
The melting of Antarctica - Libertatea
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/16/the-melting-of-antarctica-was-already-really-bad-it-just-got-worse/
======
ender7
The HN community was (and apparently still is) incredibly hostile to the idea
that global warming is a grave threat to humanity. I would think that such a
technology-oriented group would be swayed by the now-massive collection of
solid data pointing towards this conclusion, but the opposite seems to have
happened. Comments attempt to refute even the existence of global warming with
irrelevant data of their own or strange nitpicks at the perimeter of an
article that seem bent on derailing discussion of the main point (i.e. DH4 at
best [1]). If solid evidence is presented, it's usually dismissed with
arguments like "this popular news article doesn't even say how exactly they
computed <extremely complicated result>, therefor it must be bunk. There
_could_ be an error in there somewhere, so I shall assume there is one."

Where does this animus spring from?

[1]
[http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html)

~~~
IIJamesII
Are you asking in good faith? You seem to assume right off the bat that
anybody who is skeptical is irrational since there is a "massive collection of
solid data pointing towards this conclusion". And yet I disagree. I think that
the warming estimates were grossly overstated, and I don't think it's
difficult to justify my position. I must be crazy, right?

For example, relating specifically to the article, I could simply point out
that the REGIONAL Western Antarctic melting is most certainly due to volcanic
activity and that Antarctic ice levels were at _all time record highs_ for
much of last year. The article doesn't even mention the recent record-breaking
ice levels?! Doesn't that seem strange? It seems any information that doesn't
confirm the prevailing view is neatly filtered out. It's bizarre to watch, but
strangely fascinating.

I could show you that the lynch-pin of the CAGW argument is simply assumed in
the climate models. It is highly uncertain, unproven, and is not born out by
observation. It's easy to do and relies entirely on mainstream climate
science.

And for all this I get called a "climate denier", a term that is meant to
associate me with "holocaust deniers". From your article: "DH0. Name-calling.
- This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common."

Yes, it is the most common response I get from CAGW advocates. Ironic, isn't
it?

~~~
ender7
Please provide sources for your claims, I would be interested in reading them.

~~~
IIJamesII
The very notion that the climate will _amplify_ CO2 heating by as much as 4.5
times should raise red flags. Without all that extra heat amplification there
is no global catastrophe and therefore no drama. There are lots of papers on
climate sensitivity and the estimates are all over the map. This should
indicate less certainty, not a "the science is settled" attitude.

Rather than acknowledge the uncertainty, climate scientists like Michael Mann
appear to be trying to create the illusion that their climate models are more
accurate than they really are. For example here is a slide from a 2012
presentation he gave:
[https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hansen1988-...](https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hansen1988-rutgers.png?w=600)

Notice that he simply lops off the temperatures after 2005 because they don't
neatly fit the curve! It's bizarre to see. It's this sort of behaviour from
climate scientists that initially piqued my skepticism.

When I first started looking into the CAGW debate with any scrutiny I honestly
believed I would find skeptics using fake data pumped out by right-wing think
tanks. Instead I found what appears to be fake data pumped out by government
agencies. Go figure.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think these individuals are pumping out fake data
on purpose. For example, they may believe in global warming so strongly that
when the data doesn't show the expected warming they a) wonder why the data
isn't showing more warming, b) come up with a plausible sounding reason as to
why the data isn't showing more warming, then they c) 'fix' the data via a
series of 'adjustments'. Also known as confirmation bias and group-think.

It turns out that a significant portion of the recorded warming is due to
these data adjustments. We're talking as much as 20% or more, depending on the
data-set. That should also raise some red flags.

Been meaning to get to a better reply. As to sources, in the case of
temperature adjustments, it's all there in the mainstream data-sets. I could
point you to some skeptical sites that are picking the data apart if you like.
There are some newspaper articles on this, all right wing outlets of course.
It seems both sides only print the stuff that caters to their audience.

------
fixermark
To bring this iceberg around a bit closer to tech culture...

California is already being hit by drought, and NASA's climate change models
suggest the drought can be expected to get worse as the temperature shift due
to AGW increases [[http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-
science/todays...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-
science/todays-drought-in-the-west-is-nothing-compared-to-what-may-be-
coming/2015/02/12/0041646a-b2d9-11e4-854b-a38d13486ba1_story.html)]. Silicon
Valley is, of course, located in California. Does / should this news make
people bearish on further deep investment in the Valley if a possible
consequence of resource loss is a destabilization of that region (I don't mean
"Mad Max", but one would assume that water rationing will have some negative
impact on the startup scene in CA)?

~~~
thaumaturgy
I've been thinking about this recently, wondering whether or not it's another
reason to move out of California.

There are still a lot of different ways this could play out. We could have
another moderately difficult Summer followed by one of the wettest and coldest
Winters in recent history, and everything will keep limping along. Or, we
could have a season of dry thunderstorms that cause one of the worst wildfire
seasons in recent history, complete with thick smoke and the health effects
that causes. Or, conflicts over water rights could add fuel to the State of
Jefferson movement and turn that into years of political wrangling that drains
the energy from a state government no longer being led by Brown. Or,
California agriculture could suddenly take huge steps towards better water
management, either due to rising water costs or public outcry as municipal
water rates skyrocket and rationing is imposed. Or, agriculture might fail to
adapt and there will be economic ripple effects felt in food costs and a hit
to the state GDP.

Usually, things like this sort of muddle along for years and nobody really
notices an acute impact. Sometimes the conditions are right for a disaster and
you get something like 2008. The conditions are right now for things to get
pretty awful over the next couple of years, but there are still a lot of
people involved that can have some impact over how it all turns out. I hope
those people get started soon.

If things do take a turn towards the worst, there really is less and less
reason for most people to stay in this state. It's a nice state, but there are
lots of other really nice places too, and there's been a tech diaspora over
the last decade that's bearing fruit in a lot of different places around the
country.

------
keithwarren
"Global sea level rise of 11 feet"

I would really like to see a more clear explanation as to how they
extrapolated that estimation from the data.

~~~
astrodust
The Antarctic ice sheet is not only gigantic, larger than the continental
United States, but it is _kilometers_ thick.

Take the fraction of the volume that's anticipated to melt and spread that
over the ocean, and you get that 11 foot number.

The Wikipedia page, for what it's worth, estimates that the sea level would
rise 70 _meters_ if the whole thing melted. Plus, if Antarctica melted, then
all ice would've melted, including Greenland, so we'd be even more screwed.

You're right that there's not enough data here, though. I'm sure the
calculation is far from simple since the ice-sheet varies dramatically in
terms of topology both on the surface and underwater.

------
forrestthewoods
Why is Antarctica melting more now than when the ozone hole was a major issue
in 90s? That was centered on Antarctica and has been largely fixed I think.
Why is this happening now and not then? Or is now because of then? Can anyone
provide a clear answer?

(edit: wtf? why would anyone downvote this? it's a legit and perfectly fair
question.)

~~~
rodgerd
> it's a legit and perfectly fair question.

Because conflating the ozone hole with global warming (two different and
unrelated phenomenon) can be a legitimate product of confusion, but it's more
commonly a denialist tactic on a par with "if evolution is real, why are there
still monkeys?" See enough of it, you get uncharitable.

~~~
jessaustin
Actually I've heard this confusion more (i.e. on two separate occasions, IRL)
from well-meaning environmental aficionados attempting to "prove" that global
warming is real. I love "why are there still monkeys?", though. I think I'll
be using that line sometime. b^)

------
orik
This is a very click-bait-ey title. Maybe it could be changed to something
more appropriate for HN?

edit: This post used to read as "The melting of Antarctica was already really
bad. It just got worse." It has since been changed.

~~~
hackuser
> This is a very click-bait-ey title. Maybe it could be changed to something
> more appropriate for HN?

It's the actual story title. Since Bezos bought them, my impression is that
the Washington Post has published much more click-bait and strident writing.
It's sad to see that from what used to be one of the best news sources in the
world.

Ten years ago there were three top-notch serious news sources in the U.S.
IMHO, the Post, the NY Times, and the Wall St Journal. The Journal was
purchased by News Corporation (who also own Fox News, the former News of the
World, and other beacons of credibility), the Post seems to be slipping; if
the NY Times doesn't survive we could have a very serious problem. Without
quality, credible, independent information, how can the public have any power?

~~~
dang
The HN guidelines ask submitters to use the original title _unless it is
misleading or linkbait_. Since this one was the latter, we shortened it.

------
jstalin
For some context (which media rarely provide), Antarctica has about 12.3
_million_ cubic km of ice sheet. The latest measurements I've seen show that
between 2011 and 2014, the Antarctic ice sheet lost 125 cubic km per year.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/science-
environment-21692423](http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21692423)

[http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/08/Antarctic_ic...](http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/08/Antarctic_ice-
sheet_change)

Additionally, people have been noticing a loss of ice since at least 1932:
[http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23150667](http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/23150667)

~~~
guelo
That didn't provide me any context at all. What are those numbers supposed to
imply?

