Rising Temperatures Could Melt Most Himalayan Glaciers by 2100

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/04/world/asia/himalayas-glaciers-warming.html

by juokaz • 7 years ago

28 26 7 years ago

Zecar7• 7 years ago

https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

June 29, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

throwaway57522• 7 years ago

What is the problem with that article? We failed to stop global warming, and now it's likely that - regardless of what is done, even cutting to zero net carbon emissions - that the Maldives will be lost in the century.

Zecar7• 7 years ago

The problem is that there have been alarmist articles like this posted for nearly a hundred years proclaiming gloom for days that are now in the past.

yongjik2• 7 years ago

In 1989:

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations ...

In 2018 [1]:

If the rate of ocean rise continues to change at this pace, sea level will rise 26 inches (65 centimeters) by 2100 — enough to cause significant problems for coastal cities ...

So this is an example of mankind having a pretty reasonable estimate of impending disasters back in freaking 1989, and doing nothing, and thirty years later still blaming scientists because the predicted disaster, unfolding as we see now, did not yet hit (some of) us personally... right?

[1] https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level...

throwaway57522• 7 years ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19079410 - this threatens the food supply of 3 billion people. It is an enormous, near term threat to the stability of civilization. This is by 2100. The impact will be sooner. People will not stay in one place to starve to death, and food supplies from other locations will be affected.

kaybe5• 7 years ago

If the precipitation patterns stay the same (unlikely), this at least can be fixed with a few dams and proper water management.

Zecar7• 7 years ago

Here's a thought exercise; we are moving into renewables with absolute breakneck speed. At this point, it's essentially cheaper to use renewable energy than fossil fuels. Market forces are moving us towards clean energy at an accelerating rate. Left alone, our economies will rapidly approach 100% renewable energy due to price alone. So ask yourselves why propaganda outlets like the Washington Post (DEMOCRACY DIES IN DARKNESS--give me a fucking break) or the NY Times breathlessly run article after article every day preparing citizens to give up their rights to choices; choice of what house they're allowed to live in, what kind of car they're allowed to drive etc.

But you can't criticize the golden calf of global warming^H^H^H^Hclimate change right? What's the saying, show me who you're not allowed to criticize and I'll show you who holds power over you.

denimnerd462• 7 years ago

Already have people telling me i’m not allowed to live in my 3000sqft house with my 2 vehicles in that tiny house thread.

kaybe5• 7 years ago

How much fossil energy are you using with this setup? That is the only relevant question for this topic.

semi-extrinsic• 7 years ago

Left alone, our economies will rapidly approach 100% renewable energy due to price alone.

This is a fallacy. Just because renewables in most places are net positive on price today at ~5% market penetration, there's no guarantee that they will remain cheaper than fossil fuels once you start having to pay for grid-scale energy storage. We might well end up with a 30% renewables, 70% fossil fuels situation as the outcome of market forces alone. Furthermore, it's not the total cost of energy from e.g. solar vs. coal power that affects the decision to shut down prematurely a coal powerplant. It's only when the total cost of energy from solar becomes less than the marginal cost of coal power that market forces will shut down the coal powerplant. This means market forces alone will take a very long time to transition towards the future equilibrium.

yongjik2• 7 years ago

What's the saying, show me who you're not allowed to criticize and I'll show you who holds power over you.

How about Mother (fucking) Nature.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

* To be pedantic, it's not that you cannot criticize Nature: you can do it as much as you want, declare it to be invalid, legislate away its right, like those genius NC lawmakers who made sea level rise illegal. Mother Nature doesn't give a damn.

tengbretson• 7 years ago

I'm curious how much colder we would have to make the planet in order for this not to happen.

Rising Temperatures Could Melt Most Himalayan Glaciers by 2100

Related Stories