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

131–140 of 149 posts

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#131

Post by zsz »

tejohnso wrote: post #113
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…

> Unless you haven't been paying attention, the most recent IPCC report basically says, "We're fucked, its gonna happen now no matter what." Yes, the IPCC is finally coming around to using the words irreversible and abrupt in their assessments. > You can play with the current IPCC model, change where the clouds form, and get an ice age. I don't recall seeing any mention of a potential pathway to an ice age in any IPC…

I am responding to the assertion that "sometimes you need a good amount of fear or anxiety to kick you in the ass..." This supposition is not merely factually false, but is actually dangerously harmful, especially to one's mental (but also physical) health.

First, what's important to realize is, when you say it can be positive, you are thinking of incidental stressors. But that's not the case here. The sort of fear/anxiety that occurs is constant and long term, rather than incidental (e.g. worrying about something abstract, rather than fleeing from a predator). Indeed, incidental stress can be / often is productive. However, it differs fundamentally from anxiety, which is considered a mental disorder that results among others when fear / mental stress become long term / constant (such as when worrying about an abstract notion that has no direct effect on one's situational survival).

Anxiety adversely affects the amygdala and hippocampus, in particular. It causes a growth in the former, which results in intensified bodily responses to anxiety; so in that sense, it acts as a positive feedback loop that worsens the effects of anxiety as time goes on. At the same time, long term effects result in the hippocampus shrinking, which reduces a person's ability to form long term memories, or contextualize emotional responses. Needless to say, that in itself severely curtails the ability to reason on a higher level.

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#132

Post by France_is_bacon »

gnatman wrote: post #14
Gravityloss wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scientists know this. Paleoclimatology is one big part of climatology. But the outcome is the opposite - you should be more scared, since it shows that climate can change massively. That affects things like agriculture or sea level. What would you assume the sea level was, when those plants were alive? For example, with very quick search: "In general, world oceans were about 100 to 200 metres (330 to 660 feet) hi…

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/

No post body was provided.

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#133

Post by picometer »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #49
Gravityloss wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scientists know this. Paleoclimatology is one big part of climatology. But the outcome is the opposite - you should be more scared, since it shows that climate can change massively. That affects things like agriculture or sea level. What would you assume the sea level was, when those plants were alive? For example, with very quick search: "In general, world oceans were about 100 to 200 metres (330 to 660 feet) hi…

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…

This is the headline you are annoyed at, its subheading in the article, and the article's concluding paragraph:

"Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record"

"Natural variability is probably the cause, although global warming could have a role."

“This could be the start of sustained loss of Antarctic ice similar to what we have seen in the Arctic over the past 50 years, or it could be short-term variability that reverts back to the mean year,” says Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth in California. In the long term, climate change will result in declining Antarctic sea ice, he adds.

I do not see fearmongering here. I see a Nature article reporting a noteworthy measurement, without applying any subjective tone or value judgement that would induce anxiety. No mention of human extinction, no mention of steering resources, no politics. In fact it emphasizes the ice's natural variability, as if the authors want to avoid fanning the flames.

Why do you see it that way? I'm actually really puzzled, since you seem to value sensible and rational consideration of things. I would've expected you to comment, "Thank goodness for a level-headed article that provides a balanced interpretation!"

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#134

Post by somenameforme »

Gravityloss wrote: post #7
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 scientists know this. Paleoclimatology is one big part of climatology. But the outcome is the opposite - you should be more scared, since it shows that climate can change massively. That affects things like agriculture or sea level. What would you assume the sea level was, when those plants were alive? For example, with very quick search: "In general, world oceans were about 100 to 200 metres (330 to 660 feet) hi…

Such quotes ('oceans were 200-250 meters higher') are going to mislead people. It's currently estimated that if all ice melted, sea levels would rise somewhere around 70 meters [1]. National Geographic had an interesting interactive some time back that showed what the world would look like if this happened. [2]

And it's likely these estimates have not yet accounted for an important recent discovery which could bring that 70 meters down substantially. In 2016 it was discovered that sea levels were rising more slowly than expected [3]. The reason, discovered through satellite imagery, is that the lands were absorbing much more water than expected - effectively acting like giant sponges.

[1] - https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-would-sea-level-change-if-all-...

[2] - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/article/rising-s...

[3] - https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2398/study-rising-seas-slowed-...

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#135

Post by _0w8t »

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…

I read an interview with a paleontologist and he pointed out two things. First, climate 9000 years ago was about 1- 1.5 degree warmer than today. Even 1000 years ago it was much milder in Arctic or Northern Atlantic/Pacific. Second, the next ice age should start within the next 1000-2000 years. And for humans an ice age is much worse than global warming even by 2 degrees. So it could be that we should continue to increase CO2 as a protection against the ice age…

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#136

Post by _0w8t »

Sebb767 wrote: post #36
arno_v wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprisingly if you put it to 20 meters the effect globally seem insignificant. Although 80% of my own country would be flooded, so that's not great.

The big problem, as a sister comment pointed out, is that, for various reasons, a lot of people live close to the coast line. And a lot of people having to move was historically never really a good for peace, plus we loose a lot of agriculturally valuable land in the process.

Transportation by water is like 50 times cheaper than by land and it has been like that for at least the last 2000 years. So most people live either along the coast or along rivers.

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#137

Post by lowwave »

Gravityloss wrote: post #7
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 scientists know this. Paleoclimatology is one big part of climatology. But the outcome is the opposite - you should be more scared, since it shows that climate can change massively. That affects things like agriculture or sea level. What would you assume the sea level was, when those plants were alive? For example, with very quick search: "In general, world oceans were about 100 to 200 metres (330 to 660 feet) hi…

Probably why all the countries are using funds legally and illegally to space exploration and space assets.

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#138

Post by thaumasiotes »

bigthymer wrote: post #110
lijogdfljk wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But housing isn't expensive because it's hard to build. It's expensive because building it isn't allowed. If it all had to be rebuilt, that would be much cheaper than trying to build it under existing conditions.

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#139

Post by rich_sasha »

scruple wrote: post #58
rich_sasha wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if California goes, we might as well all pack up, civilisation is over.

Okay. So what do you think will happen when a significant chunk of the United States economic power is under water?

Well, billions of poor people without iPhones will be displaced or flooded. But actually on reflection, that's irrelevant compared to, dunno, having to build sea walls in Los Angeles and ruining the beach.

When I imagine the value of beach houses in Orange County dropping due to sea level rise, it fills me with such sadness.

Re: Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum on record

#140

Post by Gravityloss »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #49
Gravityloss wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scientists know this. Paleoclimatology is one big part of climatology. But the outcome is the opposite - you should be more scared, since it shows that climate can change massively. That affects things like agriculture or sea level. What would you assume the sea level was, when those plants were alive? For example, with very quick search: "In general, world oceans were about 100 to 200 metres (330 to 660 feet) hi…

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…

Now have time for a longer reply. There are a few different phenomena.

First is that "fear" and "anxiety" are indeed used by the news media or politicians to get more attention. There I agree. It is cheap, unsustainable and harmful. But there's more to glaciers than news fearmongering.

The second concept is "the planet doesn't care". George Carlin has his famous skit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c Of course life will continue on earth, after relatively large temperature swings or 10 kilometer asteroid hits etc. That doesn't mean we don't need to care about anything. His skit can be seen as a wake up call (which he might or might not have meant). Why would we do anything? Why would you recycle instead of dumping plastic bags in the river? Why would you put the safety on in your gun? The planet will be fine even if you blow your leg off. But you will be affected. It's the people that are f.... That's the punchline.

But I also disagree about his "don't meddle with nature, let the species die". If we change something, let's say, dump cyanide or mercury in a river, it's not "natural" for animals to die downstream. It's not "nature doing its thing". It's our responsibility. It's an untenable philosophical position to do something and then act as if the consequences don't have anything to do with the deed. But that's not the core point of the skit.

So about caring. If there was an asteroid headed towards earth, I'd care. Yes, it's happened before, and life has survived. But I still care. It would have great negative consequences for me and others. And there are others that care. There are programs to survey asteroids. To build technology to deflect them. Why do it? The asteroids are not our fault. They have struck before. They are "natural". Sure some news media might use them as scare tactics, to get attention. Those are all red herrings. It would matter, it would cause great suffering, that could be prevented. So let's prevent it. Let's not fall into apathy.

The third is this attitude of shallow dismissal of large amounts of scientific enquiry, that was at the start of it all, in your first comment. I got the implication that the fossils show how stupid the scientists are, that everything will be fine. No, a massive amount of work has been performed studying glaciers, or climate change. We have ice penetrating radar to map the ground underneath. We track glacier flows. We measure sea temperatures at depth. Of course also paleoclimate has been studied. Paleoclimate was actually one of the great motivators for the CO2 theory, to show that climate can change drastically - more than what would be expected from the small insolation changes. If you really want to have a rational approach to glaciers, then don't follow some news talking heads but look at the science. Marine Ice Sheet Instability is the key word here.

Post reply on HN