We Are "Chasing Our Tail" Trying to Save Glaciers, and Earth

[JBG]

No obviously not. Why do you ask?

Some think it is good and this is going back centuries. Google "Sumptuary Laws" and more recently "Club of Rome."

 

[JBG]

You left mo disclaimer.

What is a "mo disclaimer?"

 

[noonereal]

What is a "mo disclaimer?"

You left NO disclaimer.

 

[JBG]

My home is at 29 feet, Galveston is sinking at about 2 feet per century, with half of that subsidence.

 

[JBG]

You left NO disclaimer.

I'll admit to being confused.

 

[longview]

New Orleans was below sea level when I was a child, 6 decades ago.
After Katrina they should have raised it about 40 feet, it would have been a monumental undertaking,
but the US seems to thrive on difficult things.

 

[ataraxia]

That quote says nothing about nuclear power.

What do you think "every single source of energy that we’ve got" means?

 

[ataraxia]

The sea level has been rising for most of Human civilization, but let's look at some real places.
Battery Park NYC

0.96 feet per century.​

Miami
1.05 feet per century
San Francisco
0.65 feet per century.
If we have something we think is worth protecting, we can protect it.
In Galveston in about 1905 they raised large sections of the city by 15 feet.
Same thing is Seattle Washington, except they went up to 30 feet in some places.
The rate of sea level rise is not that serious of a problem.
My home is at 29 feet, Galveston is sinking at about 2 feet per century, with half of that subsidence.
Let's say my great grandchildren have an interest in my home in 50 years, it would still be many centuries
from any actual threat.
Sorry but when you dig into the catastrophic claims they tend to fade away.

The measurements are not done at the local level, but globally. Read the references for why and how that's done.

 

[longview]

The measurements are not done at the local level, but globally. Read the references for why and how that's done.

Sea level is really a local thing, It only matters if your sea level is rising.
What is happening in the middle of the ocean, not so much.

 

[ataraxia]

New Orleans was below sea level when I was a child, 6 decades ago.
After Katrina they should have raised it about 40 feet, it would have been a monumental undertaking,
but the US seems to thrive on difficult things.

So take THAT, climate change cultists!

 

[ataraxia]

Sea level is really a local thing, It only matters if your sea level is rising.
What is happening in the middle of the ocean, not so much.

Some local areas see less problems because their land level is rising as well. Others will see a dramatic increase, because their land level is dropping as the sea levels rise.

So whose local sea level should be more important?

And why do you think any of this undermines climate change science?

 

[ataraxia]

Some think it is good and this is going back centuries. Google "Sumptuary Laws" and more recently "Club of Rome."

I am pretty sure that doesn't apply here, if anyone is thinking anything beyond the short-sighted greed of more than a decade or so.

Projected climate change damage includes rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and economic losses. By 2100, the US could experience a 5% chance of sea level rise exceeding 4 feet, along with increased damages from hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and droughts. Globally, climate change is projected to cause $38 trillion in damages annually by 2050.

The economic commitment of climate change - Nature

Analysis of projected sub-national damages from temperature and precipitation show an income reduction of 19% of the world economy within the next 26 years independent of future emission choices.

www.nature.com

No one can afford THIS level of stupidity and short sighted greed- except for maybe those who think they will die in the next 10 years or so and could care less about their own kids or grandkids- so they are OK with leaving this world with a big F YOU to them.

 

[longview]

Some local areas see less problems because their land level is rising as well. Others will see a dramatic increase, because their land level is dropping as the sea levels rise.

So whose local sea level should be more important?

And why do you think any of this undermines climate change science?

I see the sea level as a function of temperature but not much related to Human caused climate change.
Assume we achieve Net Zero CO2 emissions (We will but because of market conditions)
do you think that will alter the sea level rise, or even the trajectory of the climate for that matter.

 

[longview]

So take THAT, climate change cultists!

We need to do some grand projects, like that.
We really need to dig several million ponds in the Great plains, as the ones that were put in in the 1930's are about gone.
Think of all we could do by raising New Orleans 40 feet?
Radically improve flood control, put in subways, redo the infrastructure, etc.

 

[ataraxia]

I see the sea level as a function of temperature but not much related to Human caused climate change.

That's pretty silly. Why on Earth would you think that?

Assume we achieve Net Zero CO2 emissions (We will but because of market conditions)
do you think that will alter the sea level rise, or even the trajectory of the climate for that matter.

Yes, it would make a difference—but not instantly, and not enough to reverse the damage already in motion. Because of the long memory of the climate system, especially the oceans and ice sheets, the effects of past emissions will continue to unfold for decades or even centuries. However, achieving net-zero emissions would be the decisive turning point between a future of worsening climate instability and one of eventual stabilization.

The Inertia of the Climate System​

To understand why, we must grasp a key concept: climate inertia. Greenhouse gases like CO₂ linger in the atmosphere for centuries. Once emitted, they continue to trap heat and warm the planet long after the factories or vehicles that produced them are gone. The oceans, which absorb 90% of that heat, respond slowly—taking decades to fully reflect atmospheric warming. Likewise, the large ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica melt not instantly, but over time in response to sustained warming.

This means that sea level rise is already “baked in” to some extent—even if we stopped emitting CO₂ tomorrow. Studies suggest that even if global temperatures stabilize at 1.5°C, sea levels will continue to rise for centuries due to thermal expansion and ice sheet melt.

Reference: Mengel, M., et al. (2016). Future sea level rise constrained by observations and long-term commitment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(10), 2597–2602. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1500515113

---

What Happens When We Reach Net Zero?​

Reaching net-zero doesn’t instantly cool the planet—it stops the warming from getting worse. Without new emissions, CO₂ concentrations level off. Over time, natural processes (like ocean and forest absorption) can begin to slowly draw atmospheric CO₂ down. This sets the stage for long-term climate stabilization.

For sea level, this means that we can slow the rate of rise, and potentially avoid catastrophic high-end scenarios. For example, under a “business as usual” trajectory (RCP8.5), global sea levels could rise more than 1 meter by 2100. Under strong mitigation scenarios consistent with net-zero (RCP2.6 or SSP1-2.6), that number is closer to 0.3–0.5 meters.

Reference: IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), Working Group I (2021). Chapter 9 – Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/

That is not a trivial difference. For low-lying cities and island nations, the difference between 0.4 meters and 1.1 meters can mean the difference between adaptation and inundation. It determines how much saltwater enters agricultural lands, how often coastal infrastructure floods, and how many millions of people are displaced.

The Market May Get Us There—But Timing Matters​

You mention that net-zero will be achieved because of market conditions, not mandates. There is some reason for optimism here: renewable energy, electrification, and efficiency technologies are increasingly cost-competitive, often outperforming fossil fuels even without subsidies. That market trend is real and accelerating.

But the pace of the transition is critical. If markets deliver net-zero by 2080 instead of 2050, the carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5°C is likely blown. Every additional gigaton of CO₂ emitted locks in more warming, more ice melt, and more sea level rise. Net-zero is necessary, but early net-zero is vastly more effective than late net-zero.

Reference: Rogelj, J., et al. (2018). Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C in the context of sustainable development. IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

Conclusion: Net-Zero Matters—Profoundly​

So will achieving net-zero CO₂ emissions change the trajectory of sea level rise or the climate? Absolutely. It won’t reverse the damage already in motion, but it will cap the eventual impacts. It can turn a future of compounding instability into one of manageable adaptation. And while market forces may be aligning in that direction, the timing—whether we reach net-zero in 2050 or 2080—will define the scope of human suffering and ecological loss.

In short: climate change will not stop immediately when emissions do—but failing to stop them guarantees it never will.

 

[ataraxia]

We need to do some grand projects, like that.
We really need to dig several million ponds in the Great plains, as the ones that were put in in the 1930's are about gone.
Think of all we could do by raising New Orleans 40 feet?
Radically improve flood control, put in subways, redo the infrastructure, etc.

And you think all this will be cheaper than climate change mitigation efforts because....?

And remember: New Orleans is only ONE CITY. Do any other cities in the world count in your world?

Are you going to have enough ammo in your AR15 to shoot all the desperate refugees who are going to be flooding our country once we have sunk their islands and cities- even if you manage to raise the entire city of New Orleans by 40 ft by then?

https://www.zurich.com/media/magazine/2022/there-could-be-1-2-billion-climate-refugees-by-2050-here-s-what-you-need-to-know

 

[JBG]

What do you think "every single source of energy that we’ve got" means?

I guess he didn't want to name it less the greenies go "boo-hoo" on him. Or he was scared of an American Greta Thunberg.

 

[ataraxia]

I guess he didn't want to name it less the greenies go "boo-hoo" on him. Or he was scared of an American Greta Thunberg.

Nice comeback!

So now let's go chasing after cancer causing wind turbines! Yay!

 

[longview]

That's pretty silly. Why on Earth would you think that?

Yes, it would make a difference—but not instantly, and not enough to reverse the damage already in motion. Because of the long memory of the climate system, especially the oceans and ice sheets, the effects of past emissions will continue to unfold for decades or even centuries. However, achieving net-zero emissions would be the decisive turning point between a future of worsening climate instability and one of eventual stabilization.

The Inertia of the Climate System​

To understand why, we must grasp a key concept: climate inertia. Greenhouse gases like CO₂ linger in the atmosphere for centuries. Once emitted, they continue to trap heat and warm the planet long after the factories or vehicles that produced them are gone. The oceans, which absorb 90% of that heat, respond slowly—taking decades to fully reflect atmospheric warming. Likewise, the large ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica melt not instantly, but over time in response to sustained warming.

This means that sea level rise is already “baked in” to some extent—even if we stopped emitting CO₂ tomorrow. Studies suggest that even if global temperatures stabilize at 1.5°C, sea levels will continue to rise for centuries due to thermal expansion and ice sheet melt.

---

What Happens When We Reach Net Zero?​

Reaching net-zero doesn’t instantly cool the planet—it stops the warming from getting worse. Without new emissions, CO₂ concentrations level off. Over time, natural processes (like ocean and forest absorption) can begin to slowly draw atmospheric CO₂ down. This sets the stage for long-term climate stabilization.

For sea level, this means that we can slow the rate of rise, and potentially avoid catastrophic high-end scenarios. For example, under a “business as usual” trajectory (RCP8.5), global sea levels could rise more than 1 meter by 2100. Under strong mitigation scenarios consistent with net-zero (RCP2.6 or SSP1-2.6), that number is closer to 0.3–0.5 meters.


That is not a trivial difference. For low-lying cities and island nations, the difference between 0.4 meters and 1.1 meters can mean the difference between adaptation and inundation. It determines how much saltwater enters agricultural lands, how often coastal infrastructure floods, and how many millions of people are displaced.

The Market May Get Us There—But Timing Matters​

You mention that net-zero will be achieved because of market conditions, not mandates. There is some reason for optimism here: renewable energy, electrification, and efficiency technologies are increasingly cost-competitive, often outperforming fossil fuels even without subsidies. That market trend is real and accelerating.

But the pace of the transition is critical. If markets deliver net-zero by 2080 instead of 2050, the carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5°C is likely blown. Every additional gigaton of CO₂ emitted locks in more warming, more ice melt, and more sea level rise. Net-zero is necessary, but early net-zero is vastly more effective than late net-zero.

Conclusion: Net-Zero Matters—Profoundly​

So will achieving net-zero CO₂ emissions change the trajectory of sea level rise or the climate? Absolutely. It won’t reverse the damage already in motion, but it will cap the eventual impacts. It can turn a future of compounding instability into one of manageable adaptation. And while market forces may be aligning in that direction, the timing—whether we reach net-zero in 2050 or 2080—will define the scope of human suffering and ecological loss.

In short: climate change will not stop immediately when emissions do—but failing to stop them guarantees it never will.

Enough with the AI BS, learn the subject matter!

 

[Fearandloathing]

See Some Glaciers Will Vanish No Matter What, Study Finds (link) (no paywall, gift article)

Excerpts below
The New York Times is hardly a right-wing publication. Even it concedes that the expensive windmills, heat pumps and intermittent power from wind and solar will not do much. They advocate punishing the middle class by taking away car ownership, and to no effect. heir disguised interest is in de-industrialization and degrowth. The operative term for "climate activists" really want is "degrowth." See Degrowth or Economic Punishment for Affluence:

1. Link - What is degrowth?
2. Link - Degrowth – what's behind the economic theory and why does it matter right now?
3. Link - Degrowth can work — here’s how science can help

Frankly it's a recipe for dystopia. Solutions to the use of fossil fuels that would alleviate the need for constriction are off the table. An example is nuclear power. Governor Cuomo forced the shutdown of Indian Point based purely on ideology. Europe has been busily closing its nuclear plants.

As to fossil fuels not all are created equal. Coal is worse than oil. Oil is worse than natural gas. New York Governor Hochul and former Governor Cuomo have barred fracking in New York, and blocked the flow of fracked gas through pipelines.

See also other articles listed above. All have one real enemy in mind; capitalism and freedom. This is a recipe for dystopia.

During the 1970's a belief developed that our consumption-based society was unsustainable. This philosophy of life was expressed in the U.S. via books such as the 1950's classic by John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society. This was foreshadowed by other authors and thinkers, such as Travels with Charley: In Search of America by John Steinbeck. In Travels Steinbeck rails against conspicuous consumption and other signs of affluence. There was also the Club of Rome report, written over a period between 1968 and 1972, affiliated with MIT (link). Still, the "intellectual" movement was largely ineffectual in changing anything. Thus, an emergency had to be conjured where we were doomed if we did not take "action," however futile. See also Stunning admission from Kamala: "Gone is the day of everyone thinking they could actually live the American dream." The "Green New Deal" is no more American dream; unless it's a dystopian world of everyone locked into their houses, and consuming what the "government" can provide.

Some Glaciers Will Vanish No Matter What


Stupidest comment of the month!


You sure don't know anything about glaciers.

 

[longview]

And you think all this will be cheaper than climate change mitigation efforts because....?

And remember: New Orleans is only ONE CITY. Do any other cities in the world count in your world?

Are you going to have enough ammo in your AR15 to shoot all the desperate refugees who are going to be flooding our country once we have sunk their islands and cities- even if you manage to raise the entire city of New Orleans by 40 ft by then?

https://www.zurich.com/media/magazine/2022/there-could-be-1-2-billion-climate-refugees-by-2050-here-s-what-you-need-to-know

It is strange that people like you believe that even though there is observed data that the CO2 added between
2000 and 2022 caused none of the forcing required to cause warming, that stopping the rise in the CO2 level would
somehow alter the trajectory the climate is on!

 

[ataraxia]

Enough with the AI BS, learn the subject matter!

Sure. Let's learn together!

Tell me where the AI is going wrong. And please use the references to the peer reviewed articles or other if you have them to refute it. Enough with your own personal opinions.

 

[longview]

Sure. Let's learn together!

Tell me where the AI is going wrong. And please use the references to the peer reviewed articles or other if you have them to refute it. Enough with your own personal opinions.

I will do a quick one,

For sea level, this means that we can slow the rate of rise, and potentially avoid catastrophic high-end scenarios. For example, under a “business as usual” trajectory (RCP8.5), global sea levels could rise more than 1 meter by 2100.

The AI saw this and put it out there without concern that RCP8.5 was never the Business as usual trajectory.
Here is the AI response to the question is RCP8.5 valid?

While RCP8.5 was initially conceived as a "business as usual" scenario, it is now widely considered implausible, especially for near-term emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has even cautioned against its use as a reference scenario.

Yet the AI used it as a reference without question!

 

[ataraxia]

I will do a quick one,

The AI saw this and put it out there without concern that RCP8.5 was never the Business as usual trajectory.
Here is the AI response to the question is RCP8.5 valid?

Yet the AI used it as a reference without question!

It’s true that RCP8.5—once widely cited as a “business-as-usual” climate scenario—is no longer considered the most likely emissions pathway, especially in the near term. Climate scientists, energy modelers, and the IPCC itself have clarified in recent years that RCP8.5 assumes an extreme trajectory of fossil fuel use and population growth that is now increasingly implausible given current policy trends and market developments. In fact, newer modeling frameworks such as the SSPs (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways) have moved toward more nuanced scenarios like SSP2-4.5 or SSP1-2.6, which more realistically reflect current global trajectories.

So the critique is not without merit: RCP8.5 is no longer the best representation of “business as usual,” and its use as a default reference point—especially without clarification—can indeed be misleading. If this was left unqualified in the previous discussion, it’s appropriate to flag it.

However, the continued use of RCP8.5 in certain contexts, such as sea level rise modeling, is not entirely unjustified. Here’s why:

1. Even if emissions peak earlier and stay lower than RCP8.5 projects, sea level rise is driven by long-term thermal inertia and ice sheet responses that may still play out over centuries. Some physical processes, especially ice sheet instabilities in Greenland and Antarctica, remain deeply uncertain and are more sensitive to cumulative warming than short-term emissions rates. In other words, the tail risks remain, even under more moderate emissions pathways.​

Reference: IPCC AR6, Chapter 9: Sea Level Rise and the Cryosphere – notes that while RCP8.5 is unlikely, its outcomes are still useful for bounding worst-case risk, especially for high-consequence planning.

2. Using RCP8.5 as a stress test for worst-case risk is still common in fields like infrastructure planning, insurance, military assessments, and coastal resilience. It’s not about predicting the most likely future—it’s about being ready if the less likely but still physically plausible outcome occurs. That’s a prudent strategy in any risk management discipline.​

As the journal Nature put it: “Scenarios like RCP8.5 should not be discarded—they remain essential for understanding the full range of possible futures and for preparing for tail-end risks that, while unlikely, could be catastrophic.”

Reference: Hausfather & Peters (2020), "Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading," Nature 577, 618–620. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00177-3

3. While long-term projections suggest we may not follow RCP8.5 through 2100, emissions in the 2010s and early 2020s have closely tracked RCP8.5. Only recently have we begun to diverge. So using RCP8.5 to represent a “do nothing” past or to explore near-term warming rates was, until recently, not unreasonable. And in parts of the world where fossil fuel use is still expanding, portions of the RCP8.5 pathway remain relevant.​

---

Conclusion: A Caution, Not a Dismissal​

Yes, AI tools and humans alike should be cautious about invoking RCP8.5 as if it’s the expected future. But rejecting it outright misunderstands its purpose. In climate science, RCP8.5 today is better understood not as a forecast, but as a boundary scenario—a warning of what is physically possible under unchecked emissions and nonlinear ice sheet feedbacks.

So yes, let’s be clearer when referencing RCP8.5. But let’s not ignore it either—especially when planning for sea level rise, where underestimation may prove more dangerous than overestimation.

 

[longview]

It’s true that RCP8.5—once widely cited as a “business-as-usual” climate scenario—is no longer considered the most likely emissions pathway, especially in the near term. Climate scientists, energy modelers, and the IPCC itself have clarified in recent years that RCP8.5 assumes an extreme trajectory of fossil fuel use and population growth that is now increasingly implausible given current policy trends and market developments. In fact, newer modeling frameworks such as the SSPs (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways) have moved toward more nuanced scenarios like SSP2-4.5 or SSP1-2.6, which more realistically reflect current global trajectories.

So the critique is not without merit: RCP8.5 is no longer the best representation of “business as usual,” and its use as a default reference point—especially without clarification—can indeed be misleading. If this was left unqualified in the previous discussion, it’s appropriate to flag it.

However, the continued use of RCP8.5 in certain contexts, such as sea level rise modeling, is not entirely unjustified. Here’s why:

1. Even if emissions peak earlier and stay lower than RCP8.5 projects, sea level rise is driven by long-term thermal inertia and ice sheet responses that may still play out over centuries. Some physical processes, especially ice sheet instabilities in Greenland and Antarctica, remain deeply uncertain and are more sensitive to cumulative warming than short-term emissions rates. In other words, the tail risks remain, even under more moderate emissions pathways.​

2. Using RCP8.5 as a stress test for worst-case risk is still common in fields like infrastructure planning, insurance, military assessments, and coastal resilience. It’s not about predicting the most likely future—it’s about being ready if the less likely but still physically plausible outcome occurs. That’s a prudent strategy in any risk management discipline.​

As the journal Nature put it: “Scenarios like RCP8.5 should not be discarded—they remain essential for understanding the full range of possible futures and for preparing for tail-end risks that, while unlikely, could be catastrophic.”

3. While long-term projections suggest we may not follow RCP8.5 through 2100, emissions in the 2010s and early 2020s have closely tracked RCP8.5. Only recently have we begun to diverge. So using RCP8.5 to represent a “do nothing” past or to explore near-term warming rates was, until recently, not unreasonable. And in parts of the world where fossil fuel use is still expanding, portions of the RCP8.5 pathway remain relevant.​

---

Conclusion: A Caution, Not a Dismissal​

Yes, AI tools and humans alike should be cautious about invoking RCP8.5 as if it’s the expected future. But rejecting it outright misunderstands its purpose. In climate science, RCP8.5 today is better understood not as a forecast, but as a boundary scenario—a warning of what is physically possible under unchecked emissions and nonlinear ice sheet feedbacks.

So yes, let’s be clearer when referencing RCP8.5. But let’s not ignore it either—especially when planning for sea level rise, where underestimation may prove more dangerous than overestimation.

And yet your AI response used it as if it were relevant!