Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

West Antarctica Begins to Destabilize with ‘Intense Unbalanced Melting’

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 141 posts

Re: West Antarctica Begins to Destabilize with ‘Intense Unbalanced Melting’

#81

Post by vidarh »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #78
hash-set wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be stupid to crash our economy and then find out that the "solutions" didn't work. Or that we come up with technological fix to the problem. Or that that whole thing was just a ploy by leftists to seize power. Anyhow, if you expect 7 billion people to do anything in regards to climate change, don't hold your breath.

> Anyhow, if you expect 7 billion people to do anything in regards to climate change, don't hold your breath. Except that China is halting construction on 20+ coal plants. And deploying renewables faster than any other country. And putting in place heavy subsidies for electric vehicles. Chinese citizens overwhelmingly support renewables and the cost associated with it: https://cleantechnica.com/2016/09/29/china-citie…

China are also in the situation where their depedence on coal and their poor current record in cleaning up industrial output makes the negative effects of the status quo much more noticeable.

When the West reached that stage, renewable power was less of a consideration and option, and so we opted for emissions standards and similar than brought the noticeable effects down to tolerable levels, and we are paying for it now in weaker support for putting in place a proper fix.

Re: West Antarctica Begins to Destabilize with ‘Intense Unbalanced Melting’

#82

Post by Camillo »

staticelf wrote: post #23

This is why big countries suck. They are slow to change and a wrong move is horribly damaging. Look at the US or China, no matter how I or all my countrymen live in Sweden it won't really matter if climate change deniers get in charge in the US for example. I just think it's so sad to see everything go to shit due to some greedy assholes that won't invest in solutions that are effective AND sustainable. I plan to bec…

That doesn't make any sense. If the US were split into the 50 states, you would have to get 50 governments separately to agree to carbon regulations, instead of one. Same with China or with any other large country.

Also, a large country is likely to have regions that will lose big in case of global warming, while other regions are indifferent or even stand to gain. The large country's single government has reason to oppose global warming in that case, which means that it can put all of its diplomatic weight on the side of global warming countermeasures. And once countermeasures were agreed to, they can be enforced across the entire country. If it were split up into smaller countries, the ones that will be less affected by global warming have an incentive to avoid countermeasures so they can exploit their competitive advantage there.

Re: West Antarctica Begins to Destabilize with ‘Intense Unbalanced Melting’

#83

Post by c0nducktr »

hash-set wrote: post #73
staticelf wrote: post #23

This is why big countries suck. They are slow to change and a wrong move is horribly damaging. Look at the US or China, no matter how I or all my countrymen live in Sweden it won't really matter if climate change deniers get in charge in the US for example. I just think it's so sad to see everything go to shit due to some greedy assholes that won't invest in solutions that are effective AND sustainable. I plan to bec…

It would be stupid to crash our economy and then find out that the "solutions" didn't work. Or that we come up with technological fix to the problem. Or that that whole thing was just a ploy by leftists to seize power. Anyhow, if you expect 7 billion people to do anything in regards to climate change, don't hold your breath.

> Or that that whole thing was just a ploy by leftists to seize power.

Well that's a particularly ridiculous theory.

Re: West Antarctica Begins to Destabilize with ‘Intense Unbalanced Melting’

#84

Post by vidarh »

hash-set wrote: post #75
jonnycowboy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shorting insurance companies.

You have no idea how hard it is to short something do you?

That depends on what companies you want to short and your broker. I've shorted plenty where I just had to enter a few numbers and press a button...

There's also any number of companies that let you do the equivalent via CFD's (Contract For Difference). Be warned: Many of them allow crazy levels of leverage that can wipe you out with tiny little swings.

You're right it's not a given that you'll be able to "just" short whichever share you want, but it's hardly difficult to find a way of betting against a given company.

Re: West Antarctica Begins to Destabilize with ‘Intense Unbalanced Melting’

#85

Post by politician »

hash-set wrote: post #73
staticelf wrote: post #23

This is why big countries suck. They are slow to change and a wrong move is horribly damaging. Look at the US or China, no matter how I or all my countrymen live in Sweden it won't really matter if climate change deniers get in charge in the US for example. I just think it's so sad to see everything go to shit due to some greedy assholes that won't invest in solutions that are effective AND sustainable. I plan to bec…

It would be stupid to crash our economy and then find out that the "solutions" didn't work. Or that we come up with technological fix to the problem. Or that that whole thing was just a ploy by leftists to seize power. Anyhow, if you expect 7 billion people to do anything in regards to climate change, don't hold your breath.

> ... just a ploy ...

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1732/

Re: West Antarctica Begins to Destabilize with ‘Intense Unbalanced Melting’

#86

Post by kingdomcome50 »

hash-set wrote: post #77
M_Grey wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't feed the troll, it will just encourage more of the same behavior.

I'm tired of the "climate change is settled science" bit, okay--for centuries, people believed the sun revolved around the earth and nobody was allowed to question that. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not censorship. And I'm with the poster who talked about "bullshitting" because climate change has a lot of the smells of that very thing.

Does it though? Your example about the sun and the earth is a false equivalency. In fact, you illustrate it yourself: "people believed". There was no (or very little) science involved in forming their conclusions; conclusions which science has now shown to be wrong.

Ironically, in doing so, you've highlighted a great example to show why we use the scientific method and how well it works - thereby weakening your own position that the science is not settled. And to that end, I think you should take 15 minutes and read this essay by Isaav Asimov:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

So when you say that climate change isn't settled science, my response is that you may be a little right: there are those who may overstate the science in order to push their own agenda. But you are, without a doubt, very wrong.

Re: West Antarctica Begins to Destabilize with ‘Intense Unbalanced Melting’

#87

Post by awt »

staticelf wrote: post #23

This is why big countries suck. They are slow to change and a wrong move is horribly damaging. Look at the US or China, no matter how I or all my countrymen live in Sweden it won't really matter if climate change deniers get in charge in the US for example. I just think it's so sad to see everything go to shit due to some greedy assholes that won't invest in solutions that are effective AND sustainable. I plan to bec…

Opposition to large states certainly makes sense if you are concerned about climate change, but perhaps not for the reason you think. Large centralized governments and economies cause wasteful and short sighted resource consumption (and thus CO2 production) through massive debt bubbles on a scale never before seen.

Re: West Antarctica Begins to Destabilize with ‘Intense Unbalanced Melting’

#88

Post by mikeash »

E6300 wrote: post #63
irrational wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard of Northern Antarctica. The questions was about West Antarctica, which makes total sense since the globe is laterally made up of a western and eastern hemisphere. But since Antarctica is in the southern hemisphere, talking about Northern Antarctica doesn't make much sense other than talking about any point away from the south pole. Maybe you are confused by the concept of a hemisphere?

I am merely objecting to referring to the "Western" part of a landmass that occupies a complete parallel line. Talking about the laterality of a quasi-spherical object is tenuous, as well.

Despite your objections, the terms "western hemisphere" and "eastern hemisphere" have been used for centuries without much trouble.

Re: West Antarctica Begins to Destabilize with ‘Intense Unbalanced Melting’

#89

Post by mzw_mzw »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #60
ocschwar wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China halts work on partly built coal plants. http://dailytimes.com.pk/business/23-Oct-16/china-axes-part-...

And their renewables deployment is so fast, overcapacity is a concern. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/chinas-growth-in-renewable-... EDIT: I'm not ready to call climate change solved yet, but at the deployment trajectory China is on, the rest of the world will have no choice but to follow, as China is pushing renewable generation costs very low (which undercuts nuclear and fossil fuels, pushing their prices higher…

And as we all know, if there's any nation whose official economic statistics are completely trustworthy, it's China. Why, even if China's famously open and transparent government did feel the urge to mess with the statistics, their dynamic free press, unfettered by government controls, would be all over it.

Re: West Antarctica Begins to Destabilize with ‘Intense Unbalanced Melting’

#90

Post by triangleman »

politician wrote: post #85
hash-set wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be stupid to crash our economy and then find out that the "solutions" didn't work. Or that we come up with technological fix to the problem. Or that that whole thing was just a ploy by leftists to seize power. Anyhow, if you expect 7 billion people to do anything in regards to climate change, don't hold your breath.

> ... just a ploy ... Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1732/

On the right hand side of that chart, it says he gets his data from both reconstructions and modern temperature measurements. How on earth are you supposed to compare those two? This is essentially just another hockey-stick graph.
Post reply on HN