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

341–350 of 441 posts

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

#341

Post by roenxi »

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…

You forgot a step - the elites will ban any community attempts to self-organise and solve their own problems. Note that in the COVID pandemic it is typically illegal (at least in the West) for non-government actors to decide what controls and remedies are appropriate.

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

#342

Post by rtbtobi »

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…

Collective thinking before collective action: https://github.com/rene-tobner/unity

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

#343

Post by NonContro »

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…

The popular attitude to the pandemic is set by politicians and the media.

If those groups want urgent action on climate change, they will get it.

Those groups wanted lockdowns, and they got it (along with most of the $5.2trillion printed in the US alone since the pandemic began).

This not a new concept:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

The question is, why don't the elites want urgent action on climate change? Presumably the answer is that they're still making too much money under the status quo, or have not yet aligned themselves to exploit the transition to sustainable energy and transport.

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

#344

Post by rtbtobi »

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…

Ever thought about all those governments and complexity? Simplicity for unity: https://github.com/rene-tobner/unity

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

#345

Post by yodelshady »

wittycardio wrote: post #287
qweqwweqwe-90i wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would have been nice if the environmentalists hadn't stopped nuclear energy in it's tracks.

Would be nicer if you knew who to actually blame

No, the greens don't get away that easily. Fossil fuel companies are the prime cause, but the opposition were every bit as aware of the consequences of not shifting away and every bit as culpable for frustrating that shift.

They chose to ignore the consequences because shouting "nein danke" at everything makes you look principled.

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

#346

Post by rjldev »

jbay808 wrote: post #214
geocrasher wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sensationalized? Sure. Hollywood. But incorrect? It's hard to know.

Well, they forgot to account for adiabatic heating of that cold air getting pulled out of the upper atmosphere, which would have made it quite hot when it hit the ground. If I recall, that cold air was the central threat in the movie.

We actually ran the numbers on that as an exercise during my undergrad degree (meteorology), iirc it would end up the same as the surface air temperature

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

#347

Post by garethrowlands »

colinmhayes wrote: post #166
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 this would require martial law to implement. Basically no one in the US would accept those restrictions. Doesn't seem politically feasible without a ww3.

Massive climate change would implement it, with or without our acceptance.

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

#348

Post by papito »

NonContro wrote: post #343
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…

The popular attitude to the pandemic is set by politicians and the media. If those groups want urgent action on climate change, they will get it. Those groups wanted lockdowns, and they got it (along with most of the $5.2trillion printed in the US alone since the pandemic began). This not a new concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent The question is, why don't the elites want urgent action on cli…

Don't fix it if it ain't broken. The revenue stream, that is.

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

#349

Post by RikNieu »

NonContro wrote: post #343
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…

The popular attitude to the pandemic is set by politicians and the media. If those groups want urgent action on climate change, they will get it. Those groups wanted lockdowns, and they got it (along with most of the $5.2trillion printed in the US alone since the pandemic began). This not a new concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent The question is, why don't the elites want urgent action on cli…

Because it's a choice between two apocalypses. One is slow motion and over the horizon, and "no ones fault" and the other would be voluntary.

I wrote about my thinking on this last year.

https://www.riknieu.com/no-one-believes-in-climate-change-no...

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

#350

Post by circlefavshape »

roter wrote: post #113
7402 wrote: post #30

The actual title is "Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation." I don't think the AMOC is exactly the same as the Gulf Stream, although I believe they are related. This is not my area of expertise. Could anyone explain this a little better? Why was the title changed?

As long as the winds blow and the Earth spins, we will have a Gulf Stream. What the paper is referring to is the three-dimensional circulation driven by salt and heat fluxes. Sinking cold water near places like Iceland and gradual upwelling of hot water in the tropics. Net result is transport of heat from tropics to poles and since it is water with a high heat capacity, a lot of heat! If this 3D flow is lessened, it…

> As long as the winds blow and the Earth spins, we will have a Gulf Stream

I don't think this is true. Didn't the Gulf Stream shut off during the Ice Ages? At least that's what I learned at college in the early 90s

Post reply on HN