[krautt]

So it's going to get warmer, sea levels will rise. coastlines will move inland as sea levels rise. Typically colder areas will become more tropical.

Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal?

Insult me for my niavety if it makes you feel better, but I honestly don't know the answer.

[snowwrestler]

> Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal?

"Other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

The displacement of large numbers of people will cause immense strife. Just look at the nasty reaction to the relatively small migration away from the Syrian civil war.

The problem is basically that all the land near populated coastlines is already owned, and those owners are not going to be inclined to let millions of their neighbors move in without some compensation.

But if those neighbors' coastal property just got swallowed by the sea, they probably don't have many assets left to pay.

[bigbugbag]

Though the Syrian civil war can be used to illustrate this, a better example is the india - bangladesh fenced wall. Bangladesh is one of the first country and most severely impacted by climate change and this wall has been put in place to stop people bangladesh migrating away from climate change consequences into India.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/indias-fence-o...

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/laser-walls-smart-sen...

[Alextigtig]

I was also convinced that this was a reasonable way of looking at things because often the "climate change debate" is portrayed as two-sided; one arguing that climate change isn't a big deal and one arguing that it is. This leads to the false supposition that the true answer lies somewhere in the middle, but unfortunately it does not.

For me, one of the most eye-opening experiences was reading an article from the New Yorker the worst of what may happen due to climate change.[0] Because the "climate change is happening" side often tries to ground their claims in research and climate-models, they are rarely apocalyptic or even the slightest bit exaggeratory, while the other side often argues at the opposite extreme of "nothing will happen." I found this article to be helpful in orienting the debate, as it helped me realize that the expected value of doing nothing is really far worse than what I imagined.

[0] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-...

[eschevarria]

The New York Magazine is not research. Want to know what the actual research says?

Look at figure 10.1 on page 690 of the IPCC’s AR5 WG II report. As it shows, most of the studies on the total impact of climate change for increases between 2.6 and 4.8 °C, which is the range for the IPCC’s highest emissions scenario during the 21st century, result in estimates of the impact on welfare equivalent to a change between 0% and −3% in GNP. Positive effects are included in the estimates, so 0% and two positive values appear outside the range. This is not about the economic impact but about the total impact on welfare, so it really is what is relevant. The factors considered by the studies include variation in agricultural yield, water availability, changes in tourism flow, energy demand, impact on human health, labor productivity.

How bad do you think −3% is during the 21st century? That’s less than 0.035% less economic growth starting in 2014 when the Fifth Assessment Report was published. Even a policy that was completely effective at entirely preventing any global warming could only be justified if its cost was otherwise less than 0.035%. The policies we could implement would not be completely effective and would certainly cost more than 0.035%. Therefore the expected value of doing nothing about global warming is higher than the expected value of doing something.

[Arn_Thor]

An overly simplistic conclusion based on a pick-and-choose approach to the report. First let me quote from the summary just a few pages down: "In sum, estimates of the aggregate economic impact of climate change are relatively small but with a large downside risk. Estimates of the incremental damage per tonne of CO2 emitted vary by two orders of magnitude, with the assumed discount rate the main driver of the differences between estimates. The literature on the impact of climate and climate change on economic growth and development has yet to reach firm conclusions. There is agreement that climate change would slow economic growth, by a little according to some studies and by a lot according to other studies. Different economies will be affected differently. Some studies suggest that climate change may trap more people in poverty."

Note that the literature diverges in its estimation of the impact. Much of the report on the economic impact basically says "there's a lot we don't know about most of these things" because the event haven't taken place yet. But that doesn't mean we can't extrapolate. Economic forces push populations. And, the effects will differ by geography, which is the crucial point. If only coastal areas are affected, that will still incentivize people to make decisions that affect inland economies. And these are the risks that a high proportion of the world's population would face (from the very same report):

The key risks that follow, all of which are identified with high confidence, span sectors and regions. Each of these key risks contributes to one or more reasons for concern [RFC].

i) Risk of death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states and other small islands, due to storm surges, coastal flooding, and sea level rise.37 [RFC 1-5] ii) Risk of severe ill-health and disrupted livelihoods for large urban populations due to inland flooding in some regions.38 [RFC 2 and 3] iii) Systemic risks due to extreme weather events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services such as electricity, water supply, and health and emergency services.39 [RFC 2-4] iv) Risk of mortality and morbidity during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations and those working outdoors in urban or rural areas.40 [RFC 2 and 3] v) Risk of food insecurity and the breakdown of food systems linked to warming, drought, flooding, and precipitation variability and extremes, particularly for poorer populations in urban and rural settings.41 [RFC 2-4] vi) Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.42 [RFC 2 and 3] vii) Risk of loss of marine and coastal ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.43 [RFC 1, 2, and 4] viii) Risk of loss of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for livelihoods.44 [RFC 1, 3, and 4] Many key risks constitute particular challenges for the least developed countries and vulnerable communities, given their limited ability to cope.

IF you were correct in your assertion that the economic cost of doing nothing is lower than the economic cost of doing something, the ETHICAL cost of doing nothing is immeasurable because we'd willingly be exposing current and future generations to all of the above higher risks.

[b1daly]

Uh, all of these things are happening already, and will continue to happen. The biggest causes of unnecessary misery in this world are political (which of course encompasses the physical environment.)

The questions are what the best course of action would be: for individuals, neighborhoods, states, continents.

We cannot escape the physical environment we live in, and to fantasize that somehow compiling a list of risks could lead to some dramatic action is not illuminating. Taking such talking points out of context is confusing.

[Arn_Thor]

Yes, all of these are happening, and they're going to get worse and affect more people.

This list isn't taken out of context. It's from a detailed report outlining causes and effects, followed by policy recommendations and methods for governments to address each risk as well as mitigate climate change to reduce those risks. (It's also not out of context because I posted it in a comment thread about the effects of climate change [context])

What you're seeking is found in the report I quoted from

[polotics]

This report is from 2014. Since then a few GDP hits happened: Texas, Northeastern seaboard... Excepted value distribution is extremely skewed.

[mathgenius]

How about the Syrian civil war?

"global warming is said to have played a role in sparking the 2011 uprising. Severe drought plagued Syria from 2007-10, causing as many as 1.5 million people to migrate from the countryside into cities, exacerbating poverty and social unrest."

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/2/syrias-civil-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War#Drought

[bigbugbag]

Also Boko Haram: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/m...

[b1daly]

A not unreasonable hypothesis. Yet the bulk of the destruction is the result of ghastly military actions, aimed at direct destruction of the society. To worry about the contribution of climate change is not pointless. Close to it though.

[Red_Tarsius]

> So it's going to get warmer

The life cycle of countless animals and plants is finetuned to our current climate. Crops are also at the mercy of weather patterns. We have no idea whether our food sources will get through the changes. Example of unknown unknown: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/australia-green-...

> What's the big deal?

We are talking about hundreds of millions of starving people moving away from the coastlines AND the Equator. Example: https://web.archive.org/web/20180107084251/https://blogs.sci... Bangladesh alone has half the population of the US.

[bigbugbag]

> We have no idea whether our food sources will get through the changes.

Actually we do, chances are temperature increase by the end of the century will make agriculture impossible in most part of the lands of the planet.

> What's the big deal?

Simply put, it is a matter of destroying the conditions favorable to human life on this planet.

[dwaltrip]

Widespread and severe agricultural issues, drought, an increase in extreme weather (hurricanes / typhoons / etc), unprecedented heat waves, and others I'm forgetting.

This along, with the issues you've mentioned, could result in significant political instability across the world, massive migration issues that could easily dwarf the migration issues of the last decade, perhaps even severe wars, and other disastrous situations.

I'm not qualified to give a full description. Some form of the above seems fairly plausible to me if we don't take serious pragmatic action.

It's of course incredibly difficult to give meaningful predictions about something this complex. But let's not bet the damn farm on it.

It is very well established that there are serious risks. The time has long come for anyone in a relevant position of leadership to accept the responsibility and take effective action.

[nokcha]

Melting of the northern permafrost could release a large amount of mercury (estimated around 800 gigagrams). (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16330219)

There is also worry of a positive feedback loop that could cause global warming to spiral out of control. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis)

[flycaliguy]

Ticks are getting worse in my neck of the woods. If they keep getting worse, that would really suck.

[giarc]

Your comment is a bit greyed out, meaning you are getting downvotes. However you are right. Climate change means migration of disease vectors such as ticks and mosquitos into places they didn't survive before. One only has to look at Zika virus and the Aedes mosquito as an example.

[bigbugbag]

Look at how Lyme Disease is getting into Canada (Ontario and Quebec) with climate change allowing ticks to expand their territory.

[RandomCSGeek]

A huge part of world's population lives on coastal cities. When cities like Mumbai and Dhaka will start to submerge, you can imagine the havoc that will cause. Also, some countries like maldives will completely submerge. I don't think europeans would be very happy about accepting these people, given the situation that has arisen from Middle eastern migration.

A lot of wildlife requires specific environmental situation. A lot of species won't survive changes in temperature.

Most poor people will have hard time surviving either increased flooding or increased droughts. Where I live(South MH, India), we are already facing drought every other year, and I am preety sure this is going to get worse. Millions live in this area. Where do you think we will move when we don't have water? (clue: look for places with more water)

So in short, huge parts of world either get submerged in sea, suffer from severe droughts/flooding, from desertification, or from the destruction of crops. Without food, water and land, people migrate in large numbers, and thus exert more pressure on those places.

Some experts believe that a war is likely between India and China over water in next decade.

I haven't touched the issue of lack of antibiotics and resurgence of old diseases at all.

[bigbugbag]

Most of what you mention is actually a problem solving itself. One of the cause of man made climate change is overpopulation, with most of the human population being crammed into megacities of which many are coastal it means the overpopulation will probably fix itself with people living in big cities mass dying. Big and not that big cities do not produce enough food and water for themselves, density of population means they will be hotspots for contagious diseases, means of transportation out of those cities do not allow for mass migration, all these and more means those people are likely to die.

On the other hand people living in the countryside, are able to grow food, have knowledge of local plants and generally can sustain themselves have much better chance to survive the catastrophic events to come.

Though some experts think a war over water between India and China is possible, other think the collapse will happen so fast that it will wipe all possibility of military action and leave only people that will have no choice but work together to survive. This scenario is also likely.

It's been a while since I've been in India but imho this is one the places on earth with potential to survive climate change.

[RandomCSGeek]

I think the north eastern India, which has lot of forest cover and is close to Himalayas, might be able to sustain local population. Similarly, the islands which don't submerge my also do fine. But the real problem will be with coastal metros(esp. Mumbai) and with central India. I have quite some friends from central India, and the situation isn't good there. Already, this region receives much less rainfall than the coastal regions, as the two mountain ranges on both coasts block most clouds. Change in weather would very severely affect this region.

https://youtu.be/LJf5JjZjsGI have a look at this video, this region which suffered hailstorm destroying most crops, is supposed to be a somewhat dry region.

[lazyjones]

> When cities like Mumbai and Dhaka will start to submerge, you can imagine the havoc that will cause.

Actually, no, I can't. This won't happen overnight, cities will just slowly move away from the coastline. It will take hundreds of years to cover such cities with water (if ever).

[bigbugbag]

Current estimations say this could happen around 2040-2050 and will happen before the end of the century. so not centuries but decades. And it will happen as the rise of sea level would not stop even if we stopped the increase of temperature instantly due to inertia.

[tbabb]

The very real possibility of 98% of life on Earth dying?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

[danmaz74]

If the temperature increases several degrees, hundreds of million - maybe even billion - of people will be displaced not just from the coastlines, but also from areas becoming desertified. Can you imagine the economic distress, humanitarian crises, and the conflicts this can generate?

[bigbugbag]

I think you are downplaying it a bit here. The temperature is already well on its path of increasing several degrees. Economy will probably cease to exist. There will be no humanitarian crisis but simply people mass dying. The "conflicts" may be nukes or sticks and stones but there's also a possibility that there will be relatively few conflicts depending on the strength of the culture of selfish in the local area.

[danmaz74]

I honestly think you're overplaying it, instead. Whatever the scale of the changes, they will happen during decades, not years. "Economy cease to exist": what does it even mean? There was an economy during WWII, there was an economy during the worst of the middle ages...

[bigbugbag]

I don't know where you get the idea that this kind of change will necessarily happens over decades, a tipping point triggering a change so fast a collapse happens in a matter of days is also among the possibilities.

I was referring to things like the Bundeswehr (German military) study that was leaked in 2010 in der spiegel which explored the probable future to better prepare themselves to face it. Here you'll find page 2 of the english version of the der spiegel article reporting on the partial to complete market failure and global chain reaction causing global economy collapse.

Fun thins is that this report places the collapse around 2025-2030 same as predicted by the world3 in the 1970's.

The other thing I was referring to is a report about the transition period which had a part about risk of violence and war in the event of a societal collapse (they actually evaluated the whole range from steady decline interspersed with rupture points to full civilization collapse), and among the possible scenarios without violence were the ones where the collapse happened fast enough. Sorry I don't have source readily available IIRC I found this report while documenting myself on post oil agriculture in the EU.

It is a common misconception to not understand that the upcoming change is unprecedented in human history, it will be nothing like what we have faced before. Expecting it to be something like past events would be a mistake.

[1]: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/peak-oil-and-the... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World3

[pmarreck]

Most first-worlders won't see much difference.

Poor people in equatorial regions that are already on the edge of uninhabitability without air conditioning will start to experience actual uninhabitability unless underground or air-conditioning solutions are procured (and even then, things will get very very uncomfortable outdoors for portions of the year)

Again, this will affect the most vulnerable people on the earth first: "A study by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2009)[120] estimated the effect of climate change on human health. Not all of the effects of climate change were included in their estimates, for example, the effects of more frequent and extreme storms were excluded. Climate change was estimated to have been responsible for 3% of diarrhoea, 3% of malaria, and 3.8% of dengue fever deaths worldwide in 2004. Total attributable mortality was about 0.2% of deaths in 2004; of these, 85% were child deaths." (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming)

[bigbugbag]

I'm a first worlder and I've been seeing the difference for over a decade now. I'm close to convinced that first world is the worst place to be as the chances of survival are the worst due to the country being almost entirely dependent on importations for its needs and has outsourced most and lost its ability to sustain itself while lacking reserves.

I think first worlders will be among those hit the harder because they will lose almost everything they're used to and left with the inability to live as the grand parents did for they have forgotten this knowledge.

[WhitneyLand]

Is the problem really not knowing? Because even you don’t know, is it not enough that virtually all credible scientists are warning us of the very bad things we are at risk of?

I know you are not debating the issue, but to me one of the most interesting questions is why do people deny this even when they have no vested interest?

One obvious answer is that it’s become a party platform issue and those that do have an interest have poisoned the well of thought for large numbers of people.

Maybe that’s part of it, but it’s hard to believe it’s that simplistic and there is no other psychology at play. Whatever lack of respect one has for an opposing political party, you’d think after hearing enough doomsday scenarios it would at least be worth digging in a little to see what all the fuss is about.

[yters]

For me it is hand wavy doomsday scenarios that makes me skeptical, along with hand wavy predictions that don't come true. My thought is that if it truly was as serious as people say, the evidence and argument would feel a lot more solid and there would be less fearmongering.

[bigbugbag]

I'm not sure what doomsday scenarios and failed predictions you're referring to but even though for some reason it feels otherwise to you evidence and argument is quite solid.

Seems you may be victim of a bias of some kind here[1], or have been exposed to some misinformation of some kind.

[1]: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2017/01/30/yanss-094-how-motiva...

[yters]

Doomsday scenarios in the public imagination. For instance, I saw a commercial in a UK theatre that showed people drowning in city streets due to global warming. That's ridiculous. I've heard claims the Maledives will be submerged in X years, even though the Maledives are coral islands that will rise with the sea level increase. Then I see lots of conjecture that this or that tragedy is attributable to global warming. In general, there is a lot of alarmism, but it is hard to pin down what exactly the problem is. Maybe you can clarify. What is a specific problem we face that is directly attributable to global warming?

[gaius]

is it not enough that virtually all credible scientists are warning us of the very bad things we are at risk of?

The public perception is that science keeps warning of imminent disasters that keep not happening. Climate profiteers like Al Gore have totally undermined the credibility of science.

[bigbugbag]

I'm not sure what allows you to speak in the name of the public but the disasters science warns us about is currently happening.

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/46052...

[IntronExon]

I would posit that if Al Gore is all it took for science to have its credibility undermined in your eyes, you don’t actually know what science is, how it works, or much about the issues at hand.

[gaius]

I would posit that if I refer to the public perception and you think I am speaking personally you don’t actually know what reading comprehension is

[IntronExon]

I’m not having a problem reading what you wrote, although I admit that my psychic powers are for crap. In other words, I read what you wrote, not whatever subtle variation you felt. Taking context into account, I suspect that what you actually wrote was pretty much accurate, without the post hoc qualifications.

[gremlinsinc]

You ever see interstellar?

Bad news -- drought/blight/warmth could destroy crops...perhaps even be an extinction level event.

Good news -- there is none.. likelihood of aliens or future humans saving us is next to nil.

I think we have maybe 50 years till we're close to any near ELE but my kid might see it.

[bigbugbag]

The anthropocene mass extinction event has been happening for a while now.

IIRC we were warned about it in 1992: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Scientists'_Warning_to_H...

[RandomCSGeek]

AFAIK, the current rate of species extinction is exponentially faster than the previous ones. So "perhaps" might not be a suitable word.

[jsilence]

Ask Paul Beckwith about the fifty year estimate.

[gambiting]

>>Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal?

Those people won't peacefully move somewhere else. Especially in Europe as the middle east becomes literally unliveable and millions of people will start walking north to just survive another day - I can't imagine even the most tolerant european countries willingly accepting this, especially since it won't happen overnight, but over many decades, with more and more people flowing in. That is bound to cause huge amounts of unrest, possibly civil war/ or just war.

[polotics]

Not just warmer: less stable. Most likely feedback loop to you is crop failures, mass starvation, conflicts. Do not rule out extreme weather events as well.

[onion2k]

Would melting sea ice lead to a rise in sea level? The ice is floating, so it's displacing the approximately same mass of water as it contains. If it melts the overall water level shouldn't change.

[flukus]

1. Thermal expansion. It's a tiny effect, you won't see it in a glass of water in science class but when you've got oceans a few kilometers deep and humans living a few meters above them it can have an impact.

2. It's a feedback effect. Less ice means less light reflected means more energy in our oceans/atmosphere. In turn this creates more ice loss that won't be sea ice.

[gaius]

Water expands as it freezes. That’s why pipes burst in winter.

[flukus]

Water crystallization is a different effect and not relevant here. It has the same mass so it doesn't effect sea levels when it's frozen and it's not a linear effect, it won't continue to shrink as it warms.

But like everything else (to various extents) it will expand when it's warmer.

[imtringued]

The maximum density of water is at 4 degrees. If you heat it above that it starts expanding quickly. If you freeze it below that it starts expanding slowly.

[symmetricsaurus]

This is correct, melting sea ice does not lead to a rise in sea level. It’s the melting of glaciers and ice sheets (on Greenland for example) that cause the sea level to rise.

[RandomCSGeek]

Although you are right, note that liquid water expands as it heats. Also, not all ice is floating.

[Symbiote]

The ice on Antarctica is on land.

[bigbugbag]

The ice on Antarctica is not exactly melting at an alarming rate.

[panarky]

War.

[rdiddly]

Good God y'all

[rdiddly]

No one seems to have said yet: Billions of dollars in immobile port infrastructure made useless and having to be rebuilt further inland

[avip]

Nothing to see here folks, we're just "displacing" 15% [1] of the world population. What could possibly go wrong?

[1] number invented for brevity.

[oldandtired]

As far as sea-level rises are concerned, the Arctic sea ice will probably be a net sea-level fall, except around the Equator. If all of the Greenland glaciers were to disappear, well then, we would see a sea-level rise, globally. But it would be distributed unevenly across the world. The higher levels would again be around the Equator with decreasing levels the further north or south of the Equator you go.

But to get even a 1/3 of the Greenland ice cover to melt requires an unimaginably large amount of energy to do so. I'd have more concerns about the devastation of that much energy on the atmosphere than I do about any trivial amount of ice melt and associated sea-level rise.

The planet is close to being a steady state system, that is the energy inflows from the day side is about equivalent to the energy outflows on the night side. This varies throughout the year due to various factors, including orbital position, solar energy output, climate factors like clouds, etc.

The required energy to get 1/3 of Greenland glacial melt is approximately about the amount of energy received by the Earth on a single day, without any of that energy being released on the night side. Due to the slow conductivity of water in both solid and liquid forms, the atmosphere would need to essentially hold all of that energy. Even over a hundred years, that would probably mean atmospheric temperatures that would probably kill most, if not all, life on the surface of the planet.

There has been one study (that I know of) that has looked at the retention of energy over a period of about 50 years and the conclusion was that only 2 to maybe 5% of the energy retained managed to get into ice-melt. So to get the required ice-melt energy needed, we would need, say, 20 to 25 days worth of solar input radiation to be fully retained within the atmosphere (no leakage back into space).

In addition, I somehow think that even a 5 or 10 degree Celsius temperature rise would lead quickly to a sharp fall in global temperatures and would the initiation of a global ice-age. Since the planet has an approximate coverage by oceans and sea ice of 70%, an average rise of 5 to 10 degrees would more than likely see a huge rise in cloud coverage and subsequent reflection of energy back out into space, followed by a subsequent rapid cooling of the globe.

Of course, these figures are dependent on common available information and could be wrong by some percentage. It's not hard to do your own calculations if you want to get some feel for what might be possible.

[jsilence]

Your reasoning omits that there is also a large amount of energy stored im the oceans. The greenlandic glaciers have already sped up and are calving into the oceans where there is plenty of energy to melt them.

[oldandtired]

That's the whole point of the study of energy storage over fifty years. The interesting point is that the amount of ice calving off from the Greenland glaciers is minute compared to the amount of ice on Greenland. It doesn't matter how spectacular these calves are and they are spectacular and from our point of view they are huge, you can think of them as flaking skin off an elephant.

The problem I see here is that the energy flows and pathways required are of such a magnitude and are so complex that the simplistic modelling being used basically ignores it.

For every kilotonne of ice being calved, it will require, at a minimum, the energy stored in 4 kilotonnes of sea water at 20 degrees Celcius. The resulting temperature of that sea water would be reduced to just above freezing point of water. If you, say, set the limit at a 1 degree Celsius drop, then we are looking extracting the energy of about 84 - 85 kilotonnes of sea water. You still need to take into account the energy conduction through water and also from water to the ice.

At this end of the globe, we see stories often enough of the end of small icebergs that have calved off the Antarctic ice mass. Many of these have been tracked from the initial calve to their final demise and it takes many years for even small ones to finally disappear.

To get any serious ice melt, you have to have serious amounts of energy flowing into that ice.

One question to ask is how the calving is occurring? There can be a variety of ways this can happen and they are not all caused by temperature increases. This, in itself, is a very interesting subject and there are some quite complex processes involved.

The world around us is extremely complex and we have very little understanding of how things work, irrespective of what is portrayed in popular media.

Historical records do indicate that the Arctic Polar ice mass has been of varying sizes. Some of these have essentially indicated that the ice mass was very small at some points in history and at other times very large. Some of these records and reports go back many hundreds of years.

[KayEss]

Once they fall into the sea the displacement occurs. It doesn't matter after that how long they take to melt, all that matters is that they fall off land and into the ocean.

So melting is an issue only for ice that melts on land and then flows into the oceans because that represents new water volume.

[oldandtired]

It's not that simple. You must take into consideration the amount of ice that is deposited onto the ice mass from snow and condensation of water vapour.

If the rate of deposit is greater than the rate of calving then there is a nett addition to the ice mass. If the rates are equal, then you have steady state. If the rate of calving is greater then you have a nett loss.

This has to be looked at over a longer period of time to see what the variation is in the data.

[KayEss]

Of course they don't need to actually melt to affect sea rises, they just have to fall into the ocean.

[yters]

It is interesting the other comments in this area are vague and emotional, whereas the only thought out comment is downvoted because it is critical of global warming. This constant dynamic is what makes me skeptical of the whole global warming thing.

[adrianN]

Comments criticizing evolution in favor of intelligent design will also be downvoted for the same reasons. The scientific consensus is that climate change is happening, and it's caused by us. The evidence in favor of the theory is overwhelming, so you'd have to publish a pretty substantial study, not a comment on an internet forum, if you would want to sensibly argue against anthropogenic climate change without being ridiculed.

[yters]

Well, I'm glad the consensus of scientists has never been wrong. It's also helpful the scientists can tell us who the true experts are, otherwise we'd never know.

[rtp]

Who else do you suggest should inform us if not scientists?

[oldandtired]

Maybe, you can look at the evidence presented and determine for yourself what conclusions you come to. It may be that you will determine that the evidence is for anthropogenic climate change. But then again, you might determine that the evidence is for natural processes and that anthropogenic climate change is extremely minor.

It's up to you to decide how and what you will believe.

[Afterthought edit]. Many years ago, I was given the following advice:

Surround yourself with experts, but make your own decisions as you see fit. Experts are just that, specialists in a narrow field and they do not see the bigger picture. It is up to you to do that for yourself.

[oldandtired]

Which scientific consensus? The IPCC climate scientists with their models or the physicists, engineers, climate scientists and others who are raising the questions and the information that disputes these conclusions?

There are many who don't dispute that climate change occurs, what they say is that anthropogenic effects are, at this time, unknown and that any anthropogenic causes are minor compared to the various other causes.

Since I started taking an interest in this subject in the 1970's, the evidence of anthropogenic causes has been underwhelming.

As far as evolution and intelligent design are concerned, I have consigned both to the field of religious discussion and belief. I was an avid evolutionist until I started reading the actual results of experiments in the field. The results did not support any evolutionary model and still don't. As a result, I started to question why these scientists were pushing the wheelbarrow of the this model.

Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean that they will completely logical and fair-minded about some model or another. Scientists are no different to any other group of people. They are people too and as such, have their own foibles and unsubstantiated beliefs.

If these scientists can demonstrate fair results then certainly we must look at those results. But the conclusions about what those results mean will depend on what an individual's starting point is. Just remember that old adage, to someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

If you are standing on scientific consensus as your "authority" then you are not acting in a manner that says you are investigating the facts as they are.

It may well be that anthropogenic causes will disrupt the planets climate in dangerous and possibly even unalterable ways. But I have yet to see any such evidence presented, nor have I seen valid questions being answered by these same anthropogenic climate change scientists. From where I stand, it appears that money still speaks louder than the facts.

[b1daly]

I agree with your point that we should consider the evidence, and conclusions, presented to us as the work product of scientists. Especially as much of the information is shaped by innumerable cognitive biases.

However, I’m fascinated that someone could realistically doubt the “theory of evolution.” For one thing, it is very much an active area of research, with new discoveries all the time. (Reading about the epigenetic aspects of hereditary traits kind of blew my mind. It turns out that animals adaptions to specific environments can influence later generations.)

So how do consign a relatively young area of research, that is making concrete contributions to science as being akin to religious belief?

The specifics, and controversies, of evolutionary theory, and it’s scientific cousins, are quite complex, and it seems rather capricious to wave it all away as if it was some cartoon theory of reality.

My own, very limited, view of the weakness of evolution as a theory, is that it can seem like a “just so theory,” almost true by tautology.

But the mechanisms of natural selection, and hereditary transfer of traits are so well established that to dismiss the lot of it strikes me as irrational.

[oldandtired]

My view was cultivated by the evidence of the experiments. The experiments exhibited certain outcomes. The conclusions by those scientists did not match the results they obtained. For me, that was the start of questioning the model in the first place.

In relation to consigning both views to the realm of religious discussion, I have found that proponents of both sides tend to dogma. I especially find that evolutionists tend to the ad hominem mode very quickly. When this occurs, I tend to the position that that person is incapable of holding a sensible discussion about the subject and is relying solely on "authority".

When the proponents of a particular theory or model will not get involved in reasoning discussions and simply wave away the question raise then yes they are in some sort of cartoon theory of reality. This applies across the board to all discussions.

I don't have a problem with natural selection nor do I have a problem with transfer of traits. What I have a problem with is the model of evolution (or its variants). Those who are proponents of the theory and model do a lot of hand-waving that does not match the evidence at hand.

In terms of active research, if you look at anyone who demonstrates odd data or finding that oppose the general evolutionary theory, they are treated as pariahs and infidels. This is a characteristic of religious thinking and does not bode well for any science.

[yters]

Most intelligent design proponents merely think undirected evolution cannot work, due to a variety of mathematical and scientific reasons. This does mean things like common descent, natural selection and heredity are false.

[bigbugbag]

Can you provide some sources of your claims ? For example of the people going against IPCC conclusions, as the people I know disputing their result are actually telling based on actual measurement IPCC underestimated the situation.

Same, it would be nice if you would source some of the "many" saying anthropogenic effects are minor to other causes. Why not explicting those other causes by the way ?

Same again for the actual results from field experiments not supporting evolution, please source them so we can read it ourselves and apply the principles of making our own min that you are putting forward.

I do agree that there is a religion of science or scientism increasing with time even among scientists themselves and undermining actual science, but this existing is not enough to dismiss the theory of evolution as a religious belief.

Can you also tell us what are the unanswered valid questions you're talking about ?

Right now you're talking in very vague affirmation that are unverifiable, which means your point will be dismissed as personal opinion.

[nyolfen]

i would think that greenland melting wouldn't happen all at once (if that's what you're saying), but rather that due to higher average ocean temperatures more of it would melt in the summer and less of it would freeze in the winter, and cumulatively over years and decades it has a net loss of ice, and perhaps eventually loses most of it. am i missing something in your argument?

[oldandtired]

It is more nuanced than that. In any relatively short time span, we may see specific effects (higher temperatures for example) and we may see other effects (increase atmospheric CO2), but this doesn't mean that over a longer term we will continue to see these effects.

The other aspect is that there are some very specific physics involved and I have yet to see any discussion over these specific effects.

We have seen, in some areas, what appears to be increasingly variable climate conditions. Yet, if one is willing to look into and take the time to investigate the appropriate historical records, these variations have occurred before and were, in fact, much stronger.

The affects from these conditions were not felt to the same extent as today because we have vastly different population distributions.

Let me give you an example.

When I was a child, we had a family regime every spring to prepare for the cyclones that would regularly hit the region in summer. As I moved into my latter teens and forward into my twenties, the regularity changed and we saw quite a diminished number and size of these events. Further time passed and the events grew less frequent but were significantly stronger.

The general consensus was that climate variation was getting worse. I dug into the available historical records for the mid 19th century to the early 20th century for the same region. I found that the events during that time were significantly stronger. We talk about category 5 cyclones today and, honestly, I rather have a category 5 than the monster cyclones from 19th century.

As far as Greenland is concerned, even with higher global temperatures (as specified by the IPCC), the amount of ice melt is still to be expected in the range of dead skin cells being rubbed off the back of an elephant. The energy requirements are just so unimaginable that if you were to put the entire world's nuclear arsenal to the task, it would barely be a pin prick.

[bigbugbag]

When you take time to investigate the historical meteorological records you find out that almost all the highest temperature records since we started recording data are concentrated after 2010.

If you have a basic scientific education you know that any example starting by "when I was a child" is anecdotal evidence and have very limited value because it is akin to confirmation bias and cherry picking.

I'm curious as why you don't apply the principles you were bradishing to the 19th century meteorological data: http://www.isws.illinois.edu/pubdoc/CR/iswscr2011-02.pdf

About Greenland ice sheet disappearing your thinking is oversimplified by looking only at energy required to melt ice. There are several other mechanisms to take into account, for example the increase in cloud cover preventing refreeze at night, or the melted cover snow and ice running into moulins to the ground which then flow under the glacier lubricating it and acceleratiing its motion and thus glacial calving, etc.

When studying a system you need to have basic understanding of second order cybernetics and feedback loops. In climate change positive feedback loop are the reasons past a tipping point there's no stopping it.

[oldandtired]

I wasn't talking about temperature rises, I was talking about extreme climate conditions. Since all the who-ha is about the rising level of extreme climate events, it is significant that older historical records record more extreme events.

The problem of confirmation bias and cherry picking is not a problem with "anecdotal evidence". Anecdotal evidence is an opportunity to further look into the events related to the evidence to see what its veracity is. I have been involved in various experimental activities and I have found that in some of those activities that the results obtained were deemed unacceptable because they did not match the expectation of the reviewers. Even when the experiments were repeated (under further supervision) and were similar to the original results, they were not accepted.

With regards to the 19th century data, this information was supplied by the National Bureau of Meteorology. Since these records were not recorded in a time of Political Correctness for climate change, I don't expect them to have been manipulated either way. So at face value and for a first approximation we can regards them as accurate.

You additional mechanisms are all involved in the energy transfers and requirements. What you forget is that to have the phase change from solid to liquid requires a set amount of energy given a set atmospheric pressure. Irrespective of how much calving occurs, we have to consider what is the accumulation rate of ice to the back end and the total amount of calving at the front end. In addition, the required calving on a daily basis still needs to be measured in the cubic kilometres or in the gigatonne range.

The problem with feedback loops in climate is that we do not know, we only think we know. With very simple systems, we can and do get to a position of understanding the various feedback loops. With complex system, we do not. We often see unexpected results. Climate is a global phenomenon and is so complex that we will not understand it for the forseeable future. That does not mean we shouldn't try, but to rely on the current models as if they are "truth" is good way to end up in a blind alley with no way out.

I don't have a problem with cleaning up the environment and finding more efficient ways to run transport and waste handling, mining and manufacturing. But to take the position of climate change being mainly or only anthropogenic is foolishness at best and utter stupidity at worst.

We have no idea (that includes every climate scientists who pushes the anthropogenic climate change agenda) as to the real relationships being natural and anthropogenic causes for climate change.

If you were to put every one of those who believe such in the position of having to bet their life on it, how many would do so? I mean putting gun against the head and testing with that wonderfully reliable device called a polygraph and pulling the trigger if any doubt was shown at all. Since the polygraph is an unreliable piece of equipment, I don't think we would see too many takers, would you?

The above, I know, is a bit ridiculous, but think about it.