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

Ice

hivewired.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: Ice

#31

Post by cneu »

robbiep wrote: post #22
ncmncm wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That SA article has been overtaken by events. We still don't have any evidence of early, drowned civilizations, but the comet strike now seems to be responsible for extinctions in both South America and Africa. As an aside, you don't need a crater. Multiple airbursts over a wide area, Tunguska style, provide plenty of devastation. You might be able to believe in mass extinctions caused by newly arrived humans in Sout…

Interestingly I was reading about this this morning whilst reviewing my old crackpot hero Graham Hancock (reading fingerprints of the gods at a young age had me fascinated about this mythical ancient civilisation for which exceptional claims are made but very little evidence). This is a great rebuttal of the whole YDIH. Specifically regarding the possibility of air bursts, (0) says this: The firestorm began in 2007 w…

That has been in 2017, when there was also this famous discussion between Hancock, Carlson and Shermer on the JRE. Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic Magazine, which you quoted. He recently tweeted this: https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/123755946996742144...

Re: Ice

#33

Post by rtpg »

seibelj wrote: post #4
peteretep wrote: post #2

> It’s unlikely we could prevent such a collapse from occurring, but by anticipating such an event we may be able to save many lives and livelihoods. Not while there’s so much political power to be had through climate change denial, which, I hope we start to treat with the same complete disgust and moral outrage as we treat Holocaust denial.

What also disgusts me are so-called environmentalists that stick their fingers in their ears and ignore reality. For example solar panels and wind farms aren’t going to get our carbon footprint to zero anytime soon - the technology is decades (maybe?) away to store and transmit this power to non-sunny and non-windy areas, and there is no solution for their intermittent power generation during extended periods of low-…

"solar and wind aren't net positives" is a pretty tired argument. We're already in a second decade of both of these technologies being cost efficient and useful!

Perhaps it's not going to cover 100% of things. But it's a thing you can be doing and it doesn't make things worse.

Meanwhile even with the relatively low usage of nuclear there are two regions of the world that used to be populated with people that now are abandoned.

Re: Ice

#34

Post by ncmncm »

cneu wrote: post #31
robbiep wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interestingly I was reading about this this morning whilst reviewing my old crackpot hero Graham Hancock (reading fingerprints of the gods at a young age had me fascinated about this mythical ancient civilisation for which exceptional claims are made but very little evidence). This is a great rebuttal of the whole YDIH. Specifically regarding the possibility of air bursts, (0) says this: The firestorm began in 2007 w…

That has been in 2017, when there was also this famous discussion between Hancock, Carlson and Shermer on the JRE. Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic Magazine, which you quoted. He recently tweeted this: https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/123755946996742144...

tl;dr: mea culpa

Similarly Marc Defant, former skeptic: https://www.marcdefant.com/2020/06/05/the-younger-dryas-impa...

Changing one's mind in the face of evidence is admirable and distressingly rare. Speaking up to admit having been wrong is oh-so-much rarer.

Re: Ice

#36

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #21

This essay mentions the Younger Dryas but what it doesn't mention is that the Younger Dryas was a sudden return to glacial temperatures after the earth had already warmed up at the end of the last glacial period. The magnitude of these swings in both directions are absolutely enormous and occur at much too rapid a speed to be attributable to trace greenhouse gas concentrations. Something else must have caused those s…

> be attributable to trace greenhouse gas concentrations

The use of the word 'trace' here seems to be weasel words. Doesn't matter if it's trace or not. Otherwise it's an interesting point.

> There is no evidence of sea level rise acceleration

As you back up all your other stats, why not this one. A bit of searching suggests you're wrong (multiple reputable sources are given in the article, from nasa + vims + noaa)

"Of 32 tide-gauge stations in locations along the vast US coastline, 25 showed a clear acceleration in sea level rise last year" (and there's more there)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/03/sea-leve...

I'm getting tired of these posts. We're facing a threat to our very existence, facts matter.

Re: Ice

#37

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

Cool article.

My mother[0] was a geologist, and I was raised in an environment, where she was constantly pointing at rocks and terrain, telling me about how they were formed.

I live on Long Island, New York, which is called a “terminal moraine.”[1]

I.e. “glacier poop.”

When you realize that Long Island is 125 miles long, you can appreciate the size of the glacier that created it.

The Ice Age was AWESOME.

(0] http://cmarshall.com/miscellaneous/SheilaMarshall.htm

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_moraine

Re: Ice

#38

Post by wffurr »

The author seems to think we are "safe" from impact events, but that seems awfully glib and based more on pop culture takes like movies than facts.

Our track record for noticing near Earth objects is pretty poor and largely due to amateur astronomers. I don't think there is any consensus on what sort of space mission we could mount to divert one either. We are a long way from "planetary defenses have never been stronger": https://youtu.be/QkpP5Nz7zuY?t=34

Re: Ice

#39

Post by cneu »

ncmncm wrote: post #34
cneu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has been in 2017, when there was also this famous discussion between Hancock, Carlson and Shermer on the JRE. Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic Magazine, which you quoted. He recently tweeted this: https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/123755946996742144...

tl;dr: mea culpa Similarly Marc Defant, former skeptic: https://www.marcdefant.com/2020/06/05/the-younger-dryas-impa... Changing one's mind in the face of evidence is admirable and distressingly rare. Speaking up to admit having been wrong is oh-so-much rarer.

Very true.

Re: Ice

#40

Post by robbiep »

ncmncm wrote: post #34
cneu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has been in 2017, when there was also this famous discussion between Hancock, Carlson and Shermer on the JRE. Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic Magazine, which you quoted. He recently tweeted this: https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/123755946996742144...

tl;dr: mea culpa Similarly Marc Defant, former skeptic: https://www.marcdefant.com/2020/06/05/the-younger-dryas-impa... Changing one's mind in the face of evidence is admirable and distressingly rare. Speaking up to admit having been wrong is oh-so-much rarer.

Thanks for the follow up information
Post reply on HN