Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted • Hacker News Board

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#231

Post by tumahimikka » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 2:55 PM UTC

734129837261 wrote: post #61

theothermkn wrote: post #19

This phenomenon is curious, in a morbid sort of way. There is literally no way to stop it; we are, as Noam Chomsky fears, a lethal mutation. We developed the ability to create industrial and economic activity on such a scale, and with such sophistication, that we've overcome the planet's ability to cope, but we have no mechanism in place that seems remotely capable of remedying that situation without a global catastr…

> You're all dead. And you have no idea. Such panic. Seriously. We'll be fine. We'll grow to 20 billion before the population declines. Humanity will adapt. The planet has been through far worse extinction events. This one isn't even remotely impressive compared to the others. Humanity will be fine. And every single generation will keep whining about "WOE IS US, THE END IS NEAR!" for all eternity. I believe in climat…

> The planet has been through far worse extinction events.

Yea? How many civilizations survived those ones?

>This one isn't even remotely impressive compared to the others.

2edgy5me

> Humanity will be fine. And every single generation will keep whining about "WOE IS US, THE END IS NEAR!" for all eternity.

Yea look at all those idiots running from Vesuvius. I hope you're a troll because I'm tired of seeing people this stupid in the wild.

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#232

Post by snowwrestler » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 3:01 PM UTC

hodgesrm wrote: post #230

snowwrestler wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a collection of climbing magazines from the 1990s, and many of the featured routes in South American ranges like the Cordilla Blanca are no longer climbable today. The glaciers, ice, and snow are gone, and what's left is crumbly, friable rock that is not safe to climb on. Mt Rainier is also mostly composed of crumbly, friable rock, and I wonder just how climbable it would be without glaciers and snowfields to…

Rockfall has always been part of the fun of climbing on the upper parts of Mt Rainier. The practical effect of warming is that the season where you need to worry about it is now extended. What's more worrying is the possibility we'll see some major collapses. Many of the big features on Rainier like Gibraltar Rock and the Willis Wall are anchored by ice at the base. As this disappears those structures may become unst…

I doubt that the gravitational collapse of a rock buttress, even a large one, would be enough to trigger a major eruption of Rainier. The energy of an eruption is shockingly large and almost anything else you can imagine pales before it.

The thickness and weight of the entire mountain is not a significant check on an eruption; therefore, it doesn't seem likely that removing a portion of the mountain (via collapse) would do more than vent some steam and noxious gases. Eruptions depend on what happens deeper in the crust, as I understand it.

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#233

Post by bloopernova » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

bdamm wrote: post #91

bloopernova wrote: post #44

I weep for the life my 19 year old stepdaughter will have.

Current 19 year olds have not much to worry about. Remember it's 2-4 deg C by the end of the century along with a sea level rise of perhaps 1m. It's her grandchildren that are truly going to suffer. Of course, nobody knows how long the current status quo can last in the face of climate change.

I think you are wildly incorrect, but I hope that you are right.

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#234

Post by pier25 » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 3:49 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #228

majewsky wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody knows how [atmospheric carbon] will affect the planet but it's not going to be good for us . FTFY. Life on this planet is probably going to stick around. What happens to human civilization is the more interesting question.

Seems like there could be a pretty big gap between "life on this planet is probably going to stick around" and "good." Life made it through the Chicxulub impact but I doubt you would have called it good had you been on Earth at that time. I'm continually surprised at how often people counter warnings about global warming with comments to the effect that life, in general, will go on. That's a low bar! Way lower than y…

You don't even have to get that far. A global increase in food prices would be a complete global catastrophe.

For example the heat wave in Russia in 2010 that helped fuel the Arab Spring revolts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Russian_wildfires

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#235

Post by kjsbfkjbf » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

pantalaimon wrote: post #158

734129837261 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We will. We always do. There is no reason to assume we won't. The wealthy westerners will not notice because of air conditioning and endless bottled water. The less wealthy ones will suffer the heat a bit more. The poor ones will be taken care of. Third world nations will suffer. Some might die. Maybe many. But humanity will adapt. We might lose a few hundred million in the next few decades until their folks find new…

Where do you expect food to come from without an ecosystem that supports the crops we are farming right now?

Wealthy westerners not understanding that their standard of living exists exclusively because of the rape of the third world. People need to try being self sufficient for even a week.

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#236

Post by acqq » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 4:45 PM UTC

ForHackernews wrote: post #220

acqq wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual quote from IPCC text about hundreds of millions people affected is: "Liu et al. (2018) studied the changes in population exposure to severe droughts in 27 regions around the globe for 1.5°C and 2°C of warming using the SSP1 population scenario compared to the baseline period of 1986–2005 based on the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI). They concluded that the drought exposure of urban populations in most…

It's not "distorted" at all! At +1.5 C, they're predicting that " only " 350.2 million more people will be exposed to severe drought compared to the baseline period. That's exactly what Watts says. What do you think is distorted? You're mad that he didn't mention the ±158.8 million error bars on that estimate? I feel like I'm talking to a crazy person here -- how do you read the exact same text and see "distortion" w…

“Only” is a distortion enough, and also using the number from +2 deg prediction in the +1.5 deg context. If I’d go through it I could find many more of these “muddying the water” techniques. As I’ve quoted the IPCC in that specific case reports the results of the specific scientific paper which is much more precise than what is “distortedly” presented. There are exact criteria specified under which the estimates hold, they are precisely calculated and if you don’t trust the paper you are free to point to the scientific errors, if you find any, which I doubt. But summarising it like it’s just some random guess is precisely the distortion I point to.

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#237

Post by emanuensis » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

acqq wrote: post #219

emanuensis wrote: post #212

A form of geoengineering is seeding Fe and P into appropriate places (good currents) of the ocean. This kickstarts aquatic life and removes carbon fast ... and as a by product creates whole new fisheries. It is fast and cheap enough that small countries and multimillionaires (and up) can do it as a DIY solution to climate change ... so why has this not been done, forcefully? There seems to be tremendous social opprob…

From the text: "George argues that the project succeeded at capturing carbon too. There’s no available evidence to back him up — it’s exceptionally difficult to measure the carbon captured by experiments like these, and the results from more carefully controlled experiments are not promising ."

i would be interested in what/where those "controlled experiments" were... my understanding is that even experimenting is a no no in the field of geoengineering. Versus reflective schemes this actually "removes" carbon and is thus is a net gain, not merely a partial temporary cover. It also increases biota -- exactly the opposite of what humans tend to do, we are now in a major extinction event. Increasing biota on land is very hard and unlikely, but this easily increases it in the seas where it is badly needed. It is also easily titrated - one can stop/in/de/crease adding Iron and Phosphorus at any time.

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#238

Post by ForHackernews » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 5:32 PM UTC

acqq wrote: post #236

ForHackernews wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "distorted" at all! At +1.5 C, they're predicting that " only " 350.2 million more people will be exposed to severe drought compared to the baseline period. That's exactly what Watts says. What do you think is distorted? You're mad that he didn't mention the ±158.8 million error bars on that estimate? I feel like I'm talking to a crazy person here -- how do you read the exact same text and see "distortion" w…

“Only” is a distortion enough, and also using the number from +2 deg prediction in the +1.5 deg context. If I’d go through it I could find many more of these “muddying the water” techniques. As I’ve quoted the IPCC in that specific case reports the results of the specific scientific paper which is much more precise than what is “distortedly” presented. There are exact criteria specified under which the estimates hold…

> using the number from +2 deg prediction in the +1.5 deg context.

It's not! Read your own quote!

"[compared to the baseline period of 1986–2005] urban populations in most regions would be decreased at 1.5°C (350.2 ± 158.8 million people) compared to 2°C (410.7 ± 213.5 million people)."

You have (accurately, IMHO) rephrased this as:

"So it says: in case of 1.5 deg 350 million, in case of 2 deg 410 million."

This is EXACTLY what Watts is restating:

"if we commit to these...tasks, then we might just barely be able to keep global temperature from rising more than 1.5°C.... only 350 million more urban dwellers will be exposed to severe drought and “deadly heat” events"

The IPCC report, your restatement, and Watts summary all say the same thing: If we take drastic action and manage to limit climate change to only +1.5C, then predictions are 350 million people will suffer severe drought. ("only" 350 million instead of 410m as in the +2C scenario)

He's not trying to "muddy the waters" -- he's trying get across to a lay reader just how desperate our situation is. If you prefer boring dry IPCC text, so be it, but so far none of these bland scientific reports have made any real policy impact.

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#239

Post by hodgesrm » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 5:56 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #232

hodgesrm wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rockfall has always been part of the fun of climbing on the upper parts of Mt Rainier. The practical effect of warming is that the season where you need to worry about it is now extended. What's more worrying is the possibility we'll see some major collapses. Many of the big features on Rainier like Gibraltar Rock and the Willis Wall are anchored by ice at the base. As this disappears those structures may become unst…

I doubt that the gravitational collapse of a rock buttress, even a large one, would be enough to trigger a major eruption of Rainier. The energy of an eruption is shockingly large and almost anything else you can imagine pales before it. The thickness and weight of the entire mountain is not a significant check on an eruption; therefore, it doesn't seem likely that removing a portion of the mountain (via collapse) wo…

Lahars are different. They are mudflows. It's common to see them triggered by eruptions (e.g., Mt St Helens in 1980) but they can arise from landslides as well as glacier collapses. The most recent Lahar on Mt Rainier was in 1947. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kautz_Creek

Re: Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted

#240

Post by growlist » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 8:32 PM UTC

pier25 wrote: post #190

Everyone here is focused on reducing emissions and such but quite frankly this is only a small part of the problem. Let's assume today, right now, humanity has found a miracle to produce zero emissions. First let's consider climate lag [1]. There is a 40ish year delay between emissions and effects on the climate. So this means we are now only seeing the effects from the emissions from the late 70s early 80s. Here's t…

Fourth: population increase to 10bn by 2050. Everyone better get used to drastically duller lifestyles if we want zero emissions with that many people on the planet.