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

#191

Post by konschubert » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

lmilcin wrote: post #84

konschubert wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we used paper straws, isn’t that enough? In al seriousness, the next generation isn’t going to be all that different than the last 10000 generations of mankind.

This is one of the very well known biases. Thinking that just because something has been true for a million years it is also going to be true tomorrow. This is how our brain is wired and it helps us function, most of the time, but sometimes it is wrong and leads to overlooking things until it becomes too late to react.

You may have mis-read my comment as suggesting that climate change is no threat to future generations?

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

#192

Post by weatherlight » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

rhacker wrote: post #118

weatherlight wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

favorited that... thanks

:) you're welcome!

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

#193

Post by bequanna » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #40

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 ove…

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

Interesting. Why are you (or your political affiliates) the ones who get to decide what is a luxury and what is “essential”?

Were you ordained with some divine moral authority?

I can’t speak for the rest of the world, but that kind of authoritarian thinking will thankfully never be allowed to prevail in the United States.

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

#194

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:23 PM UTC

MetaWhirledPeas wrote: post #184

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…

Sadly, we might not see meaningful action until we have a "Climate 911" moment; a single event in a wealthy location where thousands of people perish within a short period of time.

If it's millions then maybe. Say a major city wiped off the face of the earth or something like that. But chances are that two news cycles later people would just update their maps and talk about how great it was that they went holidaying in 'X' before it was wiped out.

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

#195

Post by nabla9 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:23 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…

Russians currently have:

- 1 active nuclear-powered Kirov-class battlecruiser. 1 under refit. 2 retired.

- 1 nuclear-powered cargo ship (Sevmorput).

- 5 nuclear-powered icebreakers. Russians have over 400 reactor-years of operating experience with icebreakers. Starting with Lenin 1957.

- Not to mention submarines.

The reason why Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is not nuclear-powered has nothing to do with ability. The carrier design was not good to begin with and then Soviet Union collapsed.

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

#196

Post by minikites » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:24 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…

We gave up on the space program after Challenger. We gave up on nuclear power after Chernobyl. We decided that we couldn't solve big problems as a society. Instead, we put that effort into generating wealth for a privileged few, prioritizing the economy above everything else, because we have nothing else.

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

#197

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:25 PM UTC

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.

[deleted]

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

#198

Post by jacquesm » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:25 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #190

jacquesm wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called 'trees'.

So Bangladesh will not reduce emissions until it hits developed world status. Not one bit. Can trees absorb all of Bangladesh’s growing emissions over the next 50 years? Same for India, Nigeria, etc?

It's mostly the trees that we cut down. They were already there. Part of the problem here is that biomass was declared to be 'carbon neutral', which caused a lot of people to interpret that as a license to cut down the forests and burn them. But carbon fixation is a slow process and growing trees to the point where they have a substantial gas exchange gowing takes a long time.

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

#199

Post by leppr » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:25 PM UTC

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…

That's because there is no "we". The most popular way to deal with coordinating important collective efforts is to give up all power to a small elite group and hope their members are magically not self-interested. The effect is predictable and manifested with the Covid pandemic: elites were informed in time, prepared their own affairs adequately [1], and let the rest fend for themselves.

Figure out some actual governance and coordination schemes and "we" may have a chance at beating the Prisoner's Dilemma.

[1]: I have personal anecdotes, but publicly available data speaks for itself: https://inequality.org/great-divide/updates-billionaire-pand...

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

#200

Post by matttproud » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:27 PM UTC

bediger4000 wrote: post #167

throw0101a wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Bush 41's immediate predecessor did not have a decent track record. The craziness started well before 1980. Bush 41 was an aberration.

Two book recommendations for their retrospective analyses over the last 37 years:

Nick Bryant’s When America Stopped Being Great (BBC reporter who spent formative years in USA, beyond being on assignment there).

George Packer’s Last Best Hope (Packer has a bunch of other fantastic material)