SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
We may be headed for an ice apocalypse which could result in the flooding of coastal cities before the end of this century. Glaciers in Antarctica may break and release ice, exposing taller cliffs, resulting in faster melting.
[...] A wholesale collapse of Pine Island and Thwaites would set off a catastrophe. Giant icebergs would stream away from Antarctica like a parade of frozen soldiers. All over the world, high tides would creep higher, slowly burying every shoreline on the planet, flooding coastal cities and creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Rapid Collapse of Antarctic Glaciers Could Flood Coastal Cities by the End of this Century
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 48 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
take forceful action:
Do something that should have been done a long time ago.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @07:21AM (1 child)
Here. [youtube.com]
Suck my ice-berg-sized cock, you Script Kiddie crap.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @07:34AM
coc not found
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday November 27 2017, @07:40AM (2 children)
So buy your grandkids a U-Haul gift certificate...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @11:20AM (1 child)
Don't worry - government will save us all!
Your unborn grandkids are already so indebted via tax burden that they won't be able to afford gas for that U-Haul.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday November 27 2017, @11:39AM
It's more likely that they will be snorting pixie dust in a driverless electric U-Haul.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @08:09AM (10 children)
You hear me, khallow? Dozzing out? Troubles extracting the foot from your mouth? Or the head from your ass?
Problems negotiating the shilling price with the mother ship? Try switching the currency.
Come on, already! I'm dying to not read your 'cherry picking' oblivious assertions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 27 2017, @04:54PM (9 children)
Notice in the story, that the scientists bringing up the concern of "marine ice-cliff instability" have little evidence to support their statements. It's just another bit of propaganda to scare us into climate change mitigation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday November 28 2017, @01:08AM (5 children)
> It's just another bit of propaganda to scare us into climate change mitigation.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4036/4254681996_27b1ed7ff0.jpg [flickr.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 28 2017, @02:42AM (4 children)
OTOH, I can show some concrete evidence that fossil fuels have contributed significantly to the best improvement [soylentnews.org] of humanity ever over the past few decades. In particular, even with pollution, China has seen a huge jump in its prosperity to go with its huge jump in fossil fuel consumption over the last thirty years.
Meanwhile we have a bunch of examples of poorly thought-out global warming mitigation which are costly and don't do much to help the problem they're supposed to address.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 28 2017, @10:19AM (3 children)
I hope you're not saying it's expensive and it might not be sufficient, so we might as well stop trying. Because that's how I read that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 29 2017, @04:43PM (2 children)
There is no "might not be" here. The system is a failure, even when it works as intended. So yes, stop "trying".
If you really want to fight climate change, please find an effective way to do it! I would suggest first finding low-lying fruit and aggressively targeting those first. For example, stopping coal fires (modern techniques have been devolved that make these far more viable), encouraging global reforestation and creation of habitat and wildlife corridors, reducing the wasting of human time and wealth on pointless tasks (like complex tax reporting or negative gain recycling), encouraging novel economic tools (like the "gig economy" [soylentnews.org]), and decommissioning old coal power plants in favor of more efficient or less carbon intensive power.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 30 2017, @05:49PM (1 child)
>>> Where's the evidence that fighting global warming makes for a better world?
That list you just gave makes for a start towards a better world.
The tax one is pretty silly, though. I'm pretty sure that mandating tire inflation warning on cars (another low-hanging fruit) has already saved a few orders of magnitude less energy/time/pollution than anything you could do with tax (including flat tax), despite how many cars I still see driving around with near-flats.
> decommissioning old coal power plants in favor of more efficient or less carbon intensive power.
Isn't that one of the main things climate change people ask for, along with raising car/house energy efficiency instead of digging tar sands ? I'm confused about why you sound contradictory while advocating the same things.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 30 2017, @06:28PM
"Less" is the word I would use above too. Tax policy is a remarkably wasteful activity. At least, we're not Italy.
You'd think so, until you see them knee-cap [wikipedia.org] a more efficient coal burning plant, not to mention their steadfast opposition to nuclear power. And let's keep in mind the policies that they do push, like treaties that don't do much, huge subsidies that greatly increase the cost of electricity (Germany's Energiewende, for example) or motor fuel (US's corn ethanol subsidies) - often while increase greenhouse gases emissions in the process.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 28 2017, @03:33AM (2 children)
No such thing as bad publicity. </sarcasm>
Well, how about you get across on Runit island [ranker.com]?
Physically get across, just to put your feet where you mouth is.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 28 2017, @03:54AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 28 2017, @06:50AM
How that harmful? According to you there's little impact of the sea level growing. And that dome is the USA way of making a safe environment for the Enewetak Atoll's population.
Safe on all grounds, nice weather, I wonder why you don't like it.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @08:49AM
Here. [youtube.com]
Suck my ice-berg-sized cock, you Script Kiddie crap.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @09:32AM
Here. [youtube.com]
Suck my ice-berg-sized cock, you Script Kiddie crap.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Virindi on Monday November 27 2017, @09:37AM (17 children)
The description as "apocalypse" is overblown.
Many of these cities that are being referred to already have parts that are below sea level. The idea of maintaining land below sea level is not at all an impossibility! Sure it's expensive, but it's not an 'apocalypse'.
Instead of "millions of refugees" and all these other overhyped descriptions, in countries that aren't poor as dirt already, what we would see is dike and seawall projects. For the most part, the only places where that wouldn't be the case would be places where people are living in dwellings with very little value already. That sure sucks for them, but the rest of the world can help.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Monday November 27 2017, @09:57AM (11 children)
Millions of refugees over 80 years is nothing more than a modest slow shift in population, like the shift from the rust belt to California in the 50s and 60s or the shift to the pacific northwest.
We've seen this movie before. There is certainly nothing "apocalypse-ish" about it.
Besides, we've heard this sea rise alarm before. New York was ALREADY predicted to be flooded by this time. Its not even measurable.
NYC underwater by 2015. [newsbusters.org]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @10:39AM (10 children)
More "truthiness"? It's very measurable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1880-2013.png [wikipedia.org]
"not even measurable"... like it's not even measurable how slow you get diabetes until you end up with your limbs amputated because of high sugar levels? Like that?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @12:27PM (9 children)
Waving about "global trends" to cover up local misprediction is quite poor style.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750 [noaa.gov]
Note how the section from 2000 till today, if taken in separation, shows no trend at all.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Virindi on Monday November 27 2017, @01:03PM (8 children)
Honestly, if you take just the chart from your link, it looks like a pretty reasonable linear fit. The 2010-now data matches previous pauses. Same with 2000-2010.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @01:32PM (7 children)
You cannot honestly treat it as anything else, extrapolations from previous century notwithstanding.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Monday November 27 2017, @02:10PM (6 children)
The timescale you are talking about is too short to conclude any pause occurred in the data you linked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @02:40PM (5 children)
When 20+ years is "too short a timescale" for a process, most any human being thinks "nothing is happening", or at least, "does not affect me". Right or wrong, humans still aren't eternal beings, and certainly not wired to react like such.
BTW, they're not wrong here; 20 years nowadays bring huge changes in technology, running around crying wolf now as opposed to developing better tech for later is plain stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @02:53PM (4 children)
If there were nobody running around "crying wolf", then nobody would have any reason to develop better tech.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 27 2017, @04:43PM (3 children)
Ok, smarty pants what apocalypse provided the reason for the iPhone? Better tech happens for a lot of reasons, few which have anything to do with apocalypse hysteria.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @05:51PM (1 child)
Well, it seemed like annoying greed that led Steve Jobs to convince millions of suckers not only that they need a smartphone instead of a miniaturized computer, but that they need to keep buying new versions of it every year or two for the forseeable future. However, without the iphone (and on this site, I suppose I should mention its android imitators as well), we wouldn't have a mountain of ewaste in 20 years' time to build seawalls out of to save our coastal shitties^Wcities. Hail Jobs, the apocalypse-curing hero!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 27 2017, @06:21PM
So doesn't with the narrative of the grandparent AC. And here, "annoying greed" created some technology that people wanted.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 28 2017, @02:35AM
I assert iPhone is an apocalypse in and by itself [telegraph.co.uk] (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @02:00PM (1 child)
So there's no need to do dikes and seawalls. All you need to do is require the actuarists, accountants and property valuers do all calculations for potentially affected property with the assumption that property in those zones will be underwater and worth near nothing in 50 years. Then new buildings will be built elsewhere, and people will gradually move away from the affected zones.
I seriously doubt it'll be so soon though, all the other scientists are giving numbers where it only gets bad in the next century.
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Monday November 27 2017, @02:59PM
That neglects the historical and cultural value of existing neighborhoods.
But of course it would make sense for properties that need protection to pay the lion's share of the costs of that protection.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by requerdanos on Monday November 27 2017, @03:49PM (2 children)
It's global warming alarmism crying wolf, a common practice.
Just as there are screw-loose nutjobs who say the climate isn't changing AT ALL! Wake up people!
So there are screw-loose al-gore nutjobs who say Climate change END OF THE WORLD oh God the SKY IS FALLING.
The word "apocalypse" here is one's tip-off to stop reading and move on with life.
If all the nutjob flooding (and storm and famine and pestilence) predictions had come true, we would have all been dead years ago.
Sadly, both camps of nutjobs are so shrill that they tend to obscure any valid scientific information. Reading carefully is a must!
(Score: 2) by Virindi on Monday November 27 2017, @04:04PM (1 child)
That's about where I am on the subject at this point. The level of absolutist rhetoric and outright deception from both sides is fever pitch.
Question anything, say anything that doesn't match the party line, and you are instantly judged to be the enemy. Make any argument which is 'wrong' in the minds of the other person and people will associate you completely with the other side. No room is allowed for moderation.
I am tired of it.
(Score: 1) by acid andy on Tuesday November 28 2017, @01:07AM
So, errr, which side were you on again? ;-P
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @09:56AM
Here. [youtube.com]
Suck my ice-berg-sized cock, you Script Kiddie crap.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @11:38AM (1 child)
The rising tide raises all boats. So just get a boat, and you'll be fine. :-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @12:29PM
SN headline in 2090: New land opening up in Antarctica
Homesteading starts up, but there isn't anyone left with the pioneering spirit & skills to take advantage of the free land... Runaway's and Anubi's kids/grandkids just aren't interested.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gottabeme on Monday November 27 2017, @11:52AM (6 children)
--Stephen Schneider in APS News, Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @12:35PM
Be caught in a lie once, enjoy being a known liar since.
(Score: 3, Informative) by requerdanos on Monday November 27 2017, @03:57PM (2 children)
((You - your shrill mouth) + knock off the alarmist campaign) = solved
Minimizing findings that detract from what you want to present and practicing deliberate confirmation bias on what you want to present is known as "charlatanism". This is a big fancy scientific word for "Lying" and practicing it makes you the reason that people widely ignore climate science reports--you make them unreliable. Hope this helps.
Note: If you live in California and perhaps know Mr. Schneider, or if you know any scientists who also do this, please show them this article. Thanks.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ankh on Tuesday November 28 2017, @02:31AM (1 child)
You can look this stuff up, or you can keep rebunking it.
Here, Google wants to be your friend:
https://www.metabunk.org/climate-scientist-says-scientists-should-consider-stretching-the-truth-stephen-schneider.t6850/ [metabunk.org]
-----excerpt follows-------
Rebuttals of this claim by Stephen Schneider:
...
Before Stephen Schneider passed away in 2010 he wrote several rebuttals to these accusations. In general he explained the topic of the Discovery interview the quote comes from, which was the problem scientists face in media with limited time slots available to discuss complex scientific issues. Most often the last line(s) of his quote is omitted.
The last lines being:
"This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both"
Nov 1989 full rebuttal to Detroit News (above): here's a small piece
ss.PNG
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DetroitNews.pdf [stanford.edu]
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Wednesday November 29 2017, @03:08AM
LOL, you think that the frequently omitted last line of the quote (N.B. I did not omit it) absolves him? He's telling scientists that they should lie, as long as it's important enough. In other words, the ends justify the means.
Typical leftist, trying but utterly failing to grasp principles. You think it's fine to lie to the public, as long as it's for what you consider a worthy cause.
Oh, and check your chronological math: the APS News article is from 1996. Seems a bit strange for you to cite a rebuttal from 1989.
(Score: 2, Informative) by ankh on Tuesday November 28 2017, @02:34AM (1 child)
Rebuttals of this claim by Stephen Schneider:
https://www.metabunk.org/climate-scientist-says-scientists-should-consider-stretching-the-truth-stephen-schneider.t6850/ [metabunk.org]
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Wednesday November 29 2017, @03:14AM
Absolute garbage. He advocated lying to the public. He can't weasel out of that with silly weasel-words like "double-ethical bind," saying that, oh, the poor public can't understand these advanced concepts, so we have to use meeeeeeetaphorrrrs, but that's not lyyyyyying, it's solving an ethical dilemma.
Pathetic.
Besides, the proof is in the pudding: "offer[ing] up scary scenarios, mak[ing] simplified, dramatic statements, and mak[ing] little mention of any doubts we might have" is exactly what the mass media, IPCC, and other NGOs have been doing for years. It wouldn't matter if Schneider had done an about-face and taken back every word he said--they're doing what he said, and this article is a perfect example of it.
Filthy leftist liars.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @06:09PM
Just sell coastal property to Republicans. They deserve the loss.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @09:20PM
As long as it drowns the all the hipsters, homeless, and homos along with it.