5 ms·

Radical idea to protect 'doomsday' Thwaites Glacier with 62-mile long curtain

17 points by rokkitmensch 3y ago

testfoobar 3y ago
My local favorite on the list of batshit crazy solutions to mitigate climate change effects is to build a giant dam underneath the Golden Gate Bridge by flattening the Marin Headlands.
- senectus1 3y ago
  lol what? is there a link to his proposal?
  - Someone 3y ago
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tidal-gate-across-san-francisco-bay-proposed-to-manage-sea-level-rise https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tidal-gate-across... led me to https://www.spur.org/publications/spur-report/2011-05-02/climate-change-hits-home https://www.spur.org/publications/spur-report/2011-05-02/cli.... That mentions it as an option on page 26, but doesn’t go as far as propose doing it.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
MrVandemar 3y ago
Whose shoe did they scrape this idea from the bottom of? A curtain. Manufactured from what? Manufactured how? Transported how? Installed how? Maintained how? Fossil. Fuels. This kind of band-aid thinking needs to stop. We need to take a good look at our ridiculous unsustainable life-styles, and make some hard decisions about whether we need a stupid over-sized pickup truck and a new phone, or if we need an actual future for us all.
- OccamsMirror 3y ago
  > We need to take a good look at our ridiculous unsustainable life-styles, and make some hard decisions about whether we need a stupid over-sized pickup truck and a new phone, or if we need an actual future for us all. I'll take "things we're not going to do" for 100, Alex.
- 123yawaworht456 3y ago
  >Manufactured from what? Manufactured how? Transported how? Installed how? Maintained how? Fossil. Fuels. are dams, wind turbines, solar panels and geothermal systems brought into existence by sheer willpower of environmentally conscious folx singing kumbaya? as for the rest of your rant, the very fact that you have access to electricity, internet and a computing device makes it rather clear that you don't practice what you preach.
  - senectus1 3y ago
    brought to you by: the committee for binary solutions... its either this or that. never anything in between.
  - MrVandemar 3y ago
    > as for the rest of your rant, the very fact that you have access to electricity, internet and a computing device makes it rather clear that you don't practice what you preach. I drive a small, fuel efficient car, 10 years old, at a speed mostly below the maximum speed limit to optimise fuel use further. I haven't flown in an aeroplane for about 20 years. I live in a passive solar straw-bale house that I built. It doesn't have an air-conditioner in it, the thermal qualities keep it cool in Summer and warm in Winter. It has solar electricity, and solar hot water, and we collect our own water. We grow a lot of our own fruit and vegetables, and use little fertiliser imports. We have planted over 1,000 native trees on our property in a revegetation project. I'm typing on a 2nd hand laptop. I use a phone that's 5 years old, and wasn't the latest and greatest when I bought it. So: yeah, I acknowledge there is a long way to go, but I refute absolutely and vigorously your claim based on only superficial evidence and assumptions that I don't "practice what I preach". The way you wrote that makes me think that you enjoy your luxury first world existence, and are defensive about any idea of making serious lifestyle changes to reduce your footprint and impact. We are, after all, "the first species that won't save itself because it's not cost effective".
andsoitis 3y ago
The price tag is estimated at $50-100bn (£39-78bn), plus at least an extra $1bn (£784m) annually for maintenance. If these large scale engineering projects are the main way to manage climate change, then it will start to touch our pocket books soon.
- aaronbrethorst 3y ago
  Assuming the worst case scenario and 90 years of upkeep, it still would cost less than Hurricane Katrina did. https://www.statista.com/statistics/744015/most-expensive-natural-disasters-usa/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/744015/most-expensive-na...
  - sonofhans 3y ago
    Yes, damn, it’s mind-boggling to me to see people misjudge the scale of things. The total cost is less than 1% of USA’s GDP for a year. I’m not saying we should do it, or that the money’s meaningless, but we could certainly afford it if we wanted to. Never mind the human cost. New Orleans is still reeling from Katrina; countless lives were destroyed or compromised. That’s hard to count on a spreadsheet.
    - rokkitmensch 3y ago
      The carbon footprint of maintaining dollar hegemony is truly unconscionable.
kybernetyk 3y ago
So "doomsday" sounds pretty serious. Sadly they didn't mention by how much the sea levels would rise if that thing melted all the way down. From a short internet search: >Thwaites, sometimes referred to as the "doomsday glacier" because it would raise global sea-levels by around 65cm (25in) if it collapsed entirely, is highly vulnerable to warming.
- pinkmuffinere 3y ago
  Wow, 25” of change is massive. I’m in SoCal, and I can’t think of anything that would be immediately broken by that, but flooding during bad storms would certainly get worse. I wonder if there are places that would immediately be in trouble? Perhaps the Netherlands, New Orleans, Venice?

17 points by rokkitmensch 3y ago

My local favorite on the list of batshit crazy solutions to mitigate climate change effects is to build a giant dam underneath the Golden Gate Bridge by flattening the Marin Headlands.

senectus1 3y ago
lol what? is there a link to his proposal?
- Someone 3y ago
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tidal-gate-across-san-francisco-bay-proposed-to-manage-sea-level-rise https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tidal-gate-across... led me to https://www.spur.org/publications/spur-report/2011-05-02/climate-change-hits-home https://www.spur.org/publications/spur-report/2011-05-02/cli.... That mentions it as an option on page 26, but doesn’t go as far as propose doing it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

MrVandemar 3y ago

Whose shoe did they scrape this idea from the bottom of? A curtain. Manufactured from what? Manufactured how? Transported how? Installed how? Maintained how? Fossil. Fuels. This kind of band-aid thinking needs to stop. We need to take a good look at our ridiculous unsustainable life-styles, and make some hard decisions about whether we need a stupid over-sized pickup truck and a new phone, or if we need an actual future for us all.

OccamsMirror 3y ago
> We need to take a good look at our ridiculous unsustainable life-styles, and make some hard decisions about whether we need a stupid over-sized pickup truck and a new phone, or if we need an actual future for us all. I'll take "things we're not going to do" for 100, Alex.
123yawaworht456 3y ago
>Manufactured from what? Manufactured how? Transported how? Installed how? Maintained how? Fossil. Fuels. are dams, wind turbines, solar panels and geothermal systems brought into existence by sheer willpower of environmentally conscious folx singing kumbaya? as for the rest of your rant, the very fact that you have access to electricity, internet and a computing device makes it rather clear that you don't practice what you preach.
- senectus1 3y ago
  brought to you by: the committee for binary solutions... its either this or that. never anything in between.
- MrVandemar 3y ago
  > as for the rest of your rant, the very fact that you have access to electricity, internet and a computing device makes it rather clear that you don't practice what you preach. I drive a small, fuel efficient car, 10 years old, at a speed mostly below the maximum speed limit to optimise fuel use further. I haven't flown in an aeroplane for about 20 years. I live in a passive solar straw-bale house that I built. It doesn't have an air-conditioner in it, the thermal qualities keep it cool in Summer and warm in Winter. It has solar electricity, and solar hot water, and we collect our own water. We grow a lot of our own fruit and vegetables, and use little fertiliser imports. We have planted over 1,000 native trees on our property in a revegetation project. I'm typing on a 2nd hand laptop. I use a phone that's 5 years old, and wasn't the latest and greatest when I bought it. So: yeah, I acknowledge there is a long way to go, but I refute absolutely and vigorously your claim based on only superficial evidence and assumptions that I don't "practice what I preach". The way you wrote that makes me think that you enjoy your luxury first world existence, and are defensive about any idea of making serious lifestyle changes to reduce your footprint and impact. We are, after all, "the first species that won't save itself because it's not cost effective".

andsoitis 3y ago

The price tag is estimated at $50-100bn (£39-78bn), plus at least an extra $1bn (£784m) annually for maintenance. If these large scale engineering projects are the main way to manage climate change, then it will start to touch our pocket books soon.

aaronbrethorst 3y ago
Assuming the worst case scenario and 90 years of upkeep, it still would cost less than Hurricane Katrina did. https://www.statista.com/statistics/744015/most-expensive-natural-disasters-usa/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/744015/most-expensive-na...
- sonofhans 3y ago
  Yes, damn, it’s mind-boggling to me to see people misjudge the scale of things. The total cost is less than 1% of USA’s GDP for a year. I’m not saying we should do it, or that the money’s meaningless, but we could certainly afford it if we wanted to. Never mind the human cost. New Orleans is still reeling from Katrina; countless lives were destroyed or compromised. That’s hard to count on a spreadsheet.
  - rokkitmensch 3y ago
    The carbon footprint of maintaining dollar hegemony is truly unconscionable.

kybernetyk 3y ago

So "doomsday" sounds pretty serious. Sadly they didn't mention by how much the sea levels would rise if that thing melted all the way down. From a short internet search: >Thwaites, sometimes referred to as the "doomsday glacier" because it would raise global sea-levels by around 65cm (25in) if it collapsed entirely, is highly vulnerable to warming.

pinkmuffinere 3y ago
Wow, 25” of change is massive. I’m in SoCal, and I can’t think of anything that would be immediately broken by that, but flooding during bad storms would certainly get worse. I wonder if there are places that would immediately be in trouble? Perhaps the Netherlands, New Orleans, Venice?