
Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly - uptown
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/antarctica-at-risk-of-runaway-melting-20189
======
cryptoz
This is based on a new paper published today in Nature. Here is the NYTimes
piece about it: [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-
ant...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-
ice-sheet-sea-level-rise.html?_r=0)

And direct link to the paper:
[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature1...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature17145.html)

And note, this is separate from the paper last week by James Hansen et al,
which discussed the newly researched effects of new feedback loops in ice-
melt-surface-waters shutting down ocean circulation (and also increased the
amount of sea level rise in shorter time periods).

These are scary times.

~~~
reitanqild
> And note, this is separate from the paper last week by James Hansen et al

The one with a weird weird constants IIRC?

~~~
lr4444lr
Upvoted. I am not a AGW denialist, but I find it disturbing that every time I
come across a new finding in atmospheric science in a press release it is in
some way linked to James Hansen's research or advocacy. Can anyone point to a
body of research for the layperson that is independent of his influence?

~~~
acqq
How do you define "influence" in serious science? Do you really think
scientists believe in one person instead of using the scientific methods?

In the relevant climate science, Hanson is just one of the thousand scientists
from the whole world who all perform their own research and then report and
agree on the summary findings internationally, you surely can't assert that
all are "influenced" by just one person.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change surely isn't accepting "only
his" claims. If nobody of thousands of the scientists would have similar
findings, nobody would accept his work as serious:

[http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml](http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml)

Hint: the work of denialists is exactly that: not serious, as most of them
can't even make the basic assumptions right.

So what should you consider for a valid "body of research"? The report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There's no better international
organization of scientists who work on these topics.

See their procedures:

[http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtm...](http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtml)

Then see their last report, on the level you can probably understand, but with
a lot of fine details:

[http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/](http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/)

Specifically, start from the summary:

[http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FIN...](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf)

Unless you read at least that, you won't even have an idea about the material
for which you seem to believe you're against (even if you claim that "you're
not a denialist.)" The report reflects the state of the art of that science.

~~~
lr4444lr
You missed the point of my comment. I personally am a little more familiar
with the science than the average American's understanding. What I see
published for the general audience however, (and I would not rank IPCC reports
in that category, even the summary ones,) overwhelmingly references, quotes,
or relates to Hansen. If I'm trying to open stubborn minds, and everything
comprehensible I can give these people features a name that's readily tarred
as a politically-motivated pariah in the denialist community, their distrust
of the mainstream media reporting and belief in their own FUD only hardens.

~~~
acqq
> What I see published for the general audience however, (...) overwhelmingly
> references, quotes, or relates to Hansen.

Red herring, it's not about any person. It's about the scientific process.

This is for general audience which was exposed to the claims "it's just sun"
or the variations:

[http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-
wor...](http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/)

I agree that there are people who don't understand how science works (that is,
they are effectively illiterate for basic scientific methods and facts), so I
always try to explain them the basics of science first. Somebody who believes
Earth existed for just 6000 years doesn't even know what science is all about,
so you can't even expect him to plan more than until the imminent judgement
day, oh happy day (sadly, there are actual influential US politicians who said
such things).

I start explaining such person that without using the same scientific
principles, the mobile phone they carry around wouldn't be possible (just for
GPS, the satellites have to carry atomic clocks and the formulas that are used
every time have to consider both special and general relativity). Science
works.

Otherwise, how can you even talk about the fact that we scientifically know,
for example, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere of the last 800,000 years,
and that it was for all that time, not counting the last decades, much lower
than now (see the chart, max around 300, now we're already at 400 ppm).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacial_period)

And how we know? The same way we know how to make GPS. Science. And it's
nothing US-based, there are other countries very capable of the best science.
You know, countries able to send the probe to the comet.

Once somebody understands the basics, the start about climate should be
learning about IPCC, the process and conclusions.

~~~
pdonis
_> Science works._

"Science" is not one thing. It works with very different accuracies and
predictive powers in different disciplines. The science that makes your mobile
phone and GPS work is nailed down by massive amounts of data and controlled
experiments confirming theories to many decimal places. That's why those
things work so well and so precisely.

Climate science is nowhere near that accurate--not by many orders of
magnitude. So if you are telling people that they should believe climate
science with the same confidence that they should believe the science that
makes their mobile phone and GPS work, you are giving them serious
misinformation.

 _> we scientifically know, for example, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere
of the last 800,000 years, and that it was for all that time, not counting the
last decades, much lower than now_

Yes. And we also scientifically know that CO2 concentrations during most of
the last few hundred million years were much higher than now.

What we don't know is how the climate works to a sufficient accuracy to bet
trillions of dollars on particular predictions about what effect rising CO2
levels now are going to have.

~~~
acqq
> Climate science is nowhere near that accurate

The range is accurate enough to know the problems. We even know that the
effects will have a very long time span, certainly longer than a few hundred
years during which we've released so much CO2.

Those that demand "accuracy" expect to receive one line and not the range.
Which less changes how much our children will suffer, and even less for
children of our children, only more for us who are old enough to die before
the bigger effects come.

"After me the floods" is immensely selfish to those that follow us.

> And we also scientifically know that CO2 concentrations during most of the
> last few hundred million years were much higher than now.

To compare, that "much higher" state was before dinosaurs went extinct and the
modern mammals started to develop!

The fossil fuels now burned needed exactly these hundreds _of millions_ of
years to form. The immense part of that is already now burnt in just around
_hundred years_. Note the difference in magnitudes.

And comparing the change of the CO2 concentrations with the known temperature
variation, we can expect even much worse changes than very conservative(!)
IPCC predictions:

[http://robertscribbler.com/2014/04/11/world-co2-averages-
tou...](http://robertscribbler.com/2014/04/11/world-co2-averages-
touch-402-2-ppm-daily-values-in-early-april-102-ppm-higher-than-at-any-time-
in-last-800000-years/)

~~~
pdonis
_> The range is accurate enough to know the problems._

I disagree. The model predictions don't match the actual data.

 _> We even know that the effects will have a very long time span_

No, we have models that say that, but the model predictions don't match the
actual data.

 _> that "much higher" state was before dinosaurs went extinct and the modern
mammals started to develop!_

CO2 was much higher then, yes. But it was also much higher during a good part
of the Cenozoic.

 _> The fossil fuels now burned needed exactly these hundreds of millions of
years to form._

No, they didn't. They formed during the Carboniferous period, a small part of
the total time period during which CO2 was much higher than it is now. Also,
CO2 was much higher than it is now for a long time _after_ the Carboniferous,
when the fossil fuels had already formed.

 _> comparing the change of the CO2 concentrations with the known temperature
variation, we can expect even much worse changes than very conservative(!)
IPCC predictions_

Only if you assume, incorrectly, that CO2 changes caused the temperature
changes during the ice ages and interglacials. But the CO2 changes during the
ice ages and interglacials happened _after_ the temperature changes.

~~~
acqq
The claims you promote are without any scientific background, here's why:

The concentration of 500 ppm now would make all ice on Earth disappear,
whereas 400 million years ago there would be needed 3000 ppm (note three
thousand, ten times more than it was before we stat high-rate burning) to
achieve the same, as, among other effects, the solar constant was 4% lower
then:

[http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2(GCA).pdf](http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/PhanCO2\(GCA\).pdf)

Now consider this: during the last 800,000 years CO2 concentration oscillated
between 200 and 300 ppm. The humanity pushed it to 400 ppm in around 100
years, and the 500 ppm is the point of no ice on the Earth.

~~~
pdonis
_> The claims you promote are without any scientific background, here's why_

None of this addresses the actual issues I was raising.

 _> The concentration of 500 ppm now would make all ice on Earth disappear_

According to the _hypothesis_ given in the paper you link to. But it's a
hypothesis, not a fact. One obvious omission in the paper is treatment of
other forcings besides CO2 and solar. Also, all of the data is proxy data, and
the solar forcing is not even based on data but on an assumed linear rate of
increase in the solar constant.

~~~
acqq
> None of this addresses the actual issues I was raising.

Just when somebody closes the eyes and screams at the same time "I don't see
anything." It was exactly on the subject: when you claim that millions of
years ago the concentration was higher, we even know that the state of the
Earth wasn't comparable. Not to mention that humans didn't exist.

------
Animats
For the Western US, the problems aren't so bad. There's a coastal mountain
range along most of the California coast. In LA, a few places such as
Venice/Marina Del Ray may need seawalls, but except for a few areas areas,
three blocks inland is at least 100 feet above sea level. LAX is 121 feet
above sea level.

The SF bay has more problems than the coast. Parts of San Francisco may need
seawalls, and bayfront development such as Redwood Shores needs to be stopped.
Google HQ is in trouble; they're on fill and only 10' above sea level. But
once you're south of US101/CA237, you're OK in most of Silicon Valley.

In the southeastern US, things are potentially much worse. There's no coastal
mountain range. Florida is barely above sea level now. Miami floods regularly.
New Orleans is partly below sea level already.

A big question is what this does to Mississippi River flooding. A higher sea
level means less river flow and more upstream flooding.

~~~
themagician
I'm really not convinced Miami will be around in 20 years. The floods are
worse every year. Miami Beach doesn't just flood, it shuts down. There will
come a time when sea level rise and hurricane season will collide in such a
way that it won't be practical to rebuild.

Miami Beach is 4' above sea level on limestone. The slightest acceleration in
seal level rise will doom the city. Maybe when the mega mansions on Palm
Island become unserviceable people will take things seriously.

People say it could take another 100 years for the sea level to actually
consume the land, but that's really not necessary. Just look at New York post
Hurricane Sandy. Crippled parts of the city for months. When you get a storm
like that, combined with higher tides and more regular flooding it seems like
game over because they're just won't be enough time to rebuild before the next
flood.

~~~
autoreleasepool
As someone who lives in Miami your comments come across as hilariously
exaggerated

~~~
methehack
recent Elizabeth Kolbert new yorker piece on miami and flooding
[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-
mi...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami)

The basic problem is the limestone. Because of the limestone, seawalls are
essentially useless as the water goes underneath through the porous ground. I
think very likely the comments only seem exaggerated to you because it's
difficult to imagine with all the people around you driving fancy cars and
buying expensive condos, like pre-cupernican difficult.

No one knows how long miami has, but I would bet it's closer to 20 years than
100 years. To be quite honest, I hope it happens sooner rather than later as
maybe something like that will start to wake people the fuck up. Doubtful
though. There's always another rationalization.

~~~
autoreleasepool
You're second paragraph is a cruel wish on the lives of millions. You wish
this cruelty for the petty purpose of being on the right side of an argument

~~~
themagician
He's not wrong though.

There is this strange idea, particularly in the US, that we can buy our way
out of the problems caused by sea level rise. That's (somewhat) true in some
cases, but Miami is not one of them. The ground is simply too porous. You'd
have to pull some Dubai-level shit and build a second Miami Beach next to the
original and move everyone over.

South Florida will almost undoubtably be the first area in the United States
where wealthy people are materially impacted by sea level rise. And because
the foundation is so porous it won't take 100 years before areas become
untenable. Flooding that last a few days starts to last weeks.

It really doesn't take much.

~~~
autoreleasepool
> He's not wrong though

I have yet to a shred of evidence for this 20 year theory

------
mmastrac
I think the unfortunate reality is that we're going to have to go through a
major, catastrophic climate change event before the narrative of the American
right (which is by far the most vocal denier of climate change) changes and we
can start making some progress in reversing it.

I only hope that whatever event(s) trigger this policy change are somewhat
reversible. Earth is, ironically, going to be the first testbed for
terraforming technology.

~~~
gedy
Honestly - the American right are not what concerns me - it's China, etc which
seems to be gladly pumping out more and more CO2:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)

We can hide behind per-capita stats but the global CO2 level and climate does
not care about per capita.

~~~
mikeyouse
At least China is at least giving lip service to caring about CO2 reductions:

[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/30/china-
car...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/30/china-carbon-
emissions-2030-premier-li-keqiang-un-paris-climate-change-summit)

Every single Republican candidate for president was openly mocking Obama when
he was in Paris a few months ago for the climate talks. They're an absolute
embarrassment:

[http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/republicans-obama-
clim...](http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/republicans-obama-climate-
change-paris-216284)

~~~
threatofrain
So many people point to politicians as the problem, but remember the people
who keep them in power. Politicians are just people who play the numbers,
which is exactly how a republic is supposed to operate.

~~~
emodendroket
I think it has a lot more to do with moneyed interests who would lose out on
climate-change regulation than with a tremendous bloc of voters who will not
support a candidate who believes climate change is real.

------
andy_ppp
Does anyone know if these climate models are open source, how they work etc?
It seems this is an area where we as software engineers can start to have a
think about how accurate these simulations are and possibly think about ways
of improving them...

~~~
codecamper
You should be. My cousin works on these models. He says they are written in
Fortran and are really great big balls of mud.

Also, feedback loops are something they have only very recently considered.

~~~
vram22
For those who might not know the meaning:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_ball_of_mud](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_ball_of_mud)

------
katabasis
For some context about what impact this could have on major U.S. cities, the
NYTimes published an interactive a few years back[1].

I guess if this new model is accurate, the scenarios on that link which are
projected for 100-300 years out could instead happen in a few decades. This
would result in major areas of Miami, New Orleans, NYC, and Sacramento all
going underwater.

Scary stuff.

[1]
[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday/what-
could-disappear.html)

~~~
wrsh07
Is there any reason why, if we had a decade of warning, we wouldn't be able to
protect much of this area?

~~~
pilsetnieks
> "I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I’m not a great
> believer. There is certainly a change in weather that goes – if you look,
> they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming,
> although now they don’t know if they have global warming. They call it all
> sorts of different things; now they’re using “extreme weather” I guess more
> than any other phrase."

> \-- Donald Trump, [https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-
> partisan/wp/2016/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-
> partisan/wp/2016/03/21/a-transcript-of-donald-trumps-meeting-with-the-
> washington-post-editorial-board/)

There's a considerable chance that this man will be your next president.

~~~
wrsh07
I thought he was great at building walls ;)

------
radarsat1
Honest question, does Antartica have any, what you would consider as,
inhabitants? My understanding is that it is only scientists from a variety of
countries that live there on temporary stints. However, if the ice melts in
any considerable way, I wonder if (some very extreme) individuals might start
looking at moving there?

It is a _huge_ continent... if the ices melts, it's terrible in a way, but
looking positivistically at the situation, there must be lots of potential.

I'm sure there are some treaties etc on Antarctica that limit exploitation?
What if a bunch of people went down there with some guns and claimed some
land, what would happen?

~~~
losteric
The inhabitants of Antarctica are the least of our concerns. Millions of
people around the world will be flooded out of their homes

~~~
tomkinstinch
Additionally, the ice and snowpack of Antarctica contain ~70% of the fresh
water available _on the entire planet_.

~~~
gus_massa
Unless you were planning to transport a giant iceberg with a boat, it doesn't
matter that there is a lot of fresh water in Antarctica.

Water is very cheap, people need it. The important thing is to have available
water near the people that is easy and cheap to process. So it's important to
keep the big rivers as clean as possible, and use that water efficiently.

If tomorrow all the ice in Antarctica magically disappears, it would not
change the problems of the people that need water to drink or cultivate
plants.

(If the ice magically disappears, it will create other problems changing the
climate patterns. If it just melt instead of truly disappearing, it will cause
floods.)

------
Taek
I fear an Armageddon. We are changing the climate faster than we understand
what's happening, and we're starting to get weirder and weirder weather
patterns. We're threatening our food supply.

We've destroyed most of the ocean's fish, and we're heavily dependent on
livestock and crops for food. If we disrupt the weather too much, we're not
going to be able to make food. People are going to starve, and not by the
millions but by the hundreds of millions. Certainly enough strife to cause war
between the countries that are actually trying to do something and the
countries that are continuing to ramp their CO2 output.

We don't know when we cross the line from 'severe' to 'dire', but we've got
enough destructive technology that if it becomes a global problem, we may end
up blowing ourselves up trying to resolve the conflict.

I was recently in Africa, and I was shown the rate at which the country (Cote
d'Iviore) was growing. Families with as many as 10 kids. But all I could see
was deforestation. Miles and miles of deforestation, something like 30 minutes
of driving through an urban area that had all been vegetation in 2011.

This season's weather was weird, and it has made me very afraid of what's
coming in the next 5 years. We're destroying our planet's methods of
regulation, and at the same time we are increasing the rate at which we're
introducing adversarial agents. It's going to be a disaster, because everyone
reading this critically knows that the people in power aren't going to do
anything about it until people in their own country are dying by the millions
as a result.

If you care about surviving the next 20 years, this should be your biggest
concern. We depend on a stable climate. Without that, we will not have food.
Be afraid.

~~~
codecamper
If you were shocked to see 1 million crossing into Europe in 2015, imagine
what it will be like in the near future when tens of millions face drought &
famine.

The general problem is that most of the world lacks the scientific
understanding to know how big & bad of a problem this may turn out to be.

Google & zuckerberg could just black out certain zip codes every so often. go
to google.com & get a message about the impending doom & what the person can
do about it.

To me, people should not be able to pick & choose technology. If you enjoy
using a cell phone & sending email then you should accept what scientists are
saying. No more doubting.

If software is eating the world, it should hurry up & start directing the
herd.

~~~
pdonis
_> If you enjoy using a cell phone & sending email then you should accept what
scientists are saying._

This is not a valid argument. The science that underlies the workings of your
cell phone and email is more accurate by many orders of magnitude than climate
science. "Science" is not all one thing, and climate science does not get to
claim the same accuracy as, say, electrodynamics just because it has "science"
in its name.

------
medymed
If excess energy consumption is a 'vice', we would be following Malthus's
prediction of a vice-based catastrophe before a food based 'Malthusian'
catastrophe:

"The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are
the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful
work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly
seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and
sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still
incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty
blow levels the population with the food of the world."

Just like yeast die of alcohol (pollution) poisoning during fermentation
before their food source is anywhere near depleted, we might have plenty of
food but not do so hot. If yeast could only slow their reproduction they might
last for a darn good while in the brew...but luckily they destroy themselves!
Otherwise beer would be too slow, and that's unacceptable.

------
gdubs
From what I understand, a carbon tax is one of the most immediate and
effective things we could do to combat climate change. If I understand the
Macroeconomics correctly, the supply side shouldn't feel too much of a hit.
Low-income consumers could maybe write off the carbon tax. I.e., the revenue
from the tax could either go towards infrastructure spending, or it could go
back to people in the form of a tax offset somewhere else.

Imagine if the money pouring into the American political process right now was
channeled into electing Congressional leaders who, you know, believe in
science. Or if some of the grassroots dollars being burned on TV ads for
candidates A, B and C could be spent on a campaign to convince the public that
a carbon tax would be good for us.

~~~
satellitec4t
Yep, economists largely agree that a carbon tax is an effective strategy

A couple polls of economists (nearly unanimous)

[http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-
re...](http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-
results?SurveyID=SV_9Rezb430SESUA4Y) [http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-
experts-panel/poll-re...](http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-
panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_8oABK2TolkGluV7)

~~~
benjaminRRR
Australia was a good experiment on this and the effects were dramatic, equally
dramatic when it was repealed (yes a major piece of legislation was rolled
back, which is another problem in itself)
[http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/documents/australia-
repeale...](http://www.energy.unimelb.edu.au/documents/australia-repealed-its-
carbon-tax-%E2%80%94-and-emissions-are-now-soaring)

------
elipsey
[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-
and-ice/extent/)

Edit: lol why downvote? are you the only person on HN who doesn't like charts?

~~~
danielvf
Note that you will need to select "Southern Hemisphere" at this link in order
to see the Antarctic ice measurements. By default you are seeing something
else.

~~~
elliottkember
Anartic?

~~~
danielvf
Phone keyboard, sorry.

~~~
thrownaway2424
Antartic ?

:-)

------
jkot
Is that climate model available in form of source code and original raw data?

~~~
MooMooMilkParty
I haven't read through the paper in enough detail to see if the actual model
used is mentioned, but I did see that they use CCSM forcings. You can see the
relevant CESM models here:
[http://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/models](http://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/models). They
provide links to the various components as well as validated configurations
for you to play with.

If you are specifically interested in ice sheet models you could look at
these:

PISM - [http://pism-docs.org/wiki/doku.php](http://pism-
docs.org/wiki/doku.php)

CISM - [http://oceans11.lanl.gov/cism/](http://oceans11.lanl.gov/cism/)

ISSM - [https://issm.jpl.nasa.gov/](https://issm.jpl.nasa.gov/)

------
biot
I'm fairly ignorant in terms of the science behind this, and one thing in the
article raises some questions for me:

    
    
      > Sea level has risen a lot — 10 to 20 meters — in warm
      > periods in the past
    

Presumably this is in the distant, pre-industrial past. If so, what caused the
warm period and, assuming sea level subsequently dropped afterwards, what
caused the warm period to end? Other than human activity contributing to the
current warm period, why is it different than previously?

~~~
GrantS
There appears to still be active research about mechanisms that explain the
historical data but here's a clearly written article [1] discussing a few
factors such as: variation in solar radiation due to variation in Earth's
orbit, changing ocean currents which may lead to huge upwellings of carbon
dioxide from previously sunken dead algae.

[1] [https://blogs.princeton.edu/research/2013/04/30/how-the-
ice-...](https://blogs.princeton.edu/research/2013/04/30/how-the-ice-ages-
ended/)

------
dang
We merged this thread and
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11392246](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11392246),
but adopted the more neutral title of the latter. If people feel strongly
about one URL being better than the other, we can change that.

------
grandalf
I wonder how much the public perception of the danger of large-scale ice melt
is influenced by a lay understanding of the way phase changes can happen
extremely suddenly.

~~~
bjz_
Probably not that much. What worries me is feedback loops like the melting
permafrost, and collapse of the Amazon ecosystem. Or the loss of ice causing
more sunlight to be absorbed. Or a sudden overflow of the ocean's ability to
store energy (something that has been masking most of the warming so far).
Things could run out of our control in a very short amount of time.

------
lossolo
Did you notice that there is more signs every year, that we are heading to
catastrophe but we try not to think about it and feel like everything will be
ok anyway - who cares? It's better to read what's up with Kardashians instead
of facing the reality. Reality in this case means changing the way we live,
dramatically, because there is no other way to stop what's coming. Politicians
will not do this because it means economical decline, unemployment etc.

On last conference in Paris NOTHING was done. All agreed that everyone will do
what they "can" to work against global warming, which means every country in
the world can say "we are doing what we can" while doing almost nothing.

~~~
awt
Did you ever notice the conflict of interest in which government funded
scientists predict disaster, requiring more research to be funded? Oh and did
you ever notice how all of the solutions proposed give the government more
control over the economy?

~~~
cromulent
As opposed to the conflict of interest where the people who make money from
the status quo, and the scientists on their payroll, say there is no problem?

I understand the scepticism, but if there is a problem with the status quo,
that is the only way to find out about it. The people making money off selling
oil aren't going to volunteer to shut down.

~~~
Tycho
There's other ways. Let people put their money where their mouth is. If AGW is
a real problem, then we ought to see certain insurance become expensive or
coastal land value decreasing. People could even trade climate derivatives
that start paying once temperature rises above a cap or something like that.

------
StriverGuy
What can the individual change about their lifestyle to help prevent this?

~~~
PerfectElement
Reduce or eliminate your consumption of animal products. I think this is the
easiest and most impactful step any individual can take. It doesn't rely on
politicians or corporations. You just need some temporary will power to learn
and change a few habits.

~~~
doctorcroc
This is an important point. In large part the california drought was
exacerbated by how much water the livestock industry consumed:
[http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-13/cows-
suck-u...](http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-13/cows-suck-up-more-
of-california-s-water-than-almonds)

------
ps4fanboy
Unless China, USA and India start cutting emissions anything the smaller
countries do to limit their emissions will likely dwarfed by the growth in
these super polluter countries.

~~~
mdorazio
Slightly more nuanced point: US emissions are actually down from their peak by
quite a bit [1]. The problem is that developing countries like China are
rapidly increasing their emissions to US per capita levels [2] while the rest
of the world's emissions aren't dropping fast enough to compensate. At this
point it's pretty inevitable that world CO2 levels are going to continue
rising for many years.

[1]
[https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.ht...](https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html)
[2]
[http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC/countries...](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC/countries/CN?display=graph)

~~~
jseliger
_The problem is that developing countries like China are rapidly increasing
their emissions to US per capita levels_

I've also read that many of China's emissions come from producing products for
export, such that the U.S. may be shedding official omissions by shifting
production to China, which allows the emissions to be counted there even
though the final product ends up being used in the U.S.

------
puppetmaster3
What is the impact of Volcanoes or other natural things to the global warming?

~~~
vixen99
What is the impact of CO2? We do not actually know its magnitude (on global
temperature). We certainly know that the relationship is not one of direct
proportionality. Climate literature shows that its interpretation (in terms of
causation) is made exceptionally difficult by many other factors which if
given a fair discussion would render virtually every popular account
unreadable and most definitely outwith the reach of any rational policy
making. Doubters should examine the Vostok core data and temperature data for
1880-2016. For sure, there's a story there but to claim there's a policy
directive arising from this data is simply unjustified. To be clear -
simplistic denial of <any> link is of course mere ignorance.

~~~
puppetmaster3
Hi Vixen.

In science, debate is encouraged. Seems that some are scared of a debate.

------
tn13
Those who want others to take climate change seriously must take these models
with a boatload of salt. Be definition these are models based on data we don't
fully understand and has very bad record of proving completely wrong.

These models are very much life stock market predictions of boom and bust
which seldom come true yet both booms and busts happen regularly.

------
protomyth
So, why isn't some billionaire working on something to remove the CO2 from the
air / ocean and collect the carbon and release the O2. I'm not being
sarcastic. I'm actually interested in why, given the other scenarios, the
technology isn't being developed for a energy efficient way to do this.

~~~
dredmorbius
Scale. Costs.

It costs about $550 to remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. Alternatives,
such as sequestering CO2 from seawater, may be cheaper, around $150. I'm going
to stick with the higher estimate.

 _To just tread water_ we'd need to remove as much CO2 as we're adding
presently.

Current global emissions are 9.875 gigatons (billion tons).8 Let's call it 10
gigatons to make the math easier.

That's 550 * 10 billion or $5,550 billion dollars _per year_ in carbon
sequestration. A thousand billion is better known as a trillion (in the US),
and the US GDP is about $15 trillion.

This would equal 1/3 of total US economic output.

On a global scale, GDP is about $70 trillion, so we're looking at 1/12 of the
global economy. Call it an 8% tax on everything.

It's the sort of thing a unified international effort might accomplish, but
it's well beyond the reach of even the single richest person or corporation.

There's the additional problem that once you _remove_ the CO2, you've got to
hold on to it. That's 10 Gt you'd have to freeze or compress and essentially
hold in storage for a few thousand years. That's a considerable warehousing
project.

Not releasing the CO2 in the first place may be strongly preferable.

\------------

 _Correction:_ I'd read off the 10 Gt value not realising it was _carbon_ ,
rather than CO2. Actual is 35 Gt CO2, so multiply dollar amounts and
percentages by 3.5.

That's $19.25 trillion, or more than the total US GDP, and 28% of total global
GDP. Or a ~30% tax on everything.

~~~
protomyth
> It costs about $550 to remove a ton of CO2 from the atmosphere.
> Alternatives, such as sequestering CO2 from seawater, may be cheaper, around
> $150. I'm going to stick with the higher estimate.

Well, given the cost it looks like relocating NYC by itself is going to be, it
might be worth it to pursue some research into energy efficient processes that
can break the CO2 down.

> There's the additional problem that once you remove the CO2, you've got to
> hold on to it. That's 10 Gt you'd have to freeze or compress and essentially
> hold in storage for a few thousand years. That's a considerable warehousing
> project.

I was proposing putting money into researching a technique / process to break
the CO2 down into O2 and carbon. Carbon has uses that would freeze it outside
the carbon cycle for a long time.

> Not releasing the CO2 in the first place may be strongly preferable.

Well, from all the news, its too late now, so we might need to go to some
other solution.

~~~
dredmorbius
NB, I'd understated costs by a factor of 3.5 due to confusing _carbon_ and
_CO2_ emissions.

The former are 10 Gt/yr. Latter 35 Gt/yr. Cost exceeds total US economic
output, or 28% of global GDP.

Keep in mind: that's _per year, forever_. Or at least so long as there's
carbon to burn. Probably about a century inclusive of all hard-to-get coal.

~~~
protomyth
That's assuming that we don't find new processes to do the separation, and its
not forever. We will eventually get to a place where energy generation using
new technology is as cheap, easy, and storable as coal/gas. Since it seems to
be too late to change our ways, and no country is going to sacrifice when
others have already used polluting sources to advance their living standard,
we need to do the cleanup.

~~~
dredmorbius
We know the energy costs of chemical reactions. They're not subject to change
(a prime reason why batter _capacity_ has remained stubbornly unchanged over
the past 100 years, though _costs_ have fallen). I'm not optimistic.

Your other statement is an article of faith, not evidence.

~~~
protomyth
I think anyone who thinks the population of India, China, or the countries in
Africa will stop using more energy to get a better standard of living has
faith in the wrong direction.

~~~
dredmorbius
You say that as if it were a volitional choice.

~~~
protomyth
Who exactly is going to force India and China to change?

------
dd36
As long as politicians remain cheap to purchase, there will never be a
solution without catastrophe and maybe not even then.

We need a well-funded super pac to more than offset the super pacs of the
fossil fuel industry. A big stick that can go after every congress person,
senator and governor relentlessly.

------
elgabogringo
Antarctic Sea Ice is at record levels:

[http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-
reache...](http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-
record-maximum)

~~~
zajd
Extent is not volume and sea ice is way less of a problem than land ice

[http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-
ice.htm](http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm)

------
mombul
I'm dumb when it comes to science. But if the worst case scenario happens,
couldn't we build facilities to 'dispose' of the melted ice in any way,
instead of letting the sea level rise?

~~~
mrfusion
That's a really good question. Maybe we could pump it to a colder area of
Antarctica? Or pump a corresponding amount of ocean water to a cold area of
Antarctica.

~~~
craigyk
pumping melted, probably saline water over ice doesn't seem like a great way
to refreeze the water, more like a good way to melt more ice.

~~~
thrownaway2424
Idea not that weird: [http://www.earth-syst-
dynam.net/7/203/2016/](http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/203/2016/)

It would require a lot of energy, but all remedies to climate change require
that.

------
dschiptsov
The problem is that with enough math and big data it is possible to create a
model with predicts everything one wishes.

Any digree of disconnection from reality is easily attainable.

------
jonstokes
So, if that Boston map is correct, then MIT, Boston University, and chunks of
Harvard will all be toast by the time my youngest is the age of her great-
grandfater. Crazy.

------
cozzyd
Time to buy some property in Chicago I guess...

------
codecamper
Has anyone made an estimate of the total cost to convert to 100% renewable
power in the US?

------
codecamper
All these discussions are quite well spoken & well said, from both sides!

Tay should read this page.

------
James001
they been saying this for years

~~~
noir_lord
Given the timescales involved they'll be saying it for many more years and
given the consensus amongst scientists the smart move is to work to correct.

The worst case is they where wrong and we improved the planet for nothing...oh
no.

~~~
refurb
I'd say the worst case is we spend billions of dollars (that could have been
spent elsewhere, say improving human health) on something that makes no
difference at all.

~~~
jug
On the other hand, spending billions of dollars on things carrying
questionable benefits for humanity would not be news. At least the reason for
this would be noble.

~~~
nickff
People who lose their children to curable or preventable diseases might hold a
different view.

------
zxcvvcxz
> Climate Model

I'll believe it when I see it. We have at least 40% larger ice sheets now than
in 2012, and more than in 2006 [1]. See also [2].

These models have been shown to be wildly inaccurate at empirical prediction
[3], so I think we need to work harder and exercise more scientific skepticism
before creating alarmist headlines in the mainstream media.

[1] [https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-
civilization/popu...](https://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-
civilization/popular-culture/good-news-for-polar-bears-bad-news-for-al-gore-
warming/)

[2] [http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12927](http://blog.drwile.com/?p=12927)

[3] [http://objectivescience.net/warming-predictions-vs-real-
worl...](http://objectivescience.net/warming-predictions-vs-real-world-
science-who-is-the-flat-earther/)

Edit - to the downvoters, please explain why I shouldn't exercise scientific
skepticism relating to how the mainstream discusses climate change.

~~~
kilroy123
Honest question. If 99% of scientists and astronomers said a giant asteroid
were headed to earth, and within 10 years, all life on the planet would be
destroyed. Would you believe it?

~~~
rs999gti
> within 10 years

Is it really 10 years? Within our lifetimes? Within 50 years?

I really wish someone would nail down a definitive timeline to when someone
should really worry about climate change.

I mean ordering the world's problems big to small, I'd say unemployment,
income inequality, and stagnant economic growth are more important things to
worry about.

~~~
collyw
In your own lifetime it does make more sense to worry about those short term
things - in comparison to climate change, the inequity / unemployment /
economy change very quickly. If you have children or are worried about the
survival of our species, then climate change is a far more important problem.

~~~
mmel
Has anyone seriously proposed that the survival of our species is at risk from
climate change?

~~~
collyw
[http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/18/a-child-
bor...](http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/18/a-child-born-today-
may-live-to-see-humanitys-end-unless/)

------
AnthonyMouse
I'm tired of arguing about CO2. Let's make the Republican argument for a
carbon tax.

Buying oil enriches countries antagonistic to the US. Iran, Saudi Arabia,
Russia, Venezuela. Oil is a global commodity. If we use less oil then those
countries will lose twice: Once because they're selling fewer barrels of oil
and then again because, with less demand, pre-tax price per barrel goes down.

This also means we get free money at the expense of those countries. If we
enter into a treaty with Europe and China to each put a $2/gallon tax on oil,
that does not make gas go from $2 to $4, because the tax will reduce
consumption (as intended), which reduces demand, which lowers prices. So
instead of paying $2 of which $2 goes to the bad guys, you pay $3 of which $2
goes to Uncle Sam and $1 goes to the bad guys. Then that's $2 we can use to
cut other taxes, $1 of which came from the bad guys. So not only is this
revenue neutral, it's effectively a tax cut -- you pay $1 extra for gas and
then pay $2 less in income tax. American taxpayers end up with more money in
their pockets at the expense of Russia and Iran. And the higher we make the
gas tax the more it reduces demand which transfers even more money from
antagonistic foreign countries to US taxpayers.

Somebody tell me why CO2 even matters when carbon tax justifies itself
regardless.

~~~
jabagawee
I don't have an opinion yet on a carbon tax or politics, but I can't agree
with oil-producing countries suffering a double loss in lower sales and lower
prices. The overly-simplified version of supply-vs-demand states that with
constant supply, prices are lowered to raise demand. Thus, it's only a single
loss there.

~~~
dredmorbius
The language parent post used may be imprecise, but the effect is largely what
oil extractors are now seeing.

Global oil prices have fallen due to demand descruction. Total quantity of oil
consumed is down as well. Revenues, as P * Q, are down. It's a compound
effect.

Saying that _both_ supply _and_ demand have fallen is incorrect _in an
economist 's sense_ as to an economist these are _functions_. Shifting one
_function_ (usually expressed as a "curve") _moves along the other curve_ ,
even without a change in that function.

Confusing, I know.

------
blueprint
It's going to be a lot worse than this. Time to get realistic about the fact
that the balance of the natural environment has been broken, and it will
definitely lead to a collapse of the global ecosystem in a couple years. This
problem is not being caused by CO2 alone. That's only a tiny part of it. There
will be massive tectonic activity. Global warming is only the first step. It's
like when a human gets a fever. 1°C of global temp increase is a huge amount
of heat but does not show terribly dangerous symptoms. But 2 - 3°C increase
means massive upheaval and risk of brain death. To solve this problem, we need
to be looking into gravity, not just radiative transfer/greenhouse gasses.

But perhaps a bigger problem than nobody knowing about the gravity problem is
that at this stage, nobody wants to know, either. For that reason, nobody can
prevent the coming period of change.

------
awt
CO2 is not a pollutant. Without it, plants, and thus animal life will _die_.
In fact plant death nearly occurred recently on a geological timescale. More
co2 = more life. There is no such thing as stasis wrt global climate, and I'm
glad the climate does not appear to be moving in the direction of an ice age
in the near term, although it looks as though in the long term this is
inevitable.

~~~
nabla9
Check the definition of polluntant and polluntant taxonomy. Polluntant is not
the same as poison or harmful chemical.

Carbon dioxide is a fund pollutant.

~~~
awt
OMG co2 is not harmful it is plant food. If there is more of it more plants
grow. The earth has had insanely higher amounts of co2 in the atmosphere than
are present today in which periods life thrived even more so than today.

~~~
_ph_
Water is also essential for life, still you can drown. Yes, we had higher
levels of CO2 in geological times of the earths past. The problem is, we are
changing the CO2 content at a rate where ecological systems might not be able
to cope with it. Also, even if the ecological systems do not collapse, just
flooding of the inhabited costal regions would create enough human suffering
to justify strong countermeasures against raising CO2.

~~~
awt
interesting that you bring in human suffering. Have you thought about all the
lives saved and _brought into existence_ due to the burning of fossil fuels?
I'm not much of a utilitarian, but gradual sea rise is nothing compared to the
degree of poverty inflicted and number of people that would never be born if
fossil fuel use were forcibly reduced. And no solar can't replace it, nor
wind. The only contender is nuclear.

~~~
_ph_
There is no doubt that modern civilization was only possible due to fossil
fuels. But that says nothing about how long we should continue to use them.
Actually its just in the last very few years that alternative energies are
competitive. This is really a development which happened in the last 20 years.
And solar and wind _can_ replace fossil fuels. In 2015, 30% of the German
electricity was produced by regenerative energies, up about 5% from 2014. So
in the next few years, it will be the largest part of energy production. We
don't have to go to 0% CO2 emissions, having 10-20% gas power plants for
filling gaps is absolutely acceptable, as long as the rest is CO2-free.

~~~
awt
Wind power is not viable: [http://trilema.com/2016/heres-where-you-forget-
about-wind-po...](http://trilema.com/2016/heres-where-you-forget-about-wind-
power-as-an-alternative-source-of-power/)

