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

#151

Post by emn13 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

Permit wrote: post #78

jacquesm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ove…

> So? You have made peace with these things which is commendable. That said, you must still understand how big of a change this would be for other people who have not. For example, I suspect the Canadian government would have a hard time telling indigenous populations in Nunavut that they have banned flights to their communities. Same would go for island nations like Iceland or even the state of Hawaii. You and I can…

It doesn't matter.

If prices rise gradually, people will adapt. Remote villages might become ghost towns (hardly the first time in Canada, incidentally), or become more isolated. And the world isn't going to turn into some utopian egalitarian place either, so the hard reality is that many people won't lose anything by losing air travel, because they already do none, and thus those that have that luxurious habit now will not need to suddenly lose it; there's time to adapt. Most of the US certainly doesn't need air travel either, and train or even road travel can be quite emissions poor; it just means travel will take more time (and willingness to build infrastructure).

A more realistic scenario is one in which inequality does not change significantly - and then the reductions are less severe.

But seriously: losing most air travel (or just cheap air travel): if that's it, count yourself lucky!

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

#152

Post by jbay808 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:06 PM UTC

aksss wrote: post #133

jacquesm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is it? Nuclear powered warships aren't as common as people think. There are only 12 nuclear powered carriers in the World and the US has 11 of them. I think if it were a no-brainer and "easy" (to install, maintain, safely operate) on container ships, it would be done by now. Or at very least you'd see more carriers operated by countries with nuclear capabilities. That the Russians don't operate a nuclear powered carr…

Don't the Russians run nuclear-powered icebreakers?

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

#153

Post by abeppu » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:06 PM UTC

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…

The crazy thing is it _is_ hitting the wealthy parts, but that still hasn't galvanized sufficient response.

A very partial list of headline impacts in the first world off the top of my head:

- US West Coast droughts and fires

- Pacific Northwest heat dome

- Texas cold snap

- Epic floods in Germany

- Australian wild fires

- European heat waves

-

Even when rich SF techies were under a terrifying orange sky, our behavior mostly did not change.

I think we need to start mobilizing the other dysfunctional aspects of our society to apply more pressure.

- Some were upset when propublica released info about the tax-avoidance strategies of the very wealthy, claiming it to be a violation of their privacy. Should we not also find and leak information on extravagant emitters, to be named and shamed in the press?

- Companies that spent years pushing opiods in the US were sued and came to a settlement agreement. NYC has tried to sue oil companies for their emissions. They're now trying to sue them over their false statements and misinformation campaigns. Perhaps _every_ state, county and city should be filing lawsuits against large emitters.

- I think _someone_ needs to press absence of carbon taxes at the WTO as a form of dumping, wherein goods are being exported for less than their true cost, once we acknowledge the externalities.

- Everyone hates this take, but I think local jurisdictions in which people die from climate-related disasters should press involuntary manslaughter charges against companies with terrible emissions records. If the headlines were, "Exxon on trial for deaths of dozens", I think companies would begin to change their behavior.

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

#154

Post by Robotbeat » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:06 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.

We don’t really have that time. Solar and wind can be built out faster. But we should do new nuclear on the margins and preserve/enhance existing nuclear.

Battery-electric (and liquid hydrogen) for container ships works. If someone really tried.

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

#155

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:06 PM UTC

aeternum wrote: post #134

jacquesm wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not necessarily obvious. Planetary weather is a chaotic system and even for somewhat stable phenomenon like the gulf stream it's not a question of if it will collapse but when. Humans are likely speeding up the collapse but it will eventually happen regardless. If I had to choose between technological progress and stewardship, I'd pick technological progress because that's our only real chance at long-term survi…

The number of dimensions along which we are destroying the habitat we depend on is staggering. Deforestation (killing off one of the most efficient carbon sinks, causing soil erosion, changing the albedo, habitat destruction, change in water management), CO2 emissions, methane emissions, a ridiculously high per-capita energy budget in the western world where the only cap is how much money you are willing to spend, killing off numerous species and so on. We are bad stewards. All of these are optional.

Technology can help to sustain life in space, I'm sure it will enable us to sustain life here on earth. But for how many, and with what quality of life?

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

#156

Post by shagie » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:07 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?

That would be the Anti-Mask League of San Francisco - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mask_League_of_San_Franci...

Mrs. E.C. Harrington was the leading name to be looked at. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5q91q53r

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

#157

Post by rayiner » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:07 PM UTC

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…

Getting billions of people to work together cooperatively to do something was always a complete pipe dream. It’s the fantasy that, this time central planning will work, because this thing is so important. We should have been throwing money at carbon capture technologies decades ago.

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

#158

Post by colinmhayes » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:07 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.

I think that would require all the water be the same temperature.

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

#159

Post by Robotbeat » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:08 PM UTC

mhh__ wrote: post #136

failuser wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Northern Europe doesn't have ownership of Southern Europe, so they may not be comparable in the sense that habitability is somewhat subjective in the age of modern logistics.

That’s the thing. Growing food may be tough up there, but otherwise you can still have thriving cities if you have the capital to build appropriate infrastructure.

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

#160

Post by tablespoon » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:08 PM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #50

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.

> Makes me look back at the last 20-30 years of discourse in the United States and let out a deep sigh. George H.W. Bush ("Bush 41") actually had a decent track record on the environment and climate change: * https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/george-h-w-bush-underst... The craziness with the GOP started more recently (post-1990s).

> The craziness with the GOP started more recently (post-1990s).

IIRC, you can date that phase to 1994 and Newt Gingrich.

Though that was maybe more like phase II, with phase I starting in ~1980 with Reagan.