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

291–300 of 441 posts

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

#291

Post by wittycardio »

rationalist2948 wrote: post #264
_y5hn wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you accept evidence it'll already be 20-30 years too late.

Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, you have another of the alarmist, angst, anxiety statements with no science support -- all the attempts at science to support such statements have no predictive value and, thus, are not science. I gave a link to solid evidence of the lack of predictive value. And the doomsday predictions such as your "it'll already be 20-30 years too late" are irrational, irres…

Ah wonderful another rationalist with no ability to reason

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

#292

Post by lazide »

jacquesm wrote: post #209
virgilp wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Deforestation It's not that clear-cut: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more...

Number of trees is a bad metric, you need to know the amount of area available for gas exchange, which takes a long time to build up after a clearcut and 'old growth' forest is a complete ecosystem, something which a young planted forest can only aspire to become one day. And that's before we get into the hardwood vs softwood differences in growth speed.

If you’re trying to sequester carbon, fast (new) growth and softwood is the way to go correct?

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

#293

Post by javajosh »

lazide wrote: post #188
javajosh wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-restr…

I’m not sure how your comment relates to my earlier comment exactly. One thing to point out however - EVERY time is a (genuinely!) unique time, and for those in it, there is always the press of things to be concerned about, or tackle things or avoid things or whatever. Our current challenges are definitely unique, but the existential threat of Mutually Assured Destruction of the Cold War was no less a unique, serious…

You're right about people being fundamentally driven by the need for emotional safety. That safety comes from confidence, which itself can either come from study and training, or delusion. Delusional confidence leading to a feeling of personal safety is not problem that gets a lot of attention, because it's understandable and to criticize it seems like it lacks empathy. But I'd argue that letting it slide is just like when parents let their kids do anything they want, without boundaries. It's not nice, or empathic, or loving: it's a cop-out, it's easy, and worst of all, it harms the child. Structure, with limits, boundaries, expectations, is good and healthy for kids (and for adults).

I find myself comforted by the fact that, in some ways, the spasm toward fascism and ignorant belief is a cry for help, a demand to be held accountable, a plaintive request to be corrected. They don't actually hate elitism, they just hate the elites we have. (Well, except for one, paradoxically).

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

#294

Post by effingwewt »

Overton-Window wrote: post #271
nomel wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and cooling via breeze This makes many assumption that do not fit very large parts of the inhabited earth.

Why should those living within 35° of the equator have to subsidise those living in the naturally uninhabitable reaches beyond?

Not everyone can choose where they live, or when/where to move.

What's happened to sympathy/empathy these days?

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

#295

Post by [deleted] »

leppr wrote: post #199
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 govern…

[deleted]

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

#297

Post by ThomPete »

jacquesm wrote: post #208
ThomPete wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of dimensions we have improved life for humans in an environment which have always been hostile not only to humans but to the 99.9999% of all species ever existed it wiped out is quite a lot more staggering. Nature didn't give us a safe and friendly environment we made unsafe, it gave us a hostile and dangerous environment we have made safe by using technology to impact the planet to better suit us. All im…

In the short term, sure. But what if this is a local maximum which accidentally cut off all viable future branches? A bit of caution when making these irreversible decisions would go a long way. Wiping out the rest of the planet to give us a safe habitat may have been a giant mistake, monocultures tend to end bad.

we are not wiping out the rest of the planet, we are manipulating it into better serving us through thd use of technology. We are potentially able to deal with ex. astroid impact which no other species is able to, in my book that counts for way more.

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

#298

Post by minikites »

sokoloff wrote: post #220
minikites wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>1/3 of emissions come China which has an autocratic leadership accountable neither to its people or the global community. China is doing proportionally more to combat climate change than we are. >70% of emissions come from energy consumption. 35% of all emissions is electricity and heat There are so many "easy wins" here. Better insulation and other end user improvements (e.g. heat pumps), stricter efficiency standa…

In many cases, people are not willing to do the theoretically/physically best/most energy efficient solution because it’s much, much cheaper to not. My house is ~100 years old structural brick. The insulation on most of the vertical walls is just the plaster, air gap, and 9” of brick. As we remodel (very slowly), we insulate with spray foam, but that remodeling is never driven by energy concerns. It’s vastly cheaper…

>In many cases, people are not willing to do the theoretically/physically best/most energy efficient solution because it’s much, much cheaper to not.

This is why we need to change the economics of the situation. If we raise taxes on the very wealthy, Jeff Bezos might not get to go to space, but we could insulate a few hundred thousand houses.

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

#299

Post by wiml »

richwater wrote: post #56
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…

No one except loonies see "You can't own a car, consume meat live anywhere but NYC and can't visit your family 5 states over" and are okay with it.

It doesn't matter who's okay with it. We have a choice between that, or an even less pleasant future. "Everything is awesome forever and we don't have to pay for it" is simply not one of the options.

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

#300

Post by throw0101a »

tablespoon wrote: post #160
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).

> 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.

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

IIRC, the Democrats controlled Congress throughout the 1980s, so let's not assign things completely to a single person/administration.

Post reply on HN