
Greenland’s Melting Ice Nears a ‘Tipping Point’ - crispinb
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/21/climate/greenland-ice.html
======
Jedd
Greenland has about 7 metre potential sea level rise equivalent in ice sheets
(which is mildly astonishing given the size of the island) and Antarctica has
about 60 metres.

But even a couple of metres spells disaster for most coastal cities, and the
600mm projected rise over the next 80 years increasingly looks to be unduly
optimistic.

~~~
quantum_magpie
Pretty much all of the predictions that got released to public media are
unduly optimistic. They are consistently the result of the most conservative
models.

------
crispinb
By the way for anyone who hasn't come across it,
[https://climatefeedback.org](https://climatefeedback.org) is a valuable
resource for assessing media reports of climate change studies. I've submitted
this NYT story for review.

~~~
sohkamyung
I'm waiting to see what Climate Feedback has to say about the article. Some
people who deny climate change are already picking at the article, claiming it
is alarmist.

------
WheelsAtLarge
I wonder if people understand that the temperature difference between frozen
and unfrozen is very little. And that once that point is breached it's very
hard to go back. Once the ice starts to melt then expect all of it to melt,
eventually.

We've reached the melting point and we need to get ready for the consequences.

~~~
perl4ever
I'm not sure what you mean by "the temperature difference between frozen and
unfrozen is very little". This sounds as though you are implying it is very
easy to go from frozen to melted.

When ice melts to water, it absorbs a fair amount of energy without changing
temperature, is my recollection of high school physics.

~~~
graeme
I think that mean that if daytime temperature in a place is 1 degree celsius,
no ice will remain in the long run.

This is true if there are no seasons, but of course more ice will form in the
winter. But it's still worth thinking about over the long run. You don't need
30 degrees celsius to melt ice - 1 degree will do. It will just be slower.

~~~
WheelsAtLarge
Correct, that's my point.

~~~
perl4ever
This bothers me in the same way as when people say that a 20% gain in
something doesn't get you back from a 20% loss. It's technically true, but it
has a fallacious flavor to me because it's based on an incorrect choice of
mental anchor.

It's true that it doesn't take a significant change in temperature to melt
ice, but temperature is not "what it takes" \- it takes heat.

~~~
graeme
But the point is that a temperature of 1 degree celsius is constant heat which
will eventually melt all the ice. That's what outdoor temperature from the sun
is, right?

------
yters
If we are certain the sea levels are going to rise X amount over the next Y
years, why aren't people buying up all the currently cheap but soon to be
waterside property? If global warming is settled science I would have expected
the money to be talking by now.

~~~
PakG1
If you want to say it that way, then the corresponding question is why hasn't
there been a huge sell-off of waterfront properties, especially since their
current value is so high and their long-term value will probably only degrade
in this scenario to nothing.

A lot of people have incentive to find solutions to maintain the shoreline in
some usable manner, or some facsimile thereof. Insurance companies are finding
it super hard to figure out what the premiums should be for insuring this
problem, and if they can't figure it out easily, how can buyers/sellers,
especially in the short-term compared to long-term?

~~~
zjaffee
Because the US government has a history of reclaiming the beach as erosion
begins happening largely because the economic gain in doing so is higher than
it's current cost. I'd expect this to continue far into the future.

------
crispinb
It seems towards the end like one of the paper's authors demurs:

> “I take issue with using ‘tipping point’ to describe the accelerating mass
> loss Greenland is experiencing,”

But then:

> Dr. Trusel agreed that talk of tipping points could discount the humans’
> ability to mitigate global warming. because “it makes it appear as if we
> have passed, or soon will pass, the point of no return.” She said she saw
> reasons for hope.

And it becomes clear that the 'reasons for hope' are vague & wild misty-eyed
theoretical dreams, against all of the prevailing trends and evidence, of
global political change. Even scientists must believe in miracles, it seems.

~~~
munk-a
So, we as a society have a serious issue to deal with. Putting a deadline on
the issue will push a portion of the population into the camp of "Let's wait
and see if this is actually the case" when they are proved right we'd be
unable to act, or, if luck was on our side, and some solution was still
available then that portion of the population would disbelieve the urgency
since one deadline had already passed.

Setting a deadline provides no wins for enacting meaningful change.

~~~
crispinb
I'm not sure what your 'deadline' refers to, but in any case the relevant
deadline would be 'critically urgent'.

We've had this 'serious issue' to deal with for 40 years or more. It is still
technically feasible to do something, but the window of political possibility
has clearly passed.

~~~
munk-a
I was referring to the existence of a "Tipping Point" psychologically points
of no return usually don't have the motivational effect we'd naively assume
they do. Generally viewing something as a constantly increasing danger is more
motivational.

I am... hopelessly optimistic... but with that said I feel like climate change
awareness has really increased since the last presidential election. My
terrible optimism is fueling my hope that it'll play a more central role in
our next round of policy pushing.

~~~
crispinb
OK got it - misunderstood you. I'm not entirely sure I agree in the sense that
if people really feel an imminent danger they can pull together and make
sacrifices. But even when phrased as a 'tipping point', climate collapse is
just not visceral enough to produce that kind of reaction. Personally I think
we're toast (though I'd forgo the 'pessimist' label).

------
gdubs
When I was a kid we took a field trip to the museum of natural history in New
York City and watched the IMAX documentary “Antarctica”.

It was a long time ago. What I remember the most was being in awe of the
existence of this place where ice and snow existed in such enormous
quantities, that it felt like a wilderness that stretched on forever.

One of the side effects of getting older is that the world seems smaller.
Particularly growing up in the past couple of decades, during the Information
Age.

But the idea that these vast, frozen parts of the planet may someday disappear
— in my lifetime no less — that’s a hard one to process.

~~~
jp555
Does it also make you upset that it used to be a rainforest before the ice
came and destroyed it all?

I not trying to be sarcastic, just thinking about it.

~~~
gdubs
Ha — no, it doesn’t. Nor am I anxious about the sun eventually consuming the
earth. But I’m admittedly sentimental of the ‘Goldilocks’ balance of
ecosystems we evolved alongside: soft meadows, cool woodlands, gentle rains,
etc.

Edit: But, I suppose my original comment was more about a sentimentalism of
the planet the way I _imagined_ it as a child.

------
zw123456
This is probably the wrong way to be thinking about this, admittedly, but...
would investing in land in Greenland be pretty smart. Well, I suppose if you
knew you would live to be 100. But still... [https://www.quora.com/How-much-
money-do-you-think-it-would-t...](https://www.quora.com/How-much-money-do-you-
think-it-would-take-for-Denmark-to-sell-Greenland) $100M, Some billionaire
(Musk, Bezos, Gat etc.) could buy it maybe. I some guy like Peter Theil waved
$1B in Denmark's nose, just an interesting thought.

~~~
simonebrunozzi
I didn't know that "The USA Virgin Islands, that was bought from Denmark in
1917..." \- the US has a long history of buying land from other countries.

~~~
BigJono
Huh. Suddenly America's ability to buy land in Civilization V makes a whole
lot more sense.

~~~
rangibaby
US bought Louisiana (look it up, it was a huge tract of land), Florida,
Alaska, etc

------
basicplus2
National Geographic thinks its melting 4x as fast..

[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/greel...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/greeland-
ice-melting-four-times-faster-than-thought-raising-sea-level/)

------
nod
SMDH at how they see fit to include, in the second-to-last paragraph, a
scientist calling the words "tipping point" inaccurate and irresponsible...
and then still made it their headline.

~~~
WaltPurvis
It is inaccurate and irresponsible for you to suggest that the scientist in
question used the words inaccurate and irresponsible. What she said was, "I
take issue with using ‘tipping point’ to describe the accelerating mass loss
Greenland is experiencing,” because “it makes it appear as if we have passed,
or soon will pass, the point of no return.”

At worst, she said she "takes issue with" with the "tipping point" phrase,
which is not remotely the same as saying it's inaccurate and irresponsible.

Furthermore, her "issue with" it _appears_ to be related to a political
concern that the phrase will sap people's sense of agency. It's not entirely
clear.

(As far as her reasons for thinking it's too soon to give in to despair is,
all the reporter gives us is, "She said she saw reasons for hope." There is
zero additional information provided as to what those reasons might be.)

~~~
refurb
If someone asked me to summarize what you just said, I would say the scientist
described a “tipping point” as inaccurate and irresponsible.

Inaccurate because she said it’s claiming something that isn’t true.

And irresponsible because it will sap the political will to do something about
it.

~~~
darawk
True, though without greater specificity I, at least, interpreted the original
comment to mean that the scientist believed the phrase "tipping point" was
overly alarmist.

------
sAbakumoff
Reading this article with this song in the background
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6aPzCyJD7o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6aPzCyJD7o)
x10s the effect.

------
killaken2000
Hopefully something will be done about the nuclear waste before the ice melts
and exposes it.

~~~
mirimir
See [https://climateandsecurity.org/2018/02/20/emerging-risks-
mel...](https://climateandsecurity.org/2018/02/20/emerging-risks-melting-ice-
reveals-an-old-nuclear-waste-site/)

I've tried to get the article by Jeff Colgan, but MIT Press won't let me. But
I think that this is mainly toxic chemical waste. PCBs etc. Not nuclear waste,
or at least not high-level waste.

