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

251–260 of 441 posts

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

#251

Post by Overton-Window »

octodog wrote: post #247
Overton-Window wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per capita figures are meaningless. You're discussing imaginary lines in the dirt. The only way to tackle climate change is to bring down global emissions.

Per capita emissions are extremely relevant because it indicates which countries need to implement drastic changes. The US, Canada and Australia together make up roughly 20% of global emissions with approximately 5% of the global population. Regardless of how you slice it these countries need to take serious action.

The hole in the stern of the ship is taking on 30L of water per second. The hole in the bow of the ship is taking on 20L of water per second.

Let's just focus on plugging the latter shall we, while we all go down together.

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

#252

Post by jay_kyburz »

foota wrote: post #52
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…

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

How many people would take the vaccine if it meant their great grandchildren might see some benefits.

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

#253

Post by tzs »

Overton-Window wrote: post #242
dntrkv wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1/3 of emissions come China which has an autocratic leadership accountable neither to its people or the global community. The US generates 2x more emissions per capita (15.5 vs 7 tons). Australia generates more than the US (17), and Canada even more than Australia (18.5). We got plenty of work to do ourselves before we look to China.

Per capita figures are meaningless. You're discussing imaginary lines in the dirt. The only way to tackle climate change is to bring down global emissions.

To bring down global emissions without first imposing a one-world government, we have to get each country to bring down emissions to its fair share.

The best fair first approximation to this is for each country's share to be proportional to its population. That can then be refined with some sort of emissions trading system so that countries that want to outsource high emission industries to others can provide the emissions budget to allow that work.

Anything other than a per capita first approximation requires deciding that some countries simply are not going to be allowed to develop beyond third world status.

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

#254

Post by VintageCool »

anonymousDan wrote: post #38
omginternets wrote: post #3

I sure hope Western Europe likes it cold. Paris is on roughly the same latitude of Quebec city.

Isn't this basically what caused the last ice age? The gulf stream is effectively the only thing keeping places like Ireland and England relatively mild given their latitude.

No. The effect of the gulf stream is overstated.

Wind at these latitudes travels prevailingly westerly.

England and Ireland are downwind of the ocean, which maintains more stable temperature than the land.

British Columbia and Seattle are also downwind of the ocean and also relatively mild.

New England gets cold because it is downwind of the continent. Also because the Rocky Mountains diverts the jet stream, exposing New England to more severe polar weather.

The severe climate shocks of the past few thousand years were the result of massive ice-dammed glacial lakes (like Lake Agassiz) breaking through the dam and releasing incredible quantities of freshwater into the northern oceans all at once.

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

#255

Post by SantalBlush »

jacquesm wrote: post #189
tuatoru wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After seeing the global chaotic response to COVID This is hindsight bias in spades. The global response to Covid-19 is much better than could reasonably have been expected before the event. We don't have 10% of the world's population dead (partly through war), collapsed major cities due to core services failing, or any disasters at similar scale, and a raging pandemic with 20 or more virulent variants sweeping thro…

> The global response to Covid-19 is much better than could reasonably have been expected before the event. We're going to have to disagree on that. I read a couple of books on the subject pre-pandemic and I thought we were in good shape because the science was well understood. I had not calculated in politics, my bad. > We don't have 10% of the world's population dead, collapsed major cities due to core services fai…

I think it's completely fair to say that the death toll from COVID could have been much lower up to this point, and it also could have been much higher. In spite of the political divides, there was a lot of collective action across the globe to mitigate the effects of the pandemic, and I wish people wouldn't dismiss that for the sake of cynicism.

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

#256

Post by klyrs »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #245
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, humanity is just not equipped to deal with this crisis. We are not organized or disciplined enough. There are too many competing interests and whats worse, the problems are not human scale. (Meaning that people won't see the benefits of their sacrifices in their own lifetimes) If I were a wealthy silicon valley type guy I would be looking closely at the Biosphere 2 project from the 80s and other closed ecosy…

I'd be surprised if any 'secret ecosystem projects' don't suffer the same fate as the Biospheres. Namely, catastrophic systemic collapse within a relativity short timescale brought on by an unmitigated pathogen.

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

#257

Post by thewarrior »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #179
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 are not wrong. It has been my position from the start that we should advocate for minimizing human impact on the climate and invest in surviving the change that those who will not heed that advice will create. I can recommend the book "Apocalypse Never" by Michael Shellenberger. While I don't agree with all of his points he does call out some of the factors that drive unnecessary hype. Perhaps one of the biggest…

Can we actually get knocked back into a feudal existence ?

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

#258

Post by nomel »

jakear wrote: post #229
deanCommie wrote: post #10

Before someone makes the inevitable joke, no this will not help offset climate change temperature gains and neutralize the risk of heat-waves. The summer temperatures will continue to get hotter. It's the winter temperatures that will get colder. Both require energy use to keep housing liveable. Which, unless we dramatically transition our energy generation to renewables, will just continue exacerbating the climate p…

Or, redesign houses to not need nearly as much energy for heating and cooling, preferring natural heating via the sun and cooling via breeze. https://www.codylundin.com/codys_house.html

> and cooling via breeze

This makes many assumption that do not fit very large parts of the inhabited earth.

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

#259

Post by relax88 »

octodog wrote: post #247
Overton-Window wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per capita figures are meaningless. You're discussing imaginary lines in the dirt. The only way to tackle climate change is to bring down global emissions.

Per capita emissions are extremely relevant because it indicates which countries need to implement drastic changes. The US, Canada and Australia together make up roughly 20% of global emissions with approximately 5% of the global population. Regardless of how you slice it these countries need to take serious action.

Who do we attribute the emissions to when Canadian metallurgical coal is used to make steel in China for a wind turbine base being constructed in Germany?

You’ll notice that per-capita emissions are highly correlated with the list of countries that export fossil fuels.

I agree with your point but per capita emissions alone is a gross oversimplification.

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

#260

Post by nomel »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #42
holoduke wrote: post #33

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

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

With the way that container ships just break apart in the middle of the ocean from poor maintenance [1], and the way that pirates take over container ships, I'm not sure I can comfortably agree. There would have to be some pretty extreme regulations, security requirements, and definitely higher cost involved. It would most likely be "along the most profitable, long, routes, to wealthy countries".

1. https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Container-Ship-Br...

Post reply on HN