
Two-thirds of Hindu Kush-Himalaya ice sheet may disappear in 80 years, says IPCC - elorant
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/15/tibetan-plateau-glacier-melt-ipcc-report-third-pole
======
deftnerd
The IPCC has historically released "worst case scenarios" that line up with
the worst case that all of the people in the room can agree with. Because of
this, "worst case" often ends up being "likely outcome" while worst case is
exponentially worse.

We've been seeing events happen more and more with quotes from scientists
saying "This wasn't expected to happen for another 50 years" [according to the
IPCC reports].

Additionally, the IPCC notoriously makes their predictions algorithmically
based purely on existing observations and doesn't take feedback loops into
account. Those feedback loops are nearly guaranteed, but since they haven't
been triggered yet, the extent of the feedback is hard to predict and thus is
ignored.

It's because of these things that I tend to think that the IPCC reports are
milquetoast. Even though they shock the public, they're actually doing a
disservice by making people think they have more time than they actually have.

Plus, even if it was correct, most people will see this headline and think
that we have 80 years to fix the problem and not realize that the bulk of the
melting will take place before the 80 years is up.

My non-scientific rule-of-thumb with IPCC reports is to take the time and
divide it by 10 as the lower boundary and by 5 as the upper boundary. This is
to take into account the "1 in a 1000 year events" that seem to occur every
few years now.

I personally expect the Kush-Himalaya ice sheet melt to be complete between 8
and 16 years from now because of a drastic and "unforeseen" weather event that
accelerates it one year, like a stalled heat "blob" that camps over it for a
season or a season of above-freezing rain that carves up the ice and carries
it as melt-water downriver.

~~~
merpnderp
"Additionally, the IPCC notoriously makes their predictions algorithmically
based purely on existing observations and doesn't take feedback loops into
account."

This is not even close to true. The UAH and RSS global temperature sets have
shown rock solid rates of change of around ~.13C/decade for 40 years. Yet the
IPCC predicts much higher rates of change in the near future (the only
possible way to get to >+2C/century).

You can't just wave your hands and say the IPCC hasn't considered all the
possible outcomes better than you. What you're doing is FUD, what they're
doing is science.

~~~
chrisco255
Sort of. Modeling and predictions are just part of science. The IPCC never
throws out bad models, they just average all the models together.

~~~
merpnderp
It's nothing like that awful. Like I couldn't just come up with a model
tomorrow and have it approved and averaged - there are absolutely standards to
be met. And the IPCC reports go into great detail on the differences in the
models and why they predict different outcomes.

~~~
chrisco255
A model is a hypothesis. It doesn't matter how much work goes into an
incorrect hypothesis. If it doesn't align with reality, then it must be thrown
out. The scientific method demands this. But the IPCC continues to use an
average of dozens of models.

~~~
merpnderp
Can you point out which models which have been shown to be provably false are
still being averaged? I think the answer is far more complicated than you're
making it.

------
dzdt
For countries like the United States, sea level rise is basically a real
estate problem. Either shoreline communities will need expensive
infrastructure improvements to rise faster than the water or will have to
abandon the lowest lying areas and retreat.

If you want to experience a New Orleans Mardi Gras, you have only a few
decades left, but there are plenty of other places in the U.S. where
Louisianans could find a home.

The biggest brunt of climate change will be borne by low-lying countries. Most
of Bangladesh is at elevations in danger of flooding in the next century.
Where will those 164 million people flee? Will the refugees be accepted or
will there be walls and wars?

~~~
Diederich
I generally agree with this, but one with addition/clarification: it's likely
that climate change is driving the extreme conditions that the United States,
and the world, are seeing far from the coast, such as historic flooding in the
midwest and historic fires in the west.

It's also quite possible that the rate at which such extreme weather events
are getting worse is increasing.

Sea level rise is brutal, and will cause enormous impacts to many millions of
people. Weather weirding stands a good chance of bringing epic damage to many
millions more.

------
starvingbear
Is there any example of an IPCC prediction that actually turned out to be
accurate?

Honestly curious because when I look at insurance market it's clear nobody is
taking threats to sea level remotely seriously so that's one group that
ignores IPCC

~~~
lixtra
> when I look at insurance market it's clear nobody is taking threats to sea
> level remotely seriously

The typical insurance contract is max a few years till payments can be
adjusted to the new risk landscape.

~~~
starvingbear
For home insurance sure. Not for major investments though

------
Bantros
_The IPCC’s fourth assessment report in 2007 contained the erroneous
prediction that all Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. This statement
turned out to have been based on anecdote rather than scientific evidence and,
perhaps out of embarrassment, the third pole has been given less attention in
subsequent IPCC reports_

Trust me, I'm with the IPCC

~~~
makomk
Yeah, from reading the linked New Scientist article that sounds like an
almighty cock-up. One scientist speculated in a media interview that all of
the glaciers in certain parts of the Himalayas could disappear by 2035, and
this somehow not only made it into the IPCC's report but got blown up into a
claim that _all_ of the glaciers in the Himalayas were _very likely_ to
disappear by 2035. Then the chairman of the IPCC accused the Indian government
of practicing "voodoo science" for questioning this.

~~~
Bantros
Haha wow!

------
folli
I'm wondering if there are any estimates/simulations on which countries or
geographical regions would be the least impacted (or perhaps even benefit)
from global warming.

It's very defeatist, but maybe it would make sense to consider emigration
before everyone else does so.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Surviving rising water levels is trivial of course - just walk away from the
beach.

But its not about the weather changes per se; its about the global human
conflict when food gets scarce and hungry people have guns. You have to
survive that first.

~~~
irrational
So maybe Americans are not so crazy for having so many guns? /s

~~~
rayiner
No sarcasm needed. What do you think will happen when fresh water resources
get tight?

~~~
selimthegrim
What India is doing with the NRC in Assam is probably proactively violating
international treaties on refugees, etc

------
fwsgonzo
Wonder how much the sea level will rise because of this.

~~~
goatinaboat
Bad time to have bought beachfront property that’s for sure.

~~~
black6
30-year mortgages are still being underwritten for beachfront properties.

------
comradesmith
I hate to be that guy, but the himilayas aren't a pole. There can be only two

~~~
rkachowski
Yeah I was also wondering whats happening here. The article states that the
region stores ~15% of the earth's water in ice, so it has similar consequences
as the poles melting, but its completely distinct from magnetic poles

~~~
comradesmith
Or rotational poles

------
reportgunner
"may" in the title, so it really means "will not".

~~~
loxs
Yeah, and the author may actually acquire some common sense in 80 years, but
probably will not.

------
hluska
If this happens, it will trigger a humanitarian crisis of almost unbelievable
proportions. I likely won't be around to see it, but my three year old might.
Forgive the rhetorical question, but what if she has children??

What a horribly sad thought for 6am on a Monday morning.

~~~
growlist
It's almost like by having fewer children, we might ameliorate the problem!

~~~
hluska
Taken in the macro, reproduction is an important part of policy. And you’re
100% correct - we have more than enough humans.

But when I look at the micro, at the amazing little person who is still asleep
in her bed, it’s hard not to look at a subject emotionally.

~~~
srean
Its far from clear even in the macro setting. Without changes in mortality
rate this will lead to a shift in the age distribution of the population --
that can have consequences for the economy.

~~~
izzydata
If humanity is struggling to stay alive is the economy even relevant anymore?

~~~
rayiner
The economy fuels technological advance, and technological advance is the only
thing that can fix the problem. (It may not, but it's the only thing that can.
Social engineering will not.)

~~~
zackmorris
This is a widely held misconception. Humans tend to expand into every niche
and use up all available resources. Tragedy of the commons is an almost
certainty without some kind of government intervention (social engineering).
So we're projected to just keep using more and more and more energy,
regardless of where it comes from, or how cheap/renewable it becomes:

[https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/06/27/1561608044000/Green-t...](https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/06/27/1561608044000/Green-
technology-will-not-save-us/)

[http://www.roperld.com/science/energyfuture.htm](http://www.roperld.com/science/energyfuture.htm)

On top of that, even if the US and Europe get their acts together, the rest of
the world is going to keep speeding faster and faster to catch up to our
standard of living and waste at least as much energy as we do.

As it stands today, there is no solution. We're looking at ecological collapse
in all areas when approaching human lifetime timescales.

I think that a solution (if there is one) will come from the current gen x
generation (too poor), baby boomer generation (too greedy) and greatest
generation (too much in denial) dying out and being replaced by younger,
hungrier people who can change their minds and adapt when new information is
presented.

In other words, the answer probably isn't technology, it's education and
movements. We quit using leaded gasoline and CFC refrigerants, so maybe we can
quit using coal and single-use plastic, for example. Then it will come time to
quit using the heavy hitting stuff like non-recycled automobiles/housing and
factory farmed food. But nobody will do that unless the cost is comparable for
similar substitutes.

Which is why I think we'll all fail together and accept mundanity in a world
where 90+% of species are extinct and all habitable land is under private
ownership for exploitation. Basically global authoritarianism under late-stage
capitalism.

~~~
srean
Quitting leaded gasoline had much to do with the lead fouling up catalytic
converters. People do not buy converters that go bust in few days --in
otherwords, bad for business. That said catalytic converters came into the
picture because of rising pollution , so prrhaps there is hope, not entirely
sure.

------
growlist
We aren't planning to control global population. We aren't _anywhere near_ the
changes required to make a difference to climate change. The powers that be
are still promoting mass migration in order to increase the size of the global
economy and further enrich themselves. The global system still is still
founded on the idea of never-ending, compounded GDP growth.

Solution? Either some of the aforementioned changes, else Geoengineering, else
a drastic unplanned attentuation in global population.

