
NASA Is Facing a Climate Change Countdown - cryptoz
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/science/nasa-is-facing-a-climate-change-countdown.html
======
clishem
"As climate change threatens, NASA has options that include hardening
facilities against the rising seas with barriers and structures adapted to
storms and flooding, or if adaptation is not possible, to strategically
retreat."

This article makes it seem as if protecting against rising water levels is an
almost impossible feat. For everyone who thinks it is, I invite them to come
to the Netherlands. The majority of the Netherlands lies under sea level, yet
because it is completely protected by dikes/levees no floods have taken place
for decades. In fact, all places that indexed by direct economical damage were
a flood to take place; and get protected accordingly. A highly populated area
or industrious zone might get a rating that only a flood every 10.000 years is
acceptable, while for some rural areas may get a rating that a flood every 300
years is acceptable.
[https://www.rijnland.net/downloads/floodcontrolrijnland-1-1....](https://www.rijnland.net/downloads/floodcontrolrijnland-1-1.pdf)

I wonder what rating Dutch dike safety experts would give to the NASA launch
platform, but seeing such an important economical site with hardly any
protection against floods certainly boggles me.

~~~
cryptoz
The NASA facilities are routinely subjected to hurricanes! Is the Netherlands
prepared to handle huge surges of 30 feet of water all at once?

Is the Netherlands prepared to handle the 10-15 feet of base sea level rise
that is coming in the next century? I'm not so sure that they are. In fact,
aren't the Netherlands debating similar questions, about building much bigger
walls, or, in fact, retreating?

~~~
merpnderp
"10-15 feet of base sea level rise in the next century"

Maybe if you go by the NOAA histrionics. But if you go by scientific
consensus, we're looking at 1-3 feet.

~~~
cryptoz
Estimates of sea level rise are very difficult and always changing. New
research suggests that it could be "several meters", as published in a paper a
few weeks ago. There is no scientific consensus on how much the sea level
"will rise" \- since it depends very much on our behavior as a species in the
near future.

> Without a sharp reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the global sea level
> is likely to increase “several meters over a timescale of 50 to 150 years”

[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/22/sea-level-
ri...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/mar/22/sea-level-rise-james-
hansen-climate-change-scientist)

~~~
at-fates-hands
>> Estimates of sea level rise are very difficult and always changing.

Trust me, I'm pretty sure the people in the pacific islands are going to be a
bit more paranoid about these changes than we are. And yet, some of the
predictions have been wildly off the mark. Remember the United Nations
Environment Programme who said in 2005:

 _Imminent sea-level rises, increased hurricanes, and desertification caused
by “man-made global warming” would lead to massive population disruptions. In
a handy map, the organization highlighted areas that were supposed to be
particularly vulnerable in terms of producing “climate refugees.” Especially
at risk were regions such as the Caribbean and low-lying Pacific islands,
along with coastal areas._

 _The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate
refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe.
However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate
refugee, by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still
soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of
“climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the
fastest-growing places on Earth.”_

Whoops.

When I read stuff like this, it makes hard for objective people like myself to
determine where the hype ends the facts start.

~~~
Houshalter
Some people do blame the civil wars in the Middle East on climate change,
though its a bit indirect. That worse weather caused food prices to soar that
year. That did happen around that time and caused a refugee crysis.

~~~
jessaustin
Food prices in the Middle East have far more to do with Mubarak's disastrous
cronyist agricultural policies than with global warming.

~~~
Houshalter
But there were bad droughts that year that affected food prices world wide,
and it wasn't just Egypt that was affected.

~~~
vonmoltke
So, if the government is capable of developing contingency plans for handling
droughts and doesn't, it's the _drought 's_ fault when shit hits the fan?

~~~
Houshalter
Do you not understand that events can have multiple causes? Rarely does
disaster require just one single thing to go wrong.

In any case, it wasn't just egypt that had uprest that year. Egypt wasn't even
the first country to have problems.

------
codecamper
How about this thing that will be under the surface of the water?

Cactus Dome, Runit Island

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/runit-dome-
paci...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/runit-dome-pacific-
radioactive-waste)

Basically, it's all the nuclear waste from 12 years of 1950s nuclear bomb
testing, sitting at sea level under 18 inches of concrete.

You can see it on satellite view here:

[https://goo.gl/maps/EMRphCjir142](https://goo.gl/maps/EMRphCjir142)

------
duncan_bayne
Did I misread this article? It pointed out that the coastline has been
receding, that it's been due to erosion, and that _if_ climate change models
are correct, it'll get worse in the future due to AGW.

Headline seems sensationalist.

------
zkhalique
This reminds me of a video I saw recently whete Ted Cruz, along with other
republican senators, politically attacked NASA for studying Earth's climate!

[http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=peL7Qecg3qQ](http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=peL7Qecg3qQ)

------
robschia
For those unable to see the article: add it to Pocket, then switch to Article
View.

------
jamesblonde
In related news, global warming will be worse than we thought
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11449976](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11449976)

------
willholloway
The modern economy is in for extreme contraction unless we get a handle on
this quick.

It's time for civilization to control carbon emissions the way it controls
nuclear proliferation, actively and aggressively.

For example, Indonesia can not be allowed to engage in uncontrolled burning
the way it is now.

Indonesia fires release more carbon than the entire United States [1]

We also need to begin a global carbon capture and sequestration effort, along
with increased subsidies for solar and wind.

Zoning laws need to change. All new single family construction needs to be net
zero energy for example.

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage is the only technology that can
bring atmospheric carbon back down to a safe level like 350ppm. We are
currently over 400ppm and we are seeing melting and increased extreme weather.
[2]

We have to genetically engineer hyper efficient algae, have it soak up
atmospheric carbon, burn it for energy and sequester the carbon emissions on a
massive scale.

The alternative to doing this is simply unacceptable economically, and
politically.

A world at 500ppm will be unstable, war torn and out of control. Quite simply,
we will all be poor. Markets will contract, insurance prices would skyrocket
and food insecurity would be the norm.

[1] [http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/carbon-
from-...](http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/carbon-from-
indonesia/2207404.html)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-
energy_with_carbon_capture...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-
energy_with_carbon_capture_and_storage)

~~~
jessaustin
_...actively and aggressively.

...Indonesia can not be allowed..._

Here I was, worrying about the fortunes of the USA military-industrial
complex, once we taxpayers realize what a scam the currently-hyped "threat"
is. Those guys are so creative, to already have another scapegoat lined up,
especially such a large Muslim nation populated by not-white people! It's like
a perfect mash-up of Iraq and Vietnam! Bravo, defense lobbyists!

~~~
knowaveragejoe
It's like you stopped reading immediately after the second quotation.

------
okyup
Climate Change = Fear-mongering. Remember 15 years ago the way people were
predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise? It's a miracle the Empire
State Building isn't underwater already as some predicted. There's been no
global warming for over a decade. All of those models used to predict
disasters that never happened turned out inaccurate and wrong. But that
doesn't stop corrupt organizations who have perverted "science" from
continuing to use these "theories" for their political ends.

Ocean levels have been rising for thousands of years and will continue to do
so until the next ice age (barring human intervention to prevent it from
occurring - might be a good thing?), so NASA would be wise to use technologies
such as levies to prevent flooding of their facilities. They might've been
even smarter to build them at higher elevation to begin with.

~~~
dalke
> Remember 15 years ago the way people were predicting foot to meter per year
> seawater rise?

What you suggest was far from a generally accepted prediction. The IPCC's 2001
report was for <1 meter rise over the entire century. See
[http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climat...](http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/429.htm#1151)
. It emphatically was _NOT_ a "foot to meter per year seawater rise."

Do you have evidence that it wasn't just kooks saying what you suggested?

> "as some predicted"

 _Who_ predicted that? Some guest on Coast to Coast AM who also thinks alien
UFOs create chemtrails?

> use technologies such as levies to prevent flooding

As brought up several times in this thread, levies won't work at KCS. Water
would simply go through the porous rock under any such levy.

If these statements of your are false, or at best straw man arguments, why
should anyone believe the rest of what you write?

~~~
mseebach
There's a lot of motte/bailey'ing[1] going on in the climate change debate.

There is tons of histrionics and scare mongering out there. I particular
remember during the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen, art installations
illustrating how the city would be under water if sea level rose 7 meters,
which is the estimated rise if all of the ice on Greenland melts. _The Day
After Tomorrow_ , not to mention _An Inconvenient Truth_.

While there certainly are and were voices critical of these things and their
dubious relationship with the science (whether settled or consensus or not),
their usefulness in advancing the agenda appears to be appreciated more than
their role in misrepresenting the science. This is an actual quote from a
scientist listed in the "criticism" section of the "The Day After Tomorrow"
Wikipedia page[2]: _" I'm heartened that there's a movie addressing real
climate issues. But as for the science of the movie, I'd give it a D minus or
an F. And I'd be concerned if the movie was made to advance a political
agenda."_. This is an actual scientist on the record believing that TDAT is
"addressing real climate issues". That is like applauding Swordfish[3] for
addressing cyber security issues. That is the Bailey.

Then, years after, when these things perhaps look a bit more absurd (and some
very specific predictions turned out not to come through, at least not as
unambiguously as expected), we get "The IPCC's 2001 report was for <1 meter
rise over the entire century ... Do you have evidence that it wasn't just
kooks saying what you suggested?"

That's the Motte.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If it was only kooks saying it,
certainly none of the non-kooks bothered throughly rebutting them at the time.

1:[http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-
baile...](http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/09/motte-and-bailey-
doctrines/)

2:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow#Critici...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow#Criticism)

3:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordfish_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordfish_\(film\))

~~~
dalke
Where are the people who said that the sea level would raise 1 foot to 1 meter
per year?

You didn't answer that question. Everything you wrote is a distraction, which
ends up increasing the confusion you describe and complain about.

You pointed to some artists and movies. So what? I can point to movies who
have depicted meteors crashing into modern day Earth, and volcanoes erupting
in Los Angeles, and even have the core of the Earth stop spinning. Artists
have different goals. They are not required to only depict what science
predicts +/\- 1 sigma.

You point to a scientist who liked that "The Day After Tomorrow" used climate
change as a plot device, even if the science was awful. So what? I'm sure some
Spacewatch people like "Armageddon" and that some geologists like "The Core",
even though the science is awful in both. Are you equally disdainful towards
those scientists? Or do only climate scientists draw your ire? (BTW, "Water
World" used global warming as a plot device, was almost 9 years before TDAT,
and portrayed an equally scientifically absurd future.)

You mentioned "An Inconvenient Truth". Does Gore make a prediction that there
will be 30cm or higher water rise per year? Does he even predict that the
Atlantic will have reached the base of the Empire State Building by now?

How is the IPCC 2001 report not an attempt at a thorough rebuttal? What level
of rebuttal would you require before you say it was sufficient? Do we all need
to be like Neil deGrasse Tyson and pinpoint every single scientific flaw in a
movie? Or go even further and reject every movie with a flaw?

In other words, I'm not going to get into a goalpost argument with you before
you even say what the goalposts are.

Your argument of the structure of the argument is useless. It's so easily
inverted. Watch: You have set up your own Motte and Bailey about what's going
on in this HN thread, so nothing I say can dissuade you. You have inserted
irrelevant commentary from your bailey to defend your views. Now you can
ignore me because you think I'm using irrational arguments, because you have
placed me in a spot where you think I can be ignored. Now you can enjoy your
motte.

I argued that the OP presented a straw man argument that misrepresents what
the large majority of climatologists and policymakers like Gore were making 15
years ago. Do you agree or disagree with me?

I presented the IPCC report to supports my argument. Gore's "An Inconvenient
Truth" also supports my argument. If you disagree, do you have an actual
examples of people who predicted 30+cm/year sea rise, or even that much of
Manhattan would be underwater by now?

~~~
mseebach
I am guilty of reading "predicting foot to meter per year seawater rise" as a
satirising exaggeration for "predicting immediate, catastrophic (plausibly
sea-level related) consequences" and I did not state that clearly. With that
amendment, I think my comment still has merit, but it may no longer have
responded to anything you wrote. Sorry about that.

That said, _An Inconvenient Truth_ did suggest a 20-foot rise as something
imminent. Did it "predict" it? No, not explicitly, it suggests and imagines
and calls to action. It also doesn't specify the timescale, but there is great
urgency. With that, your GP, while very much on the high end, is way closer to
AIT than AIT is to IPCC.

A short note on movies and art: the difference between "The Core" and TDAT
(and "regular" art and the "climate" ditto) is that the latter didn't use
science as a plot device, it explicitly injected itself into a political
debate, dominated by a scientific discourse.

~~~
dalke
How do you figure it is a satirising exaggeration and not a straw man designed
for ridicule?

I found a transcript of "An Inconvenient Truth" at
[http://www.admc.hct.ac.ae/hd1/courses/blog/gw/An%20Inconvien...](http://www.admc.hct.ac.ae/hd1/courses/blog/gw/An%20Inconvient%20Truth%20Transcript.pdf).
The section on 20 foot sea level rise is a description of what would happen
"If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West
Antarctica broke up and melted" and ends with "Is it possible that we should
prepare against other threats besides terrorists? Maybe we should be concerned
about other problems as well."

I agree that it's a call to action. I disagree that it's a prediction of
something imminent, as in, an outcome that will happen within a couple of
decades of when the movie was made. I read it as a need for imminent _action_
, to prevent one possible long-term outcome.

BTW, Gore does make some short term predictions, which have proved to be
incorrect. Gore said that within a decade there will be no snows of
Kilimanjaro. That decade has passed. Instead, [http://www.the-
cryosphere.net/7/419/2013/tc-7-419-2013.pdf](http://www.the-
cryosphere.net/7/419/2013/tc-7-419-2013.pdf) says that most of the ice cover
will be gone by 2040, and the rest by 2060. [http://lindseynicholson.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/07/Moelg...](http://lindseynicholson.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/07/Moelg-et-al.-2013.pdf) further points out that there
will be snow even if there are no glaciers.

(While incorrect, I do not think it seriously affects the underlying meaning.
The choice of "snow" over "glacier ice" should be read as an homage to
Hemingway, with some poetic license allowed.)

Gore predicts Glacier Valley will have no glaciers within 15 years, or 2021.
NPS estimates no later then 2030,
[https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/glaciers.htm](https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/glaciers.htm)
, so Gore may be a couple years off there as well.

Gore was willing to make testable predictions in the 10-15 year span, which is
a clue that the 20 foot rise in sea level that he described was _not_ meant as
a prediction of something imminent.

