
Much of the Greenland ice sheet appears to have melted about a million years ago - curtis
http://gizmodo.com/the-greenland-ice-sheet-may-be-far-less-stable-than-we-1789771526
======
suhith
The title is rather misleading.

Looks like they were going for clickbait :(

------
sporkologist
... so this is supposed to make us feel better about the current situation?

~~~
ChuckMcM
Maybe? If it melted before and the climate recovered to its non-warm cold
state, what ever mechanism activated before may activate again.

~~~
imesh
Who cares if the earth cools down 100000 years after the ice caps melt.

~~~
ChuckMcM
People who differentiate between the end of the world and the end of humanity
on the world.

There are two philosophical approaches to climate change, one is to ignore it
and die, and one is to accept the change and plan around it.

"Ignore it" in this case means operate under the misperception that humans
have the ability to _control_ planetary climate (effect it sure, but control
is elusive).

If you're in the build your way out of it mode you can be confident that over
the millenia there will be times when it is easy to walk around, and times
when that is hard. If you're in the ignore it camp you can be confident that
the new species that emerge after humans are gone will also have large periods
where the climate the evolved to is present before it changes again.

You you see? Hopeful, the world will continue with us or without us.

------
greglindahl
Clickbait headline, as usual. "Most of Greenland Melted about a Million Years
Ago" is much more accurate, but probably failed A/B testing. To add some
perspective: we've had an ice age about every 100,000 years during the last
million years.

~~~
mirimir
Well, maybe so. But the point is that it wasn't much warmer when much of
Greenland's ice melted than it is now. Will I live long enough to see
Greenland melt off? It's hard to say. But it's a fair bet that some of you, or
some of your kids, will. So maybe don't buy on the coast ;)

~~~
danieltillett
... or just make sure to buy somewhere like Dover [1].

1\.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Cliffs_of_Dover](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Cliffs_of_Dover)

~~~
Kudos
You probably still want to be a couple of kilometres inland.

> The cliff face continues to weather at an average rate of 1 centimetre (0.4
> in) per year, although occasionally large pieces will fall. This occurred in
> 2001, when a large chunk of the edge, as large as a football pitch, fell
> into the Channel.

~~~
danieltillett
Yes you probably want to build on a cliff made from something more resistant
to coastal erosion than chalk.

------
mdekkers
"recent past" means something different for scientists than it means for the
rest of us...

------
gurneyHaleck
Sometimes I get the feeling that those who control industries that profit from
climate-altering human behavior believe that it's okay to alter the climate,
because whatever they have caused, they will assuredly be able to override,
and undo, through similar force of will.

Too hot? Cooling something is easy! Block out the sun, somehow, until things
cool off!

Too cold? Simple! Pump up those greenhouse gases again! Earth has a
thermostat, and it's easy to mess with!

I think this is why there's so much willful ignorance and obfuscation,
deliberately muddying the waters. They want control, and no one else must
tamper or meddle with such grand designs.

Of course, the world is larger than they are. And what if they aren't around
to help fix what they've ruined.

It seems their answer is:

    
    
      If *WE'RE* dead, who fucking cares about the rest?

~~~
riprowan
I'm going to take a very unpopular position in the name of rational discussion
in the hopes that this forum can hear the message.

For the record, I am of the opinion that anthropogenic warming is real.
However, I think it's wise and even scientific to be skeptical of solutions
implemented primarily because "we have to do something" in the absence of
diligent logical and cost-benefit analysis, which I'm not sure has always been
communicated to the public.

Here are the assumptions you must accept in order to go from "hey, it appears
the Earth is warming and it looks like it's mankind's fault" (a statement I
think most everyone can agree with) to "here is the plan for action."

Some of these assumptions are fairly solid, others maybe not so much. Some are
quite controversial, intentionally, to stimulate discussion. I will reiterate
my intent here is not to be a denialist but to present the argument of a
stone-cold realist.

1\. Assumption: we can accurately measure whether the earth is getting warmer
or not.

This requires us to accept that the proxy data (ice core samples, tree rings,
etc.) are sufficiently reliable to provide a good baseline for comparison on
geologic scales, and that the timeline of climate change data that these
sources provide is adequately large to be meaningful. (1,000 years versus 1
billion, for example)

I think most people here will agree that the proxy data are good.

Now that you’ve proven that the Earth is in fact getting warmer, we have to
ask if

2\. We can accurately assess the cost and benefit of global warming

Perhaps global warming produces net long term benefits to humankind. Humans
tend to alwayss adopt a "change is bad" posture - however, with climate,
"change is inevitable."

I know this is a very controversial hypothesis - most people wouldn't dare to
ask the question - but we must. Why should we assume that the current global
temperature is optimal for life on Earth or even human habitability? We might
find that a warmer planet is quite beneficial. If so, we need not bother with
solutions, as there is no problem. It's my opinion that the science to date
seems content with "any change is bad" but in my opinion that is weak science.

But that's not my axe to grind. Let's assume the analysis is correct, and that
global warming produces a net cost to society in general. Now, we need to
determine if

3\. We can accurately assess man’s contributions to global warming

Here is a significant problem for science to solve. It is likely that at least
some of the warming we are experiencing is due to non-anthropogenic forces.
Should policies be put into place that try to offset these as well as the
anthropogenic sources of warming? We ought to have at least some good idea _by
how much_ is mankind warming the planet before we put in place policies to
offset it.

I'm not sure we really understand that, but let's say we do. Now the question
becomes how well...

4\. We can accurately model and predict how changes to man’s behavior will
affect the warming trend

Many changes have been proposed with obvious economic and social consequences.
How will those changes affect global warming? Is it conceivable that we might
overshoot? Or perhaps the combined effect of available changes is completely
negligible. If we don’t know the impact of a particular change, then we’re
really just shooting in the dark.

Let’s assume we can, in fact, measure the impact of particular changes on the
climate. Now, we must presume

5\. That we can meaningfully lower man’s impact on the climate through a
coordinated global effort

Perhaps we discover a few changes that, if made, would reduce or eliminate
man’s effect on the climate. Could these changes be implemented globally? It
is unlikely that a few local changes would have significant impact, and global
changes are very hard to implement.

Let’s assume #1 through #5 are demonstrable. We have now demonstrated that
global warming is real, that it is bad, that man is causing it, that there are
a set of changes which will result in a meaningful solution, and that these
changes are globally feasible. I don't think we know all of those things, and
that's a problem, but let's say we do know them.

Now we need to demonstrate to some degree of satisfaction:

6\. That the global efforts at combating anthropogenic global warming have a
net quality of life and economic benefit around the globe. In other words,
_the costs of remediation are outweighed by the benefits._

It is entirely possible that humanity could embark on a set of policy changes
that would have very bad consequences for humanity while having negligible
consequences on climate change. This possibility is greatly increased by a "we
have to do something!" mentality.

Again - my argument is not intended to present a denialist story. I actually
think that anthropogenic warming is real, I personally support some of the
policies to combat it, and I personally try to minimize my impact on the
planet in my own small way. My argument is only intended to provoke discussion
about the difficulty in _responsibly_ getting from "we have a problem" to
"here is the solution."

~~~
lg
> Perhaps global warming produces net long term benefits to humankind.

we know the costs of sea level rise: mass displacement of hundreds of millions
of people and the destruction of the world's most productive economic centers.
there is already a drying trend in the central plains and other large areas of
arable land; more warming will lead to mass starvation. The overall
consequence is the destruction of most of the world's wealth. but sure, maybe
after all that, everything will be better. by the same token maybe a nuclear
war will improve things?

~~~
riprowan
It's entirely possible that everything you say is true, however, the jeering
tone and sweeping generalizations are the opposite of the sort of polite,
rational discourse that seems to be constantly missing in these discussions.

~~~
lg
i don't see what's irrational about it. as for polite, excuse me, whether
we're warming the earth is an issue that has been discussed quietly and
politely for 30 years and evidence for disaster piles up and up. when polio
was raging we did not need polite discussion of whether the germ theory of
disease is true, the evidence is in and let's get on with it. but mysteriously
on this issue where there are powerful economic interests invested in denial,
people just want to discuss and discuss and (by the way) do nothing until
discussion is over.

------
codecamper
million years ago == "recent past"?

To me, "recent past" means maybe 5 or 10 years ago tops.

