
The poisons released by melting Arctic ice - perfunctory
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190612-the-poisons-released-by-melting-arctic-ice
======
unicornporn
Believing that we'll be able to reach the 1.5°C goal[1] (much less th 2°C
goal) is starting to look unscientific to me.

David Roberts put it this way:

> Basically, stopping warming at 1.5C would involve an immediate, coordinated
> crash program of re-industrialization, involving every major country in the
> world. It would be like the US mobilizing for WWII, only across the globe,
> sustained for the rest of the century.[2]

This is not happening and will not be happening because the the way our
economic system is structured. Any country that wants to go first with the
regulations needed will meet severe economic consequences. And well, time is
too short for truly substantial coordination.

Deep adaptation[3] is our only hope. That and doing everything we can,
considering the limitations imposed by geopolitics and our economic order, to
slow things down.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warmi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warming_of_1.5_%C2%B0C)

[2]
[https://twitter.com/drvox/status/1049114118270197760](https://twitter.com/drvox/status/1049114118270197760)

[3]
[https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf](https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf)

~~~
maxxxxx
I am pretty convinced nothing serious will be done. We may get lucky and
technology will improve to reduce CO2 output but most likely we’ll just deal
with the consequences of climate change. The world has been always been at
flux so we may see refugees, wars and realignment of political power. As it
has always been.

~~~
wazoox
And IEA admitted that peak oil (conventional) occurred in 2008 and that shale
oil may peak before 2025. Russia announced its own peak oil for 2021.

We'll be struggling soon with the worst of climate change at the same time
we'll run out of fossil fuels, with no serious alternative available. This
looks decidedly like the "Business as usual" World3 simulation of "Limits to
Growth"...

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

~~~
elbasti
The issue is that we seem to have triggered two positive feedback loops;
methane release from melting ice and loss of Arctic albedo. This means the
Earth will continue to warm even in the absence of new emissions, in a runaway
fashion.

~~~
Scarblac
The runaway fashion isn't obvious to me. Once the ice is gone the albedo won't
get worse, and atmospheric methane decays in some decades.

~~~
elbasti
Oh my god, the ice "being gone" is basically the definition of catastrophe. If
we get that far then it's way, way, way too late. Saying "once the is is gone
the albedo won't get worse" is kind of like saying "eventually the plane that
hits the mountain has to stop, and the crash can't get any worse".

And yes, atmospheric methane does decay in decades but the point is that
before it does, it depletes sea ice and warms the ocean. The absolute worst-
case scenario in a runaway climate model is something like the clathrate gun.
[2]

> "One of the most eminent climate scientists in the world, Peter Wadhams,
> believes an ice-free Arctic will occur one summer in the next few years and
> that it will likely increase by 50% the warming caused by the CO2 produced
> by human activity" [1]

[1] :
[https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf](https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf)
(sorry, not the primary source)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis)

------
ddebernardy
> Melting permafrost effectively introduces a new country at number two on the
> highest emitters list, and one that isn’t accounted for in current IPCC
> models.

Is this correct, or is it just hyperbole? Asking because it's not like melting
permafrost wasn't a known potential problem 20 years ago, so I find it dubious
that IPCC models might not have factored it in already. Might it be that the
IPCC models don't account for the scale of the phenomenon turning out to be
worse than expected?

~~~
perfunctory
IPCC models don't include feedback loops in general. IPCC models are extremely
conservative indeed.

~~~
bklaasen
My head is reeling. Do you have a source for that?

~~~
perfunctory
I think this is a good read on IPCC conservatism
[http://climateextremes.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/Wha...](http://climateextremes.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2018/08/What-Lies-Beneath-V3-LR-Blank5b15d.pdf)

The sea level chart on page 31 is particularly telling.

------
pastullo
I'm getting extremely pessimistic about our chances at stopping this. It looks
like even though we drastically reduce our emissions (which looks very much
unrealistic) we haven't yet factored in all these variety of negative
feedbacks that exacerbate the problem even more. It looks more and more like
the chain of negative effects like the lost albedo effect, the methane
released by the melting permafrost and tons of others will create a
unstoppable runaway reaction. :(

~~~
gdubs
Yea, I’m generally an optimist but the last few weeks of headlines all seem to
be of the “worst than expected, “sooner than expected” variety.

It’s infuriating how cheaply and seamlessly this problem could have been
solved if we started gradually, 30 years ago.

~~~
pojzon
People that knew about it and decided to do nothing should be prosecuted and
put to jail. They wont have to live with those decisions long enough to see
how disastrous they were but OUR children will..

------
spodek
Readers: reducing your emissions will make a difference, not just your
reduction, but you will lead others, who otherwise might feel alone, to join
you. And after reducing small things, you'll find it easier to reduce big
things.

Eventually large number of people will reduce large amounts of emissions.
Corporations, governments, and other institutions will follow.

You will make a difference. You will also find after reducing driving, flying,
meat, etc, that you'll wish you had changed earlier. You replace those things
with other things you like more.

~~~
elbasti
There is no more time for individual action. We're about 20/30 years too late
for this plan.

Positive-feedback has kicked in, so slowing down emissions will achieve very
little. Because of positive feedback, even _halting_ emissions might not be
enough.

The only possible path I can think of to stem the catastrophe is a two-step
plan:

1\. The immediate enactment of a global carbon tax, priced high enough to
materially reduce carbon emissions, and quickly.

2\. Massive investment in sequestration technologies to help us scrub the air
of CO2 and methane.

The challenge is colossal. Even if (1) could be done, (2) basically involves
un-doing every emission of the past 20 years. Every mile driven must now be
driven backwards, every good manufactured must be un-done...and with far more
energy than it took the first time (thanks, thermodynamics!). And that energy
must come from clean sources. And it must be done quickly; every day the
carbon debt accelerates. Note, not _grows_ — accelerates!

A friend once gave me the following metaphor. Imagine you have a glass jar,
filled 1/16 with bacteria. The bacteria look up and say "we have plenty of
room to grow!". Two weeks later the bacteria are half way up the jar. "Hey, it
took us two week to get here, we have time to curb our growth".

The bacteria suffocate in about two hours.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Carbon sequestration seems like the (political) winner because it's much
easier to convince people to spend money on something than it is to take their
money for doing something (in a democratic society at least).

Edit: Of course not emitting the carbon is better and more efficient but from
a practical "affecting change ASAP" perspective sequestration seems like an
easier pill for society to swallow. That should go without saying but I forgot
that weekends here are basically Reddit and those kinds of things cannot be
considered obvious.

~~~
hannob
Please learn some basic facts.

The idea that carbon sequestation is an _alternative_ to reducing emissions
needs to die as quickly as possible. It's rooted in fantasy, not in facts.

All climate scenarios from the IPCC that don't end up in a huge catastrophy
rely on rapid emission reductions. Most also rely on carbon sequestation for
negative emissions in the future (which many think is too optimistic, because
it needs yet to be shown that the technology can be scaled up enough). There
is no scenario of averting catastrophic heating with carbon sequestation
alone.

------
martincollignon
Great to see more and more climate related posts on HN. Posted this a couple
of times already, but I'd encourage everyone to check this paper[0] that
recently came out ("Tackling Climate Change with Machine Learning").

Among one of the initiatives mentioned is a startup called Tomorrow [1] that
integrates with services (Uber, Instacart, etc) to calculate your personal CO2
emissions. They need help to get more of these integrations and more CO2
models. Consider giving a hand to them or other projects like this one [2].

[0] [https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05433](https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05433)

[1] [https://www.tmrow.com/](https://www.tmrow.com/)

[2] [https://openclimatefix.github.io/](https://openclimatefix.github.io/)

------
emptybits
Another BBC story linked in the article has these amazing claims:[1]

* 2005 "NASA scientists successfully revived bacteria that had been encased in a frozen pond in Alaska for 32,000 years. ... Once the ice melted, they began swimming around, seemingly unaffected."

* 2007 "scientists managed to revive an 8-million-year-old bacterium that had been lying dormant in ice, beneath the surface of a glacier in the Beacon and Mullins valleys of Antarctica"

* 2007 "bacteria were also revived from ice that was over 100,000 years old."

[1] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20170504-there-are-
diseases...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20170504-there-are-diseases-
hidden-in-ice-and-they-are-waking-up)

------
superpermutat0r
Methane that will be released from Siberia is equal to hundreds of years of
modern industrial activity, and can be released in a span of years. Warming is
unstoppable, second order effects are already happening. Thinking that we can
do anything about it is naive.

~~~
elbasti
> Warming is unstoppable, second order effects are already happening. Thinking
> that we can do anything about it is naive.

This is probably true. However, it is possible—if highly unlikely—that
something _could_ be done. This would involve effectively halting CO2
emissions in the next 10 years and massive investment in carbon sequestration
research.

Is this likely to succeed? No, not really. But why on earth would we be
spending our time trying anything else?

(Well, I guess we could be spending that time preparing for the coming
changes. Which we should also do.)

~~~
cstejerean
Anything that involves halting CO2 emissions is not something that “could be
done” anytime soon except in theory. Coordinating at that scale across the
globe will simply never happen, and the sooner we admit it the sooner we can
move on to figure out how to deal with it not happening.

CO2 emissions will reduce to the extent that alternatives become cheaper,
better and more convenient. And while that’s moving forward it won’t happen
fast enough to prevent the problem from getting worse in the mean time.

So let’s stop kidding ourselves and prepare for what’s coming, both in terms
of dealing with the consequences and finding ways to counteract the effects of
ongoing fossil fuel usage.

~~~
elbasti
I don't disagree with this comment, except insofar as I think there's room for
both. Even a partial success on the mitigation side buys us more time on the
adaptation side.

On a personal note, what steps do you think an individual can do to prepare
for what's coming as an individual/family?

~~~
cstejerean
I agree, the more we can reduce emissions the smaller the resulting problem we
need to solve.

On a personal level I would look at where you live and how that area is likely
to change over the next 20-30 years if the current trends continue. And then
either consider moving somewhere else or see what you need to do to deal with
more extreme versions of floods, draughts, fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

------
mehrdadn
> The Northern Hemisphere winter of 2018/2019 was dominated by headlines of
> the “polar vortex”, as temperatures plummeted unusually far south into North
> America. [...] What such stories masked, however, was that the opposite was
> happening in the far North, beyond the Arctic circle. [...] In November,
> when temperatures should have been -25C, a temperature of 1.2C above
> freezing was recorded at the North Pole. [1]

In November... 2018? Why do they link to an article from November 2016?

[1] [https://weather.com/news/climate/news/north-pole-above-
freez...](https://weather.com/news/climate/news/north-pole-above-freezing-
siberia-cold-nov2016)

------
ohiovr
Removing material from the atmosphere is a constant process that requires vast
amounts of energy. Would there be any benefit from altering the albedo of the
land instead of the upper atmosphere? By laying down white reflective material
solar radiation can reflected away but this constant reflection of sunlight
requires no energy besides making sure the surfaces stay clear of dirt or
debris deposited by the wind. Wouldn't this be an ideal solution in places
like Australia that have vast deserts and suffer from extremely high
temperatures?

~~~
ourmandave
_...besides making sure the surfaces stay clear of dirt or debris deposited by
the wind._

Here's a 60 sec video of how they clean off the large panels at a vast solar
plant.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ErcsBEomnI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ErcsBEomnI)

~~~
oAlbe
Do they need to operate the cleaners manually? It seems like with just a
couple of adjustments those cleaners could be automated and not requite a two
people operating them. They could be scheduled to run once a day, every day,
half an hour before the sun comes up. One sweep back and forth and the job is
done. You just need to build a few more, give them a timer and two motors, and
maybe make those solar panels rows longer so you need less cleaning robots.
And that's it.

They could even be themselves solar powered, charging during the day when they
are not working. And those people who operate them could instead go around
after the "robots shift" to check for problems and fix them.

Am I vastly underestimating something here?

------
graeme
The article estimated that thawing permafrost will release the equivalent of
US emissions, every year.

Is there any such equivalency for methane’s effect? Hiw much will that warm
things?

------
OBLIQUE_PILLAR
Perhaps Jeff Bezos or his ex wife could devote most of their fortune to help
alleviate the coming catastrophe.

------
aitchnyu
Tangential, but will increasing temperatures make lands habitable for a um...
billion climate refugees? Has there been any research on that? Maldives
started saving up for a new homeland in 2008, exploring India, Sri Lanka and
Australia.

------
shortandsweet
Whenever these articles come up the focus is on behavior changes and policy.
What about good old fashion ingenuity? We know volcanos and nuclear winter can
cool the planet so why not start there and work backwards? Controlled volcano
eruption, generate the effects of nuclear winter without the radiation and
contamination. Or even do something in space with asteroids to block the path
to the sun occasionally or something else. I'm sure there are a ton of options
but I rarely see any mentioned.

~~~
fj39dkf
Obviously it would be nice if a crack team of scientists and engineers ordered
some pizzas and had a marathon science session that comes up with something
that solves all our problems and lets us continue burning fossil fuels as
usual.

But that's simply not how it works, no matter how much money you throw at it.
And you won't even have money to throw at it in the US at least, because
belief in climate change is a political opinion.

~~~
cheerlessbog
> in the US at least, because belief in climate change is a political opinion.

Which is a strange state of affairs. In the European countries I am familiar
with, all the mainstream parties agree with core mainstream science. Their
voters largely do as well. They may have more or less credible plans to
address the problem but they don't have their own private scientific
conclusions.

Why is the US (and maybe Australia?) different? Is it because voters are
ignorant or short termist, and politicians follow? Or politicians are
corrupted and mislead their voters? Or just a higher level of scientific
ignorance all around? Or a heavy dependence on fossil fuel prosperity in key
districts?

Can someone suggest the answer? Clearly Europeans are not more intrinsically
virtuous or sensible.

~~~
jellicle
Well, do they? The science is telling us that global pollution is an
existential threat to humanity and that immediate drastic action must be
taken. Which parties are behaving as if they believe that? Maybe Green parties
are, but they aren't in power. Which parties in power are BEHAVING (not
talking) as if they believe the science?

This:

Talk: "We believe in climate change"

Action: "Going to increase fuel mileage standards by 1%, that'll do it"

doesn't cut it.

~~~
cheerlessbog
Fair, but it's still interesting to understand why they feel compelled to
publicly hew to scientific fact, but leaders in the US do not.

~~~
graeme
Maybe a 10-20% difference in public opinion compared to canada, add 15% more
for us.

Enough to mouth belief, not enough to demand action. It’s a smaller difference
than it seems.

