5 ms·

The melting of Antarctica

69 points by Libertatea 12y ago

appliance_guide 12y ago
More GW propaganda from well known, highly biased, GW pusher the Washington Post.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    This, right here, is representative of a problem. Given what the global scientific consensus is (AGW is real, ice is melting, humans are to blame), it is my first impression that your graph and stance is probably crap, but I don't know enough about climate science to make a reasonable argument one way or another (or even interpret the data for that matter). What's a layperson to do? You can learn basic Python in an afternoon, but basic climatology? ---- Quoting the now-deleted comment for context: Yep. It's already been debunked multiple times, but they just keep rehashing it to sell newspapers. Here's a trend for those interested in the actual numbers: http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarc... Source (for those that REALLY still want to believe in climate change): http://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm http://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm Source's source (for those that are just being silly at this point): ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
    - tomjen3 12y ago
      I haven't the first clue about climatology. It seems like magic to me that you can see the climate twenty years from now, but not e.g. whether it is going to rain next week. Still other things like e.g anesthesia is also magic to me, but I know for a fact that it works. What bugs me about GW research is lack of focus on mitigating GW, other than by cutting greenhouse gasses (ain't gonna happen) and especially things like this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climatega... Lots of non-sceptics would tell me that some scientists would break ranks if they found an issue, but those emails suggests that such attempts would be prevented. Considering how much money is given to these scientists by the government and how much their funding would be cut if it was found out to be a none issue, I can't consider them impartial. So it boils down to a lack of trusts in scientists and an inability to interprent the data.
      - epistasis 12y ago
        >It seems like magic to me that you can see the climate twenty years from now, but not e.g. whether it is going to rain next week. If that seems magical to you, then most of the world should seem like magic rather than science. We can predict all sorts of things over long time scales that we can't predict over short time scales, and we do it all the time. We can't predict turbulence or the exact way that steam will rise from a hot cup of tea, but we can predict the amount of steam and the average speed of its rising. And if you think that you have any sorts of technical chops, familiarize yourself with things like the Lorentz attractor, for which we can not predict exact trajectories, but we can predict where the two attractors are.
      - dredmorbius 12y ago
        "What bugs me about GW research is lack of focus on mitigating GW, other than by cutting greenhouse gasses (ain't gonna happen)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences Life (including human life ant its apurtenances) is transformative. It maximizes entropy generation and energy throughput. It's dramatically affected Earth's climate several times in the past, and many of the life-forms responsible for those dramatic effects didn't survive them. https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/5l_8MqtVwLLvX_DabPjY-g https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/5l_8MqtVwLLvX_DabPjY-g
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- Fdndjxjxr 12y ago
  Perhaps if we all just believe hard enough that the ice isn't melting, maybe it will stop melting.
forrestthewoods 12y ago
Why is Antarctica melting more now than when the ozone hole was a major issue in 90s? That was centered on Antarctica and has been largely fixed I think. Why is this happening now and not then? Or is now because of then? Can anyone provide a clear answer? (edit: wtf? why would anyone downvote this? it's a legit and perfectly fair question.)
- jstalin 12y ago
  Questioning the official line, in any manner, is verboten.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- SerpentJoe 12y ago
  The ozone layer is AFAIK not correlated with heating. It blocks UV radiation which is harmful to humans and other living things but plays no significant role in temperature changes. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#.VQcrWF9Vikq http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci...
- rodgerd 12y ago
  > it's a legit and perfectly fair question. Because conflating the ozone hole with global warming (two different and unrelated phenomenon) can be a legitimate product of confusion, but it's more commonly a denialist tactic on a par with "if evolution is real, why are there still monkeys?" See enough of it, you get uncharitable.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    Actually I've heard this confusion more (i.e. on two separate occasions, IRL) from well-meaning environmental aficionados attempting to "prove" that global warming is real. I love "why are there still monkeys?", though. I think I'll be using that line sometime. b^)
  - ekanes 12y ago
skrowl 12y ago
(The parent I tied this to got flagkilled, so deleted / reposting as top level.) Yep. It's already been debunked multiple times, but they just keep rehashing it to sell newspapers. Here's a trend for those interested in the actual numbers: http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarc... Source (for those that REALLY still want to believe in climate change): http://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm http://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm Source's source (for those that are just being silly at this point): ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/ Bonus stat, antarctic sea ice set maximum ever in Oct 2014, from source confirmed to still believe in global warming: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/ http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reache...
- jstalin 12y ago
  Your first link is broken.
  - skrowl 12y ago
    Looks like the space to %20 conversion blew up. Should be good now.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  That is ice area, most of it over water. The paper the article is referencing is about the thickness of grounded ice sheets and their stability, not the extent of sea ice.
  - skrowl 12y ago
    Are you implying that the ground ice thickness natural trend can't possibly follow the total sea ice area natural trend?
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      I would not be at all surprised to find an inverse relationship. As you warm the poles, the weather patterns become less tight, leading to a larger area that is below freezing.
orik 12y ago
This is a very click-bait-ey title. Maybe it could be changed to something more appropriate for HN? edit: This post used to read as "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse." It has since been changed.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > This is a very click-bait-ey title. Maybe it could be changed to something more appropriate for HN? It's the actual story title. Since Bezos bought them, my impression is that the Washington Post has published much more click-bait and strident writing. It's sad to see that from what used to be one of the best news sources in the world. Ten years ago there were three top-notch serious news sources in the U.S. IMHO, the Post, the NY Times, and the Wall St Journal. The Journal was purchased by News Corporation (who also own Fox News, the former News of the World, and other beacons of credibility), the Post seems to be slipping; if the NY Times doesn't survive we could have a very serious problem. Without quality, credible, independent information, how can the public have any power?
  - dang 12y ago
    The HN guidelines ask submitters to use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait. Since this one was the latter, we shortened it.
  - iterationx 12y ago
    NYT isn't credible.
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  The headline accurately reflects the content of the article, which is a hysterical mishmash of speculation that does a massive disservice to the science. We "may" have learned about something that "could" happen "if" something else turns out to be true. Antarctic melting is a particularly nasty consequence of anthopogenic climate change. It's a fairly robust first-order prediction of almost any analysis that gets anthropogenic heat balances correct--so unlike almost all other detailed predictions, there is a good chance of it happening--and the consequences, apart from maybe submerging Florida, are unequivocally bad for humans. But in a debate as emotionally charged as the one over climate change and what to do about it, the last thing we need is the Washington Post ranting on in purely speculative terms. If a friend told you, "Ten years from now, you may remember 2014 as the year that you first learned that I may have gotten a new job. Meanwhile, 2015 could be the year of the double whammy — when you learned the same about our buddy Joe, which could set in motion a road trip," you would probably look at them funny and say, "Hey, why are you telling me all this stuff that may or may nor or could or could not or might or might not happen as if it's the most important thing in the world? It sounds kind of pretentious and stupid."
fixermark 12y ago
To bring this iceberg around a bit closer to tech culture... California is already being hit by drought, and NASA's climate change models suggest the drought can be expected to get worse as the temperature shift due to AGW increases [http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/todays-drought-in-the-west-is-nothing-compared-to-what-may-be-coming/2015/02/12/0041646a-b2d9-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/todays...]. Silicon Valley is, of course, located in California. Does / should this news make people bearish on further deep investment in the Valley if a possible consequence of resource loss is a destabilization of that region (I don't mean "Mad Max", but one would assume that water rationing will have some negative impact on the startup scene in CA)?
- thaumaturgy 12y ago
  I've been thinking about this recently, wondering whether or not it's another reason to move out of California. There are still a lot of different ways this could play out. We could have another moderately difficult Summer followed by one of the wettest and coldest Winters in recent history, and everything will keep limping along. Or, we could have a season of dry thunderstorms that cause one of the worst wildfire seasons in recent history, complete with thick smoke and the health effects that causes. Or, conflicts over water rights could add fuel to the State of Jefferson movement and turn that into years of political wrangling that drains the energy from a state government no longer being led by Brown. Or, California agriculture could suddenly take huge steps towards better water management, either due to rising water costs or public outcry as municipal water rates skyrocket and rationing is imposed. Or, agriculture might fail to adapt and there will be economic ripple effects felt in food costs and a hit to the state GDP. Usually, things like this sort of muddle along for years and nobody really notices an acute impact. Sometimes the conditions are right for a disaster and you get something like 2008. The conditions are right now for things to get pretty awful over the next couple of years, but there are still a lot of people involved that can have some impact over how it all turns out. I hope those people get started soon. If things do take a turn towards the worst, there really is less and less reason for most people to stay in this state. It's a nice state, but there are lots of other really nice places too, and there's been a tech diaspora over the last decade that's bearing fruit in a lot of different places around the country.
keithwarren 12y ago
"Global sea level rise of 11 feet" I would really like to see a more clear explanation as to how they extrapolated that estimation from the data.
- astrodust 12y ago
  The Antarctic ice sheet is not only gigantic, larger than the continental United States, but it is kilometers thick. Take the fraction of the volume that's anticipated to melt and spread that over the ocean, and you get that 11 foot number. The Wikipedia page, for what it's worth, estimates that the sea level would rise 70 meters if the whole thing melted. Plus, if Antarctica melted, then all ice would've melted, including Greenland, so we'd be even more screwed. You're right that there's not enough data here, though. I'm sure the calculation is far from simple since the ice-sheet varies dramatically in terms of topology both on the surface and underwater.
- PhearTheCeal 12y ago
  Right from the abstract: "We estimate that at least 3.5 m of eustatic sea level potential drains through Totten Glacier, so coastal processes in this area could have global consequences." With calculations done here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo2388-s1.pdf http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo...
jstalin 12y ago
For some context (which media rarely provide), Antarctica has about 12.3 million cubic km of ice sheet. The latest measurements I've seen show that between 2011 and 2014, the Antarctic ice sheet lost 125 cubic km per year. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21692423 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21692423 http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/08/Antarctic_ice-sheet_change http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/08/Antarctic_ic... Additionally, people have been noticing a loss of ice since at least 1932: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23150667 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23150667
- guelo 12y ago
  That didn't provide me any context at all. What are those numbers supposed to imply?
- jstalin 12y ago
  First, Antarctica is not "melting," and second it seems to have been happening for a long time. Additionally, there has been no acceleration in sea level increases: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750 http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.s... Browse stations here: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mslUSTrendsTable.htm http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mslUSTrendsTable.h...
ender7 12y ago
The HN community was (and apparently still is) incredibly hostile to the idea that global warming is a grave threat to humanity. I would think that such a technology-oriented group would be swayed by the now-massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion, but the opposite seems to have happened. Comments attempt to refute even the existence of global warming with irrelevant data of their own or strange nitpicks at the perimeter of an article that seem bent on derailing discussion of the main point (i.e. DH4 at best [1]). If solid evidence is presented, it's usually dismissed with arguments like "this popular news article doesn't even say how exactly they computed <extremely complicated result>, therefor it must be bunk. There could be an error in there somewhere, so I shall assume there is one." Where does this animus spring from? [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- jstalin 12y ago
  Since you aren't making personal attacks, like others on this message board, I'll explain my personal point of view. I don't deny that humans can influence earth's climate. But the tone of climate change media is beyond hysterics. For instance, the headline from this article is, in full, "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse." I posted below links to scientific studies showing that Antarctica has 12.5 million cubic km of ice. 125 cubic km of ice is "melting" each year. On top of that, surveyors noticed reductions in Antarctic ice at least as far back as 1932, far far before "climate change." My naturally skeptical alarms go off when I realize that headlines like the OP are pure hysterics. At the current rate, Antarctica will melt in 1 million years. Of course, climate changes dramatically on that geologic time scale, so the headline completely destroys the credibility, in my mind, of the central argument -- that Antarctica is "melting." One look a tide gauges shows that the sea level rise we've been seeing has been going on for about 150 years with no change in the rate of rise. So, naturally, I'm going to be skeptical of hysterical claims. As to your point about HN being hostile to climate change, I see it the complete opposite way. Any skeptical arguments, even links to objective scientific facts, are immediately flagkilled and downvoted into hell.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago

69 points by Libertatea 12y ago

appliance_guide 12y ago

More GW propaganda from well known, highly biased, GW pusher the Washington Post.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- Karunamon 12y ago
  This, right here, is representative of a problem. Given what the global scientific consensus is (AGW is real, ice is melting, humans are to blame), it is my first impression that your graph and stance is probably crap, but I don't know enough about climate science to make a reasonable argument one way or another (or even interpret the data for that matter). What's a layperson to do? You can learn basic Python in an afternoon, but basic climatology? ---- Quoting the now-deleted comment for context: Yep. It's already been debunked multiple times, but they just keep rehashing it to sell newspapers. Here's a trend for those interested in the actual numbers: http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarc... Source (for those that REALLY still want to believe in climate change): http://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm http://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm Source's source (for those that are just being silly at this point): ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    I haven't the first clue about climatology. It seems like magic to me that you can see the climate twenty years from now, but not e.g. whether it is going to rain next week. Still other things like e.g anesthesia is also magic to me, but I know for a fact that it works. What bugs me about GW research is lack of focus on mitigating GW, other than by cutting greenhouse gasses (ain't gonna happen) and especially things like this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climatega... Lots of non-sceptics would tell me that some scientists would break ranks if they found an issue, but those emails suggests that such attempts would be prevented. Considering how much money is given to these scientists by the government and how much their funding would be cut if it was found out to be a none issue, I can't consider them impartial. So it boils down to a lack of trusts in scientists and an inability to interprent the data.
    - epistasis 12y ago
      >It seems like magic to me that you can see the climate twenty years from now, but not e.g. whether it is going to rain next week. If that seems magical to you, then most of the world should seem like magic rather than science. We can predict all sorts of things over long time scales that we can't predict over short time scales, and we do it all the time. We can't predict turbulence or the exact way that steam will rise from a hot cup of tea, but we can predict the amount of steam and the average speed of its rising. And if you think that you have any sorts of technical chops, familiarize yourself with things like the Lorentz attractor, for which we can not predict exact trajectories, but we can predict where the two attractors are.
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      "What bugs me about GW research is lack of focus on mitigating GW, other than by cutting greenhouse gasses (ain't gonna happen)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences Life (including human life ant its apurtenances) is transformative. It maximizes entropy generation and energy throughput. It's dramatically affected Earth's climate several times in the past, and many of the life-forms responsible for those dramatic effects didn't survive them. https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/5l_8MqtVwLLvX_DabPjY-g https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/5l_8MqtVwLLvX_DabPjY-g
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
Fdndjxjxr 12y ago
Perhaps if we all just believe hard enough that the ice isn't melting, maybe it will stop melting.

forrestthewoods 12y ago

Why is Antarctica melting more now than when the ozone hole was a major issue in 90s? That was centered on Antarctica and has been largely fixed I think. Why is this happening now and not then? Or is now because of then? Can anyone provide a clear answer? (edit: wtf? why would anyone downvote this? it's a legit and perfectly fair question.)

jstalin 12y ago
Questioning the official line, in any manner, is verboten.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
SerpentJoe 12y ago
The ozone layer is AFAIK not correlated with heating. It blocks UV radiation which is harmful to humans and other living things but plays no significant role in temperature changes. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#.VQcrWF9Vikq http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci...
rodgerd 12y ago
> it's a legit and perfectly fair question. Because conflating the ozone hole with global warming (two different and unrelated phenomenon) can be a legitimate product of confusion, but it's more commonly a denialist tactic on a par with "if evolution is real, why are there still monkeys?" See enough of it, you get uncharitable.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  Actually I've heard this confusion more (i.e. on two separate occasions, IRL) from well-meaning environmental aficionados attempting to "prove" that global warming is real. I love "why are there still monkeys?", though. I think I'll be using that line sometime. b^)
- ekanes 12y ago

skrowl 12y ago

(The parent I tied this to got flagkilled, so deleted / reposting as top level.) Yep. It's already been debunked multiple times, but they just keep rehashing it to sell newspapers. Here's a trend for those interested in the actual numbers: http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarc... Source (for those that REALLY still want to believe in climate change): http://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm http://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm Source's source (for those that are just being silly at this point): ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/ Bonus stat, antarctic sea ice set maximum ever in Oct 2014, from source confirmed to still believe in global warming: http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/ http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reache...

jstalin 12y ago
Your first link is broken.
- skrowl 12y ago
  Looks like the space to %20 conversion blew up. Should be good now.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
That is ice area, most of it over water. The paper the article is referencing is about the thickness of grounded ice sheets and their stability, not the extent of sea ice.
- skrowl 12y ago
  Are you implying that the ground ice thickness natural trend can't possibly follow the total sea ice area natural trend?
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    I would not be at all surprised to find an inverse relationship. As you warm the poles, the weather patterns become less tight, leading to a larger area that is below freezing.

orik 12y ago

This is a very click-bait-ey title. Maybe it could be changed to something more appropriate for HN? edit: This post used to read as "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse." It has since been changed.

hackuser 12y ago
> This is a very click-bait-ey title. Maybe it could be changed to something more appropriate for HN? It's the actual story title. Since Bezos bought them, my impression is that the Washington Post has published much more click-bait and strident writing. It's sad to see that from what used to be one of the best news sources in the world. Ten years ago there were three top-notch serious news sources in the U.S. IMHO, the Post, the NY Times, and the Wall St Journal. The Journal was purchased by News Corporation (who also own Fox News, the former News of the World, and other beacons of credibility), the Post seems to be slipping; if the NY Times doesn't survive we could have a very serious problem. Without quality, credible, independent information, how can the public have any power?
- dang 12y ago
  The HN guidelines ask submitters to use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait. Since this one was the latter, we shortened it.
- iterationx 12y ago
  NYT isn't credible.
tjradcliffe 12y ago
The headline accurately reflects the content of the article, which is a hysterical mishmash of speculation that does a massive disservice to the science. We "may" have learned about something that "could" happen "if" something else turns out to be true. Antarctic melting is a particularly nasty consequence of anthopogenic climate change. It's a fairly robust first-order prediction of almost any analysis that gets anthropogenic heat balances correct--so unlike almost all other detailed predictions, there is a good chance of it happening--and the consequences, apart from maybe submerging Florida, are unequivocally bad for humans. But in a debate as emotionally charged as the one over climate change and what to do about it, the last thing we need is the Washington Post ranting on in purely speculative terms. If a friend told you, "Ten years from now, you may remember 2014 as the year that you first learned that I may have gotten a new job. Meanwhile, 2015 could be the year of the double whammy — when you learned the same about our buddy Joe, which could set in motion a road trip," you would probably look at them funny and say, "Hey, why are you telling me all this stuff that may or may nor or could or could not or might or might not happen as if it's the most important thing in the world? It sounds kind of pretentious and stupid."

fixermark 12y ago

To bring this iceberg around a bit closer to tech culture... California is already being hit by drought, and NASA's climate change models suggest the drought can be expected to get worse as the temperature shift due to AGW increases [http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/todays-drought-in-the-west-is-nothing-compared-to-what-may-be-coming/2015/02/12/0041646a-b2d9-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/todays...]. Silicon Valley is, of course, located in California. Does / should this news make people bearish on further deep investment in the Valley if a possible consequence of resource loss is a destabilization of that region (I don't mean "Mad Max", but one would assume that water rationing will have some negative impact on the startup scene in CA)?

thaumaturgy 12y ago
I've been thinking about this recently, wondering whether or not it's another reason to move out of California. There are still a lot of different ways this could play out. We could have another moderately difficult Summer followed by one of the wettest and coldest Winters in recent history, and everything will keep limping along. Or, we could have a season of dry thunderstorms that cause one of the worst wildfire seasons in recent history, complete with thick smoke and the health effects that causes. Or, conflicts over water rights could add fuel to the State of Jefferson movement and turn that into years of political wrangling that drains the energy from a state government no longer being led by Brown. Or, California agriculture could suddenly take huge steps towards better water management, either due to rising water costs or public outcry as municipal water rates skyrocket and rationing is imposed. Or, agriculture might fail to adapt and there will be economic ripple effects felt in food costs and a hit to the state GDP. Usually, things like this sort of muddle along for years and nobody really notices an acute impact. Sometimes the conditions are right for a disaster and you get something like 2008. The conditions are right now for things to get pretty awful over the next couple of years, but there are still a lot of people involved that can have some impact over how it all turns out. I hope those people get started soon. If things do take a turn towards the worst, there really is less and less reason for most people to stay in this state. It's a nice state, but there are lots of other really nice places too, and there's been a tech diaspora over the last decade that's bearing fruit in a lot of different places around the country.

keithwarren 12y ago

"Global sea level rise of 11 feet" I would really like to see a more clear explanation as to how they extrapolated that estimation from the data.

astrodust 12y ago
The Antarctic ice sheet is not only gigantic, larger than the continental United States, but it is kilometers thick. Take the fraction of the volume that's anticipated to melt and spread that over the ocean, and you get that 11 foot number. The Wikipedia page, for what it's worth, estimates that the sea level would rise 70 meters if the whole thing melted. Plus, if Antarctica melted, then all ice would've melted, including Greenland, so we'd be even more screwed. You're right that there's not enough data here, though. I'm sure the calculation is far from simple since the ice-sheet varies dramatically in terms of topology both on the surface and underwater.
PhearTheCeal 12y ago
Right from the abstract: "We estimate that at least 3.5 m of eustatic sea level potential drains through Totten Glacier, so coastal processes in this area could have global consequences." With calculations done here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo2388-s1.pdf http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo...

jstalin 12y ago

For some context (which media rarely provide), Antarctica has about 12.3 million cubic km of ice sheet. The latest measurements I've seen show that between 2011 and 2014, the Antarctic ice sheet lost 125 cubic km per year. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21692423 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21692423 http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/08/Antarctic_ice-sheet_change http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/08/Antarctic_ic... Additionally, people have been noticing a loss of ice since at least 1932: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23150667 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23150667

guelo 12y ago
That didn't provide me any context at all. What are those numbers supposed to imply?
jstalin 12y ago
First, Antarctica is not "melting," and second it seems to have been happening for a long time. Additionally, there has been no acceleration in sea level increases: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750 http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.s... Browse stations here: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mslUSTrendsTable.htm http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mslUSTrendsTable.h...

ender7 12y ago

The HN community was (and apparently still is) incredibly hostile to the idea that global warming is a grave threat to humanity. I would think that such a technology-oriented group would be swayed by the now-massive collection of solid data pointing towards this conclusion, but the opposite seems to have happened. Comments attempt to refute even the existence of global warming with irrelevant data of their own or strange nitpicks at the perimeter of an article that seem bent on derailing discussion of the main point (i.e. DH4 at best [1]). If solid evidence is presented, it's usually dismissed with arguments like "this popular news article doesn't even say how exactly they computed <extremely complicated result>, therefor it must be bunk. There could be an error in there somewhere, so I shall assume there is one." Where does this animus spring from? [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

jstalin 12y ago
Since you aren't making personal attacks, like others on this message board, I'll explain my personal point of view. I don't deny that humans can influence earth's climate. But the tone of climate change media is beyond hysterics. For instance, the headline from this article is, in full, "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse." I posted below links to scientific studies showing that Antarctica has 12.5 million cubic km of ice. 125 cubic km of ice is "melting" each year. On top of that, surveyors noticed reductions in Antarctic ice at least as far back as 1932, far far before "climate change." My naturally skeptical alarms go off when I realize that headlines like the OP are pure hysterics. At the current rate, Antarctica will melt in 1 million years. Of course, climate changes dramatically on that geologic time scale, so the headline completely destroys the credibility, in my mind, of the central argument -- that Antarctica is "melting." One look a tide gauges shows that the sea level rise we've been seeing has been going on for about 150 years with no change in the rate of rise. So, naturally, I'm going to be skeptical of hysterical claims. As to your point about HN being hostile to climate change, I see it the complete opposite way. Any skeptical arguments, even links to objective scientific facts, are immediately flagkilled and downvoted into hell.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago