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

91–100 of 441 posts

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

#91

Post by vimy »

beebmam wrote: post #70
matttproud wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's important to remember that plastic waste is virtually unrelated to climate change. They both might be "green" issues, but plastic straws in our oceans aren't going to have any significant effect on warming the planet. They'll just end up causing ecological changes/damage. Malicious actors try to conflate the two. Carbon gas emissions pose an existential threat to the future of human society; plastic straws do no…

In fact, the plastic replacements often cause more emissions. Because of production or because more trucks are needed for the same products with thicker packaging. Supermarket chain in my country changed their packaging, the same amount now needs 2 trucks instead of one. Also glass bottles or cardboard are heavier so more fuel consumption.

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

#92

Post by nerdponx »

samuli wrote: post #39
matttproud wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Things I learned from Wikipedia as a result of reading your comment:

Cellophane is not plastic.

Cellophane is biodegradable.

Rayon is the same substance as cellophane, but in a different shape.

Cellophane and Rayon are often made using the "viscose process", which requires the use of carbon disulfide, which is toxic, and the process has toxic byproducts.

I wasn't able to figure out if this process has more or less toxic byproducts than processes for making plastic films.

I wasn't able to figure out if this process is more carbon-intensive than processes for making plastic films. Harvesting plant matter, pumping water around, etc. sounds energy-intensive. Is it better or worse than digging carbon sludge up out of the ground?

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

#93

Post by jacquesm »

failuser wrote: post #69
jacquesm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can kiss Northern Europe as a habitable area goodbye. So yes, it matters quite a bit.

Northwest Russia is habitable. Not that pleasant, but habitable.

For a relatively limited number of people and with a standard of life that doesn't compare to western/northern Europe. It will be 'a bit of an adjustment' to put it euphemistically.

I've lived in Northern Canada, which is somewhat comparable to Northwest Russia and sure, it's doable, but civilization as it currently exists in the countries that are exposed to this will cease, the present day number of inhabitants will be unsupportable.

Just trying to imagine the UK with a climate shift like that and the mind boggles. What works for Iceland will not work for the UK without a massive reorientation, which is probably a friendly way of writing 'mass die-off'.

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

#94

Post by raisedbyninjas »

vimy wrote: post #41

Could we restart the Gulf Stream with some kind of technology? In theory?

I did some napkin math once for artificially replacing the salt content in the ocean where it is diluted by glacier runoff. It was on the order of all container ships in operation re-purposed to just dumping salt into the affected region.

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

#95

Post by davesque »

backprop1993 wrote: post #79

I think back to how we have responded to this pandemic. We were in denial until the pandemic was spreading unchecked wildly through the population, and even a good chunk of the population is still in denial after 100,000s of dead. We are a hopeless species when it comes to organizing effective collective action ahead of known disaster. We seem to only respond collectively once disaster has struck, and even then it ta…

Don't give up hope. We licked CFCs and leaded gasoline. There are probably plenty of other times in history when we mobilized to solve a problem at scale. These are discouraging times for sure. But ultimately there's just no point in being hopeless.

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

#96

Post by jacquesm »

backprop1993 wrote: post #79

I think back to how we have responded to this pandemic. We were in denial until the pandemic was spreading unchecked wildly through the population, and even a good chunk of the population is still in denial after 100,000s of dead. We are a hopeless species when it comes to organizing effective collective action ahead of known disaster. We seem to only respond collectively once disaster has struck, and even then it ta…

A very large fraction of the population is still in denial, and will continue to be so until they are personally hit.

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

#98

Post by stoolpigeon »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #73
jacquesm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a non-proliferation issue more than anything else.

Let the nuclear powers build the reactors and design the ships to slide them in like big batteries then IMHO. There can't be more than a few thousand cargo ships in the world--it's a risk that could be managed.

I've only observed it from the outside (I worked on an aircraft carrier - but nothing to do with the power plants) but what I observed is that it takes a lot of people that get payed a lot of money in the private sector to safely operate and maintain reactors. I'm guessing that the building costs would be dwarfed by the long term cost of manning nuclear ships.

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

#99

Post by whoooooo123 »

jacquesm wrote: post #47
qbasic_forever wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear container ships are such a good idea. It is maddening we haven't done this and only turn war ships into nuclear power.

That's a non-proliferation issue more than anything else.

What if one of them gets lodged sideways in the Suez Canal?

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

#100

Post by weatherlight »

lazide wrote: post #68
jacquesm wrote: post #32

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…

We’re inundated with folks screaming about danger and hyping up fear from every angle - everything from economic collapse, to stock market crashes, to apocalyptic visions from every angle about climate, etc. And what most people, especially younger folks, don’t realize is that it’s AlWAYS been this way. And most of the time, when something does blow up, there wasn’t a clear or unambiguous difference between the thing…

People naturally have a survivorship bias.

Thomas Ligotti has this great quote about why people, most people, are Optimistic (specifically with existence), that this is all okay, and nothing will go wrong, and that when things do go wrong, it'll be okay in the end

    “The point that in the absence of birth nobody exists who 
    can be deprived of happiness is terribly conspicuous. For 
    optimists, this fact plays no part in their existential 
    computations. For pessimists, however, it is axiomatic. 
    Whether a pessimist urges us to live “heroically” with a 
    knife in our gut or denounces life as not worth living is 
    immaterial. What matters is that he makes no bones about 
    hurt being the Great Problem it is incumbent on philosophy 
    to observe. But this problem can be solved only by 
    establishing an imbalance between hurt and happiness that 
    would enable us in principle to say which is more 
    desirable—existence or nonexistence. While no airtight 
    case has ever been made regarding the undesirability of 
    human life, pessimists still run themselves ragged trying 
    to make one. Optimists have no comparable mission. When 
    they do argue for the desirability of human life it is 
    only in reaction to pessimists arguing the opposite, even 
    though no airtight case has ever been made regarding that 
    desirability. Optimism has always been an undeclared 
    policy of human culture—one that grew out of our animal 
    instincts to survive and reproduce—rather than an 
    articulated body of thought. It is the default condition 
    of our blood and cannot be effectively questioned by our 
    minds or put in grave doubt by our pains. This would 
    explain why at any given time there are more cannibals 
    than philosophical pessimists.”
Post reply on HN