repeat claims that Hansen is wrong or an alarmist, I urge you to critically read the topic before spreading others lies further.
  - josho 10y ago
    Be careful, as your sources are suspect and don't speak to his research. Your mashable link is a summary of a piece from Glover Park Group, in their own words they turn 'strategies into outcomes', so they seem to be a firm that gets paid to shape public opinion. For that reason alone we should dismiss the messenger. While your 'the conversation.com' link seems broken, but searching on their site for Hansen returns a first result that is critical of carbon tax programs, seemingly favoring emissions trading. Yet, emissions trading is largely seen as benefiting banks to give them a new financial instrument to trade while not actually reducing carbon emissions. So, I'm left somewhat skeptical about conclusions coming from that site as well. What I'd rather see is a critique of Hansen's papers coming from the scientific community. I would give that an honest read and open consideration.
akuchling 10y ago
I always suggest Spencer Weart's extensively hyperlinked "The Discovery of Global Warming", available online from the American Institute of Physics: http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm http://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm
basurihn 10y ago
If you want an initial overview without all the hype, try:http://www.amplifier.gatech.edu/contributors/blogs/posts/2016/10/nature-unbound-i-glacial-cycle http://www.amplifier.gatech.edu/contributors/blogs/posts/201...
- basurihn 10y ago
  And the sequel:https://enjeuxenergies.wordpress.com/2017/02/17/nature-unbound-ii-the-dansgaard-oeschger-cycle/ https://enjeuxenergies.wordpress.com/2017/02/17/nature-unbou...
coldpie 10y ago
The latest IPCC report summary for policymakers is a relatively quick and easy read of the current-ish state of the art.
pas 10y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g

idoh 10y ago

The feedback loop peaks out at a global temperature increase of 5-8 degrees celsius, if the models and past events are to be believed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maxim...

neotek 10y ago
Isn't a 5 - 8 degree rise catastrophic though? Genuine question.
- Mizza 10y ago
  For any Americans paying attention, please keep in mind that that's 8C, not 8F.
  - vtange 10y ago
    8C ~= 14.4F for reference
- lisper 10y ago
  Depends on what you consider catastrophic. 5-8C means you lose both the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps, so you get 60m (200 ft) sea-level rise, so you totally lose all the coastal cities, and the current round of civilization is almost certainly done for. But homo sapiens will probably survive, and so civilization will probably eventually be rebuilt. It won't be the end of life on earth under any circumstances. Actually, the biggest danger is that political instability brought on by climate change will lead to nuclear war. That would be much worse than losing civilization to climate change because it would happen much faster, essentially instantaneously. That is not at all unlikely even under much more modest warming scenarios.
  - hueving 10y ago
    Why would civilization be over? The sea rise wouldn't happen over night and people would move or build walls.