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

321–330 of 441 posts

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

#321

Post by pillefitz »

notJim wrote: post #82
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 agree these are huge challenges, and that climate activists are unrealistic in their expectations of how much people are willing to sacrifice or change. I would guess most climate activists take more than one flight per year, and certainly I do as someone who is concerned about climate (in non-COVID times.) For this reason, I really think technology has to be used to solve these problems. EVs, public transit, and h…

That's the mindset that brought us here.

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

#322

Post by arcanon »

vimy wrote: post #119
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…

The lockdowns prove your point. People hate living like that. And it also shows behavioral change is pointless. In 2020 we had barely any airplane traffic. Factories all over the world closed, China was basically closed for business for two months. No traffic since everyone stayed at home. Less frivolous consumption, world gdp contracted almost 5 % = degrowth. Result for this horrible way of living? A measly 7 % lowe…

What about high resolution satellite pollution maps and airstrikes? If the combustion engines or the refineries are not destroyed, they will be used. We could start slowly with only the dirtiest targets. Doing this now is less aggressive then what will happen after global crop failures.

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

#323

Post by jacquesm »

ThomPete wrote: post #297
jacquesm wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> we are not wiping out the rest of the planet, we are manipulating it into better serving us through thd use of technology.

Right. Let's say we're not going to agree on this and leave it at that.

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

#324

Post by lazide »

jacquesm wrote: post #313
lazide wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In the short term: yes, but it is rather less dense than hardwood so you'll end up with a lot more acreage. Poplar/Maple/Oak/Pine are all good options, with the slow growers storing the carbon for the longest time, and even when not harvested they won't rot nearly as fast (rot is best looked at as slow burning in this context). And then not to harvest them until they die of 'natural causes', hopefully not a forest fi…

If you're trying to sequester carbon, you need to lock up that carbon somewhere - and cutting it down and putting it somewhere it will stay intact the longest seems like the best bet? A house, or a building for instance.

If it is in a forest long term (same trees), sequestration flat lines after awhile no? I'm not saying I don't like trees - far from it, I own 90 acres of timberland! I'm pointing out that pulling carbon from the atmosphere as fast as possible vs a pretty piece of old growth timber are two different goals with different tradeoffs.

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

#325

Post by lazide »

jacquesm wrote: post #314
tbrownaw wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one of the most efficient carbon sinks I thought forests tended to be pretty much neutral once they get old enough for trees to start dying and decomposing.

There are quite a few species that produce wood that won't decompose nearly as fast as it grew, and we are a good 100 years away from reaching that limit for newly planted forests.

But how fast do they pull carbon from the atmosphere over that time?

If you take some fast growing trees, harvest them just as the curve starts to slow, put that wood to use somewhere it won't rot, and plant new trees that also fast grow - seems like you'd pull out more in aggregate?

Personally I'm more of a fan of the geo-weathering type sequestration plans, but if if we have a target, might as well optimize for it?

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

#326

Post by [deleted] »

sammalloy wrote: post #276
jacquesm wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not me who will decide, it will be your wallet. > but that kind of authoritarian thinking will thankfully never be allowed to prevail in the United States. That's a very funny statement.

It's even funnier when you consider that surveys show 26% of the U.S. population qualifies as highly right-wing authoritarian. https://morningconsult.com/2021/06/28/global-right-wing-auth...

[deleted]

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

#327

Post by rayiner »

cloudfifty wrote: post #233
rayiner wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C’mon, man, be forthright. It’s not a “boogeyman of 0.0001% overhead.” I agree that conservative aversion to addressing climate change is a problem. But the other side isn’t proposing minor tax increases here. A very vocal front sees this as an opportunity to do all the things the socialists and central planners wanted anyway, while spending tens of trillions of dollars. When climate change is tied together with ever…

> A very vocal front sees this as an opportunity to do all the things the socialists and central planners wanted anyway What if they're right? Should we all go down with the ship just to maintain some sort of dogmatic pride in our preferred economic system?

That’s backward. The fact that they want to shovel union labor requirements into a bill dealing with climate change indicates that the climate change part isn’t a serious threat.

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

#328

Post by LaundroMat »

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…

> In France they implemented a modest fuel tax and they got the Yellow Vest Protests in response. I can't see the average individual ever voting for a party that wouldn't let them visit family and nearly eliminate meat consumption.

The Yellow Vests protests were against the tax and its unevenly distributed burden (the wealthy can easily pay that tax). If a government were to discourage people from eating meat or travelling in planes through other means than taxes, I'm not so sure we'd see Yellow Vest protests.

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

#329

Post by jacquesm »

cinntaile wrote: post #283
jacquesm wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that is heavily sensationalized. But a new 'small ice age' as a result of the gulfstream shutting down is a serious possibility, even if it changed direction that would already cause serious problems for very large parts of Europe.

I guess the joke flew over your head :P

I guess you're on the wrong website.

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

#330

Post by Nimitz14 »

jacquesm wrote: post #312
Nimitz14 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing that would actually make a difference is going full nuclear. But the greens put a stop to that, so I find it hard to take them - and anyone else who, like you, writes paragraphs about things that in reality do not matter - seriously.

This is a very naive view of things, which given your comment history (inane one-liners without even a short moment to compose something more substantial and with more thought about it) seems to be your model. Going 'full nuclear' without capping the per-capita energy budget is still going to release a very large amount of energy. Besides that heating in many places is based on natural gas. Then there is the per kilo…

Sorry.

> Then there is the per kilo-watt hour cost of nuclear energy which is way higher than solar or wind when taken over the full lifetime of the installation including the eventual cleanup / disposal.

If we went full nuclear the cost per kWh would go down a lot. Costs are high because of minimal investment in the last several decades, western countries have not been building NPP and therefore aren't good (i.e. efficient) at it.

> The best thing we can do is to limit our consumption. But that's easy to say from the point of view of the developed world, where consumption is excessive. It will be more than offset by the developing countries gains leaving us with a situation that is net worse than things are today even if we do our best.

The cognitive dissonance is jarring. For the reasons you yourself state, clearly limiting consumption is NOT the solution.

Post reply on HN