
Rising Temperatures Could Melt Most Himalayan Glaciers by 2100 - juokaz
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/world/asia/himalayas-glaciers-warming.html
======
tengbretson
I'm curious how much colder we would have to make the planet in order for this
not to happen.

------
Zecar
[https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0](https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0)

June 29, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations
could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global
warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

~~~
throwaway5752
What is the problem with that article? We failed to stop global warming, and
now it's likely that - regardless of what is done, even cutting to zero net
carbon emissions - that the Maldives will be lost in the century.

~~~
Zecar
The problem is that there have been alarmist articles like this posted for
nearly a hundred years proclaiming gloom for days that are now in the past.

~~~
kaybe
And they did not have the science and data to support them, now we do. Let's
just hope we are being a bit too alarmist and it gets us to change our
behaviour fast enough and not too late. We'd rather be wrong on this, you
know.

~~~
Zecar
> And they did not have the science and data to support them, now we do.

We know more than we knew then. We don't (and can't) know the outcome with
current climate science. It's currently impossible for us to model the complex
system that is Earth's climate with ranges into the decades. We can't even
model weather a month out. Claiming climate science is settled is incredibly
disingenuous and it bothers me that more scientists don't step up and say "hey
here's what we think might happen but it's impossible to say for sure".

> We'd rather be wrong on this, you know.

Oh I definitely believe you on that, it's just that taking away rights from
people to accomplish climate goals is not a zero-sum game and it needs to be
treated with care and caution, not alarmism.

~~~
kaybe
A lot of care was taken in the wording of the last IPCC report to communicate
what findings have which level of confidence. The range is from 'virtually
certain' to unsure, and yes, some parts are indeed not settled yet, but the
main findings are more than sufficient to tell humanity that _we need to act
now_.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report#C...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report#Climate_change_2013:_report_overview)

> Oh I definitely believe you on that, it's just that taking away rights from
> people to accomplish climate goals is not a zero-sum game and it needs to be
> treated with care and caution, not alarmism.

That is for the politicians to work out. The load must be balanced of course,
but if we don't act fast everyone will suffer for it. Calm and fast would be
best though.

edit: Oh and the recent report about the ozone hole had some good news: The
ozone hole is closing and the gases that were not emitted due to the controls
also saved us from ~0.4°C of warming. (If the 'business-as-usual' projections
are right, but there is no way to check that.) Plus, these greenhouse gas
concentrations go down over time. Much easier than CO2 and methane, but a
first win!

~~~
Zecar
> A lot of care was taken in the wording of the last IPCC report to
> communicate what findings have which level of confidence.

The level of confidence is near zero, and if the IPCC was being honest and
unbiased that is what they would say. As I said previously upthread, anybody
who claims they can model our climate with any level of accuracy on the order
of decades is being completely disingenuous. We can't model weather even a
month out. The history of global warming alarmism has nearly a hundred-year
long trail of missed predictions. But they have it right this time, right?

~~~
kaybe
Nobody claims accuracy on the timescale of such a high resolution.
Aditionally, we don't know about future emissions and land-use changes, and
feedback effects, so we cannot predict the exact future.

Please check the wikipedia page for what is actually claimed.

~~~
Zecar
> Please check the wikipedia page for what is actually claimed.

You want to point me to a fact you are trying to refute?

------
Zecar
Here's a thought exercise; we are moving into renewables with absolute
breakneck speed. At this point, it's essentially cheaper to use renewable
energy than fossil fuels. Market forces are moving us towards clean energy at
an accelerating rate. Left alone, our economies will rapidly approach 100%
renewable energy due to price alone. So ask yourselves why propaganda outlets
like the Washington Post (DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS--give me a fucking break)
or the NY Times breathlessly run article after article every day preparing
citizens to give up their rights to choices; choice of what house they're
allowed to live in, what kind of car they're allowed to drive etc.

But you can't criticize the golden calf of global warming^H^H^H^Hclimate
change right? What's the saying, show me who you're not allowed to criticize
and I'll show you who holds power over you.

~~~
denimnerd46
Already have people telling me i’m not allowed to live in my 3000sqft house
with my 2 vehicles in that tiny house thread.

~~~
kaybe
How much fossil energy are you using with this setup? That is the only
relevant question for this topic.

~~~
denimnerd46
Actually it’s a lot more complicated than that. but to answer your question
just gas electric and natural gas is a metric ton a month of CO2 out

------
throwaway5752
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19079410](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19079410)
\- this threatens the food supply of 3 billion people. It is an enormous, near
term threat to the stability of civilization. This is _by_ 2100\. The impact
will be sooner. People will not stay in one place to starve to death, and food
supplies from other locations will be affected.

~~~
kaybe
If the precipitation patterns stay the same (unlikely), this at least can be
fixed with a few dams and proper water management.

