Just posted the idea for a win-win reuse of desalination waste water in the arctic depths in a sibling comment! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49283840#49286264

> geoengineering to stop global warming

Global warming is geoengineering. And any geoengineering out of it will need to eclipse the current geoengineering in size, energy and effort.

There is no way geoengineering could go wrong right and make things worse. We really understand complex systems right? No way we would be like toddlers messing with powers we barely understand.

Oh, it can be too late. Positive feedback loops and so forth.

Another way of saying "thoughts and prayers" :)

Drastic mitigations need to start now, talking will do nothing. But with people voting in leaders like Trump, nothing will happen. And remember, when gas prices was high during Biden's Admin. ? He did all he could to get them lower, including opening up new oil fields. So both "sides" are to blame.

We should have let the fossil fuel prices rise and force people to change their way of life. Instead our descendants will be force to change in ways that will be far worse then we would have if we started years ago.

The year predicted for the glacier's collapse was an extrapolation based on data and models available at the time. While the timing was off, the thing is going away visibly for everyone!

In hindsight they shouldn't have set the date, but contrast the fast decline with the long existence. Maybe even let people guess or bet the exact year to involve them and make them think.

Thwaites mass loss rate is 500% what it was in 1990. 500%, that is 2026 study. It is accelerating very rapidly as well.

I don’t give a damn, to be perfectly honest, what some sign posted god knows when with who knows what information, says. This is a man made global catastrophe. Information and research is very clear and very robust.

Ice loss in just 202x, from JUST thwaites, contributes to several centimeters of ocean rise. It’s going to be much much higher in 203x and 204x. It’s just one (unusually big) glacier of many.

We can all sit here and Reee Reee about the things that were overly reductive, overstated, wrong, even a lie. What I wrote above this is none of those and it’s actually psychotic how little we talk about the cryosphere collapse, given how badly it’s going to fuck us, not 1000 years from now, not 100 years from now, but 10 years from now. I played a video game twice that age on my computer yesterday.

> The year was 20xx and I was looking right at the glaciers and they were decidedly not gone.

They just shrunk by 40% in ~50 years, no biggy

On a few other climate related topics scientists are actually surprised at how fast it's getting out of hands.

> In a democracy, credibility is an important resource.

We got Trump... Twice... so clearly not. What matters is selling a dream, and nobody want to hear about the dream of reducing growth, buying less, consuming less, etc.

focussing on the messaging is a particularly weak way to steer the conversation away from the real issue. just as in your story, that glacier may take an additional decade or two to disappear completely, but it will surely be gone.

we can't seriously believe that if we just adjusted the story a little bit this way or that, that the message would actually click and people would begin to try to minimize the tragic cost to future generations.

this is happening now. blaming the messenger for not being appropriately fawning, or curt, or amusing is kind of irrelevant at this point. maybe we can learn to do a better job next time there is an issue that's going to radically effect everyones lives for the foreseeable future.

> went to Glacier National Park a while ago and stood before a sign that said "The glaciers you see will be gone by year 20xx" or something like that. The year was 20xx and I was looking right at the glaciers and they were decidedly not gone.

Why is it OK for Elon Musk to blow up spaceship after spaceship and everyone says well that’s the way you get it right, but a couple of Climate scientists put up a sign that is maybe a decade or two too early and all hell rains down on them?

What does Elon get credibility yet? Climate scientists don’t? It’s because we choose who we give credibility to. And as a species, we are stupidly optimistic or willing fully blind.

If this doesn't get us we still have massive insect extinction, ocean acidification, permafrost thawing, prolonged droughts, etc.

There is just no way out at the point, the planet is tanking the damage for now but once it'll crack, and it's starting to, many systems will fail simultaneously, no amount of theatrical green washing will undo the damage

Why? Deindustrializing especially Europe moved factories into coal powered regions. It was put forward as green policy, but how can this result be a surprise to anyone?

Once warming gets to a point we may not need desalination plants. The boil off from the ocean will perpetuate rainfall. Clean water for everyone. Never mind the 100+ mph winds that go along with that.

Good point, we should probably do the same thing with our carbon emissions that we did with the chemicals that deplete ozone. The Montreal Protocol of 1987 successfully phased out over 99% of them.

WE FIXED THAT. We literally listened to professionals, introduced legislation and fixed it. The worst possible example you could use.

Luckily the Montreal protocol was implemented and CFCs were banned. Something like that should be considered for more green house gasses. Maybe Paris?

And we fixed the ozone hole by taking decisive action internationally banning the worst ozone-destroying gases

This exact sentiment has been expressed and addressed ad nauseum.

Weird how something was done about that though

CFC elimination worked, but switching refrigerants is a lot easier than not burning hydrocarbons.

Glad you brought that up. Because we fixed it. Now because of ignorance, we are not fixing this. As a person without kids, its not my problem. Strange that anti-science conservatives wants us to have more children while willfully destroying their future.

It's pretty easy to model to a first approximation. Gases like Carbon Dioxide reflect certain wavelengths of infrared. When they are present in the atmosphere, they are present at a certain percentage concentration, and as that increases they reflect more infrared.

This matters because there are three ways for a body to eliminate thermal energy: radiation, convection, and conduction. Earth is not in contact with anything else, so it cannot conduct. It does not share an atmosphere with anything else, so it cannot convect. So that leaves radiation, which is largely in the form of infrared. Then it stands to reason that if you change how much IR is reflected back to the surface by the atmosphere, say by changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, then you will increase the amount of heat the Earth contains as long as there is a source of heat nearby or within. Earth has both in the form of a molten core and the Sun.

This is why they call them "greenhouse gases." Because they cause the Earth to retain more heat than it radiates in the infrared spectrum, like the glass on a greenhouse.

1. The global temperature has never in human history done what it's doing now. 2. Weather isn't the same as climate. They operate on way different scales and timelines. Uncertainty in the one does not necessarily map to uncertainty in the other. 3. Climate change is most definitely not a solved problem. We know some big things we can do, and none of them are easy.

People have continually been taking significant action! CFCs were banned in 1987. High GWP refrigerants, like R-12 and R-22 have been banned, and even newer ones like R-401 are now significantly regulated: The days of bleeding an air conditioning system to atmosphere are _long_ gone. Cars in developed countries are annually inspected for emissions systems performance, so NOx and other GHG-producers have been cut to nearly 0% from vehicles since the 1990s in those regions. Transoceanic shipping has recently implemented its sulfur-free requirement, and we're visibly seeing fewer sulfuric clouds over the ocean. Stricter gas milage requirements in cars have seen a drop in CO2 emissions in the US from 2007 to 2025 by 102 million metric tons of CO2, despite having 23,000,000 more people.

The Paris accords have been running for years. No country has met its targets but nearly every country has seen a reduction.

The reductions aren't as big as we'd like. The temperature is still rising faster than we'd like. But the idea that we haven't taken any action is completely false.

The only thing that matters is that we're pumping insane amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and basically terra forming ourselves and most of nature out of the equation.

Nature is infinitely more complex than most people believe, we don't even know how basic things like soil ecosystems truly works, the thing that supports 100% of life on earth, we have virtually no clue about it, so what do we know about the rest...

Nobody is taking action because the whole system is made for growth and continuous improvement, you can't tell people "we have to work more to simply keep the status quo", let alone "we may even lose a lot of nice things and convenience in the process"

Nobody took action because the global south (logically) decided that economic growth and rising living standards is worth the global cost.

> temperatures recover

Not. so. fast.

> Given how we are at the tail end of a small ice age, shouldn't it be expected that temperatures recover to what they were previously?

The speed at which the temperature is increasing is what is concerning, it’s much faster than a usual warming cycle. The XKCD comic of the timeline of human history and climate really drives home how steep the increase in temperature has been vs in the past: https://m.xkcd.com/1732/