[ratboy666]

To quote the article:

"The new octopus genome data, she adds, “is pretty convincing evidence that a full collapse happened.” The findings reinforce the importance of understanding how modern climate conditions are affecting the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, Dutton says. “This is telling us that we need to take this bigger picture seriously.” Continued ocean warming—driven by greenhouse gas emissions—could destabilize the submerged portion of the ice sheet. To lower the chance of another collapse, she says, “We can’t just kick the can down the road and wait to make emissions cuts for another 5 years, another 10 years. It really demands that we do it now.”

Emissions in the modern sense were not the cause of this. But, it happened. Is Dutton making the claim that emissions are the cause now? I'll accept all of Dutton's claims, except that one; there is no basis for that claim. Lower the chance of another collapse? By how much? Would that have actually helped 100,000 years ago? I make the claim that Dutton is suffering from hubris.

[twoWhlsGud]

You drive a car of type Model Z. Someone, looking at a crash of a Model Z which was going 50 mph, discovers a design flaw that is particularly acute when the car is driven faster than 70. Do you:

* adjust your driving behavior in accordance with whatever bayesian impact the new data has?

* psychoanalyze the person doing the research, or decide that nothing that happens at 50 mph could tell you something about the behavior at 70 to reassure yourself you can ignore the new data?

Your call...

[ratboy666]

I do wish that was a reasonable argument. Closer: I drive a "Model Z". In the past, someone discovered a crushed Model Z. Does driving a Model Z more than 50 mph cause crushing?

[wredue]

There are indeed multiple sources of emissions, many not at all needing human intervention at all.

Luckily, we can generally measure natural emissions vs human emissions and find how much of it is being caused by us. Incidentally, due to where various gasses are trapped, many natural looking emissions are still our fault, this is frequently discussed in talks and papers about runaway climate change (note that I mean talks and papers from scientific authorities, not Facebook and fox)

[ratboy666]

You claim that CO2 causes runaway climate change?

[defrost]

You might want to read the summary for policy makers

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...

Start with A: Observed Warming and its Causes and move onto b: B. Future Climate Change, Risks, and Long-Term Responses

C02 increases directly increase trapped solar heating.

There are other gases and other factors.

Re: GP comment

* Is Dutton making the claim that emissions are the cause now?

The journalist writing the Science article alludes to the fact that now (present time) Antartic sheet loss is being driven by warming oceans caused by greenhouse gas increases. With no quote marks it's unclear what Dutton had to say on this.

* I'll accept all of Dutton's claims, except that one; there is no basis for that claim.

It's not apparent that is a claim that Dutton made.

* Lower the chance of another collapse? By how much?

See IPCC reports.

* Would that have actually helped 100,000 years ago?

No. Actions taken today would not alter past history.

It's also not the case that ice sheet collapse 100K years ago was related to human or animal gas emissions, unlike today.

* I make the claim that Dutton is suffering from hubris.

You're free to do that. It's not a convincing claim.

[ratboy666]

Either the journalist writing the article was using Dutton as a source accurately, or Science is not a reputable source of news. This is mutually exclusive.

I took the story prima facie. And, if the story (journalism) is accurate, Dutton is indeed suffering from hubris. Someone brought up the collapse 100,000 year ago in a direct comparison. It was either Dutton or the journalist. If I take Science as an accurate source, it was Dutton. Or it was not Dutton, then Science is not reputable (are they adding implications and misquotes?). If that is the case, why the HN story? HN curated it (that is, HN readers) so I have to give credence to Science magazine (because I give credence "to the crowd of HN contributors"). Again, both sides cannot be argued at the same time.

As to reading the summary for policy makers: the IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one. Why would its publications that are for policy makers be of interest to me? I need a condensed version of science, not policy. The IPCC doesn't have anything to do with the claim -- (except CO2 causes global warming which the IPCC doesn't actually claim, but does imply, as best as I can tell). Either Dutton made the claim, or Science made the claim -- they have to back it up and defend it. I made no claim EXCEPT that Dutton is suffering from hubris. Which I just backed up and defended.