
The worst predicted impacts of climate change are starting to happen (2015) - kawera
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805?print=true
======
Namrog84
I'm always unsure how to react to claims of 10 foot rise in sea level in 40
years. Considering how many cities and regions are within 10' of sea level. I
understand how awesomely devastating to the world this would be.

Should we all be freaking out? Does like every single person need to start
taking it seriously? Are the powers at be doing enough to hopefully curb it
enough? Is there anything we can really do aside from vote for the right
people?

Or are we utterly screwed and likely millions+ will die within by end of this
century for our species negligence?

~~~
dalke
> "I'm always unsure how to react to claims of 10 foot rise in sea level in 40
> years."

That is not considered likely. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change) Fifth Assessment Report, Synthesis Report, at
[http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FIN...](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf) on page 11 has a plot titled
"Global mean sea level rise (relative to 1986–2005)".

The highest end of the worst case given is 1 meter rise by the end of the
century. By 2050 the high end is only about 30 cm, or 1 foot.

> Global mean sea level rise will continue during the 21st century, very
> likely at a faster rate than observed from 1971 to 2010. For the period
> 2081–2100 relative to 1986–2005, the rise will likely be in the ranges of
> 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, and of 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5 (medium
> confidence)[10]

> 10\. Based on current understanding (from observations, physical
> understanding and modelling), only the collapse of marine-based sectors of
> the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to
> rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. There is
> medium confidence that this additional contribution would not exceed several
> tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century.

How you should react is to read the IPCC report and learn what it is that
people think is likely to happen, rather than worry about hyperbolic
statements like a 10 meter rise in a few decades.

~~~
madaxe_again
Although you should also bear in mind that the IPCC reports have been
considerably "watered down" in response to governmental pressure.

Talk to a climatologist, and they'll tell you all sorts of things you don't
want to hear.

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-
insight/2014/m...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-
insight/2014/may/15/ipcc-un-climate-reports-diluted-protect-fossil-fuel-
interests)

~~~
dalke
Even then the level is more like 2 meters by 2100, not 3 meters by 2060.

[http://e360.yale.edu/feature/rising_waters_how_fast_and_how_...](http://e360.yale.edu/feature/rising_waters_how_fast_and_how_far_will_sea_levels_rise/2702/)

> In the face of all these uncertainties, some have taken a different
> predictive approach. Instead of trying to model the physics behind every
> process contributing to sea level rise (from thermal expansion to melting
> ice), they argue, why not instead simply look at how sea levels have
> corresponded to temperature over hundreds of years and extrapolate? These
> so-called 'semi-empirical' models tend to top out twice as high as the
> 'process-based' models, making 2 meters of sea level rise feasible for 2100
> — enough to flood the homes of 187 million people. But the IPCC says it
> doesn’t have much confidence in these results. "They’re interesting," says
> Chambers, "but I don’t think they should be given as much weight as the
> process-based models."

> A few scientists disagree, including Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam
> Institute for Climate Research, who works on semi-empirical models. "We have
> two different approaches, and they give different results," says Rahmstorf.
> "I don’t know which one is closer to the truth. But I object to the IPCC
> selecting one type and dismissing the other." Other reports, notes
> Rahmstorf, including a 2012 assessment by the U.S. National Oceanic and
> Atmospheric Administration, give more pessimistic sea level predictions,
> going up to 2 meters by 2100.

------
adwhit
I will upvote any HN article about climate change! I really want the tech
community to start seriously panicking about this stuff. They after all have
the skills and the influence to do something about it.

~~~
madaxe_again
Likewise, but doing anything about it requires regulation and governmental
intervention, which is something the tech community are generally dead against
- there's a big intersection between technocratic thinking and
libertarian/minimal government thinking.

Most argue that "the market" will solve this. I'd argue that it got us here,
as we continue to treat the habitability of earth as an externality, with no
economic cost.

~~~
tpeo
I find it hard do believe that most would argue that the market will solve
this issue, unless they're deeply ignorant of mainstream economics. Pollution
is a classic example of a negative economic externality [0], and markets
generally don't "fix" externalities unless:

\- merger costs are low enough that the people afflicted can buy out the
polluter;

\- transaction costs are low enough that they can reach a mutual beneficial
bargain (as per Coase)[1];

Both of which are impracticable. I won't even talk about the first solution.
As for the second one, Global warming affects _everyone_ across legal
boundaries, so bargains are off the table.

But I don't think the third solution is currently applicable either, which is
the government stepping in. Who would step in? There isn't a world government
yet, and the interests of national governments are much more likely to align
with the polluters located in their territory than with with an Indian peasant
whose crops just died because of the heat. Even if several governments
committed to an agreement, it could be profitable to deviate from the
agreement by enforcing and requiring lower environmental protection standards
in order to attract investments from polluting industries.

It's kind of a hard problem.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality)

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem)

~~~
Sideloader
You may find it hard to believe but the market "taking care of itself" is at
the core of the neo-liberal ideology peddled by the powers that be from Obama,
the Clintons, the EU, IMF, World Bank, ECB etc. They don't care if it destroys
the planet or drives people into poverty. As long as it works for them, it's
all good. Technology will fix it so no need to worry.

------
acconrad
Not that it makes the article less important or relevant, but it came out in
2015 and should be noted in the title.

------
helthanatos
>If emissions aren't cut, "We conclude that multi-meter sea-level rise would
become practically unavoidable. If this article isn't full of fear-mongering
and assumptions...

------
touristtam
no wonder when you have people that needs a Brian Cox to remind them they know
nothing. (see
[http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4499754.htm](http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4499754.htm))

------
mpitt
(2015)

------
julius
In Star Trek there is a holiday planet, with climate controls. Change the
weather and the temperature with the press of a button.

Today people are scared of the planet getting too hot. People are even more
scared of the planet getting too cold. People have serious trouble, when it is
not sunny enough or rainy enough, to support food production.

Seems like this would be more useful right now, than the warp drive...

