Live data from Hacker News

Swiss glaciers have shrunk by a quarter since 2015, study says

france24.com

101–102 of 102 posts

Re: Swiss glaciers have shrunk by a quarter since 2015, study says

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That ice melting absorbs the energy that would otherwise be warming the atmosphere and causing cataclysmic storms and crop failures due to heat. And that is exactly what is going to happen once the glaciers melt. The people worried about melting glaciers are not laminating the loss of pretty ice. They are worried about where this extra energy will go once there is no more ice to change phase and absorb it.

The planet's rising temperatures will be the least of some regions' concerns as the knock-on effects from the redistributed water will be much, much deeper than current awareness.

The mass of ice on the earth's poles has also led to the shape of the planet via tectonics over thousands of millennia. As that mass melts and redistributes from a solid to a liquid spreading around the globe our spheroid will begin to rebound. We have sensors everywhere, even in space, so the resulting effects will not be a surprise to some when the 'mass'ive shift begins. As those tectonic events increase in frequency so too will volcanic activity so I ask if anyone else has been checking on such data?

We do not know what we do not know however we act like we know everything yet learn new things about the planet daily. The things the survivors are going to learn about the changes that are setting in will be the last thing those that did not survive experienced from those cataclysmic moments.

Re: Swiss glaciers have shrunk by a quarter since 2015, study says

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's obvious you don't believe a word of whatever you're saying all over this comment thread. Especially > The climate doesn't care about improvement, only about total tons of CO2 Given how easily you pooh-poohed cumulative historical emissions in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45509432 . The climate also cares about all carbon, past and present. Not just the carbon emitted by China specifically today on Octobe…

This thread is highlighting that climate change initiatives are about harming the West in favor of everyone else. China is by far the biggest carbon emitter. People try to obscure that through "per capita" and "historical cumulative" figures and "percentage improvement". The way people contort themselves to protect China, the mega-emitter is laughable. They improved 2.7%!! So they went from 31% to 30.92% of total man…

> climate change initiatives are about harming the West

By introducing a cheaper, less-polluting source of energy? If harm is cheaper electricity and cleaner air, please harm me.

> in favor of everyone else.

"Everyone else" is also going solar. Very quickly. It's cheap.

> The way people contort themselves to protect China, the mega-emitter is laughable

Pretend it's 20 countries. Then it's no longer the #1 emitter. Unless you're suggesting some kind of rapid depopulation over there that's all they can do. Btw they also had a one child policy for so long, so they've already tried rapid depopulation themselves.

> They improved 2.7%!! So they went from 31% to 30.92% of total manmade CO2

To 30.163%, assuming your 31% was even true. In one year. Don't lie about simple arithmetic. It makes you less credible about everything else.

> You're not serious about the climate, you just want to punish the US/West

I want the US/west to adopt the cheapest and fastest growing source of energy ASAP. I don't want more bowing down to fossil fuel interests, and higher energy prices, like we've seen in the past 2 years. The latter is punishment.

You're definitely not serious about the climate. Your arguments add up to "China bad. Even if China improves, China still bad. Any number about China good can be interpreted as China bad based on arbitrary criteria that I alone decide are important. Oh and I don't wanna do anything about climate because and it'll hurt me (somehow for reasons that aren't important) and btw have you seen how bad China is?".

Unless you're getting paid by the fossil fuel industry, I don't see how arguing all this benefits you in any way.

Post reply on HN