The melting of Antarctica

Antarctic melting is a particularly nasty consequence of anthopogenic climate change. It's a fairly robust first-order prediction of almost any analysis that gets anthropogenic heat balances correct--so unlike almost all other detailed predictions, there is a good chance of it happening--and the consequences, apart from maybe submerging Florida, are unequivocally bad for humans.

But in a debate as emotionally charged as the one over climate change and what to do about it, the last thing we need is the Washington Post ranting on in purely speculative terms.

If a friend told you, "Ten years from now, you may remember 2014 as the year that you first learned that I may have gotten a new job. Meanwhile, 2015 could be the year of the double whammy — when you learned the same about our buddy Joe, which could set in motion a road trip," you would probably look at them funny and say, "Hey, why are you telling me all this stuff that may or may nor or could or could not or might or might not happen as if it's the most important thing in the world? It sounds kind of pretentious and stupid."

There are still a lot of different ways this could play out. We could have another moderately difficult Summer followed by one of the wettest and coldest Winters in recent history, and everything will keep limping along. Or, we could have a season of dry thunderstorms that cause one of the worst wildfire seasons in recent history, complete with thick smoke and the health effects that causes. Or, conflicts over water rights could add fuel to the State of Jefferson movement and turn that into years of political wrangling that drains the energy from a state government no longer being led by Brown. Or, California agriculture could suddenly take huge steps towards better water management, either due to rising water costs or public outcry as municipal water rates skyrocket and rationing is imposed. Or, agriculture might fail to adapt and there will be economic ripple effects felt in food costs and a hit to the state GDP.

Usually, things like this sort of muddle along for years and nobody really notices an acute impact. Sometimes the conditions are right for a disaster and you get something like 2008. The conditions are right now for things to get pretty awful over the next couple of years, but there are still a lot of people involved that can have some impact over how it all turns out. I hope those people get started soon.

If things do take a turn towards the worst, there really is less and less reason for most people to stay in this state. It's a nice state, but there are lots of other really nice places too, and there's been a tech diaspora over the last decade that's bearing fruit in a lot of different places around the country.

I don't deny that humans can influence earth's climate. But the tone of climate change media is beyond hysterics.

For instance, the headline from this article is, in full, "The melting of Antarctica was already really bad. It just got worse."

I posted below links to scientific studies showing that Antarctica has 12.5 million cubic km of ice. 125 cubic km of ice is "melting" each year. On top of that, surveyors noticed reductions in Antarctic ice at least as far back as 1932, far far before "climate change."

My naturally skeptical alarms go off when I realize that headlines like the OP are pure hysterics. At the current rate, Antarctica will melt in 1 million years. Of course, climate changes dramatically on that geologic time scale, so the headline completely destroys the credibility, in my mind, of the central argument -- that Antarctica is "melting."

One look a tide gauges shows that the sea level rise we've been seeing has been going on for about 150 years with no change in the rate of rise.

So, naturally, I'm going to be skeptical of hysterical claims.

As to your point about HN being hostile to climate change, I see it the complete opposite way. Any skeptical arguments, even links to objective scientific facts, are immediately flagkilled and downvoted into hell.