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

101–110 of 441 posts

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

#101

Post by rchaud »

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…

It has not always been that way. Who were the anti-vax superstars of 1918? And what were the ad-targeting capabilities of newspapers back then?

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

#102

Post by ckw »

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…

If history books continue to be written.

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

#103

Post by snarf21 »

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…

I agree with you but I don't think it is generational. We have always been a greedy species. We just finally built the technology to amplify our greed x2 each generation. It is harder to destroy the world when each person spends all their waking hours just trying to stay alive and fed.

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

#104

Post by fosk »

jacquesm wrote: post #43
cinntaile wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just watch The Day After Tomorrow to know what happens.

No, that is heavily sensationalized. But a new 'small ice age' as a result of the gulfstream shutting down is a serious possibility, even if it changed direction that would already cause serious problems for very large parts of Europe.

Although the benefit would be increased reflection of sunlight due to more icy (reflective) surface which would alleviate (or reverse?) the current weather warming trend.

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

#105

Post by qzw »

felipellrocha wrote: post #44
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, man. I'm often wondering where did this "own the libs" thing even began. It provides republicans with such a strong connection to their base, that if something gets even remotely attached to that idea, there is no budging

Decades of orchestrated efforts to turn political discourse into a culture war. Ever wonder why there are so many political “think tanks”? That’s what they’ve been working on.

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

#106

Post by jacquesm »

rchaud wrote: post #101
lazide wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It has not always been that way. Who were the anti-vax superstars of 1918? And what were the ad-targeting capabilities of newspapers back then?

Oh, they were there. And during the black plague years too (the rat lickers). The difference is they didn't have a social media megaphone to induce a large number of susceptible people with their seductive tunes. "Listen to us and you can continue to live like you always did". It's a variation on that theme with the man not being able to understand a thing if his salary depends on it.

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

#107

Post by geocrasher »

jacquesm wrote: post #43
cinntaile wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just watch The Day After Tomorrow to know what happens.

No, that is heavily sensationalized. But a new 'small ice age' as a result of the gulfstream shutting down is a serious possibility, even if it changed direction that would already cause serious problems for very large parts of Europe.

Sensationalized? Sure. Hollywood. But incorrect? It's hard to know.

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

#108

Post by chrisco255 »

hughes wrote: post #90
7402 wrote: post #30

The actual title is "Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation." I don't think the AMOC is exactly the same as the Gulf Stream, although I believe they are related. This is not my area of expertise. Could anyone explain this a little better? Why was the title changed?

I for one would have no idea what "Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation" refers to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturnin...

It's a circulation in the Atlantic that pulls warm water from the equator up towards Europe and the arctic.

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

#109

Post by frankbreetz »

arethuza wrote: post #37
frankbreetz wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think that changes the point trying to be made. Cape Cod and D.C. have essentially the same weather

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

#110

Post by emn13 »

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…

The world is going to need a combination of a bunch of policies. It's not just emissions reduction; it's also carbon sinks, and adaptation to the non-avoided impacts.

Also, none of this needs to happen overnight, and every step along the way is helpful. Even if we fail to achieve the optimistic target of 1.5C, that doesn't mean it's all pointless and we might as well emit whatever.

And that means that those targets aren't all that important. We need emissions reductions, the more the merrier, whether or not we hit some kind of arbitrary goal or not. Whether we reach those exact benchmarks you propose or not kind of doesn't matter.

I'd just like to additionally point out that however unfair perhaps, the premise of that nature article is some kind of super-unrealistic sci-fi, because there's no question of everybody on the planet having the resources for "high life satisfaction", including perhaps your proposed annual plane trips. In fact, it's likely that the annual median number of plane trips even by Americans is... zero - at least most years: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1579/Airlines.aspx - and even the average is just 2 or so; this is clearly a luxury.

Additionally, carbon-negative processes will be necessary. How expensive that turns out to be, and how much carbon planes need to emit will hopefully play a role in pricing plane trips in the future.

For now, we could start by at least taxing jet fuel appropriately.

Post reply on HN