7 ms·

Earth has lost 28 trillion tonnes of ice in less than 30 years

74 points by seigando 6y ago

lcall 6y ago
I fully realize that some people will find this silly to say, but ice melting and "fires and great vapors of smoke" (which I can see out my window in the western USA now), and other stuff that I think of under climate change, are part of the predictions (of prophets both ancient and modern, if memory serves), for the "last days", before Christ's second coming (in glory). And we can be at peace about things -- we can be ok. So, in case anyone is curious, I have put reasons I think this, and why I know some of these things, in some depth, at my simple web site, which I hope is very skimmable to find the parts you want: http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html . All the best....
- thefounder 6y ago
  This bullshit has no place here!
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
    - thefounder 6y ago
      >> Anyone can disagree, but my motives are clean, It's called snake oil! Used since ancient times by "old and modern prophets" alike.
  - dang 6y ago
    No religious flamewar on HN, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - lcall 6y ago
      Thanks for the comment and link, and your moderating influence. I hoped my comment was a gentle mention that things can be OK and why. But some see that as selling snake oil. I hope >1 POV is allowed, and hopefully I can learn better. Maybe my main mistake was my follow-up reply saying someone else's comment was "cheap", when I might have said more like just "with downvotes, thoughtfully considered comments are appreciated", to be less flame-y, and left it at that. Anyway, thank you again for the link and comment.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't do this here. It's only going to start a religious flamewar.
melling 6y ago
Another decade without embracing nuclear energy. Maybe we can shame people so they don’t fly. that could save almost 1%. Not to worry, we’ve got some great goals for 2050. After watching how Coronavirus played out earlier this year, I really doubt if we’re going to address climate change in a significant way. That happened over a few months and many people still don’t get it. Plan for the inevitable.
- frankbreetz 6y ago
  I wouldn't say it is inenvitable. It has been on some presidential platforms since at least 2000 with Al Gore,although noone with an acceptable platform has ever been elected.More and more people are realizing the issue, as genZ and millennials become the majority I think change is more likely then not.
  - EForEndeavour 6y ago
    The USA emits about 15% of global CO2 [1]. Even if it adopted highly aggressive emissions mitigation and became carbon-neutral within a few years, the rest of the world's major emitters (China, India, Russia, etc.) would have to curb their own emissions similarly aggressively for it to make a meaningful global difference. How long until civilization as a whole becomes carbon-neutral? What would happen if all future emissions were magically cancelled? Even in that unrealistic scenario, climate change would continue for decades due to the damage we've already done, before stabilizing at a higher temperature than before we started raising atmospheric CO2 levels [2]. It's absolutely worth fighting for environmentally conscious platforms, but it's also a fact that no one country will realistically put a dent in the problem without widespread international cooperation. [1] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi... [2] https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882 https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhous...
    - ncmncm 6y ago
      Now that solar and wind are unmistakeably cheaper than coal, it is only active corruption that keeps coal capacity being built out. Even corrupt money cares about costs and lost profits, so that should be a short term effect. Question remaining is whether global civ will collapse first.
heimatau 6y ago
To the dead thread by lcall/thefounder: To them it's very related. "Signs of the times" giving people a 'sign of His coming'. 'The sun will darken' (most of Cali the sun is a bit more dim due to all the smoke). Among many other 'signs'. But to throw some water on the fire, depending on your POV every generation since Christ could. say. this. [1] At the same time. As someone of a similar faith to OC (original comment), I have to mention that I'm gravely concerned that the religious people of the USA are being worked up into a frenzy. It's bizarre to me how common the attitude of the OC is. This has been going on the past year but I'm not sure if it's the pandemic is taxing people's sanity or what but there is an interesting shift happening within the religious community that is actually concerning to me. The UAE/Israel deal seems to whip up more fervor. Almost like a brainwashing/weaponization of Christianity, albeit this is par the course for American Christianity. My disdain for it remains. My last point is that the OC is concerned about the future. That is a good thing. Start from there. Don't debate that 'Jesus isn't real' or some other else that's a non-starter. Instead, find the common ground. They are concerned about the changes. THEY SHOULD BE! And encourage them to be apart of the solution. We have one planet. Whether Jesus comes back or not, we aren't treating this planet well and it's obvious to all of us. Let's work on a solution together. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_ap...
- lcall 6y ago
  Thanks for your comment. After a quick mirror check, I don't think I feel frenzied, while simply saying I have many long-considered reasons for my beliefs. :) . (ps: I am not predicting dates and I doubt anyone is qualified to.) I wholly agree that we should do our best to be clean, care for this wonderful planet, and I try to do my part (conserving, recycling, avoiding pollution, etc). I think another key is that we need to act in ways that enable trust in each other, and to be honest at least, which seems remote (globally speaking). I do get the idea that you and I with others could work together, finding areas of agreement, and doing our best. I don't think we can "fix" climate change while rejecting the counsel of the planet's Creator, but we can still try to be good and honest with each other -- that is exceedingly worthwhile in itself. Thanks again.
jml7c5 6y ago
One thing I find handy for visualizing large quantities is to imagine it as a giant cube. 28 trillion tonnes of ice is a cube measuring 31 km on each side. ³√(28ᴇ15 kg / 916.8 kg/m³) ≈ 31 km Though even this technique falls down in the face of such a massive number. It works better with lengths < 750m, which are just small enough to imagine inside one's regular environment. Things like yearly production of steel (a cube 616 m on each side) or copper (cube 140 m on each side). It's particularly effective if you like golfing and can recall the distances on a course you've played.
- Treblemaker 6y ago
  Did you mean 28E12?
  - adaml_623 6y ago
    He was working in SI units I imagine so kg rather than ton. Trillion is 10^12 so 10^15kg
- adaml_623 6y ago
  For things on the planetary surface I find it's useful to visualise a flatter shape. In this case I go for a 10 meter thick square that's 1700km on each side. So Antarctica is about 5000km across. That's a lot of ice.
Treblemaker 6y ago
That number is meaningless without context. USGS estimates the earth has about 24 quadrillion metric tons[1] of ice, so, unless I'm doing the math wrong, this loss represents 0.1% over 30 years. [1] https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/ice-snow-and-glaciers-and-water-cycle?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/scie... s/One estimate of global water distribution/ [Edited to remove sarcastic editorial comment]
- adaml_623 6y ago
  That does depend on where you live. Water levels rising, etc
- dwaltrip 6y ago
  It seems you have provided some context, but not enough for the conclusion you are drawing.
- tuatoru 6y ago
  or 446 years if the melt rate is doubling every 30 years.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    But it's not going to. Because the Earth's climate shifts in cycles aligned with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, to name a few.
    - unchocked 6y ago
      Y'know - and I'm trying to make this pithy rather than low effort - you sound like a Ptolemaic astronomer going on about epicycles because you can't wrap your mind around heliocentrism. Anthropogenic emissions dominate climate change, and will for the remainder of the athropocene. The jury is in.
      - 6y ago
dredmorbius 6y ago
To visualise this quantity: 1 tonne of ice is roughly[1] 1 cubic metre. The square root of 1 trillion (10^12) is one million. One million metres is 1,000 km, or roughly 620 miles. 28 trillion tonnes of ice would be a slab 1,000 km x 1,000 km, reaching 28 m high, or 90 ft in Freedom Units, or about 9 storeys. The state of California is about 1,260 km north to south. A jet airliner flies about 1,000 km in 1¾ hours. A car travelling at 100 kph (60 mph) will cover 1,000 km in 10 hours. New York City is about 1,000 km from Indianapolis, IN, Frankfurt, KY, Columbia, SC, Lansing, MI, or Atlanta, GA, plus or minus about 200 km. Sydney and Adelaide, Australia, are 1,200 km apart. Paris, France, and Vienna, Austria, are 1,034 km apart. Tokyo and Seoul, 1,160 km. From Beijing to Shanghai, 1,066 km. At the height of the Burj Khalifa, 830m (2,723 ft), the ice block would extend 183 km (113 mi) on a side. At 1,000 m tall, slightly less than Mount Diablo in the SF Bay Area, the area covered wuld be 167 km on a side, about 100 miles. Standing atop Diablo, absent clouds, fog, or smoke, ice would rise to 173 m (567 ft) short of the summit, and extend 50 miles in any direction. ________________________________ Notes: 1. Actually, 1 m^3 of ice weighs about 920 kg, or 1 tonne has a volume of 1.087 m^3. That's well within my slop factor above.
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  How high did it raise the sea level worldwide?
sparrish 6y ago
Back of a napkin calc = 1.65 inch raise in sea level (assuming 100% of the ice was not in the sea when it melted)

74 points by seigando 6y ago

I fully realize that some people will find this silly to say, but ice melting and "fires and great vapors of smoke" (which I can see out my window in the western USA now), and other stuff that I think of under climate change, are part of the predictions (of prophets both ancient and modern, if memory serves), for the "last days", before Christ's second coming (in glory). And we can be at peace about things -- we can be ok. So, in case anyone is curious, I have put reasons I think this, and why I know some of these things, in some depth, at my simple web site, which I hope is very skimmable to find the parts you want: http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html . All the best....

thefounder 6y ago
This bullshit has no place here!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
  - thefounder 6y ago
    >> Anyone can disagree, but my motives are clean, It's called snake oil! Used since ancient times by "old and modern prophets" alike.
- dang 6y ago
  No religious flamewar on HN, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - lcall 6y ago
    Thanks for the comment and link, and your moderating influence. I hoped my comment was a gentle mention that things can be OK and why. But some see that as selling snake oil. I hope >1 POV is allowed, and hopefully I can learn better. Maybe my main mistake was my follow-up reply saying someone else's comment was "cheap", when I might have said more like just "with downvotes, thoughtfully considered comments are appreciated", to be less flame-y, and left it at that. Anyway, thank you again for the link and comment.
dang 6y ago
Please don't do this here. It's only going to start a religious flamewar.

melling 6y ago

Another decade without embracing nuclear energy. Maybe we can shame people so they don’t fly. that could save almost 1%. Not to worry, we’ve got some great goals for 2050. After watching how Coronavirus played out earlier this year, I really doubt if we’re going to address climate change in a significant way. That happened over a few months and many people still don’t get it. Plan for the inevitable.

frankbreetz 6y ago
I wouldn't say it is inenvitable. It has been on some presidential platforms since at least 2000 with Al Gore,although noone with an acceptable platform has ever been elected.More and more people are realizing the issue, as genZ and millennials become the majority I think change is more likely then not.
- EForEndeavour 6y ago
  The USA emits about 15% of global CO2 [1]. Even if it adopted highly aggressive emissions mitigation and became carbon-neutral within a few years, the rest of the world's major emitters (China, India, Russia, etc.) would have to curb their own emissions similarly aggressively for it to make a meaningful global difference. How long until civilization as a whole becomes carbon-neutral? What would happen if all future emissions were magically cancelled? Even in that unrealistic scenario, climate change would continue for decades due to the damage we've already done, before stabilizing at a higher temperature than before we started raising atmospheric CO2 levels [2]. It's absolutely worth fighting for environmentally conscious platforms, but it's also a fact that no one country will realistically put a dent in the problem without widespread international cooperation. [1] https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emi... [2] https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882 https://theconversation.com/if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhous...
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    Now that solar and wind are unmistakeably cheaper than coal, it is only active corruption that keeps coal capacity being built out. Even corrupt money cares about costs and lost profits, so that should be a short term effect. Question remaining is whether global civ will collapse first.

heimatau 6y ago

To the dead thread by lcall/thefounder: To them it's very related. "Signs of the times" giving people a 'sign of His coming'. 'The sun will darken' (most of Cali the sun is a bit more dim due to all the smoke). Among many other 'signs'. But to throw some water on the fire, depending on your POV every generation since Christ could. say. this. [1] At the same time. As someone of a similar faith to OC (original comment), I have to mention that I'm gravely concerned that the religious people of the USA are being worked up into a frenzy. It's bizarre to me how common the attitude of the OC is. This has been going on the past year but I'm not sure if it's the pandemic is taxing people's sanity or what but there is an interesting shift happening within the religious community that is actually concerning to me. The UAE/Israel deal seems to whip up more fervor. Almost like a brainwashing/weaponization of Christianity, albeit this is par the course for American Christianity. My disdain for it remains. My last point is that the OC is concerned about the future. That is a good thing. Start from there. Don't debate that 'Jesus isn't real' or some other else that's a non-starter. Instead, find the common ground. They are concerned about the changes. THEY SHOULD BE! And encourage them to be apart of the solution. We have one planet. Whether Jesus comes back or not, we aren't treating this planet well and it's obvious to all of us. Let's work on a solution together. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_ap...

lcall 6y ago
Thanks for your comment. After a quick mirror check, I don't think I feel frenzied, while simply saying I have many long-considered reasons for my beliefs. :) . (ps: I am not predicting dates and I doubt anyone is qualified to.) I wholly agree that we should do our best to be clean, care for this wonderful planet, and I try to do my part (conserving, recycling, avoiding pollution, etc). I think another key is that we need to act in ways that enable trust in each other, and to be honest at least, which seems remote (globally speaking). I do get the idea that you and I with others could work together, finding areas of agreement, and doing our best. I don't think we can "fix" climate change while rejecting the counsel of the planet's Creator, but we can still try to be good and honest with each other -- that is exceedingly worthwhile in itself. Thanks again.

jml7c5 6y ago

One thing I find handy for visualizing large quantities is to imagine it as a giant cube. 28 trillion tonnes of ice is a cube measuring 31 km on each side. ³√(28ᴇ15 kg / 916.8 kg/m³) ≈ 31 km Though even this technique falls down in the face of such a massive number. It works better with lengths < 750m, which are just small enough to imagine inside one's regular environment. Things like yearly production of steel (a cube 616 m on each side) or copper (cube 140 m on each side). It's particularly effective if you like golfing and can recall the distances on a course you've played.

Treblemaker 6y ago
Did you mean 28E12?
- adaml_623 6y ago
  He was working in SI units I imagine so kg rather than ton. Trillion is 10^12 so 10^15kg
adaml_623 6y ago
For things on the planetary surface I find it's useful to visualise a flatter shape. In this case I go for a 10 meter thick square that's 1700km on each side. So Antarctica is about 5000km across. That's a lot of ice.

Treblemaker 6y ago

That number is meaningless without context. USGS estimates the earth has about 24 quadrillion metric tons[1] of ice, so, unless I'm doing the math wrong, this loss represents 0.1% over 30 years. [1] https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/science/ice-snow-and-glaciers-and-water-cycle?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-science_center_objects https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-school/scie... s/One estimate of global water distribution/ [Edited to remove sarcastic editorial comment]

adaml_623 6y ago
That does depend on where you live. Water levels rising, etc
dwaltrip 6y ago
It seems you have provided some context, but not enough for the conclusion you are drawing.
tuatoru 6y ago
or 446 years if the melt rate is doubling every 30 years.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  But it's not going to. Because the Earth's climate shifts in cycles aligned with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, to name a few.
  - unchocked 6y ago
    Y'know - and I'm trying to make this pithy rather than low effort - you sound like a Ptolemaic astronomer going on about epicycles because you can't wrap your mind around heliocentrism. Anthropogenic emissions dominate climate change, and will for the remainder of the athropocene. The jury is in.
    - 6y ago

dredmorbius 6y ago

To visualise this quantity: 1 tonne of ice is roughly[1] 1 cubic metre. The square root of 1 trillion (10^12) is one million. One million metres is 1,000 km, or roughly 620 miles. 28 trillion tonnes of ice would be a slab 1,000 km x 1,000 km, reaching 28 m high, or 90 ft in Freedom Units, or about 9 storeys. The state of California is about 1,260 km north to south. A jet airliner flies about 1,000 km in 1¾ hours. A car travelling at 100 kph (60 mph) will cover 1,000 km in 10 hours. New York City is about 1,000 km from Indianapolis, IN, Frankfurt, KY, Columbia, SC, Lansing, MI, or Atlanta, GA, plus or minus about 200 km. Sydney and Adelaide, Australia, are 1,200 km apart. Paris, France, and Vienna, Austria, are 1,034 km apart. Tokyo and Seoul, 1,160 km. From Beijing to Shanghai, 1,066 km. At the height of the Burj Khalifa, 830m (2,723 ft), the ice block would extend 183 km (113 mi) on a side. At 1,000 m tall, slightly less than Mount Diablo in the SF Bay Area, the area covered wuld be 167 km on a side, about 100 miles. Standing atop Diablo, absent clouds, fog, or smoke, ice would rise to 173 m (567 ft) short of the summit, and extend 50 miles in any direction. ________________________________ Notes: 1. Actually, 1 m^3 of ice weighs about 920 kg, or 1 tonne has a volume of 1.087 m^3. That's well within my slop factor above.

Fjolsvith 6y ago
How high did it raise the sea level worldwide?

sparrish 6y ago

Back of a napkin calc = 1.65 inch raise in sea level (assuming 100% of the ice was not in the sea when it melted)