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

101–110 of 141 posts

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

#101

Post by cicero »

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #98
Camillo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Sure, but then about half of those would actually do something about it. Of course, the other half would keep thumping the Bible or Atlas Shrugged (or both), but even so that's a fraction of the current level of inaction.

The Bible gives no good reason to deny climate change. The leaders of the two largest Christian groups, the Catholic Popes (specifically Benedict XVI and Francis) and the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, have long been supporters of green policies.

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

#102

Post by mzw_mzw »

ajmurmann wrote: post #2

What's the best way to profit from rising sea levels? Investing in land that's higher up in our nearby coastal cities?

Find the people who are claiming that the sea levels will rise and destroy our cities, and attempting to sell you things based on that. Buy stock in their company.

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

#103

Post by ommunist »

ajmurmann wrote: post #2

What's the best way to profit from rising sea levels? Investing in land that's higher up in our nearby coastal cities?

Blockchain and AI. Pack your consciousness into undeletable network of computers distributed in outer space and go take a break on Mars. My grandgrandsons will do ok by flintknapping, the usual means of exchange will be booze. There will be plenty of water for it.

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

#105

Post by the_why_of_y »

maxerickson wrote: post #95
throwaway729 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renewable energy. Once things get bad enough the world will wake up and renewables will become huge.

Renewables are already huge. Once batteries get a bit better and solar gets a bit cheaper, things will really get going. The deployment won't wait for the world to wake up about global warming.

IEA raises its five-year renewable growth forecast as 2015 marks record year: https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2016/october/iea-raises-it...

"Last year marked a turning point for renewables. Led by wind and solar, renewables represented more than half the new power capacity around the world, reaching a record 153 Gigawatt (GW), 15% more than the previous year. Most of these gains were driven by record-level wind additions of 66 GW and solar PV additions of 49 GW."

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

#106

Post by sitkack »

Camillo wrote: post #82
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…

50 states wouldn't have the global power to keep oil on top for so long. We wouldn't be in this mess w/o the combined power and control and capture of the US government.

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

#107

Post by orf »

ommunist wrote: post #100

Bloomberg rarely does proper math. Melt both polar caps and the ice of Greenland, and you barely get global sea level rise by very few inches. Antarctics as a whole is 90% of the world land-based ice. 29 mln cubic km. All of the floating ice is around 3 mln cubic km. It may look that it can cause 60m high sea level rise, but most of this will be evaporated into milder global climate and stronger rivers. We shall have…

Well then everything is fine, what could go wrong.

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

#108

Post by ommunist »

orf wrote: post #107
ommunist wrote: post #100

Bloomberg rarely does proper math. Melt both polar caps and the ice of Greenland, and you barely get global sea level rise by very few inches. Antarctics as a whole is 90% of the world land-based ice. 29 mln cubic km. All of the floating ice is around 3 mln cubic km. It may look that it can cause 60m high sea level rise, but most of this will be evaporated into milder global climate and stronger rivers. We shall have…

Well then everything is fine, what could go wrong.

On a scale, the only thing that really goes is biological evolution. And it blooms after stress events.

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

#109

Post by Jtsummers »

cicero wrote: post #101
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Sure, but then about half of those would actually do something about it. Of course, the other half would keep thumping the Bible or Atlas Shrugged (or both), but even so that's a fraction of the current level of inaction.

The Bible gives no good reason to deny climate change. The leaders of the two largest Christian groups, the Catholic Popes (specifically Benedict XVI and Francis) and the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, have long been supporters of green policies.

And actually, as it describes humans as the stewards of God's creation, green policies should be essential to their acts as Christians.

However, in the US, specifically in the South since that's my experience, many actively deny climate change and refuse to pursue green policies, ostensibly on religious grounds though when discussing it with them it either makes no sense or they can't establish any. It's very frustrating. They see climate change and green policies as some sort of atheist, pinko, commie conspiracy.

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

#110

Post by nonbel »

triangleman wrote: post #90
politician wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... 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.

Usually I like xkcd, but that one is wrong at the end. The data actually matches the "best case scenario" surprisingly well. I was really amazed at how that model has performed when I first saw it, it is really interesting. https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/gwpf_nasa-hansen_...
Post reply on HN