Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm not a denier but I don't find the video particularly impressive. It's massive event from a human perspective, but that doesn't mean anything. The total amount of sea level change from that is probably below 1mm.

You also shouldn't expect deniers or people like me, who think that there is little that can be done to prevent climate change, to be impressed by that footage.



We're not suggesting that this 4 minute clip alone would be understood or change anyone's perspective. The full length film, showing significantly more than just one large event that happened in less than two hours, is what we're talking about and what is so immensely impactful.

Edit: Wait. What? You said you are someone "who think[s] that there is little that can be done to prevent climate change"

What makes you think that? Since humans are a leading cause of the existing change, almost by definition we are capable of working to prevent further damage. Sure, it's going to be extraordinarily difficult and near-impossible, but we can do it. Why would you think otherwise?


I can't speak for VMG, but:

Assume you buy that human emissions are driving enough of climate change that if we removed that driver things would stay "cool enough". China has already markedly surpassed the U.S. as the largest total CO2 emitter, and they're not even close to the U.S.'s per capita emissions. Even if they can manage to continue to industrialize while only emitting per capita as much as the nuclear-heavy French, you're still looking at an increase of 15-20%, and I think that's optimistic. AFAIK, the Chinese are building coal fired power plants as fast as they can.

And that's just China. India and Africa would like to enjoy a Western quality of life as well.

I am extremely skeptical that CO2 emissions can be substantially curtailed, short of a world economic collapse that would make 2007-2009 look like a walk in the park.

But I am more than willing to be convinced. I think it would help the alarmed AGW folks immensely if they would unify around a politically impractical "if we ruled the world" plan. One sufficiently detailed that it could be analyzed for its climatic, economic and social effects, as well as publicized, criticized and modified until it becomes practical. A starting point might be, "Tax fossil fuel extraction at the source at levels sufficient to reduce emissions the necessary N%". But then you have to figure out what to do about the facts that this sort of plan would likely never be accepted by Russia or China, and that it's a massively regressive tax on the world's poor. There are solutions to these issues. Figure them out, add them to the plan, lather, rinse, repeat. If something like this already exists, I haven't seen it.


The problem won't be solved by legislation or taxes. It will only be solved by "desirable" tech. The Tesla Model S is but one example, it's as stylish as a BMW and faster than most other cars in it's class. The majority of the people in the same market segment would love a Tesla.

Bring something similar to the low-end market. Bring it at a competitive price. Make it more desirable than the existing stuff and people will switch because they desire it. Not because some law says they have to.

Do the same for everything else. Invent better cheaper and more eco friendly housing, energy, food production, transportation. Like the Tesla it must be more desirable and better in nearly every way then its competition.

IMO that's the only way forward. As you pointed out there's no way to get the entire world to follow some eco laws. Especially when most of the world is wants a better quality of life. If we give them that quality of life or better but with affordable and better eco-tech / eco-design we'll solve the problems.


You can push the argument further. Postulate that climate change is real, and that you could accurately describe the policy steps necessary to eliminate it, and that you could bring about those policy changes on a global scale. What are the negative impacts? What is the chance of climate change occurring anyway? Anthropogenic change is peanuts compared a huge mess of Siberian volcanoes firing off for a million years.


> What makes you think that? Since humans are a leading cause of the existing change, almost by definition we are capable of working to prevent further damage.

I don't see why that follows at all. I understand that if everybody thought and acted as you and I probably do, and would build nuclear plants, maybe the effects of GW can be mitigated, but that obviously is not the case.

I'd argue the other way around: the best evidence that there is little that can be done is that there is little that is being done. The Chinese don't even care if you can't see your own hand before your eyes in Peking today, what hope do I have that they care about remote places in 50 years?

Doing something individually against GW is at the far far far bottom of my TODO list. Because it is not an effective use of my time. Maybe the most effective would be working for a Geoengieering company if I had the opportunity.


Did you watch the entire video? The last minute or so put things into context. It said that the glacier retreated more in the last 10 years than in the 100 years before that. I think that is a reason for concern and it is impressive, any which way you look at it.


the glacier retreated more in the last 10 years than in the 100 years before that

How much did the glacier retreat 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period? And how much did it grow back 400-500 years ago during the Little Ice Age?

100 years of data is not enough to understand what's really going on.


Only glaciers on land cause sea level rise.


The greatest factor in projected sea level rise is the average temperature of the oceans--warm water takes up more volume, and there is a lot more water than ice in the world. Melting of land-supported ice is a fairly distant second.

This is not a direct response to you, but it's a fact that few people seem to realize when discussing ocean levels and global warming.


Interesting, can you cite references for this?


This is covered in the discussion of sea-level rise in the IPCC reports linked in several comments above. Wikipedia has a page about it with lots of source links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

edit to fix link


Jakobshavn Glacier drains 6.5% of the Greenland ice sheet


Right, I'm just saying that this event didn't cause an immediate increase in sea level.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: