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

Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 149 posts

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#101

Post by wyager »

jl6 wrote: post #70
gnatman wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just went looking for a map to see how different coastlines would look with a 200m sea level rise. It's, unsurprisingly, significant!! https://www.floodmap.net/

Interesting that even at a ridiculous, unprecedented 500m sea level rise, there are still substantial areas of dry land. It would be a radically different world, and a smaller one for us land based animals, but it doesn’t seem outlandish that civilization could persist.

And large changes would take at least decades or centuries. It seems outlandish that civilization wouldn't persist just because coastal settlements move their center of mass over time.

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#102

Post by krona »

nerdponx wrote: post #75
jl6 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that even at a ridiculous, unprecedented 500m sea level rise, there are still substantial areas of dry land. It would be a radically different world, and a smaller one for us land based animals, but it doesn’t seem outlandish that civilization could persist.

It's difficult to imagine the extent and depth of suffering that humans will endure during the transition.

The Netherlands didn't endure much suffering. In fact, quite the opposite.

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#103

Post by Gravityloss »

LoveGracePeace wrote: post #93
Gravityloss wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

That is an utter trite, passive aggressive, judgemental and potentially emotionally hurtful response to an eloquently stated position by the parent.

The original point was that there were flower fossils under the ice, hence we shouldn't worry.

Large sea level rise or other climate change effects can have large negative consequences. We should take a rational and responsible approach to them.

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#104

Post by layer8 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #3

I am not a "denier", I can recognize that anthropomorphic activities are changing the climate over time and we're not prepared to deal with that. But this sort of article annoys me because "on record" represents a nanosecond of geologic time. There are mountains, and plant fossils [1] under the ice at Antartica, so at some point in the geologic record there was little to no ice at all! And no humans likely either, wh…

The graph also seems to show that the highest maximum on record wasn’t that long ago. If anything, the graph shows that the amplitude is getting larger.

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#105

Post by bamboozled »

anonporridge wrote: post #95
jjcon wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think if we had the technology to do that we probably would be, we spend billions on climate research and even on carbon sequestration tech but we just don't have a good scalable way to do it yet.

It's going to cost significantly more energy than the aggregate energy output of all fossil fuel burning over the past 200 years to remove the carbon from the atmosphere that was added. Probably several multiples more because it's harder to undo chemical combustion than to do it. We're probably talking trillions of dollars, not billions. Much more likely is that we'd invest a few billion in pumping global coolants in…

My guess is, we'll do both...

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#106

Post by anonporridge »

rajup wrote: post #63
anonporridge wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast mass of humans who will be displaced by sea level rise will come from hot, humid regions of the world, primarily southeast Asia, https://www.climatecentral.org/news/report-flooded-future-gl... Suggesting that people who are both biologically and culturally adapted to hot, equatorial climates migrate to Antarctica as a primary solution to this displacement strikes me as absurd. Having said that, I think colon…

I sort of understand the cultural aspect of it, curious what you mean by the biological adaptation needed. As far as I know a person from the tropics has no problem living in Canada (well sure they complain about how cold it is, but they do fine).

Beyond lighter skin being an adaptation to absorb more UV light for vitamin D production, there appear to be other skin adaptations that enable success for living in near polar latitudes. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/06/115741/human-evolution-cha...

You could argue that we have the technology to overcome these biologically hurdles, and we do, but we're talking about millions of poor refugees who would have nothing if forced to abandon their land. It's unlikely that western good will would fund them indefinitely.

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#107

Post by zsz »

rexpop wrote: post #92
jl6 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting that even at a ridiculous, unprecedented 500m sea level rise, there are still substantial areas of dry land. It would be a radically different world, and a smaller one for us land based animals, but it doesn’t seem outlandish that civilization could persist.

Dry land is just one aspect of climatic stability. Tolerable and predictable weather patterns is another. Fertile regions, a critical consequence of that. The question isn't whether some will survive, the question is: Who, why them, and at what cost? Furthermore, it's best to avoid population bottleneck scenarios in general, isn't it? So, sure; we can relax at least our fears for a Kevin Costner "waterworld."

Maybe "stability" isn't the best factor for human progress? I'm not saying "therefore, let's maximize chaos!" -- just pointing out that /stability/ in today's world is more likely to lead to "business as usual."

I know Hollywood movies like to focus on dystopian scenarios wherein the Onepercenters always end up the sole benefactors of significant changes (especially due to worsening climate/pollution)...but is that really so? I envision that they in particular would want stability -- especially political -- far more than the average person. The reason why especially such persons historically preferred western nations, for example, was precisely due to greater stability, and not because of tax laws, for example.

Perhaps it was "stability" that contributed to scientific stagnation in some cultures?

Lastly, another term for "stability" is steady state. Remember what cell bio teaches regarding steady state vs equilibrium.

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#108

Post by yumraj »

Gravityloss wrote: post #65
ChuckMcM wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, I'd like to respond to this, " ... you should be more scared, " Can you reason to that position? Here is how I see it, and perhaps that will make my position more clear. I'm going to die (so are you). Every year, the probability that I'm going to die in the next year goes up bit by bit. I don't expect to read articles that continually harp on "look how close to death you are, are you sure you don't want to eat…

Quoted post unavailable.

I would argue that very few people do - especially people who have real problems today, like putting food on the table and paying rent, they don't care at all about what is going to happen next month let alone coming generation.

Now throw the religious kind in the mix, and they are either relying on divine intervention, or think humanity deserves what is coming or whatever..

And, that is the primarily the reason why this is such a difficult topic on which to get everyone on the same page.

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#109

Post by ehnto »

Maursault wrote: post #83
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I was looking at this and thinking "At 20m, basically the entire Eastern and Southern Seaboard of the US is gone."

Not at all. Those living along the shore have flood insurance which will continue to pay for restoration of the coastline.

Insurance isn't an endless bucket of money, and it's also going to adapt. Eventually you just won't be able to get insurance for properties in areas like that. Just look at the floods in New Orleans or the current flooding along the east coast of Australia, I doubt there's enough money to make all those affected whole again.

I think insurance may be the main driver for when people actually decide to move. People are pretty resilient, but if you can't get a home loan because you can't get insurance, people won't keep living there.

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#110

Post by bigthymer »

lijogdfljk wrote: post #56
jazzyjackson wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you mean the shape of the countries doesn't change much? iirc the majority of Earth's population lives on coastlines, most major cities will be inundated

They'll have a _long_ time to migrate though, no?

Housing is super expensive for people now. All of that coastal infrastructure will need to be rebuilt.
Post reply on HN