NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

Don't you think this is a bit too serious issues to waste energy on petty political divisions? Anyway, they only entities that can do something are governments. People are good at locally optimizing their own lives. Not so good at optimizing the good of the whole.

rwh86• 10 years ago

Part of the reason is gravitational effects. When a large amount of ice melts, the Earth's gravity is shifted away from that region.

This gives you a sense of the absolutely huge amount of ice we're talking about. For example, if the West Antarctic Ice Shelf collapses we'll see about 10 metres of sea level rise, but mostly in the northern hemisphere. To underline just how much ice this is, this effect will slowly be counteracted as the ground below slowly rebounds (as it no longer has a huge amount of ice crushing it down from above).

unavoidable• 10 years ago

Potentially related is the centrifugal effect - the Earth bulges at the equator slightly because of spin. Logically, melted ice would tend to cause water to "rise" more at the equators (further from the ice caps) than near the poles.

elorant• 10 years ago

This makes me wonder. Could it affect seismic activity?

oddlyaromatic3• 10 years ago

Maybe I'm daft but one suggested itself to me: if you add more very cold water locally, that influences the temperature and pressure/density differentials with existing currents. It's presumably the effect on those currents that causes more water to build up elsewhere.

roywiggins2• 10 years ago

Gravimetry has been used to track ocean currents, and water temperature will presumably effect currents.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/...

jamesblonde• 10 years ago

Check out the north Atlantic cold spot. It has already contributed to making summers in Ireland even more miserable for the last 10 years.

lobster_johnson• 10 years ago

There are several reasons, the main one being that glaciers and ice sheets exert a large gravitational pull.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/05/gravity-of-glacial-melt

http://m.nautil.us/issue/33/attraction/why-our-intuition-abo...

From the last article:

"Three things happen. One is that you’re dumping all of this melt water into the ocean. So the mass of the entire ocean would definitely be going up if ice sheets were melting—as they are today. The second thing that happens is that this gravitational attraction that the ice sheet exerts on the surrounding water diminishes. As a consequence, water migrates away from the ice sheet. The third thing is, as the ice sheet melts, the land underneath the ice sheet pops up; it rebounds."

mikro2nd• 10 years ago

They do. Search for Jerry Mitrovica (Harvard geophysicist) on YT for explanations.

M_Grey8• 10 years ago

I suspect that we can expect a lot of bad news to emerge over the next few decades, as the promise of climate change becomes the reality of climate change.

WillPostForFood2• 10 years ago

On the other hand, people have been saying that for last few decades, and the bad news hasn't had much impact.

CardenB• 10 years ago

That's the nature of an exponential, runaway trend.

epistasis2• 10 years ago

People (well, climate science researchers) have been saying that the changes are decades ahead of us, even now, but that we need to take action now and in the past to prevent these changes.

Given the general staidness of the actual research, I think we need to worry a lot more about where climate science has underestimated the change than where they've overestimated it. The loss function will be brutal on that side.

adrianN7• 10 years ago

Maybe not for you. The people threatened by desertification for example might think differently. Or the corals in the great barrier reef.

fsloth2• 10 years ago

Yeah, it's apparently too abstract of a threat to most people. Maybe they don't get it - intuitively - that 'the planet' actually includes their home as well.

NumberCruncher3• 10 years ago

> Reminds me of that fellow back home that fell off a ten story building. [...] as he was falling people on each floor kept hearing him say, "So far, so good." /The magnificent seven/

Shivetya• 10 years ago

It is always in how the numbers are used, cherry picking by both sides. However the real take away here is that they figured out they were wrong yet again. Of course they lean towards the more extreme each time but even some publications indicate that Antarctic changes are due to natural variability.

Then lets play with sea rise, the fear is always that some islands will wash away and port towns will be at further risk. Yet studies of the Marshall islands show the reverse, the islands continue to grow in the majority. What about changes leading to flooding, changes in rain fall patterns, and the like. Well the common trend is to over exaggerate unique events as if they were common place, ie Katrina leading to years of violent hurricanes wrecking the US (oops). Sixty years of studying rain falls in some central US states show no changes, the recent floods in Louisiana weren't even unusual. Even China has had an area in drought for centuries.

In other words, the climate does change but we don't know all the variables and people's whose very jobs depend on income from both studying it and "fixing it" (read : GE) will always push the numbers that support their side. Just like big oil will try to claim that oil isn't the leading cause; its cows btw.

So take it all with a grain of salt. Articles on Vice lean one direction and one direction only and tend to exaggerate . however those inclined to always believe this type of alarmism won't think otherwise.

jfoutz• 10 years ago

The whole hurricane thing sucks though. They'll happen no matter what you do, of course. It does seem like we have some influence over how many bonus bullets we want to put in the gun while playing russian roulette.

givinguflac3• 10 years ago

Yeah, there definitely hasn't been an increase in fires, consistently experiencing the hottest months/years repeatedly, increasingly severe record drought in many places, or general extreme weather records being set. Yeah, no big deal..

ocschwar• 10 years ago

Only if you're still living in a bubble of comfort.

(Which I am as well. The bad news has had very little impact ON ME. Because I live in a part of the US with the best infrastructure. )

jhayward• 10 years ago

On the other hand, people have been saying that for last few decades, and the bad news hasn't had much impact.

People are really bad at understanding nonlinear effects. For any kind of supra-linear system, "nothing" happens for a relatively long time, then "all the sudden" effects start piling up and people who say the above claim it's completely unexpected, out of the blue.

madaxe_again• 10 years ago

I'm afraid it will start emerging much sooner than on a decadal timescale - we're already seeing the impact in terms of crop yields and weather damage costs, all over the globe.

Simultaneously, our political systems are gyrating wildly as they struggle to function in an ever faster and more interconnected and complex world.

No, I think we're going to see a lot of bad news over the next few years. The impacts of climate change don't need to be crippling to overtopple a fragile society - just pernicious and frequent.

Demolish metropolises in the gulf states a few times more - when do they stop rebuilding? When it's impractical, or when it's impossible? Flood rural areas of England a few more years in a row - do people remain there? Do insurers continue to offer coverage? Who pays to rehome these migrants? A political crisis grows rapidly. Cynically, I note in the U.K. that the devastating regional floods have only been reported regionally. They don't really want people to get the picture it's happening everywhere.

I do wonder if some of what's happening in the media and state around migrants is to harden us for a future where many or most are dispossessed and homeless.

The anticipation of all hell breaking loose can be as bad as the reality.

tjic3• 10 years ago

Crop yields continue to climb.

http://www.wri.org/sites/default/files/uploads/cereal_yields...

Hondor3• 10 years ago

You might be painting too rosy a picture of the past. Gyrating wildly? The UK no longer gets bombed by the IRA, there's no cold war, there's no crippling union strikes everywhere. As for more serious but less sexy problems, it'll take a lot of climate change to compete with disasters we've already had/are having:

Global deaths from famine from 1900-2000: 80,000,000 [1]

Global deaths from malaria from 2000-2015: 9,000,000 [3]

Global deaths from WWII: 60,000,000

Global traffic deaths in 2013: 1,000,000 [2]

We've got most of those problems on the run now, and the future looks even more promising with medical and safety tech.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines

[2] http://www.who.int/gho/road_safety/mortality/traffic_deaths_...

[3] http://www.who.int/gho/malaria/epidemic/deaths/en/

blueprint8• 10 years ago

Duh. The important thing at this instant is to develop a self-sufficient extra-terrestrial colony or a means by which some people can survive far above the surface of the Earth for 30-80 years. Life on Earth itself has less time than most people are even ready to know. Something on the order of 1-10 years left. There are massive changes coming which will destroy all human civilization on Earth. Global warming is just the first step. It's like a fever in a human. 1-3°C is no big deal. 3-5°C is extremely serious. We're talking massive tectonic activity, volcanoes, and huge tsunami(s) caused by a huge wave of energy originating from Earth's core. This situation is caused by a problem in the circulation of the gravity field. I've met many scientists but aside from even finding people who understand this topic, I have barely even found anyone who genuinely wants to know either. And this is the very reason this phenomenon of collapse is determined to appear in this age of mankind.

yellowapple5• 10 years ago

Fascinating. Do you have any sources on this? I'm interested in learning more.

blueprint8• 10 years ago

Please see my reply to veeragoni.

veeragoni2• 10 years ago

You scare me when you say 1 to 10 years. I want to change. Please provide more info,stats and material to inspire people to change. Atleast,what should i can do in the immediate term

blueprint8• 10 years ago

Hi, If you genuinely want how to change then the essential information you have to know is that this world operates by one fundamental principle which means that everything, including the Earth, makes results on the basis of what is in problems. To change yourself you first need to become properly aware of yourself and any problem you have, and then you need to formulate good problems for yourself through 'what is' in reality. Same process for changing others. Problem is that before being able to become aware of 'what is' correctly and precisely you either need an extremely long time of practicing good deeds or you need to learn from a truthful teacher who has already opened his own eyes to the world. Those teachers are extremely rare. However I found one about a decade ago. He talks about the coming changes to humanity only generally in public but he traveled to dozens of countries and has met and had recorded conversations with scientists at hundreds of the world's top universities. Here's an English website about his work. Sorry that it is so late. He passed away already in 2008, else you would have been able to personally ask him questions.

http://tathagata2000.tripod.com

adrianN7• 10 years ago

Earth has been warmer before without all the catastrophic effects you describe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EPICA_temperature_plot.sv...

blueprint8• 10 years ago

The point is not the temperature itself, although my simplified description implied that. It's the fact that human activities are causing and have caused the natural environment to lose its homeostatic balance and to do so very quickly. This fact generates the catastrophic effects, not the resting temperature of the planet.

Eadrax• 10 years ago

There is nothing we can do, as long China and India get a pass, 3.2 billion people in 2 country doing nothing. Even if the US disappeared off the face of the map, its still to late. I say let it happen, it will propel us into a new era off innovation and environmental awareness. No one is going to take it seriously until its to late anyway .

meric2• 10 years ago

They're building solar power plants everywhere, shutting down factories and coal power plants around large cities.

"Other main targets include: – reduction of emissions from coal burning industries and vehicles2 – boost cleaner and more efficient use of coal – promote the use of electricity and natural gas in place of coal – support for wind, solar and bio power sectors; increase in proportion of clean energy – encourage the use of waste straw as a resource – reduction in-field burning – implementation of control measures to deal with air pollution

...

By 2020, he said, the intensity of water use per unit of GDP will fall by 23%, energy intensity by a further 15%, and carbon intensity by 18%."

What about U.S.? It's people saying "as long China and India get a pass... Even if the US disappeared off the face of the map, its still to late... so let it happen."

You're the problem. Even if the rest of the world disappeared of the map, U.S.'s carbon emissions and pollution still exceed world's capacity to absorb it. Do you know how much of the world's environment is scorched to produce raw resources to produce goods for consumption in the U.S.? You're not taking it seriously.

M_Grey8• 10 years ago

Not to mention that we're incredibly hypocritical about the fact that we happily burned coal and oil and continue to, but expect developing economies to just... stop. It's worse when you consider Europe getting uppity about migrancy, which is being causes in large part by drought related to climate change.

It's going to be the story of this century: the people least responsible for climate change are going to disproportionately suffer for it. Meanwhile those most responsible will demonize them for their efforts to survive it.

XaYdEk3• 10 years ago

Solar and wind based energy production is not going to fully or even mostly replace our gas/coal burners because they lack constant and predictable outputs.

Also, we have neither infrastructure for storing power at this level, nor would it be economically feasible.

Hydro and geo-thermal are better sources in this sense, but neither are abundant and have their own drawbacks.

'- promote the use of electricity and natural gas in place of coal' - Only valid if the electricity is produced by means other than burning fossil fuels, otherwise you are just moving the problem up the supply chain.

Same way with electric cars, if the electricity is still being produced by dirty means, it is not all that impressive a reduction in poluttion or emissions, it's just moving the problem up the chain.

Not trying to sound defeatist or anything, it's just not a complete solution, still seem like band aid attempts by themselves.

Pxtl2• 10 years ago

Except India and China use less per capita than Westerners, and China is building low-carbon infrastructure mega-projects.

Just because 100 people are dropping candy wrappers at the park doesn't make it okay for you to dump a bag of garbage.

Mao_Zedang• 10 years ago

Depends if your goal is to solve the problem or act morally.

pavanred3• 10 years ago

It is a complex problem. As far as I understand, in the criticism to any work on climate change in the west (at least in the US) is that people are still debating if it is real or not, in the face of evidence; hence there's lack of political will. And, in countries like India or China, the criticism is that lots of people need cheap fuel to get out of poverty and imposing restrictions would impede that. Though, the per capita consumption is way less compared to countries like US. That said, I wouldn't say these countries are not doing anything. I can speak for India, for example, there is the Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission[0] that is a goal to achieve 100,000 MW of solar power generation by 2022 and I see developments underway in many states in India. There are similar initiatives in other areas like Wind energy etc.

And, the defeatist attitude that no one takes it seriously, lets just do nothing and hope it works out is dangerous. As far as I can tell, the island nations will be the first affected, not to mention harsher weather, more storms, followed by massive shortages of food and water. I wouldn't be surprised if that leads to more wars than funding research and innovation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru_National_Sola...

rybosome• 10 years ago

Yes, the US' continued debate over whether or not this is even real is maddening. Climate change has unfortunately been sucked into the great maw of partisan bickering, to loosely quote a different Vox article on the subject; belief or disbelief is not based on facts, but a deeply rooted sense of identity. And so, due to our highly tribal nature and inability to feel sufficient empathy for those in out groups, the US will not have the majority political will necessary to stop this problem. Barring a series of technological miracles that give us a bevy of cheap, carbon-neutral sources of energy generation and storage, we are completely fucked. I'll probably be lucky enough to die before things get truly awful, but if I have kids, they and their own children are going to experience the horror of a collapsing civilization.

I vote for politicians that take this seriously. I try to discuss the issue rationally and calmly with skeptical friends. I am trying to get involved with a project doing research on nuclear fusion. Beyond that, I try not to think about the fact that I could be one of the last human generations. Walking around every day feeling like the axe is over the neck of our species, and we are too divisive, petty, greedy and apathetic to do anything is just heart-rending. I truly envy people who don't believe (or care) this is real.

pavanred3• 10 years ago

Population(Billions): US 0.3 - 1.2 India

CO2 emissions per capita(metric tons): US 16.4 - 1.6 India [0]

I see numbers like this, and I am surprised that in 2016, in the face of evidence and danger, we still have arguments like I will not do anything because you didn't do enough according to me. Let it all burn down.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

refurb6• 10 years ago

The reason why the US is ~16 times higher in CO2 output is.... the US produces ~15 times more by GDP (2.45T vs. 0.17 T).

It's not like American's are just sitting there burning coal for the fun of it. It's being used to make stuff.

dirtyaura3• 10 years ago

China has 22 nuclear reactors under construction, they are also collaborating with nuclear power innovators, and building renewables. India is also building more nuclear and solar. Honestly, I wouldn't be worried about them, they are the superpowers of 21st century and will understand negative consequences of climate change to their era.

I would be more worried about US & Europe - Germany is shutting down nuclear plants, opposition of nuclear is strong everywhere in Europe, US has been very reluctant to participate in climate deals and has a lot of climate-deniers in power.

contingencies• 10 years ago

I live in Yunnan, southwest China, which is very close to India. Most of Asia's major rivers descent from eastern Tibet or its foothills in or close to Yunnan: the Brahmaputra (Assam), Salween (Yunnan), Mekong (Yunnan), Red River (Yunnan), Yangtze (Yunnan), Yellow River (Qinghai).

China has built huge numbers of hydroelectric dams, in fact this region is almost certainly the unmatched world center for hydroelectricity. It is also one of if not the most ancient center of large scale hydro-engineering, due to Dujiangyan.[0]

16 years ago when I arrived, there were very few such dams, and all at smaller scale, so the pace of change has been great. (IMHO Beijing has done an OK / not terrible job of balancing these energy/"national security" requirements with ecological protection efforts.) Also, foreigners are often unaware that e-bikes are the dominant form of personal transport throughout China already. In terms of long distance transport, China's ever-expanding railways (eg. permafost-floating railway to Tibet!) carry more freight than any other country's network, and they are lending assistance to neighboring countries (Laos, Myanmar) on similar hydro-electric and rail infrastructure projects.

Given these observations, I find it ridiculous to suggest that China is not doing its part. However, I do question the wisdom of allowing so many of its citizens to buy cars.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujiangyan_irrigation_system

icebraining2• 10 years ago

opposition of nuclear is strong everywhere in Europe

It'd help if our governments didn't kept screwing up their maintenance, but the news from Belgium and Spain just don't provide much confidence.

Mikeb85• 10 years ago

Suggesting China and India aren't doing enough is at best a form of colonialism and at worst racist. Both produce far less CO2 per capita than western countries. The west has an interest in stunting their industrial growth not out of any sort of altruistic concern, but because they fear competition. Regardless, both India and China are embracing renewables and clean energy at a faster pace than the west, they're not only the future economic powerhouses but also more progressive environmentally.

ArkyBeagle• 10 years ago

If we can avoid nation-state-thinking then yes. We can't; the basic architecture of any agreement right now must use the nation-state as signatory.

That is a sale that cannot be made. It looks like a transfer of (mythical) carbon credits from the US to other nations.

godmodus• 10 years ago

it is actually in the west's hands, where most tycoons and climate change deniers reside.

raz32dust• 10 years ago

(a) China and India are doing the best they can, as highlighted by several links in this thread. I don't know where you get this information that China and India are "doing nothing". Please share your source. (b) "I say let it happen", "No one is going to take it seriously until its to late anyway ". Do you see the irony?

Do you have any number to show that developed nations cannot put a dent on global warming? Whatever I could gather in 5 minutes points otherwise [1]. Even if you believe so, they can still help by: (i) Using their technical expertise and money in helping developing countries develop and deploy green technology. (ii) They are the consumers of most of the manufacturing output. They can set stricter rules on ecological impact of produced goods. They can set local laws that will not allow companies to buy from polluting industries.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

Kenji• 10 years ago

As the sea level rises, its surface grows by the square. So, more and more water is needed for it to rise more. So, all linear predictions are flawed anyway. What do you think, the sea is suddenly going to rise by meters? Get a grip on reality. I really dislike these alarmist articles.

EDIT: Okay, I checked the math and the square really doesn't weigh much at this ratio of sphere radius vs. sea level rise. I guess I should rely less on asymptotes in the real world ;)

Still, I remain largely unconcerned about sea level rises since even if it were to continue linearly, it's completely unproblematic except for some coastal/below sea regions.

pithon• 10 years ago

Many nonlinear problems can be approximated as linear and in this case the rough sea level rise (think altitude/distance) so ridiculously dwarfs the radius of the earth (the square in your argument) that the linear approximation is pretty good.

danenania• 10 years ago

Doesn't that assume perfectly flat coastlines?

roywiggins2• 10 years ago

If we were randomly distributed on land, I'd agree. But humans are disproportionately concentrated on coasts compared to inland.

M_Grey8• 10 years ago

What a pity that we predominately live in coastal regions, and what a pity that you're ignoring the issue of our water table being inundated.

bssrdf3• 10 years ago

"In terms of sea level changes, however, the study found the effects of melting are more drastically felt in regions farther from its source. According to InsideClimate News, melting sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere might raise water levels more in “the southern Pacific Ocean and equatorial regions.”

With all due respect, but melting sea ice doesn't raise sea level. It's a scientific fact the author should check carefully before publishing.

StanislavPetrov• 10 years ago

Ice is 90% more reflective. Melting sea ice turns the oceans into giant heat sinks and accelerates warming.

michaelbuddy• 10 years ago

Except the most "reflective" areas get the least amount of sun per year anyway.

frabcus• 10 years ago

The cited source https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21102016/melting-ice-glac... makes it clear it means ice above land, such as Greenland.

It also doesn't use the phrase "sea ice" which seems a confusing phrase.

yequalsx3• 10 years ago

The author made a mistake by interchangeably using "sea ice" and "ice sheet ice".

However, your correction itself isn't strictly correct. Melting sea ic can change sea levels by changing the density of the water in the ocean. Also, by melting it changes the amount of sunlight that is reflected. The increase in sunlight reaching the oceans will cause thermal expansion of the water.

bssrdf3• 10 years ago

The author clearly confused the land ice/ice sheet with sea ice. Do you have evidence supporting your claim that "Melting sea ice can change sea levels by changing the density of the water in the ocean"? I'd be curious to know.

TakerofVita• 10 years ago

I would think that the fact that it is fresh water vs. salt water wouldn't impact sea level on the basis of changing density.

Take two situations:

1. A mass of sea water is replaced by the same mass of fresh water. Sea levels/volume would increase as the average density would be lowered. (this is not the case)

2. A volume of fresh water is added to the ocean. Then V_total = V_ocean + V_freshwater.

cheiVia0• 10 years ago

For the folks outside the USA, that is 14-17cm

labster• 10 years ago

For the folks from MIT, that's 0.082 - 0.1 smoots.

tjbiddle• 10 years ago

Hey now - Don't forget Liberia and Myanmar!

mattko• 10 years ago

What am I missing here? 0.6"/decade since 1900 would be 6.6" by 2015, and the article says sea level rose as much as 6.7" in the last century.

andrewstuart22• 10 years ago

The important thing is that 6.7 is more than ten times bigger than 0.6. Clearly you can safely ignore the words decade and century because they're words and not numbers.

imron2• 10 years ago

How many decades are there in a century?

imron2• 10 years ago

Last century is up until 1999. So it hit the expected 2015 target 15 years early.

jczhang• 10 years ago

Uh yeah I'm confused by this part as well. Can anyone clarify?

Arnt2• 10 years ago

Quoting Vice's source: "The analyzed records have an average twentieth century rate of approximately 1.6 mm/yr, but based on the locations of these gauges, we show that the simple average underestimates the twentieth century global mean rate by 0.1 ± 0.2 mm/yr."

BurningFrog2• 10 years ago

Have you noticed how you hear about 100 reports about how things may be worse than we though, for each report about the opposite?

This says nothing about science, and a lot about what stories get people's attention.

Daishiman• 10 years ago

What this says about science is that the consensus from all the experts who have spent man-centuries looking at this is that we're looking at a huge shitshow.

BurningFrog2• 10 years ago

I'm not at all talking about climate change specifically.

This applies to any issue that humanity is worrying about.

Hondor3• 10 years ago

Yea, it's disappointing how biased the reporting is. I suspect the science is almost as biased. Even the papers that do show that things aren't as bad as we thought find some way to say "Don't worry, it's still bad!"

veeragoni2• 10 years ago

I suggest people watch the documentary too. https://youtu.be/90CkXVF-Q8M . I care about my son and their future. so, i change

NumberCruncher3• 10 years ago

I like this quotation:

> We're all human. Oh, we all do our duty when there's no cost to it. Honor comes easy then. Yet sooner or later in every man's life there comes a day when it's not easy. A day when he must choose.

People like to talk about human driven climate change but do not want to pay the price of stopping it. I have seen a demonstration against climate change in Germany. There weren't any banner with the text "I have thrown out my plasma screen and sold my car! Please do the same!" This lot of talking but no doing annoys me like hell.

Xylakant2• 10 years ago

I don't own a car - not entirely for ecologic reasons, but that's one of them. I do most of my short-distance trips by bicycle, I'll use a car-sharing offer when I need to transport heavy stuff, though I currently consider buying a cargo bike to replace that use.

I'm in the fortunate position that this is possible for me since I live in the city, have proper public transport, can walk to the supermarket and in a pinch have multiple car-sharing offers to pick from.

Still, I believe that action against climate change cannot be effective at an individual level. It's the classic tragedy of the commons - what I save in energy, the neighbor next door easily blows through the tailpipe of his SUV. Foregoing a car is not possible for large chunks of the population, those that live in areas with less good public transport, for those that regular need to travel long distances etc. So action needs to come at at least federal level, probably even at a EU level: Public transport (and long distances railway) needs to be a real alternative to private car ownership in at least most places in germany. Clean energy needs to be supported, dirty energy not (we're still paying subsidies for a lignite mine in brandenburg). So yes, demonstrations make sense, because they support the policies at a level that actually makes sense.

NumberCruncher3• 10 years ago

> I believe that action against climate change cannot be effective at an individual level

I believe it as well. Unfortunately on any other level you have players caring more about the own money / power than the well-being of the masses and players being deeply involved in the human driven climate change. Sometimes the latter pays the former. Sometimes?

It is a windmill fight.

tajen3• 10 years ago

I'm in the fortunate position that this is possible for me since I live in the city

I can't approve. You've made the choice. You've paid for this choice. People keep claiming that I'm lucky to live close from my work and not have children. I was a choice, and blaming it on chance undervalues the effort we make (i.e. paying twice the price for housing and/or only choosing among jobs within a certain radius of public transports).

I believe action against climate change cannot be effective at an individual level

Yes. After travelling the world, I've seen that there will always be another Mythbusters show to waste cars, another person who'll have an unfair advantge on me by using air conditioning and long-distance travel, and another child born in the world who deserves the same amoung of energy luxury I've lived in.

Unless all countries pass a tax on petrol usage (I mean a huge tax which will make cars, meat and heating too expensive for 95% of the population), we're doomed.

neilsharma• 10 years ago

Slight tangent, but how does one with SWE/product skills get involved in climate work? There seems to be some research every other day indicating how disastrous global warming is going to be, but a dearth of jobs outside of solar installation or academia.

adrianN7• 10 years ago

Make the Linux kernel more efficient, save a bazillion CPU cycles in datacenters all over the world.

brianwawok5• 10 years ago

Which hipsters with Ruby and Node will burn away.

raphman• 10 years ago

if you haven't already seen it: Bret Victor offering some thoughts on "How do you think the tech community (startup community, or any community) can contribute to tech and/or policy solutions on a global scale?" - http://worrydream.com/ClimateChange/

beatpanda• 10 years ago

We started using this as a recruitment tool at a company I work for

(p.s. we're hiring: http://genability.com)

ubernostrum• 10 years ago

Find a way to hack Bitcoin and make it worthless.

afarrell3• 10 years ago

Make public transportation more efficient and a better experience: https://angel.co/massachusetts-bay-transportation-authority-...

mturmon• 10 years ago

https://rcmes.jpl.nasa.gov/content/rcmes-and-apache-open-cli...

hydandata• 10 years ago

I wonder how much waste can be averted if remote was the default option everywhere where it is a viable way of working. Perhaps this is one of the easier ways to contribute to averting the catastrophe.

undersuit• 10 years ago

But then how would the pointy haired bosses be able to see that you are a diligent worker with no effort?

NASA Scientists Suggest We’ve Been Underestimating Sea Level Rise

Related Stories