Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs • Hacker News Board

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#51

Post by landryraccoon » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

Is there an investment fund that is designed to specifically invest in companies that have solid plans in place for mitigating or taking advantage of climate change, or taking short positions against industries or regions that are at risk and totally unprepared?

Examples would be shorting Florida coastal real estate, shorting flood insurance, long on agricultural and real estate investments that depend on moving growing zones and seasons, etc..

The most undeniable evidence for climate change would be if people are making a ton of money from accurately anticipating its results. I’d invest heavily in such a fund, if it existed.

One cool thing about this is that if you don’t believe in climate change you would want this too - you should bet against the fund and take the money of people like myself if you are right. Since I believe climate change is real, I would happily put my money on the other side of that bet.

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#52

Post by bureaucrat » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

dalth wrote: post #44

bregma wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure in the '70s I read the Earth would be a big ball of ice, but it's OK since if we didn't nuke ourselves the overpopulation will have killed us all off.

Hmmm, wasn't the overpopulation craze something from the 60s? It's funny how that turned out: exactly the opposite! I wonder if "climate change" will go that way.

Overpopulation excluded the factor of "technology innovation". Climate scaremongers are doing the same.

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#53

Post by throw0x1away » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #29

0xdada wrote: post #5

I imagine this is perfect for climate change deniers. Climate change is very difficult to fight because both undershooting and overshooting your predictions can come back and hurt you.

Can we please stop this absurd idea of "climate change deniers". No one is denying that the climate is changing. It always have and it always will. The discussion is about how much, how big a problem it is, how much of it is because of us and to what extent we can/should do anything about it. That's the actual debate. Calling someone a climate change denier is a cheap and sloppy shot at trying to lump a much more com…

It's just plain bullying. I'd suggest to ignore these trolls. Whole climate thing has turned into a useless political drama and scare-marketing. Impossible to have a decent conversation without being labeled as a "denier" or "ignorant" by crazy lunatics.

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#54

Post by blowski » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #31

rainyMammoth wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately climate change became a political stance more than a science. It is now extremely difficult to get straight facts from both sides of this debate. Both sides feel like thy need to completely overstate and exaggerate the facts in order to create fear, urgency and hate for the other side.

There's not really 2 sides to the debate over on the science side.

There is serious debate on the science side about the extent to which we can do anything about it. From what I've read, some think yes, others think yes but only by reducing population and living like it's 1563, and others think it's already too late. These arguments mostly rest on opinions about technologies like carbon capture.

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#55

Post by awb » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

Johnny555 wrote: post #42

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple solution: stop making predictions with a degree of claimed accuracy that doesn't exist. There's no good reason to put a deadline such as 2020 on a prediction except as an attempt to imply a degree of certainty that doesn't exist. Climate change skeptics exist for many reasons and these poorly thought out predictions just feed into them.

I think the reason is to imply the sense of urgency that does exist - whether the 7000 year old glaciers melt in one decade or two, that's still a warning that the climate is warming.

Right but OC's comment still stands: state the uncertainty rather than project certainty.

"Glaciers are projected to disappear between 2020 and 2030 based on current emission trends" would still be alarming.

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#56

Post by shadowgovt » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

dalth wrote: post #44

bregma wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure in the '70s I read the Earth would be a big ball of ice, but it's OK since if we didn't nuke ourselves the overpopulation will have killed us all off.

Hmmm, wasn't the overpopulation craze something from the 60s? It's funny how that turned out: exactly the opposite! I wonder if "climate change" will go that way.

We may discover some unrecognized phenomenon that regulates global temperatures (akin to the under-appreciated sociological phenomenon that increased wealth and access to birth control encouraged smaller families). But it's risky to assume that's going to come to pass when the failure mode is significant death of much of the human population if no such phenomenon emerges (and we have multiple examples in our solar system of planets that once could sustain life but are now not fit for human habitation due to global-scale climatological shifts, so the evidence we have suggests no such process exists).

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#57

Post by aazaa » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

Johnny555 wrote: post #33

zamadatix wrote: post #15

Was hoping for more detail on the predicted vs actual change beyond what the headline could tell me. Or even if they have a new prediction. Edit: This table is helpful https://www.usgs.gov/data-tools/area-named-glaciers-glacier-...

Apparently the new date is 2030: The original estimates of the timing of glacier melt were based on two things: modeled projections of the glaciers’ response to warming, and direct observations of glacial retreat. A 2003 report was based on modeling a scenario of doubling pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 levels by 2030, which would have melted the park’s major glaciers – and presumably the minor ones, too – by 2030. ht…

And that article links to the USGS site with paired images:

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/repeat-photograp...

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#58

Post by amyjess » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

rainyMammoth wrote: post #17

0xdada wrote: post #5

I imagine this is perfect for climate change deniers. Climate change is very difficult to fight because both undershooting and overshooting your predictions can come back and hurt you.

Unfortunately climate change became a political stance more than a science. It is now extremely difficult to get straight facts from both sides of this debate. Both sides feel like thy need to completely overstate and exaggerate the facts in order to create fear, urgency and hate for the other side.

This is probably the best article on the subject I've seen: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/1/3/21045263...

The short version is that the 1.5° C target favored by climate activists is completely unrealistic, and it's harmful. We've passed the point where limiting climate change to 1.5° C is realistically feasible: it's still theoretically possible, but it would require the entire industrialized work to engage in the same level of total societal mobilization as WW2 for a whole decade. That's not even remotely feasible.

And when these activists say "it's 1.5° C or nothing", people are going to choose nothing. Voters will elect climate change deniers and/or decide that since they can't hit 1.5° C they might as well not lift a finger to stop climate change. However, it's not too late to limit climate change to 2° C, and while 2° C will have no shortage of harmful repercussions, it won't be the end of the world, and limiting climate change to 2° C is going to be way better for the planet than letting it run away to 3° C or 4° C or more. But the "1.5° C or nothing" rhetoric actively gets in the way of attempts to stop climate change at 2° C.

The perfect is indeed the enemy of the good.

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#59

Post by lwhalen » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #31

rainyMammoth wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately climate change became a political stance more than a science. It is now extremely difficult to get straight facts from both sides of this debate. Both sides feel like thy need to completely overstate and exaggerate the facts in order to create fear, urgency and hate for the other side.

There's not really 2 sides to the debate over on the science side.

It's not nearly as clear-cut as one might hope. Cliff Mass, a respected University of Washington Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, is a noted 'skeptic' of the urgency of climate change, at least the anthropogenic causes thereof. I've heard of others, but he's the one that comes closest to mind.

Re: Glacier National Park to remove all 'glaciers will be gone by 2020' signs

#60

Post by vmh1928 » Thu, Jan 09, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

while not a prediction as to an exact date (since it's based on historical information,) these pictures and accompanying article provide some guidance. Also a link to a geospatial model used for two of the glaciers.

https://www.nps.gov/glac/learn/nature/melting-glaciers.htm