Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years earlier than predicted - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-permafrost/scientists-amazed-as-canadian-permafrost-thaws-70-years-early-idUSKCN1TJ1XN <comment><USER2> I was up at Camp Muir on Mt. Rainier for the first time in 29 years last weekend. It's located at 10,000 feet and is surrounded by glaciers. The temperature was around 60F in the sun. We're getting temps in May/June that were rarely seen in August in previous decades.

The impressive thing is how quickly the glaciers are receding. The Nisqually glacier, which used to be down near 4000 feet in the 1970s is about a mile shorter. The ablation boundaries on many of the glaciers appear to be high up the mountain (like around 12,000 feet), which means they are going to shrink quite a bit more.

I didn't expect this but there's a possibility that many of the Mt. Rainier glaciers will be gone in the next 30 years. This is a massive change to ecosystems from sea level up to the highest peaks.

<comment><USER3> Considering climate lag (see below) it's almost certain most glaciers on Earth will be gone in 30 years.

There is a delay of a couple of decades between emissions and effects on the climate. This means we are now seeing the effects from the emissions from the 70s and early 80s.

The problem is that we have emitted more GHG in the last 40 years than the previous 150 years since the industrial revolution started. We have a huge climate bill to pay even if we magically stopped all emissions today.

<comment><USER2> The glaciers on Cascade mountains are relatively small but on Mt. Rainier it's extremely unlikely they will disappear in 30 years. The Emmons and Tahoma for example are large and start at 14,000 feet. They will continue to have accumulation zones for many decades. Plus it takes a while for ice to melt even with heat waves, even at lower elevations and even if the temperature rise accelerates.

That said it's not unreasonable to suggest that glaciers with an accumulation zone below say 8-9,000 feet will be toast. That takes out most glaciers in the Cascades outside of the volcanoes and a few peaks in the North Cascades. I was just eyeballing things based on having spent a lot of time on the mountain, but this conclusion seems to be supported by recent geological work. [1, 2]

[1] [https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2017AM/webprogram/Paper299694.htm...](https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2017AM/webprogram/Paper299694.html) [2] [https://glaciers.nichols.edu/north-cascade-glacier- retreat/](https://glaciers.nichols.edu/north-cascade-glacier-retreat/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Everyone here is focused on reducing emissions and such but quite frankly this is only a small part of the problem.

Let's assume today, right now, humanity has found a miracle to produce zero emissions.

First let's consider climate lag [1]. There is a 40ish year delay between emissions and effects on the climate. So this means we are now only seeing the effects from the emissions from the late 70s early 80s. Here's the worst part, we have emitted more GHG in the last 40 years than the previous 150 before that. So, we have a huge climate bill coming for us.

Second, carbon will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years[3]. Nobody knows how that will affect the planet but it's not going to be good.

Third. Consider self sustaining climatic systems usually called feedbacks like methane [2]. The hotter it is, the more methane is released to the atmosphere, so it becomes hotter, so there is more methane in the atmosphere, etc. There are dozens of climatic feedbacks which only god knows when those will stop.

I'm not writing this in a defeatist tone. Quite the contrary. We need to fucking wake up to the reality of this crisis. Humanity has to go all-in and pour all possible resources into clean energy, energy storage, and carbon sequestration.

[1] [https://skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year- Dela...](https://skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay- Between-Cause-and-Effect.html)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback)

[3] [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhou...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse- gases-remain-air)

<comment><USER4> > Nobody knows how [atmospheric carbon] will affect the planet but it's not > going to be good _for us_.

FTFY. Life on this planet is probably going to stick around. What happens to human civilization is the more interesting question.

<comment><USER5> Seems like there could be a pretty big gap between "life on this planet is probably going to stick around" and "good." Life made it through the Chicxulub impact but I doubt you would have called it good had you been on Earth at that time.

I'm continually surprised at how often people counter warnings about global warming with comments to the effect that life, in general, will go on. That's a low bar! Way lower than you'd accept in any other context of your life, I'd bet.

<comment><USER3> You don't even have to get that far. A global increase in food prices would be a complete global catastrophe.

For example the heat wave in Russia in 2010 that helped fuel the Arab Spring revolts.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Russian_wildfires](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Russian_wildfires)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Global warming is the single scariest existential threat our species has ever faced, and we aren't doing nearly enough to tackle it.

Our future descendants will heap scorn and curses on our generation, and we deserve every bit of it. Every politician that refuses to do what is necessary or finds it convenient to play stupid language games about 'settled science' is doing incalculable harm.

As citizens, I encourage everyone to reducing their carbon footprint as much as possible (yes, that means that your life gets comfortable) and voting exclusively on how credible a politician is on tackling global warming. If you are a wealthy person and aren't buying carbon offsets for all your emissions, you are a bad person.

<comment><USER7> As someone who agrees with your suggestion as to how serious climate change is, I've come to think asking individuals to change their behavior to fix the problem is actually counter productive.

People generally want to do the right thing and they want to matter whereas in my experience the average person is not a great systems thinker. So people are very receptive to calls to "be better" because it let's them fight for what they believe set in a framework where their actions matter at least to some degree.

The problem is, these are problems of scale and systems, and once people think they are fulfilling some responsibility they aren't going to pursue other solutions, at least as aggressively.

If we straight up told people: you are going to experience extreme pain within your life time due to climate change, and the only single thing you can do that matters is to put pressure on your government to attack these problems systematically, I think we'd get much better results.

<comment><USER3> There isn't much the individual can do to fix climate change.

Even if you went completely off the grid to live in the woods outside of the industrial civilization eating plants etc this wouldn't fix anything.

Yes, you would certainly reduce your emissions but this is not nearly enough.

Even if a miracle happened and we reached global zero emissions today there are already 415ppm in the atmosphere which will remain there for thousands of years.

Because of climate lag we are now only seeing the effects from the emissions from the 70s and early 80s. Even in 30-40 years when we can see the effects from our current emissions it will not stop there. There are many self sustaining climatic systems that will have been triggered and will continue to change the climate.

Humanity needs to invest all possible resources into clean energy and carbon sequestration. If we don't go all in during the next decade we are done.

<comment><USER8> > Even if a miracle happened and we reached global zero emissions today there > are already 415ppm in the atmosphere which will remain there for thousands > of years.

Cite please?

<comment><USER3> [https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-atmospheric- co2-j...](https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-atmospheric-co2-just- exceeded-415-ppm-for-first-time-in-human-history)

> _The lifetime in the air of CO2, the most significant man-made greenhouse > gas, is probably the most difficult to determine, because there are several > processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 65% and > 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of > 20–200 years. The rest is removed by slower processes that take up to > several hundreds of thousands of years, including chemical weathering and > rock formation. This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can > continue to affect climate for thousands of years._

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhou...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/greenhouse- gases-remain-air)

<comment><USER8> Thanks. A staff writer for the Guardian. Think I'll look a bit further for a more authoritative (read logical) number.

<comment><USER3> I was being gentle. Is the IPCC good enough for you?

> _There is sufficient uptake capacity in the ocean to incorporate 70 to 80% > of foreseeable anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, this process > takes centuries due to the rate of ocean mixing. As a result, even several > centuries after emissions occurred, about a quarter of the increase in > concentration caused by these emissions is still present in the atmosphere._

[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> We'll adapt, but the global ecosystem is dying. It'll be cows, cats, dogs, pigs, chickens, us and stories of animals.

<comment><USER10> Depends what you mean by "we". Homo sapiens has enormous cultural flexibility (though clearly, as the worldwide ecosystem collapse shows, this doesn't scale). So groups of humans will continue to live.

But our global civilisation will inevitably collapse. No-one can predict in detail what that will entail, but we can be sure it won't be pretty.

<comment><USER11> People are _already_ being displaced from their countries by climate. Economies that relied on the stability of their rainfall for their agriculture are declining. They're building camps for them at the border here in the US.

<comment><USER10> Quite. A trickle of refugees precipitated huge European political convulsions in 2015. That was minuscule compared to what's coming. War is likely to be the leitmotiv of the global collapse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Relevant: meltwater on sea ice in NW Greenland [https://twitter.com/RasmusTonboe/status/1139504201615237120](https://twitter.com/RasmusTonboe/status/1139504201615237120)

Also this Australian briefing document on the existential risks of climate change: [https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_b2c0c79dc4344b279bcf23...](https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_b2c0c79dc4344b279bcf2365336ff23b.pdf)

I'm a bit of a doomer on this topic but 25 years arguing about it doesn't seem to have yielded much action.

</comment><comment><USER12> The oft-quoted opening of David Wallace-Wells's "The Uninhabitable Earth" comes to mind. Reviews have generally only included his first sentence: "It is worse, much worse, than you think."

Here is his entire opening paragraph:

> It is worse, much worse, than you think. The slowness of climate change is a > fairy tale, perhaps as pernicious as the one that says it isn't happening at > all, and comes to us bundled with several others in an anthology of > comforting delusions: that global warming is an Arctic saga, unfolding > remotely; that it is strictly a matter of sea level and coastlines, not an > enveloping crisis sparing no place and leaving no life undeformed; that it > is a crisis of the "natural" world, not the human one; that those two are > distinct, and that we live today somehow outside or beyond or at the very > least defended against nature, not inescapably within and literally > overwhelmed by it; that wealth can be a shield against the ravages of > warming; that the burning of fossil fuels is the price of continued economic > growth; that growth, and the technology it produces, will allow us to > engineer our way out of environmental disaster; that there is any analogue > to the scale or scope of this threat, in the long span of human history, > that might give us confidence in staring it down.

<comment><USER13> Curious about what he means by "that wealth can be a shield against the ravages of warming". That is--I can see a case for the wealth of a nation not being a shield for every citizen, but I wonder whether the very rich could weather climate change for a long time. But I suppose that's not the same thing as being totally unaffected.

<comment><USER14> Wealth is a claim on the output of society. It's very hard to store wealth outside of society. Actual stored wealth:

* precious metal and fossil fuels, etc

* seeds, canned goods, grain reserves

* Buildings, wells, physical infrastructure on the land

* tools etc that last through time

Money is only useful to the extent it can buy things. If civilization collapses, then that's a destruction of wealth.

If output merely diminishes, that's also a destruction of wealth. It will still be better to be rich than to be poor, but even the rich depend on what society produces.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Our planet needs to be viewed as and felt as a living entity. There needs to be a shift so we care for every living entity. Every plant, animal, human. Our values need to shift from material pursuits and those as a benchmark for happiness and success to how we treat one another and also other living beings.

Is there a website i can go to and check earth's health as a whole? Like we can check our own health. It would be good to have a place that lists our planets health against a bunch of vital signs

<comment><USER16> I have my ideas that this is what we should use AI for - basically a technocracy where any decision is entered in to a computer that does the crunching. Degree of sustainability vs gain and have the computer say "no" if it's just not viable. If it says "yes" have a vote and let it be decided.

Just dreaming.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Please don't take this as snark -- I'm dead serious. There are climate change deniers who will point to this as support of their position. "See, those climate scientists' predictions are always wrong."

The fact is the IPCC is well aware of the political headwinds it faces and its reports are conservative -- they have always underestimated the likely outcome because it is hard enough to get sign-off on even that, plus the consequences of overstating it is harmed credibility.

<comment><USER18> "The Adorable Optimism of the IPCC" \- [https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433](https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433)

It's been a couple of weeks now since the IPCC report came out. You know what it says. If the whole damn species pulls together in a concerted effort "without historical precedent"— if we start _right now_ , and never let up on the throttle— we just might be able to swing the needle back from Catastrophe to mere Disaster. If we cut carbon emissions by half over the next decade, eliminate them entirely by 2050; if the species cuts its meat and dairy consumption by 90%; if we invent new unicorn technologies for sucking carbon back out of the atmosphere (or scale up extant prototype tech by a factor of two million in two years) — if we commit to these and other equally Herculean tasks, then we might just barely be able to keep global temperature from rising more than 1.5°C.[1] We'll only lose 70-90% of the word's remaining coral reefs (which are already down by about 50%, let's not forget). Only 350 million more urban dwellers will be exposed to severe drought and "deadly heat" events. Only 130-140 million will be inundated. Global fire frequency will only increase by 38%. Fish stocks in low latitudes will be irreparably hammered, but it might be possible to save the higher-latitude populations. We'll only lose a third of the permafrost. You get the idea.

We have twelve years to show results.

<comment><USER19> That is somebody doing an incompetent summary of IPCC's Special Report "Global Warming of 1.5 °C -- an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels"

[https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/](https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/)

Published 2018. Just to quote the few actual lines from the report summary:

"A.1 Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence) (Figure SPM.1) {1.2}"

"A.2 Warming from anthropogenic emissions from the pre-industrial period to the present will persist for centuries to millennia and will continue to cause further long-term changes in the climate system, such as sea level rise, with associated impacts (high confidence), but these emissions alone are unlikely to cause global warming of 1.5°C (medium confidence). (Figure SPM.1) {1.2, 3.3, Figure 1.5}"

"A.3 Climate-related risks for natural and human systems are higher for global warming of 1.5°C than at present, but lower than at 2°C (high confidence). These risks depend on the magnitude and rate of warming, geographic location, levels of development and vulnerability, and on the choices and implementation of adaptation and mitigation options (high confidence). (Figure SPM.2) {1.3, 3.3, 3.4, 5.6}"

And so on.

As you see, very precise and very conservative. It is about what will happen between 10 and 30 years from now, due to the emissions that the humanity is just going to make (see A.2 quoted -- what was already emitted is not what is going to raise the average temperature for the next half a degree).

<comment><USER18> I don't think it's an inaccurate summary at all. You're objecting to the use of dramatic language, but the content is accurate:

Watts: "Only 350 million more urban dwellers will be exposed to severe drought and "deadly heat" events. Only 130-140 million will be inundated."

[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15...](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter3_Low_Res.pdf)

"Limiting global warming to 1.5°C instead of 2°C could result in around 420 million fewer people being frequently exposed to extreme heatwaves, and about 65 million fewer people being exposed to exceptional heatwaves"

Watts: "If we cut carbon emissions by half over the next decade, eliminate them entirely by 2050..."

[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15...](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter2_Low_Res.pdf)

"Limiting warming to 1.5°C implies reaching net zero CO2emissions globally around 2050 and concurrent deep reductions in emissions of non-CO2 forcers, particularly methane (high confidence) ... In comparison to a 2°C limit, the transformations required to limit warming to 1.5°C are qualitatively similar but more pronounced and rapid over the next decades (high confidence). 1.5°C implies very ambitious, internationally cooperative policy environments that transform both supply and demand "

<comment><USER19> The actual quote from IPCC text about hundreds of millions people affected is:

"Liu et al. (2018) studied the changes in population exposure to severe droughts in 27 regions around the globe for 1.5°C and 2°C of warming using the SSP1 population scenario compared to the baseline period of 1986–2005 based on the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI). They concluded that the drought exposure of urban populations in most regions would be decreased at 1.5°C (350.2 ± 158.8 million people) compared to 2°C (410.7 ± 213.5 million people)."

So it says: in case of 1.5 deg 350 million, in case of 2 deg 410 million. So it doesn't support your "Watts" quote of:

"Only 350 million more urban dwellers will be exposed to severe drought"

It's just a clear and inaccurate distortion of the original text, so distorted that it's wrong.

And we also know why it's so wrong and distorted: because these "commenters" just want to confuse people and muddy the waters, they aren't interested in the truth or accurately discussing the actual scientific work.

<comment><USER18> It's not "distorted" at all!

At +1.5 C, they're predicting that " _only_ " 350.2 million more people will be exposed to severe drought compared to the baseline period. That's exactly what Watts says.

What do you think is distorted? You're mad that he didn't mention the ±158.8 million error bars on that estimate?

I feel like I'm talking to a crazy person here -- how do you read the exact same text and see "distortion" when it literally restates the same thing the dry scientific prose says.

<comment><USER19> "Only" is a distortion enough, and also using the number from +2 deg prediction in the +1.5 deg context. If I'd go through it I could find many more of these "muddying the water" techniques. As I've quoted the IPCC in that specific case reports the results of the specific scientific paper which is much more precise than what is "distortedly" presented. There are exact criteria specified under which the estimates hold, they are precisely calculated and if you don't trust the paper you are free to point to the scientific errors, if you find any, which I doubt. But summarising it like it's just some random guess is precisely the distortion I point to.

<comment><USER18> > using the number from +2 deg prediction in the +1.5 deg context.

It's not! Read your own quote!

"[compared to the baseline period of 1986–2005] urban populations in most regions would be decreased at 1.5°C (350.2 ± 158.8 million people) compared to 2°C (410.7 ± 213.5 million people)."

You have (accurately, IMHO) rephrased this as:

"So it says: in case of 1.5 deg 350 million, in case of 2 deg 410 million."

This is EXACTLY what Watts is restating:

"if we commit to these...tasks, then we might just barely be able to keep global temperature from rising more than 1.5°C.... only 350 million more urban dwellers will be exposed to severe drought and "deadly heat" events"

The IPCC report, your restatement, and Watts summary all say the same thing: If we take drastic action and manage to limit climate change to only +1.5C, then predictions are 350 million people will suffer severe drought. ("only" 350 million instead of 410m as in the +2C scenario)

He's not trying to "muddy the waters" \-- he's trying get across to a lay reader just how desperate our situation is. If you prefer boring dry IPCC text, so be it, but so far none of these bland scientific reports have made any real policy impact.

<comment><USER19> OK, thanks, now I understand your view.

The problem with "desperate" reformulations is -- despair. That demotivates from taking any action those who don't have enough understanding and start to look at the problem as either "it's hopeless" or are just "blocking out" ("it's so bad that it can't be true").

The humanity just need to act it its best interests in the sense to recognize that looking only for the shortest-term benefits harms the most of humanity already middle-term.

The only who can/hope to profit are the kinds of "arm dealers" \-- the much less stable world (that is surely going to be a result of a lot of lives exposed to the new climatic conditions) is their direct "profit maker."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It seems that global methane levels have been increasing drastically in the past decade, I wish more discussion of global warming focused on the effects of fracking and use of natural gas.

[https://www.methanelevels.org/](https://www.methanelevels.org/)

</comment><comment><USER21> > The vista had dissolved into an undulating sea of hummocks - waist-high > depressions and ponds known as thermokarst. Vegetation, once sparse, had > begun to flourish in the shelter provided from the constant wind.

I understand the threat. I'm curious why the change described above though isn't somewhat welcome. It would seem that--at least temporarily--areas that are habitable now will become inhospitable, while areas that are not habitable now will be more welcoming.

<comment><USER22> Crops grow in soil. Soil is not just land area. It has an entire history that made it the fertile earth that it is today. You don't get fertile earth by taking permafrost and warming it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> A form of geoengineering is seeding Fe and P into appropriate places (good currents) of the ocean. This kickstarts aquatic life and removes carbon fast ... and as a by product creates whole new fisheries. It is fast and cheap enough that small countries and multimillionaires (and up) can do it as a DIY solution to climate change ... so why has this not been done, forcefully? There seems to be tremendous social opprobrium! A ~proof of concept has already been done.

~proof of concept

[https://www.vox.com/the- highlight/2019/5/24/18273198/climate...](https://www.vox.com/the- highlight/2019/5/24/18273198/climate-change-russ-george-unilateral- geoengineering)

<comment><USER19> From the text: "George argues that the project succeeded at capturing carbon too. _There's no available evidence to back him up_ — it's exceptionally difficult to measure the carbon captured by experiments like these, and _the results from more carefully controlled experiments are not promising_."

<comment><USER23> i would be interested in what/where those "controlled experiments" were... my understanding is that even experimenting is a no no in the field of geoengineering. Versus reflective schemes this actually "removes" carbon and is thus is a net gain, not merely a partial temporary cover. It also increases biota -- exactly the opposite of what humans tend to do, we are now in a major extinction event. Increasing biota on land is very hard and unlikely, but this easily increases it in the seas where it is badly needed. It is also easily titrated - one can stop/in/de/crease adding Iron and Phosphorus at any time.

<comment><USER19> > Versus reflective schemes this actually "removes" carbon and is thus is a > net gain

That is exactly what is _not confirmed_. It's just a belief of the proponents.

<comment><USER23> i would still like to know what "controlled experiments" exist. Has anyone done the studies to show it is not worth the while, eg that it does not remove carbon? Although just not removing carbon does not say seeding is not beneficial, carbon neutral aqua culture would be quite beneficial.

There are some natural experiments: the Sahara feeds the Amazon, and the Gobi feeds the Pacific ... Perhaps more directed seeding would be more beneficial. We will never know unless we actually study, or try.

<comment><USER19> > Has anyone done the studies to show it is not worth the while, eg that it > does not remove carbon?

It is well known that in the normal conditions various bacteria degrade organic matter, which means nothing "dead" would really remain at the bottom. Typically all decomposing produces CO2 again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Canada, Siberia.....both of these areas have been relatively untouched/unexploited due to the permafrost issue and generally inhospitable weather. But they represent a HUGE portion of the global land area....

So why aren't we looking at climate change as opening up vast tracts of the northern hemisphere to settlement and exploitation?

<comment><USER25> Because the land sucks. It just sucks.

Tundra when thawed isn't some magical land. It's all swamp basically.

GOOD LUCK with 100' deep bogs all over the place!

<comment><USER24> If we are facing something like potentially billions of human beings losing their habitable regions near the equator, shouldn't someone be busy sketching out a plan on the costs and requirements of draining swaps to the tune of several million kilometers of land? So we can at least analyze our options, just in case?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > The team used a modified propeller plane to visit exceptionally remote > sites, including an abandoned Cold War-era radar base more than 300 km from > the nearest human settlement.

> Diving through a lucky break in the clouds, Romanovsky and his colleagues > said they were confronted with a landscape that was unrecognizable from the > pristine Arctic terrain they had encountered during initial visits a decade > or so earlier.

Too bad we can't just use satellite images for this kind of research. Somehow satellite images are available for hedge funds to calculate the oil supply [0], but not for climate research. It's a shame.

[0] [https://www.wired.com/2015/03/orbital- insight/](https://www.wired.com/2015/03/orbital-insight/)

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm not saying a carbon tax will alone solve the problem, but I also don't think we stand a chance without one.

We could have started solving this problem decades ago, and it would have cost a lot less. Time's running out.

</comment><comment><USER28> How reasonable is the Clathrate Gun hypothesis?

[https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis)

<comment><USER29> It's already happened, methane has been bubbling from the arctic seabed since 2012.

Noone that can do anything cares.

[https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20120422.htm...](https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20120422.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm still firmly in the camp of people that want to start serious Geoengineering to fix this. WW2 or higher level efforts can get humanity very far if we commit ourselves. My biggest question is though, what are the goals? How many Watts do we have to remove from the planet per day to effectively cool it. How much CO² would actually need to be removed?

If the DoD would get the Job of fighting climate change, i'd wonder what they'd come up with.

</comment><comment><USER31> Earth is a living organism and human activities are it's cancer.

We can repurpose ourselves in order to save ourselves and the host organism.

Or kill ourselves and the host, just like cancer.

It's a choice we have to make as a world together.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is the associated paper, sorry for the paywall. [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019...](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL082187)

<comment><USER32> According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_P...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_Concentration_Pathway), RCP 4.5 predicts a maximum of 2.6 degrees warming by 2100. But we're currently on pace to most likely hit 3.3 degrees by then, so it doesn't seem odd that we're ahead of that pace. [https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat- thermometer/](https://climateactiontracker.org/global/cat-thermometer/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I weep for the life my 19 year old stepdaughter will have.

<comment><USER34> Current 19 year olds have not much to worry about. Remember it's 2-4 deg C _by the end of the century_ along with a sea level rise of perhaps 1m. It's her grandchildren that are truly going to suffer. Of course, nobody knows how long the current status quo can last in the face of climate change.

<comment><AUTHOR> This whole story is about melting permafrost that wasn't expected to that until close to the year 2100 but which is instead happening now. Evidence is accumulating that such things are happening faster than anticipated, perhaps considerably faster.

Also, you're really not thinking even your own remarks through. If a person is 19 now, they could conceivably be alive by the end of the century.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I see a screaming face in the article's top picture. A gaping maw of horror!

<comment><USER36> Yep, and based on the journal article, that photo is even from 2016...

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Maybe I don't understand the ramifications of this, but it kind of sounds like we missed the offramp where we just stop burning carbon.

Shouldn't we just be moving to something drastic like a massive sun shade project ASAP?

<comment><USER38> Climate engineering to stop global warming seems to me like trying to remove a bullet by shooting it out from the other side

<comment><USER39> It depends on what do you mean by climate engineering. If you mean randomly dumping large amounts of sulfur in stratosphere then it is exactly like shooting another bullet, but if it is done by more controlled devices it is like using a scalpel. In any case waiting the for body to heal naturally is not going to work. And i think it is very unfortunate that any mention of using technology to fix the problem gets ridiculed and downvoted out of view by the the people who care about environment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> [Deleting because I don't want to perpetuate apparently debunked climate change myths, sorry, I honestly hadn't seen it debunked.]

Dang, my most downvoted comment was asking an honest question about climate change.

<comment><USER41> If you aren't a denier then why are you repeating a classic, thoroughly debunked denier talking point?

[https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on- mars.htm](https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm)

<comment><USER42> Maybe they honestly didn't know? Hell, I didn't even know about global warming on Mars until OPs comment..

<comment><USER41> It's possible, but beyond a certain point it becomes difficult to extend the benefit of the doubt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> It's already too late. It's unfortunate that we didn't understand what was happening 100 years ago, if we did we might have been able to do something about it, but as it stands right now, we can't even slow down what's already been set into motion. The earth is now changing, it's not just the climate, and the earth changes will drive the climate, the feedback loop has started.

Unless someone can invent a technology in the next 5 years to pull the excess greenhouse gases from the upper atmosphere and take us back to pre-1825 levels and keep us there going forward, this is a lost game.

It's like standing on top of the Empire State building and watching a balling ball go over the edge, we are at the point where the majority of the ball's mass has gone past the balancing point. We are close enough to recognize that it's happening but too far away to stop it from falling.

<comment><USER11> >It's already too late.

The next stage of climate denialism is climate nihilism.

It is _not_ too late to mitigate _some_ of the effects on our societies.

At the very minimum we need the political will to reallocate resources so that we stop accelerating the process and start structuring safety nets for vulnerable communities.

<comment><USER44> Exactly right. Every tenth of a degree of warming averted is going to make a big difference to someone down the line.</comment></comment></comment>


Advice from Harvard Business School's Class of 1963 - <AUTHOR> http://hbs1963.com/ <comment><USER2> Most of the advice is good, but I disagree with some generalizations:

"My one big mistake in life has been providing a trust fund for my five children. I'm very comfortable paying for an education for as long as they want to study in a reputable university. However, providing additional funds so they could have a lifestyle beyond what they have achieved on their own was a mistake." \- DICK RESCH

I don't know how big that fund was, and it might have been a mistake in his particular case - but I can tell you that the opposite (not providing any financial help under the "you must get ahead on your own" mantra) creates a lot of bitterness - missing U$ 10.000 for a down payment to buy a house (which I wouldn't mind having loaned, not a giveaway) and having to keep on paying rent and toiling at an awful company, while your parent inherits several millions, hurts. So does not having the possibility of asking for seed money for a startup, and having other people deny you by saying "your wealthy father doesn't invest in you, so why would I?". (note: I'm 32, I know I should have some money saved away by now, but I did make mistakes - actually I think I prove my point, not giving money doesn't guarantee your children won't make mistakes :P )

<comment><USER3> Why would it create bitterness unless the child felt entitled, which is not a good quality? The person was probably already dealt a better hand than most people on the planet. I, like many people, had to borrow the money for my college education. I managed to pay off my loans (public university) and buy my apartment in my early 30's.

<comment><USER4> I have to agree with this. Life is a lot easier when you look at gifts as truly gifts and not obligations. I received zero dollars from my parents (of course I got a basic roof over my head) even though they were upper-middle class. If I did get something I would have been grateful, rather than having a "it's about time" attitude.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great advice.

"Recognize opportunities and see trends before everyone else"

Sounds easy enough.

"Choose work you enjoy"

No kidding!

"One mistake is to stick with a highly profitable business model too long when the world is changing. Another is to abandon the old for the next new thing, particularly if the path to profitability is not clear."

So change is good. Unless it's bad.

"Happiness is the best measure of success."

So my Reddit Karma is worthless?

"The greatest gift you can give your children is to love one another."

AWWWWWWWWWW <3

</comment><comment><USER6> "Have fun. You'll be dead a long time." Love this.

<comment><USER7> I don't plan on it.

<comment><USER8> > I don't plan on it.

Think about it game-theoretically:

If you live as if you'll die, and you don't, you'll have a much more interesting life, because you took advantage of it thinking you're living under the Sword of Damocles.

If you live as if life extension will keep you going, and it fails, you'll have a short, boring life, full of things you put off until it was too late.

Those are the extreme values of the matrix; if you work through the rest, I think you'll find that the most utility is always gained by living as if you'll die _eventually_.

(Living as if you'll die _tomorrow_ is romantic and all, but it would prevent you from working towards any goal which takes more than less than a day to complete. It could also land you in prison, deported to a less-pleasant foreign country, or both.)

<comment><USER7> I reject the premise entirely. Death does not give life meaning. Life gives life meaning.

Procrastination is a human error. You can choose to live each day to the fullest without embracing deathism.

<comment><USER3> I guess first we'd have to define "fullest." Your meaning and mine are probably completely different. If all you want is to be in that happy place, well, ... good luck. I bet Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Bill Gates have a different idea about what they want/wanted to accomplish with their lives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Thank you for sharing this! I internalized some of these lessons from my own life and it has made me feel a bit better about similar conclusions reached.

</comment><comment><USER10> "Work hard. Be honest. Help others." \- PHILIP B. SMITH

</comment><comment><USER11> I think Paul Rosenbaum's advice for careers is particularly relevant for programmers:

"Keep re-inventing yourself through self-education, because industries change quickly."

</comment><comment><USER12> This might be interesting as well to those who admire this article: [https://medium.com/p/1b1cde25627a](https://medium.com/p/1b1cde25627a)

<comment><USER13> The quality of the linked article is very low.

Comparing Facebook and Apple to ponzi scheme? Check.

Comparing founders and VCs to blood-suckers? Check.

Comparing Facebook and Apple employees to slaves? Check.

Zero useful information, 100% linkbaiting by stirring controversy.</comment></comment>


MtGox.com HTML comment tag: "put announce for mtgox acq here" - <AUTHOR> http://www.mtgox.com

<comment><USER2> No idea why they didn't just admitted all the wrongdoing at start of this month instead of pulling so much wool. As much as I wish, people recover their coins; I am not sure if there's any trust left in whatever they are going to do/say.

</comment><comment><USER3> I am not sure why they keep toying with us. If you are dead mtgox just say so, people can then grieve / rejoice and move on!

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't see it

<comment><USER5> View page source

edit: in case people still can't see it:

      <html>
      	<head>
      		<title>MtGox.com</title>
      	</head>
      	<body>
      		<!-- put announce for mtgox acq here -->
      	</body>
      </html>

<comment><USER4> what's 'acq'? 'acquisition'?

<comment><USER6> Yes probably - I've often seen acq as shorthand for acquisition in various notes and drafts over the years.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What should I teach at a boot camp? - <AUTHOR>

I'm considering an offer to teach web-app development at a new boot camp. What concepts should something like that cover? (Length of course is somewhat flexible at the moment.)
I'm certain that "learning how to teach yourself to code" should be the top priority. No one is going to leave a boot camp with amazing skills, so they'll need to know how to get better in their spare time.
Is it realistic to get into unit tests, functional concepts, basic Linux administration, etc.? What have other people's experiences at boot camps been like (good and bad)? <comment><USER2> It sounds like you're really trying to ignite in your students a passion for this topic (so that their new passion will drive further inquiry on their part).

To achieve that, I think you should just teach whatever you're really passionate about. Show the students what it's like when you get to do what you love; your genuine interest in whatever-that-topic-is will shine through to the students, and hopefully show them the way.

You're not gonna prepare them for a career in a few weeks; I don't think that's a healthy goal; but you _can_ inspire them! Shoot for that!

<comment><AUTHOR> That's great advice! Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Focus on helping them to build stuff and answering their own questions. Yes that other stuff is important, but unrealistic in a bootcamp. They need to leave being able to build something.

<comment><AUTHOR> > _Focus on helping them to build stuff_

I'm considering two options: 1) they all build the same app, or 2) they each build a different app, and we discuss individual's problems/solutions as a group.

My thinking with #2 is that it'll be more interesting and motivating, and we'll uncover more real-world scenarios that way.

What do you think?

<comment><USER3> Everyone building a different app is a good idea depending on how far along they are. But early on I would have them make the same or a similar app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> What research have you done on the pedagogy of computing?

What methods does that research suggest might be successful when applied to web programming?

What pedagogical methods might be difficult to apply?

How will likely demographics of the cohort influence pedagogical methods?

What has worked successfully for you when leading learners in the past?

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't tell if this is sarcastic, so I'll just respond genuinely.

> _What research have you done on the pedagogy of computing?_

I haven't done research on the pedagogy of computing because I'm not teaching computing. I'm basically being asked to teach someone how to build a birdhouse, but it's marketed as "carpentry boot camp".

As far as Google has told me, there's been very little inquiry into the success or failure of CS education, outside of the attraction and retention of minorities. How do you even quantify a successful CS education? Income? Satisfaction? I wouldn't trust any metric that you could possibly quantify with the information that's reasonably available (grades, salaries, and surveys).

Even if this research were done, it wouldn't have been done specifically about web programming, which is just totally different from "computer science" in a lot of ways (mainly in how much abstraction there is between the programmer and the underlying system).

So this is my first real stab at doing research: asking people on HN how boot camps have gone for them, what has worked, and what hasn't.

<comment><USER4> The PLT group and particularly Matthias Felleisen have been engaged in computer pedagogy for several decades.

[http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/](http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/)

Dr. Chuck is another person with an informed opinion.

[http://www.dr-chuck.com/](http://www.dr-chuck.com/)

That said, I wouldn't discount the experience and opinions of professional trainers such as Kathy Sierra or people like Zed 'The Hard Way' Shaw.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Sierra](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Sierra)

The drop dead serious point is pretending that web programming is a snowflake looks a bit like an excuse for less than rigorous research and a rather dismissive attitude toward professional pedagogical practice.

Of course that's not to suggest that hopping on the boot camp gravy train is not a better business decision the closer the investment in excellence aligns with the absolute minimum requirements of getting paid.

How much concern a teacher has over their students' successes is a matter of taste.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the advice and links! I always appreciate when a stranger takes time to help me.

I'm going to check out the Felleisen stuff, but my concern is that it's so much more academic than anything I'll have time to do. The difference between what I'm doing and a college class is that I don't have time to lay groundwork. I can't explain how much of the underlying systems work, even though I think it's really important.

That might seem like I'm taking issue with the concept of a boot camp, but it's actually the opposite. I want to prove, at least to myself, that a boot camp can be truly valuable and provide long-term education value. That means teaching modeling, good habits, and good practices more than teaching how the stack works.

> _pretending that web programming is a snowflake looks a bit like an excuse_

I don't think I made my point clearly. Beginning web programming (at least in Ruby, Python, PHP, and Node) doesn't require an understanding of many underlying concepts that you'd need to know to write in, say, C. By the time you need to know how the compiler optimizes things, how memory is allocated, or when to fork vs. spawn, you're probably beyond the scope of a boot camp (and hopefully dealing with lots of traffic!)

The core of the problem isn't that I'd be teaching web programming. It's that I have very limited time, and while not much of the concepts are complex, there's too much to cover in even a year of classes.

> _dismissive attitude_ > _hopping on the boot camp gravy train_ > _matter of > taste_

Since I do appreciate your advice, I'll give you some.

You seem to enjoy helping people on HN, just like I do. That's what motivates me to teach: I love helping people, especially to do something I think they'll enjoy (and can make them more financially stable).

On HN especially, I often perceive two motivations for helping: to genuinely share knowledge and experience, or to feel superior. Sometimes these are intermixed a bit, of course.

If your goal is truly to share your knowledge and experience, then you shouldn't taint it with the implied judgments, presumptions, and condescension that I've highlighted above. If your goal is, instead, to feel superior, then I hope this is fulfilling you in whatever way you're not intrinsically fulfilled.

And, on a related note, I'm not going to study anything Zed Shaw says about anything because his online persona is repugnant. It may be my own bias, but I don't trust the suggestions of a teacher who acts like a spiteful child on the internet and takes pleasure in verbally attacking others. I've never heard of a great teacher who behaved that way -- in fact, my great teachers have all been incredibly patient, kind, and magnanimous.

<comment><USER4> I have far more interest in helping the students than for helping you find excuses not to approach teaching as a profession in itself, and I get the sense if I mentioned Maria Montessori or John Dewey the response would be, "But they weren't teaching web programming at a boot camp."

Learning about pedagogy will help you prepare a better curriculum. That will serve your students better than the alternative.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with someone just being in it for the money. But my interest is not in helping people rationalize what is fully legal but ethically slides down slope towards a make-a-buck-scam. And that's what comes to mind when I see "bootcamp" these days to a first approximation.

Sure, I think there are some reasonably good bootcamps. I don't think they correlate with hiring people with no training experience and little interest in developing knowledge in the pedagogical practice. Maybe you will make this one exceed my naive expectations. At least that's my hope.

Zed Shaw has a strong background in the pedagogy of situations where people die from mistakes. He takes teaching seriously in accord with that experience. That leads to some admirable traits and some that are less so. Being rude doesn't make someone wrong, though sometimes it just makes someone a dick.

<comment><AUTHOR> I now understand the motivation behind your tone, and I think it's very noble. If this boot camp isn't valuable to the students, it would violate my own ethics to do it.

My original question wasn't about how to teach, but about _what_ to teach.

As for the "how", your points are all well taken, and I will give Shaw's work a look after all. It can't hurt.

I come from a family of professional teachers and have no intention of diluting the meaning of teaching. At the same time, the people who join boot camps are obviously looking for something less time-consuming than a full degree program, while still valuable. I know I can provide that (and have taught web languages before).

<comment><USER4> The what of teaching is the curriculum. Zed Shaw's skill is in developing curricula. That comes from a careful attention to the how, not the what. Hence the multiple curricula. His interview on Hanselminutes is a great place to start: [http://hanselminutes.com/407/learning-code-the-hard-way- with...](http://hanselminutes.com/407/learning-code-the-hard-way-with-zed- shaw)

I'm not suggesting Zed Shaw as the end all and be all. Kathy Sierra's approach is an alternative (though requiring more effort to implement): [http://www.objectsbydesign.com/books/KathySierra.html](http://www.objectsbydesign.com/books/KathySierra.html)

In the end, the focus shouldn't be on teaching what you know, but the relevant part of what you will know after rigorous preparation. The big question isn't about whether the students will all work on a standardized project or one of their own choosing. The big question is what specific knowledge, skill and ability that project must reflect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I recommend teaching them web app security (CRSF, SQL injection, etc).</comment>


Xkcd blog: Physics for Entertainment book - <AUTHOR> http://blag.xkcd.com/2009/10/02/physics-for-entertainment/

<comment><USER2> I think I have them both, in Russian, of course.

Also I think there's more than basic physics, it was the whole series.

<comment><USER3> Digitize and share with the world?</comment></comment>


Advice for US founders considering expanding to Europe - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/at-the-front-line/why-us-founders-cant-afford-to-ignore-europe-e94fe4d5321d <comment><AUTHOR> First in a series of blogs a colleague of mine, Stephen McIntye (ex-early- Google and VP @ Twitter for EMEA (Europe, Mid-East, Africa)), is publishing around the things to consider about when US founders are thinking about opening an office in Europe & why Europe is important for long term success.

Most of the big companies have messed one part or another of it up. The series is effectively a guide on how to get it right.</comment>


Show HN: Pinny McBallface, an endless mobile pinball game - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.mousemob.pinny <comment><USER2> Interesting concept, but tbh it falls short in the physics department - there's so much drag on the ball that it loses lateral movement so quickly, and all of the characters that I've tried seem to rotate off-centre, which just makes everything feel janky.

Also, it's commonplace to offer the "extra life for viewing an ad" AFTER the player runs out of lives, not when they have 1 left, that's just misleading - either give the player 2 lives and offer a third for viewing the ad or give the player 3 and offer a fourth.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback - I'm looking into both. WRT physics I think the elasticity of most of the table is too low, so you lose your lateral momentum whenever you collide with a wall. Needs some tweaking.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This was a weekend hobby project. I thought this would be interesting to HN for a few reasons:

\- It's written in Haxe, a programming language which cross-compiles to other languages, and uses the cross-platform NME and OpenFL frameworks. So from the same code base, I can compile for mobile, desktop, Flash or HTML5. I love this language, AMA about it.

\- Developed using the open source cross-platform HaxePunk game engine: [https://github.com/haxepunk/haxepunk](https://github.com/haxepunk/haxepunk) which is undergoing a revival.

Would love to hear what you think!

<comment><USER2> Are you paying for play store reviews? The amount of 5-star reviews with completely irrelevant comments is pretty high; "been playing this for years", sure you have, random reviewer with no profile picture.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not and I don't know what happened there. The number of fake-looking reviews went up to ~40 a few days after posting this Show HN, and then started disappearing shortly after. From my developer console stats they seem to have the same exact (older, uncommon) Android version as well, so pretty sure it's a single source. Not sure what kind of scam this is.</comment></comment></comment>


Nakheel Tower to become world's tallest concrete structure - 1 KM+ - <AUTHOR> http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=10464 <comment><USER2> I'm not an overly religious person, but doesn't Dubai strike anyone as being the modern day city of Babel? It seems that they have done something really well, but now are starting to get arrogant and cocky about this "tallest building" thing.

It seems to strike me as the poster child for the phrase "pride cometh before a fall". I certainly hope that doesn't happen, but it's the one thing I consistently think of every time I see these stories.</comment>


US Copyright Office: Time to Update the DMCA–Mostly in Favor of Rightsholders - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/u-s-copyright-office-says-its-time-to-update-the-dmca-1843608938 <comment><AUTHOR> Link to the report:

[https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section512/section-512-full...](https://www.copyright.gov/policy/section512/section-512-full- report.pdf)

Original title was too long. It was:

U.S. Copyright Office Says It's Time to Update the DMCA—Mostly in Favor of Rightsholders</comment>