
Famous Climate Scientist Issues Sea Level Warning - nkurz
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning.html?
======
vaadu
Science isn't about popularity or fame. Either the data supports his
conclusions or it doesn't.

~~~
mikeash
Climate change has become a political issue and politics is all about
popularity and fame.

------
calinet6
Given the general rate of change and the impact even half this effect could
have on climate, with a huge amount of hand waving, I'm inclined to fully
support this assumption just so we have a slim chance of getting it 12%
handled before it starts to progress even slightly toward disaster. And then,
if it turns out to be greatly overstated, maybe we'll have tackled it
prudently anyway.

~~~
jboggan
Yet any action towards this end consumes an unfortunately finite amount of
physical resources, money, and human concern. There are opportunity costs to
be weighed for every course, and what if it is cheaper to build dikes and
levees than enact the kind of sweeping social and economic change necessary to
even dent such a prediction? Perhaps that time and money is better spent
providing clean drinking water, combating prolific diseases, or eradicating
slavery? These questions of balance are quickly forgotten with such breathless
Cassandras begging for attention and scaring the people who are too quick to
delegate reasoning.

~~~
lutorm
The problem is of course that your solution requires the rich nations building
those dikes and levees for all the third world nations of the world. Do you
think that won't be a sweeping social and economic change?

~~~
shoo
Richer nations don't necessarily need to build walls around poorer nations to
keep the water out. They may find it cheaper or otherwise preferable to build
walls around themselves to stop the flow of _people_ fleeing from the poorer
nations.

Climate refugees have no legal status under the UN Refugee Convention:

> `there has been a collective, and rather successful, attempt to ignore the
> scope of the problem... so far there is no "home" for forced climate
> migrants in the international community, both literally and figuratively` --
> Oli Brown [1]

Nations are already following this approach of literally building walls or
pouring resources into improving their border security. For example, India is
building a wall along its border with Bangladesh, and some of the nations in
the EU are spending a lot of money and resources trying to intercept or
discourage boats of immigrants from Africa [2].

> With 80 percent of its densely populated landmass lying near sea level,
> Bangladesh is often hailed as "ground zero" for climate change. A 1 meter
> rise in sea level, which seems likely by the end of the century, could flood
> almost one-fifth of the country. Some of the most vulnerable coastal
> districts in Bangladesh—Khulna, Satkhira, and Bagerhat—lie along India's
> border. -- [3]

> The Continent's richer, more northerly countries, great emitters of carbon
> and producers of wealth, barely contributed ships or aircraft to Frontex
> [4], and they processed a relative trickle of African asylum seekers. So
> Malta was itself a victim to this, he suggested. It was a power game:
> Northern Europe bullied southern Europe. Southern Europe fought within
> itself and with or against North Africa. The big stepped on the small, and
> the small stepped on the smaller. The migrants themselves were at the
> bottom. Here, too, shit rolls downhill. -- [2]

[1]
[http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=B51C02C...](http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=B51C02C1-3C27-4AE3-B4C4-7E350EB0F442)

[2] see the book: "Windfall: the booming business of global warming" by
McKenzie Funk.

[3]
[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/2010/12/the_great_wall_of_india.html)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontex](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontex)

edit: as usual, I'm not writing this because I advocate this position, or
think that it has any moral or ethical merit. But I think it is good to
clearly understand that _this is already happening_ and it will almost
certainly _get worse_ the further we get into this century.

~~~
lutorm
And I did not write what I did because I'm unaware that those that make the
argument that "it would be cheaper to adapt" never publicly add "... for us",
because the argument gets a lot less palatable if you admit that your plan is
to let the peoples of the developing world drown or starve to death...

------
stvswn
Not trying to be a skeptic for its own sake, but its worth noting that, buried
deep in the article, you can find reference to an "unorthodox publishing
practice" \-- it hasn't yet been peer reviewed.

~~~
in_cahoots
Apparently their results are too urgent to be peer-reviewed. The cynic in me
wonders why they couldn't put it up on the ArXiv while waiting for the peer
review process to run its course.

As a layperson I don't know what I'm supposed to make of these results. It
looks like a bunch of prestigious authors held a press conference to convince
non-specialist reporters that the end of civilization is a distinct
possibility. But I know from my own research that you can convince the general
public of anything as long as you can give a good presentation. Famous names
and bold statements don't necessarily equal good science.

~~~
privong
> The cynic in me wonders why they couldn't put it up on the ArXiv while
> waiting for the peer review process to run its course.

The arXiv is not mainstream in may fields, so they may not have thought of
putting it there. I am sure they would have figured something out, but
glacncing at the subject areas on the main page, it isn't immediately obvious
where a study such as their should go. Physics/Nonlinear science, Statistics?
Occasionally a meta-climate study appears in the astrophysics listings, but
those are generally papers studying any interplay between astrophysical events
and (often historical) climate change.

It would be great if more fields used arXiv. Some do have their own similar
resources, separate from arXiv (the cryptography community comes to mind). But
I am not aware if there are any associated with climate research.

~~~
jdlshore
The article says it will be published in _Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics_
this week, an "open access" journal, for real-time peer review.

------
contingencies
10 feet visualisation @ [http://geology.com/sea-level-
rise/](http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/) (select 3m and 0m, and compare
differences).

Sounds like the Dutch are ahead of the game. How does one bet economically on
long term seawall futures? :)

PS. Related blender art @
[http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?375956](http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?375956)
\+
[http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?375246](http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?375246)
\+
[http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?374471](http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?374471)

------
tdfx
So who is on the hook for all the real estate that's going to disappear?
Insurance companies?

~~~
Asbostos
That's the job of property speculators. Curiously, the prices they pay seems
to indicate that they don't expect it to happen and are putting their money
where their mouth is - unlike scientists and reporters who have nothing to
lose by being wrong.

~~~
Daishiman
There has been a substantial increase in flood insurance costs across the
world as reinsurers have adjusted the probabilities of catastrophic flood and
storm events. The problem is so big that insurers outright refuse to even
contemplate most properties in at-risk zones.

------
pbreit
Whether it's man-made or not, I'm not sure there's much we can do at this
point beyond adapting. Even if a country or continent went to zero emissions
it wouldn't matter because of the rest of the world.

~~~
MattHeard
Your assumption is that if the US reduced their emissions as quickly as
possible, it would likely not affect the emissions policies of other
countries, but a lot of countries are refusing to cut emissions faster
_because the US isn't doing so yet_.

The process of a unilateral, bilateral, or trilateral dramatic reduction would
likely work as such:

1\. The United States, China, or Europe, or two or all three would internally
implement programs to drastically reduce emissions.

2\. In order to maintain economic competitiveness, border adjustments (tariffs
and subsidies) would be applied to imports and exports to and from countries
without similar carbon emission reduction programs. If these tariffs and
subsidies are sufficiently carefully applied, they would be legal under
international trade agreements.[1]

3\. Countries without similar carbon emission reduction programs would suffer
economically by losing access to large export markets due to the border
adjustments.

4\. The countries would have their economic incentives shifted so that it
becomes much more economically viable for them to apply similarly dramatic
reductions themselves and regain access to the large markets.

5\. As more countries apply similarly dramatic reductions, the total volume of
border adjustments would decrease, reducing market distortions and increasing
international trade efficiency, while maintaining each country's programs for
dramatically decreasing carbon emissions.

Not just any country could do this, but the US could certainly start this
process by itself. If the US started unilaterally, Europe would likely adopt
similar measures and regain access to unadjusted imports and exports, which
would create a very large bloc of high-consumption countries into which all
countries (such as China and Australia) would want to regain cheap access.

[1] [http://www.carbontax.org/nuts-and-bolts/going-
global/](http://www.carbontax.org/nuts-and-bolts/going-global/) (Would the WTO
approve of carbon tax-related border adjustments? If the primary consequence
was to discriminate because of carbon emissions rather than because of being a
foreign country, then yes. Possibly...)

~~~
pyre
> a lot of countries are refusing to cut emissions faster _because the US
> isn't doing so yet_

The problem with taking that at face value is that it's a political "easy
out."

------
themartorana
_" Earth’s Most Famous Climate Scientist..."_

Al Gore?

 _" In what may prove to be a turning point for political action on climate
change, a breathtaking new study casts extreme doubt about the near-term
stability of global sea levels."_

Unfortunately, for any action to take place, we'll have to lose NYC and Miami.
Even then it'll be attributed to an angry, homophobic God instead of human-
caused climate change by those who can afford to be air-lifted to their new
chateau high above sea level. (We're still patriotically rebuilding New
Orleans, FFS.)

I don't have much faith left that _any_ level of terrifying science can have
any effect on our plutocracy.

That said, this does feel extremely alarmist, even to me. Seeing all costal
cities catastrophically wiped out (and permanently under water) in my lifetime
is hard to fathom, no matter how much I appreciate the science.

~~~
jessaustin
_Seeing all costal cities catastrophically wiped out (and permanently under
water) in my lifetime is hard to fathom, no matter how much I appreciate the
science._

Presumably this unfathomability is why people still invest millions of dollars
in affected real estate every day.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
As if capital and real-estate markets were capable of taking a sufficiently
long-term view to worry about 50 years in the future!

~~~
jessaustin
Their focus on the short term hasn't hurt them yet. Perhaps this phenomenon
would spur financial "innovation". More probably, bailouts.

~~~
shenanigoat
Water bailouts. Har.

------
waterlesscloud
If this is true, it's time to seriously consider geoengineering efforts to
halt and reverse the trend.

It's highly irresponsible to automatically take such things off the table when
a 10 foot sea-level rise is predicted in 50 years. We need to do _everything_
we can to stop this.

~~~
xrange
If only humanity had discovered an energy source which was safer and cleaner
than everything that came before, and produced no GHGs. Oh, and that we hadn't
spent the last 60 years irrationally demonizing it.

~~~
a3n
If you're talking about nuclear power, it was our sloppy implementation,
obscene cost overruns (WPPSS[1] anyone?) utter disregard of storage and
disposal, and a small handful of spectacular disasters that was demonized. You
know, nuclear power _as practiced_.

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

~~~
xrange
Deaths from nuclear power:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll)

Deaths from coal _mining_ :
[http://www.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp](http://www.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp)

~~~
protomyth
Deer kill more people than sharks, but one is more fearsome. Jaws and The
China Syndrome have served the same purpose. It wouldn't hurt for some folks
to start making some pro-nuclear movies.

~~~
pvaldes
This is not a problem of absence of marketing (pro nuclear marketing was
baroque in fact, but did not live up to their promises). The main problem with
Fukushima probably is that everybody in charge where high on flippant pro-
nuclear happy movies, and their emergency plan was "none, this will never
happen ha-haa".

So please stop reducing this to the old: "people is just hysterical and
nuclear is perfectly safe". It isn't and is getting tiresome. We have solid
reasons to be upset of the blatant incompetence of the nuclear sector. No
amount of propaganda will cover the reality that Prypiat is a ghost town.

~~~
protomyth
Maybe its only the export movies, but I am having a tough time remembering any
pro-nuclear Japanese movies. Fukushima was a systemic and human disaster, but
the reactor type is an old model. We have a lot of old models, and not a lot
of in-the-field innovation because of the anti-nucleaur media. If we would
have had decent evolution, some of those plants would have been closed and
replaced by safer plants. Since its all political, we have not deployed new
technology in a timely manner.

~~~
pvaldes
Not, is not all political. Nuclear companies employ thousands of clever
people, and of course have easy access to nuclear products and nuclear plants,
pools, buildings, machines... Those companies are doing big money also.

Despite being very gifted people with almost unlimited resources unreachable
for the common guy, nobody had find a realistic solution for the nuclear waste
in 50 years and nobody knows still how to decontaminate a nuclear wasteland in
a safe and fast way. Finding those holy grail will make them multibillonaries
in two months so is not a problem of lack of motivation.

If you prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that you can convert plutonium in
a purring harmless kitten _all_ politicians in the world will be at your feet
droling and thinking about how to associate his/her name with the big success
and what to do with the extra money now that expensive nuclear cemeteries
payed with taxes are not needed anymore.

As a rule, I try not to blame other people for my own incompetence.

------
11thEarlOfMar
It's a pretty jarring revelation. Just two weeks ago, we were skating on the
Thames:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-
headi...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-
mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9869499](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9869499)

~~~
hartror
That was junk reporting.

> not predicting a 60 percent drop in the light and heat emitted by the Sun,
> but a drop in magnetic activity in the Sun. This has only a marginal effect
> on the Sun’s light/heat output.

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_c...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_cooling_no_were_not_headed_for_a_mini_ice_age.html)

~~~
mturmon
Phil Plait, who does the Bad Astronomy blog, did a well-calibrated and
respectful job with that piece. Phil is well hooked in to the solar community,
so he is a good person to be consulting. Thanks for linking to it.

Basically, the uproar was caused by a very speculative theory [1] that solar
magnetic activity might be decreasing in the coming decades. This concept is
not well-established; in fact, it is better-described as a highly speculative
theory coming from a data extrapolation by a very small group of solar
researchers, at one institution, over the last year or so.

But even if their solar claims turn out to be true -- very big if given their
methodology -- they (A) can't (and don't) link their magnetic claims to
irradiance, and (B) the irradiance effect of sunspot/magnetic change is
strongly believed to be quite small relative to other effects anyway,
especially anthropogenic ones.

[1] It was published in ApJ, but here is a relatively open link:
[http://www.researchgate.net/publication/266799418_PREDICTION...](http://www.researchgate.net/publication/266799418_PREDICTION_OF_SOLAR_ACTIVITY_FROM_SOLAR_BACKGROUND_MAGNETIC_FIELD_VARIATIONS_IN_CYCLES_21-23)

