Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 441 posts

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#31

Post by matttproud »

slownews45 wrote: post #14
matttproud wrote: post #5

Makes me look back at the last 20-30 years of discourse in the United States and let out a deep sigh. Had CFC propellants emerged today, I highly doubt the U.S. would have been a signatory to the Montreal Protocol — just to own the libs or avoid hindering the market by a boogeyman of 0.0001% overhead or some other form of contrarian political identity differentiation.

Yeah - even where I am there has been a pull back on stuff. We've got a ban on plastic straws (ie, you can't use one then throw it in the trash in the resteraunt) to help save nature. But you go outside and the amount of trash just blowing into the water from various encampments near the water is just nuts. Their are claims of concerns about carbon emissions, but absolute opposition to any work around nuclear. If car…

The performative stuff has to stop. On the one vacation I am doing since this pandemic began, I saw a place in Northern Italy give out paper straws enclosed in plastic wrapping. You have to be kidding me. It’s missing the point and greenwashing at its finest (unrelated to climate).

You’ll meet plenty on the left, especially scientists, who are in favor of nuclear. Where I live (Switzerland[0]), the biggest NIMBY against nuclear are the provincial nationalists who are going nuts about installation of a subterranean disposal site in their area (proposed because it is the most suitable site due to geological properties). My turning point with nuclear was about 15 years ago when learning about thorium. Very eye-opening.

[0] - To the grandparent comment, natural born American who spent most of the adult life and all of childhood in the States. Emigrated a decade ago and still keep close tabs. This post is giving me serious flashbacks to the 1992, when Bush called Gore “Ozone Man”. Was that a genesis of the contrarian political differentiation?

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#32

Post by jacquesm »

After seeing the global chaotic response to COVID I'm convinced that climate change will not receive a meaningful response until it is way too late. It apparently needs to hit the majority of the planet right in the gut (and then preferably the wealthy part) for people to get off their collective asses and do something about it.

I'm just about ready to pack it in and hope the next generation is smarter than this one because we sure messed it up. We'll go into the history books as the people that could have fixed it but didn't because we were too busy with our lifestyle.

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#35

Post by Johnny555 »

slownews45 wrote: post #14
matttproud wrote: post #5

Makes me look back at the last 20-30 years of discourse in the United States and let out a deep sigh. Had CFC propellants emerged today, I highly doubt the U.S. would have been a signatory to the Montreal Protocol — just to own the libs or avoid hindering the market by a boogeyman of 0.0001% overhead or some other form of contrarian political identity differentiation.

Yeah - even where I am there has been a pull back on stuff. We've got a ban on plastic straws (ie, you can't use one then throw it in the trash in the resteraunt) to help save nature. But you go outside and the amount of trash just blowing into the water from various encampments near the water is just nuts. Their are claims of concerns about carbon emissions, but absolute opposition to any work around nuclear. If car…

Their are claims of concerns about carbon emissions, but absolute opposition to any work around nuclear. If carbon emissions was the or a very important issue, you'd be going full out on lots of ideas.

It's a lot easier to find fault in a point-source danger in your back yard (even if the actual risk is low) than to be afraid of a much more diffuse danger will likely kill more people, but probably not you.

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#36

Post by Permit »

I often hear that as individuals we can't really be held responsible for climate change and that instead we should look to our government to impose laws that restrict carbon output.

This made me curious: what is the "fair" amount of carbon dioxide that the average individual can emit? According to this article[1][2] published in Nature it looks like the answer is 1.61 metric tons of CO2/year.

That strikes me as close-to-impossible for industrialized nations to achieve. A round-trip flight from NYC to SF emits 1.5 metric tons per passenger. In order to reach 1.61 metric tons an individual would not be able to own a gas-powered car, could not regularly consume meat, could not live in remote areas only visitable by plane etc. Many things people don't even consider "luxuries" (like visiting family overseas) would be a non-starter.

In France they implemented a modest fuel tax and they got the Yellow Vest Protests[3] in response. I can't see the average individual ever voting for a party that wouldn't let them visit family and nearly eliminate meat consumption.

As China, India and Indonesia have industrialized their per-capita emissions have shot up well above these levels as well. I imagine the same thing will happen with African nations over the next 25-50 years.

I don't really see any way out of this other than some miraculous technological breakthroughs like solar powered planes which I understand to be near-impossible with today's technology.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0021-4

[2] https://sci-hub.se/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-01...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#37

Post by arethuza »

frankbreetz wrote: post #9
lend000 wrote: post #6

Can't read the whole article, but how radically can the Gulf Stream really change? Isn't a current going in that general direction more or less mandated by the Coriolis effect? It's why I figured the west and east coasts of continents at similar latitudes (both in the Northern and Southern hemispheres) have similar climate patterns. (West coasts more temperate, east coasts more variable and humid).

Barcelona and Washington D.C. are on the same latitude, the weather difference is caused by the gulf stream pushing warm air north, I would imagine it could stop doing that.

"Barcelona and Washington D.C."

I don't think that's correct - a quick check on Google maps suggests that Barcelona is much further north - about Cape Cod or so.

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#38

Post by anonymousDan »

omginternets wrote: post #3

I sure hope Western Europe likes it cold. Paris is on roughly the same latitude of Quebec city.

Isn't this basically what caused the last ice age? The gulf stream is effectively the only thing keeping places like Ireland and England relatively mild given their latitude.

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#39

Post by samuli »

matttproud wrote: post #31
slownews45 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah - even where I am there has been a pull back on stuff. We've got a ban on plastic straws (ie, you can't use one then throw it in the trash in the resteraunt) to help save nature. But you go outside and the amount of trash just blowing into the water from various encampments near the water is just nuts. Their are claims of concerns about carbon emissions, but absolute opposition to any work around nuclear. If car…

The performative stuff has to stop. On the one vacation I am doing since this pandemic began, I saw a place in Northern Italy give out paper straws enclosed in plastic wrapping. You have to be kidding me. It’s missing the point and greenwashing at its finest (unrelated to climate). You’ll meet plenty on the left, especially scientists, who are in favor of nuclear. Where I live (Switzerland[0]), the biggest NIMBY agai…

Are you sure it was a plastic wrapper and not e.g. cellophane?

Re: Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream

#40

Post by jacquesm »

Permit wrote: post #36

I often hear that as individuals we can't really be held responsible for climate change and that instead we should look to our government to impose laws that restrict carbon output. This made me curious: what is the "fair" amount of carbon dioxide that the average individual can emit? According to this article[1][2] published in Nature it looks like the answer is 1.61 metric tons of CO2/year. That strikes me as close…

> That strikes me as close-to-impossible for industrialized nations to achieve. A round-trip flight from NYC to SF emits 1.5 metric tons per passenger. In order to reach 1.61 metric tons an individual would not be able to own a gas-powered car, could not regularly consume meat, could not live in remote areas only visitable by plane etc.

So?

> Many things people don't even consider "luxuries" (like visiting family overseas) would be a non-starter.

That is a luxury, whether you consider it one or not is irrelevant. When you emigrate there are certain consequences.

Post reply on HN