Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:56 PM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #81

foota wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, we did get vaccines ready nearly from the get go.

And all it needed was a Great Depression-level drop in the stock market, every ICU filled to the brim for months, and thousands dying every day. The effects of climate change have occurred much more slowly and silently. At some point it will no longer be silent, but it will already be too late to meaningfully change its trajectory.

And let's not sugarcoat it, the pandemic is far from over, there are still thousands dying every day, but we're pretending that it's all much better now because we are not currently at the peak.

But in truth, and on a global scale, when it comes to new cases and deaths we are at roughly 60% of that peak right now, and still going up quite rapidly.

edit: And of course, the fact that the bulk of the problem is now facing the developed world certainly isn't a factor. /s

Let's see how long that attitude lasts, once we realize that covid anywhere is the equivalent of covid everywhere there may be a change of heart there.

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

#122

Post by chrisco255 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:57 PM UTC

holoduke wrote: post #33

Nuclear power is needed everywhere. All major grids. And all containerships. Doable in 20-40 years with some serious effort.

If the AMOC weakened dramatically, we'd be heading for a little ice age or worse. You're going to need gas to get humanity through that. But sure, we can never have enough nuclear power.

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

#123

Post by rchaud » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:57 PM UTC

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

Newt Gingrich holds that honour. He turned politics into a partisan bloodsport in the mid-to-late '90s. It stopped being about whether proposed policies would help or hurt Americans and more about whether such and such would defeat the godless liberals.

The efforts to repeal the ACA show this in its most blatant form. The emotional heft of the argument laid entirely on the basis of one word: "Obamacare". It's no wonder that they failed to pass an alternative despite complaining about the ACA for the 10 years prior.

But going back to the '90s, it didn't help that '96 saw the passage of the Telecommunications Act. This led to rapid consolidation of local radio and TV news stations under one large corporate umbrella (Clear Channel). Independent stations can provide a variety of viewpoints. If they're all owned by the same parent, they start providing the parents' viewpoint.

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

#124

Post by minsc__and__boo » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:58 PM UTC

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?

It's been this way before, it just ebbs and flows with each new technology wave as we collectively learn how to deal with misinformation.

For example, when radio was being first pioneered, there were people like John Brinkley who would use it to sell quack goat testicle treatments for erectile dysfunction. He became so popular that he ran for office and eventually moved to the Mexican border to avoid the government shutting down his radio towers.

The internet is kind of like early radio, or other means of communication today. Yes, it's more scalable, but we're still socially figuring out how to trust it, one harmful misinformation campaign at a time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Brinkley

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

#125

Post by chrisco255 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:58 PM UTC

the8472 wrote: post #21

cwkoss wrote: post #12

What would happen if the Gulf Stream did collapse? Would a different similar circulatory system emerge soon after? Would the lack of a dominant system lead to many more smaller chaotic systems? Do we just not know what would happen, so that it's concerning in that it's unknowable?

There is no requirement that water MUST circulate. It could simply stagnate. That's pretty much the worst case though, a weakened gulf stream is not the same as a total collapse.

As long as there are temperature differences between the poles and the equator, there will be movement of water. That's thermodynamics in play.

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

#126

Post by mhh__ » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:58 PM UTC

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

Take the election fraud things, for example. They know it's bullshit, they know you know it's bullshit, but they do it anyway.

The incentives are wrong, and I don't see them getting better any time soon.

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

#127

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:58 PM UTC

74d-fe6-2c6 wrote: post #115

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…

you must be pretty delusional to even consider the next generation to be more farsighted. they'll just suffer and blame their parents.

I did say I hoped. I do not have any illusions about the chances of that hope being realized.

What goes up can definitely - and must eventually - go down. This one is on us.

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

#128

Post by javajosh » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:58 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #76

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…

Yes, it's the boy who cried wolf on a planet wide scale. But it just so happens that this planet is the only planet we've got and we're doing a piss-poor job of stewardship. Regardless of alarmists that much at least should be obvious to anybody with a normal IQ and up. But it's so convenient to ignore it all and get on with the hunt for that extra buck.

There is something geniuinely unique about this time and place: we're at the middle-end of the greatest golden age in human history. And what we did was give each other a break. Professors gave their students breaks, and judges gave lawyers breaks, parents gave their kids breaks, editors give their journalists breaks, and so on. And what has resulted is a profound erosion of accountability, integrity, and self-restraint, to the point where many people believe that these are masochistic or at least self-destructive qualities. You know, for losers.

My point is that you're not wrong, but it's not just that people are choosing to hunt an extra buck. It's that they've turned their back on the very idea of self-restraint, or the possibility of idealistic, positive leadership from government. It's not a choice because they don't know about any option other than consumerism.

And those of us that whinge about it tend to be engineering types, disgusted by politics; and yet the solution really is political: you've got to learn that system, get control of the narrative, allocate the vast resources of government to the right things, and somehow inspire people to be more thoughtful, conscientious, and less cynical and selfish when it comes to getting things done for society and government in general. And it's a change that, if enough people believe in it, it will happen.

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

#129

Post by throwawaylinux » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:59 PM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #51

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…

> 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. While I agree nuclear is the right way to go... it's frankly too late to put all our eggs in that basket. It takes over a decade just to turn on a new plant in the US due to all the regulations. We can work to improv…

> While I agree nuclear is the right way to go... it's frankly too late to put all our eggs in that basket. It takes over a decade just to turn on a new plant in the US due to all the regulations. We can work to improve that situation, but at the end of the day, solar and wind can be deployed much faster and at a lower cost.

I've heard this exact same thing said for 20 years. I expect I'll be hearing it for another 20 at least.

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

#130

Post by bjoli » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:59 PM UTC

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…

I live in an energy-efficient appartment, drive less than 100km/month. I rarely buy clothes. I rarely buy tech stuff (except for a new phone every 3-4 years). I don't fly. I eat no animal products. All my electricity comes from renewable sources (sweden has a lot of hydro power).

There is no way in hell I am even close to 1.6 metric tons of co2, and I really tried to bring it down. Every calculator I try put me at about 1/3 of the average swede, which would mean I am at about 2.5 metric tons.