Arctic sea ice reaches second lowest minimum in satellite record | Hacker News Reader

Arctic sea ice reaches second lowest minimum in satellite record

nsidc.org

33 pointsjesperlang31 comments

In a few words how can I convert a climate-change denier to a believer? and vice versa...

I just want see what the short, compelling arguments of either side are.

"What evidence would you need to see to be convinced that climate change is indeed happening and is a threat to humanity?"

"What proof do you have that humans are _causing_ the climate to change, a climate which has been changing ever since the formation of the Earth 4.5 billion years ago? And what proof do you have that homo sapiens - who have only been on this planet for roughly 200 thousand years, of which have only been embarking in Industry for around 200 of those - can have any effect whatsoever in somehow stopping the climate from changing? Lastly, what definitive proof is there that the trace gas CO2, comprising of 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere - of which humans are respnsible for a mere 0.01% of that - is the primary temperature control knob of this planet?"

The CO2/CAGW/Climate Change alarmism Emperor has no clothes!

It will be interesting to see how statements like this are viewed in another 30 or 40 years. I suppose most deniers will deny ever having denied, but hopefully there will be clear historical records to set things straight.

Yep. You went ahead and used the "denier" slur. That says a lot more about you than it does about me.

All the rank cowards downvoting it. Go ahead. You KNOW deep down that you've either been gullible and taken in by the alarmism, or you're complicit in the agenda which is utilising existential fear - like all tyranny-supporting agendas do.

Wow. Just to be clear, I'm not putting the burden of proof on you. I accept that the burden is on the side arguing that anthropogenic climate change is real.

I'm simply asking you what standard of proof you would require. What would convince you?

EDIT: for anyone else wondering about the "0.04%" factoid thrown out, this article is a pretty good explanation of how the greenhouse effect works and how a trace gas can have a noticeable affect on global temperature: https://www.sciencealert.com/co2-is-only-a-tiny-part-of-our-...

Yes, let's hear the real story about CO2 shall we?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/01/a-story-of-co2-data-m...

Sigh...why is it so hard for you to answer this question?

In a world where you are convinced by the evidence that anthropogenic climate change is real and poses a grave threat to humanity over the next century, what does that evidence look like?

I'm not remotely qualified to read your long article and try and either debunk it or determine that yes, it does indeed have real scientific merit despite its disagreement with the overwhelming consensus by experts in the relevant fields. Nor do I particularly feel the need to. I lump anthropogenic climate change in with evolution: I don't have the expertise to evaluate the evidence myself but it seems like virtually everyone who does is on one side of the argument. That's good enough for me.

Answer the question maybe?

What would it take to convince you?

Playing devil advocate: If we are in the warming cycle, of course we are going to see ice reduction every year. The thing that might be hard to prove is the causation link between human activity and the reduction of the ice. Like how much percentage is caused by humankind and not regular earth cycles is not something we know.

"what models predicting catastrophic temperature increases have been had predictive power for more than 10 years (climate timespan)?"

"what peer reviewed study shows the earth climate have a net positive feedback loop for warming with xxxx ppm C02?" (show hard science on the runaway heating scenario)

I don't think there is any way to "convert" a denier. This isn't a case where logic or well-reasoned arguments will make a difference. People have varied and deep-seated reasons for denying climate change, and I think it will take a generational change-over to finally make a difference.

> climate-change denier to a believer?

So even if someone is fine with climate change, or doesn't believe it, or doesn't think we can do anything about it, or doesn't think we are causing it.

I use another angle: pollution.

Trying to improve our air quality to help reduce instances of various illnesses and/or trying to reduce landfill etc

Most people want things like cleaner air, or less exposure to harmful chemicals in plastics, or safe drinking water. People are more invested in things when doing so can directly benefit them (or they perceive that it can). With climate change we get a lot of vague narratives, some doubt, and a bunch of varying predictions (for example 20 years ago I was told in school we could have as little as 20 years left of fossil fuels...)

Engage with your heart rather than your mind. When two people can understand eachother's needs, the appropriate course of action becomes obvious.

I think you are unlikely to get what you want if you are more concerned about changing someone's beliefs rather than simply convincing them to take some specific action which could help you with your need.

What's even more worrying is that almost all "old" ice is gone. Extent only measures ocean area with at least 15% ice.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4750

Scary times ahead!

A platform for Earth defense from asteroids ranks higher on my list. You couldn't believe what that would do to the environment.

Why was this flagged?

Looks like there’s little to nothing we can do to stop the effects of climate change these days. Might as well just give up and accept the inevitable, a lot less stressful that way.

Heh I had a similar thought but then we forget that it'll get worse and accelerate if we do nothing.

So there is hope of not making things much worse.

The geoengineering technology simply isn’t here. There’s no strong capitalist incentives for such tech to emerge or be developed.

There’s no way we can eliminate the use of fossil fuels in the next ten years. There’s no way we can change consumer diets to rely less on methane producing animals. There’s nothing we can do to stop the acidification of oceans and the collapse of aquaculture. And when the permafrost melts and releases methane exponentially into the atmosphere it’s game over.

Unless we have a way to siphon out gases from the atmosphere, we’re finished.

We can fund the God damn research, for one. Of course, for that we'd need a functional government.

Absolutely. Sure it may not be entirely possible, but we need to _try_.

Nothing short of a total war mobilization of the economy and research will even remotely get close to preventing the absolute worst aspects, but it may be possible to salvage parts of the planet.

> Unless we have a way to siphon out gases from the atmosphere, we’re finished.

It's called carbon sequestration and it costs $100 - $300 per ton. So for a few $trillion, we could get net zero. Expensive, but comparable to the Iraq war or Apollo program in costs. A lot cheaper than WWII. Another way of thinking about it is that it would approximately double the price of gas.

This is assuming we act before any of the global homeostasis mechanisms break due to the CO2 levels (jet stream, thermohaline cycle, methane clatharates, etc. etc.), in which case it'll take far more money (and research).

There may be nothing we can do to stop it, but there are measures society needs to take to not worsen the problem.

As much as I want to disagree with you, I too have this bleak feeling of inevitable doom. As individuals there is nothing we can do, all the personal changes are dwarfed by the overwhelming magnitude of the problems ahead. In my younger years I would have thought that while the problems seem insurmountable, we as global society will find a solution. The older I get I am convinced that there is almost no political solution that won't be opposed by either big money or irrational nationalism blocking any kind of global solution.

sigh

I would posit that at least some of your feelings are due to the nature of information dissemination by today's highly connected, revenue-driven media. Saying everything is fine, or at least not terrible, has never brought as many eyeballs to a story as claiming the sky is falling.

Not saying the sky is or isn't falling, just that we have so much ready access to so many sources of information, each with a vested interest in getting you to come view their content - and what better way than highlighting the doom and gloom? - that there is the real situation of bad news overload. That, in turn, makes things seem worse than they are.

It's no wonder the suicide rates are increasing.

I often feel hopeless as well and feel that there is a chance that things well even be worse than the IPCC projections due to unforseen tipping points, to the point where large parts of the world will be uninhabitable to humans (which brings war over land, resources, etc.). It seems that the (short-term focused) political and (growth focused) economical systems are not capable with deal dealing with climate change. Moreover, most people do not fully grasp the potential catastrophic effects yet. Even a lot of people that I know who believe human-induced climate change is a major problem step in an airplane for holiday twice a year.

However, we should oppose the mindset of giving up. I have a 5/yo daughter and it is simply unfair to her and her generation if we didn't at least try to dampen the effects of climate change as much as we can.

That's because the climate changes _despite_ humans, not _because_ of humans.

Hahah. Someone's up past bedtime. Take a nap. You'll feel more optimistic. We will all still be here trying to save humanity when you've gotten the rest you need.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com