5 ms·
Two-thirds of Hindu Kush-Himalaya ice sheet may disappear in 80 years, says IPCC
- comradesmith 7y agoI hate to be that guy, but the himilayas aren't a pole. There can be only two
- elorant 7y agoIt's used as a metaphor to signify the vast quantities of ice deposited on the Himalayas.
- rkachowski 7y agoYeah I was also wondering whats happening here. The article states that the region stores ~15% of the earth's water in ice, so it has similar consequences as the poles melting, but its completely distinct from magnetic poles
- comradesmith 7y agoOr rotational poles
- finalight 7y agoi think it's akin to saying antarctica is a desert as well
- truculent 7y agoHate to be that guy but metaphors and allusions are okay?
- yk 7y agoAlso it would be nice if The Guardian could state that this is an article about the Himalaya somewhere in the title or the abstract.
- snowwrestler 7y agoCalling Everest the "third pole" dates back about 100 years to the golden age of exploration in the early 20th Century. The North and South Poles received their first visits from humans in the early 1900's, and the hardest remaining spot to reach on Earth--the summit of Everest--was colloquially named "the third pole" since the challenges to reaching it were in some ways similar to reaching the geographic poles. See for example: > The attempted ascent was – notwithstanding other aims – an expression of the pioneering thinking that was common in the British Empire. As the British were unsuccessful as the first to reach the North and South Poles they tried to go to the so-called "third pole" – to "conquer" Mount Everest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922_British_Mount_Everest_expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1922_British_Mount_Everest_exp... The term has today been adapted for discussions of climate change because of the commonality of ice. It's a poor fit IMO since the impacts of melting ice at the North Pole, South Pole, and Himalayas are all significantly different from one another: the North Pole primarily impacts wildlife and navigation, the South Pole global sea level rise, and the Himalayas fresh water availability in South Asia.
- fwsgonzo 7y agoWonder how much the sea level will rise because of this.
- goatinaboat 7y agoBad time to have bought beachfront property that’s for sure.
- irrational 7y agoYeah, I live 220 feet above sea level and wonder if I need to start looking for a new place to live.
- elorant 7y agoThere's no fucking way sea level rises above 200 feet. Worst case scenarios are about seven to 10 feet.
- reportgunner 7y ago"may" in the title, so it really means "will not".
- loxs 7y agoYeah, and the author may actually acquire some common sense in 80 years, but probably will not.
- deftnerd 7y agoThe IPCC has historically released "worst case scenarios" that line up with the worst case that all of the people in the room can agree with. Because of this, "worst case" often ends up being "likely outcome" while worst case is exponentially worse. We've been seeing events happen more and more with quotes from scientists saying "This wasn't expected to happen for another 50 years" [according to the IPCC reports]. Additionally, the IPCC notoriously makes their predictions algorithmically based purely on existing observations and doesn't take feedback loops into account. Those feedback loops are nearly guaranteed, but since they haven't been triggered yet, the extent of the feedback is hard to predict and thus is ignored. It's because of these things that I tend to think that the IPCC reports are milquetoast. Even though they shock the public, they're actually doing a disservice by making people think they have more time than they actually have. Plus, even if it was correct, most people will see this headline and think that we have 80 years to fix the problem and not realize that the bulk of the melting will take place before the 80 years is up. My non-scientific rule-of-thumb with IPCC reports is to take the time and divide it by 10 as the lower boundary and by 5 as the upper boundary. This is to take into account the "1 in a 1000 year events" that seem to occur every few years now. I personally expect the Kush-Himalaya ice sheet melt to be complete between 8 and 16 years from now because of a drastic and "unforeseen" weather event that accelerates it one year, like a stalled heat "blob" that camps over it for a season or a season of above-freezing rain that carves up the ice and carries it as melt-water downriver.
- merpnderp 7y ago"Additionally, the IPCC notoriously makes their predictions algorithmically based purely on existing observations and doesn't take feedback loops into account." This is not even close to true. The UAH and RSS global temperature sets have shown rock solid rates of change of around ~.13C/decade for 40 years. Yet the IPCC predicts much higher rates of change in the near future (the only possible way to get to >+2C/century). You can't just wave your hands and say the IPCC hasn't considered all the possible outcomes better than you. What you're doing is FUD, what they're doing is science.
- chrisco255 7y ago
- hluska 7y agoIf this happens, it will trigger a humanitarian crisis of almost unbelievable proportions. I likely won't be around to see it, but my three year old might. Forgive the rhetorical question, but what if she has children?? What a horribly sad thought for 6am on a Monday morning.
- growlist 7y agoIt's almost like by having fewer children, we might ameliorate the problem!
- hluska 7y agoTaken in the macro, reproduction is an important part of policy. And you’re 100% correct - we have more than enough humans. But when I look at the micro, at the amazing little person who is still asleep in her bed, it’s hard not to look at a subject emotionally.
- srean 7y agoIts far from clear even in the macro setting. Without changes in mortality rate this will lead to a shift in the age distribution of the population -- that can have consequences for the economy.
- izzydata 7y agoIf humanity is struggling to stay alive is the economy even relevant anymore?
- rayiner 7y agoThe economy fuels technological advance, and technological advance is the only thing that can fix the problem. (It may not, but it's the only thing that can. Social engineering will not.)
- 7y ago
- folli 7y agoI'm wondering if there are any estimates/simulations on which countries or geographical regions would be the least impacted (or perhaps even benefit) from global warming. It's very defeatist, but maybe it would make sense to consider emigration before everyone else does so.
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoSurviving rising water levels is trivial of course - just walk away from the beach. But its not about the weather changes per se; its about the global human conflict when food gets scarce and hungry people have guns. You have to survive that first.
- irrational 7y agoSo maybe Americans are not so crazy for having so many guns? /s
- rayiner 7y agoNo sarcasm needed. What do you think will happen when fresh water resources get tight?
- selimthegrim 7y agoWhat India is doing with the NRC in Assam is probably proactively violating international treaties on refugees, etc
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoEuphemism for 'war machines'. I expect bombs will keep most of humanity from ever feeling hunger.
- SiempreViernes 7y agoThat seems unlikely given the economics of warfare, only a small subset has the resources to actually fund a long drawn out war. In the other extreme I guess a all out nuclear strike on population centres in China and India might have a chance to kill a slight majority of humanity, but I wouldn't bet on it. Conventional weapons offer no real effect here I think.
- Bantros 7y agoThe IPCC’s fourth assessment report in 2007 contained the erroneous prediction that all Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. This statement turned out to have been based on anecdote rather than scientific evidence and, perhaps out of embarrassment, the third pole has been given less attention in subsequent IPCC reports Trust me, I'm with the IPCC
- makomk 7y agoYeah, from reading the linked New Scientist article that sounds like an almighty cock-up. One scientist speculated in a media interview that all of the glaciers in certain parts of the Himalayas could disappear by 2035, and this somehow not only made it into the IPCC's report but got blown up into a claim that all of the glaciers in the Himalayas were very likely to disappear by 2035. Then the chairman of the IPCC accused the Indian government of practicing "voodoo science" for questioning this.
- Bantros 7y agoHaha wow!
- neuronexmachina 7y agoFor anybody curious about context on this, and the IPCC's response: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-him... > In a statement (pdf), the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly." > It added: "The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance." But the statement calls for no action beyond stating a need for absolute adherence to IPCC quality control processes. "We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance," the statement said.
- growlist 7y agoWe aren't planning to control global population. We aren't anywhere near the changes required to make a difference to climate change. The powers that be are still promoting mass migration in order to increase the size of the global economy and further enrich themselves. The global system still is still founded on the idea of never-ending, compounded GDP growth. Solution? Either some of the aforementioned changes, else Geoengineering, else a drastic unplanned attentuation in global population.
- dzdt 7y agoFor countries like the United States, sea level rise is basically a real estate problem. Either shoreline communities will need expensive infrastructure improvements to rise faster than the water or will have to abandon the lowest lying areas and retreat. If you want to experience a New Orleans Mardi Gras, you have only a few decades left, but there are plenty of other places in the U.S. where Louisianans could find a home. The biggest brunt of climate change will be borne by low-lying countries. Most of Bangladesh is at elevations in danger of flooding in the next century. Where will those 164 million people flee? Will the refugees be accepted or will there be walls and wars?
- Diederich 7y agoI generally agree with this, but one with addition/clarification: it's likely that climate change is driving the extreme conditions that the United States, and the world, are seeing far from the coast, such as historic flooding in the midwest and historic fires in the west. It's also quite possible that the rate at which such extreme weather events are getting worse is increasing. Sea level rise is brutal, and will cause enormous impacts to many millions of people. Weather weirding stands a good chance of bringing epic damage to many millions more.
- selimthegrim 7y agoThe ports of New Orleans and South Louisiana will be preserved whatever the cost, it’s the surrounding parishes outside the floodgates that are toast
- guerrilla 7y ago> will there be walls Bangladesh is very much already surrounded by a literal wall. They will not be accepted in India, as India has consistently made clear.
- yostrovs 7y agoPerhaps the rise in cost of real estate will persuade the Bangladeshis to have fewer children? The effect can happen within one generation.
- m0zg 7y ago
- starvingbear 7y agoIs there any example of an IPCC prediction that actually turned out to be accurate? Honestly curious because when I look at insurance market it's clear nobody is taking threats to sea level remotely seriously so that's one group that ignores IPCC
- lixtra 7y ago> when I look at insurance market it's clear nobody is taking threats to sea level remotely seriously The typical insurance contract is max a few years till payments can be adjusted to the new risk landscape.
- starvingbear 7y agoFor home insurance sure. Not for major investments though
- JohnAtCC 7y agoSpeculation, in the same realm of dooms day scenarios that they have been spewing for years. Even as a moderate in my own right, that's probably about 0.01% accurate.