Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly(climatecentral.org)
climatecentral.org
Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/antarctica-at-risk-of-runaway-melting-20189
417 comments
For the Western US, the problems aren't so bad. There's a coastal mountain range along most of the California coast. In LA, a few places such as Venice/Marina Del Ray may need seawalls, but except for a few areas areas, three blocks inland is at least 100 feet above sea level. LAX is 121 feet above sea level.
The SF bay has more problems than the coast. Parts of San Francisco may need seawalls, and bayfront development such as Redwood Shores needs to be stopped. Google HQ is in trouble; they're on fill and only 10' above sea level. But once you're south of US101/CA237, you're OK in most of Silicon Valley.
In the southeastern US, things are potentially much worse. There's no coastal mountain range. Florida is barely above sea level now. Miami floods regularly. New Orleans is partly below sea level already.
A big question is what this does to Mississippi River flooding. A higher sea level means less river flow and more upstream flooding.
The SF bay has more problems than the coast. Parts of San Francisco may need seawalls, and bayfront development such as Redwood Shores needs to be stopped. Google HQ is in trouble; they're on fill and only 10' above sea level. But once you're south of US101/CA237, you're OK in most of Silicon Valley.
In the southeastern US, things are potentially much worse. There's no coastal mountain range. Florida is barely above sea level now. Miami floods regularly. New Orleans is partly below sea level already.
A big question is what this does to Mississippi River flooding. A higher sea level means less river flow and more upstream flooding.
I think the unfortunate reality is that we're going to have to go through a major, catastrophic climate change event before the narrative of the American right (which is by far the most vocal denier of climate change) changes and we can start making some progress in reversing it.
I only hope that whatever event(s) trigger this policy change are somewhat reversible. Earth is, ironically, going to be the first testbed for terraforming technology.
I only hope that whatever event(s) trigger this policy change are somewhat reversible. Earth is, ironically, going to be the first testbed for terraforming technology.
Does anyone know if these climate models are open source, how they work etc? It seems this is an area where we as software engineers can start to have a think about how accurate these simulations are and possibly think about ways of improving them...
For some context about what impact this could have on major U.S. cities, the NYTimes published an interactive a few years back[1].
I guess if this new model is accurate, the scenarios on that link which are projected for 100-300 years out could instead happen in a few decades. This would result in major areas of Miami, New Orleans, NYC, and Sacramento all going underwater.
Scary stuff.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday...
I guess if this new model is accurate, the scenarios on that link which are projected for 100-300 years out could instead happen in a few decades. This would result in major areas of Miami, New Orleans, NYC, and Sacramento all going underwater.
Scary stuff.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/24/opinion/sunday...
Honest question, does Antartica have any, what you would consider as, inhabitants? My understanding is that it is only scientists from a variety of countries that live there on temporary stints. However, if the ice melts in any considerable way, I wonder if (some very extreme) individuals might start looking at moving there?
It is a huge continent... if the ices melts, it's terrible in a way, but looking positivistically at the situation, there must be lots of potential.
I'm sure there are some treaties etc on Antarctica that limit exploitation? What if a bunch of people went down there with some guns and claimed some land, what would happen?
It is a huge continent... if the ices melts, it's terrible in a way, but looking positivistically at the situation, there must be lots of potential.
I'm sure there are some treaties etc on Antarctica that limit exploitation? What if a bunch of people went down there with some guns and claimed some land, what would happen?
I fear an Armageddon. We are changing the climate faster than we understand what's happening, and we're starting to get weirder and weirder weather patterns. We're threatening our food supply.
We've destroyed most of the ocean's fish, and we're heavily dependent on livestock and crops for food. If we disrupt the weather too much, we're not going to be able to make food. People are going to starve, and not by the millions but by the hundreds of millions. Certainly enough strife to cause war between the countries that are actually trying to do something and the countries that are continuing to ramp their CO2 output.
We don't know when we cross the line from 'severe' to 'dire', but we've got enough destructive technology that if it becomes a global problem, we may end up blowing ourselves up trying to resolve the conflict.
I was recently in Africa, and I was shown the rate at which the country (Cote d'Iviore) was growing. Families with as many as 10 kids. But all I could see was deforestation. Miles and miles of deforestation, something like 30 minutes of driving through an urban area that had all been vegetation in 2011.
This season's weather was weird, and it has made me very afraid of what's coming in the next 5 years. We're destroying our planet's methods of regulation, and at the same time we are increasing the rate at which we're introducing adversarial agents. It's going to be a disaster, because everyone reading this critically knows that the people in power aren't going to do anything about it until people in their own country are dying by the millions as a result.
If you care about surviving the next 20 years, this should be your biggest concern. We depend on a stable climate. Without that, we will not have food. Be afraid.
We've destroyed most of the ocean's fish, and we're heavily dependent on livestock and crops for food. If we disrupt the weather too much, we're not going to be able to make food. People are going to starve, and not by the millions but by the hundreds of millions. Certainly enough strife to cause war between the countries that are actually trying to do something and the countries that are continuing to ramp their CO2 output.
We don't know when we cross the line from 'severe' to 'dire', but we've got enough destructive technology that if it becomes a global problem, we may end up blowing ourselves up trying to resolve the conflict.
I was recently in Africa, and I was shown the rate at which the country (Cote d'Iviore) was growing. Families with as many as 10 kids. But all I could see was deforestation. Miles and miles of deforestation, something like 30 minutes of driving through an urban area that had all been vegetation in 2011.
This season's weather was weird, and it has made me very afraid of what's coming in the next 5 years. We're destroying our planet's methods of regulation, and at the same time we are increasing the rate at which we're introducing adversarial agents. It's going to be a disaster, because everyone reading this critically knows that the people in power aren't going to do anything about it until people in their own country are dying by the millions as a result.
If you care about surviving the next 20 years, this should be your biggest concern. We depend on a stable climate. Without that, we will not have food. Be afraid.
If excess energy consumption is a 'vice', we would be following Malthus's prediction of a vice-based catastrophe before a food based 'Malthusian' catastrophe:
"The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world."
Just like yeast die of alcohol (pollution) poisoning during fermentation before their food source is anywhere near depleted, we might have plenty of food but not do so hot. If yeast could only slow their reproduction they might last for a darn good while in the brew...but luckily they destroy themselves! Otherwise beer would be too slow, and that's unacceptable.
"The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world."
Just like yeast die of alcohol (pollution) poisoning during fermentation before their food source is anywhere near depleted, we might have plenty of food but not do so hot. If yeast could only slow their reproduction they might last for a darn good while in the brew...but luckily they destroy themselves! Otherwise beer would be too slow, and that's unacceptable.
From what I understand, a carbon tax is one of the most immediate and effective things we could do to combat climate change. If I understand the Macroeconomics correctly, the supply side shouldn't feel too much of a hit. Low-income consumers could maybe write off the carbon tax. I.e., the revenue from the tax could either go towards infrastructure spending, or it could go back to people in the form of a tax offset somewhere else.
Imagine if the money pouring into the American political process right now was channeled into electing Congressional leaders who, you know, believe in science. Or if some of the grassroots dollars being burned on TV ads for candidates A, B and C could be spent on a campaign to convince the public that a carbon tax would be good for us.
Imagine if the money pouring into the American political process right now was channeled into electing Congressional leaders who, you know, believe in science. Or if some of the grassroots dollars being burned on TV ads for candidates A, B and C could be spent on a campaign to convince the public that a carbon tax would be good for us.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/
Edit: lol why downvote? are you the only person on HN who doesn't like charts?
Edit: lol why downvote? are you the only person on HN who doesn't like charts?
Is that climate model available in form of source code and original raw data?
I'm fairly ignorant in terms of the science behind this, and one thing in the article raises some questions for me:
> Sea level has risen a lot — 10 to 20 meters — in warm
> periods in the past
We merged this thread and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11392246, but adopted the more neutral title of the latter. If people feel strongly about one URL being better than the other, we can change that.
I wonder how much the public perception of the danger of large-scale ice melt is influenced by a lay understanding of the way phase changes can happen extremely suddenly.
Did you notice that there is more signs every year, that we are heading to catastrophe but we try not to think about it and feel like everything will be ok anyway - who cares? It's better to read what's up with Kardashians instead of facing the reality. Reality in this case means changing the way we live, dramatically, because there is no other way to stop what's coming. Politicians will not do this because it means economical decline, unemployment etc.
On last conference in Paris NOTHING was done. All agreed that everyone will do what they "can" to work against global warming, which means every country in the world can say "we are doing what we can" while doing almost nothing.
On last conference in Paris NOTHING was done. All agreed that everyone will do what they "can" to work against global warming, which means every country in the world can say "we are doing what we can" while doing almost nothing.
What can the individual change about their lifestyle to help prevent this?
Unless China, USA and India start cutting emissions anything the smaller countries do to limit their emissions will likely dwarfed by the growth in these super polluter countries.
What is the impact of Volcanoes or other natural things to the global warming?
Those who want others to take climate change seriously must take these models with a boatload of salt. Be definition these are models based on data we don't fully understand and has very bad record of proving completely wrong.
These models are very much life stock market predictions of boom and bust which seldom come true yet both booms and busts happen regularly.
These models are very much life stock market predictions of boom and bust which seldom come true yet both booms and busts happen regularly.
So, why isn't some billionaire working on something to remove the CO2 from the air / ocean and collect the carbon and release the O2. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm actually interested in why, given the other scenarios, the technology isn't being developed for a energy efficient way to do this.
As long as politicians remain cheap to purchase, there will never be a solution without catastrophe and maybe not even then.
We need a well-funded super pac to more than offset the super pacs of the fossil fuel industry. A big stick that can go after every congress person, senator and governor relentlessly.
We need a well-funded super pac to more than offset the super pacs of the fossil fuel industry. A big stick that can go after every congress person, senator and governor relentlessly.
Antarctic Sea Ice is at record levels:
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reache...
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reache...
I'm dumb when it comes to science. But if the worst case scenario happens, couldn't we build facilities to 'dispose' of the melted ice in any way, instead of letting the sea level rise?
The problem is that with enough math and big data it is possible to create a model with predicts everything one wishes.
Any digree of disconnection from reality is easily attainable.
Any digree of disconnection from reality is easily attainable.
So, if that Boston map is correct, then MIT, Boston University, and chunks of Harvard will all be toast by the time my youngest is the age of her great-grandfater. Crazy.
Time to buy some property in Chicago I guess...
Has anyone made an estimate of the total cost to convert to 100% renewable power in the US?
All these discussions are quite well spoken & well said, from both sides!
Tay should read this page.
Tay should read this page.
they been saying this for years
And direct link to the paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7596/full/nature1...
And note, this is separate from the paper last week by James Hansen et al, which discussed the newly researched effects of new feedback loops in ice-melt-surface-waters shutting down ocean circulation (and also increased the amount of sea level rise in shorter time periods).
These are scary times.