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

351–360 of 441 posts

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

#351

Post by cableshaft »

yodelshady wrote: post #345
wittycardio wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While I agree it shouldn't have been slowed down when it did, Nuclear Power Plants are not going to save us now.

"Nuclear energy is being outcompeted by renewable energy sources and is an inefficient solution to carbon emissions, according to the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) published on 24 September 2019."

"The report estimates that the average construction time for reactors worldwide was ten years, significantly longer than the World Nuclear Association’s estimated construction time of between five and eight years. Nuclear reactors are also slow to start and a number have closed, with nine units closing over 2018 and a further five units expected to close over 2019."

"The report also states that nuclear power is more expensive than renewables. Nuclear energy costs around $112-189 per megawatt hour (MWh) compared to $26-56MWh for onshore wind and $36-44MWh for solar power. Levelised cost estimates for solar and wind also dropped by 88% and 69% respectively, while they increased by 23% for nuclear power."

https://www.power-technology.com/news/nuclear-energy-report-...

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

#352

Post by BoxOfRain »

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…

I wonder how the elite will approach climate change when it really starts to bite? If I wanted to survive a dystopia I'd be making friends with the common people and using my considerable personal resources to help address their concerns and earn their loyalty, not elevating myself stratospherically above them then trying to hide when shit hits the fan.

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

#353

Post by beardedwizard »

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?

Another perspective: Because if you don't they will later be inclined to take it by force.

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

#354

Post by lisper »

emn13 wrote: post #171
octaonalocto wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree with your comment. Your definition of luxury is narrow and proscriptive. If you're trying to evaluate whether people would accept certain changes in their lifestyle, their definition of luxury is the one that matters. In a tight definition, indoor plumbing is a luxury. As a person whose family vacations used to include an outhouse, I most certainly do not consider that a luxury in my life.

The whole scenario is far fetched. We're imagining some egalitarian world (won't happen), in which with today's technology we need to make due with tomorrows resources, but without time to adapt and find alternatives. More realistically, we need to start making at least some steps. If air travel becomes more expensive, we'll do less of it, and at least try to find alternatives, personally. Society might try to find w…

> this is necessarily going to happen gradually

That depends on what you mean by "gradually". Climate is a non-linear system. It can change radically in a very small number of years. Within a single generation, for example, much of the world's current farmland could become desert. That is going to be very hard to adapt to.

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

#355

Post by [deleted] »

davesque wrote: post #95
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…

Don't give up hope. We licked CFCs and leaded gasoline. There are probably plenty of other times in history when we mobilized to solve a problem at scale. These are discouraging times for sure. But ultimately there's just no point in being hopeless.

[deleted]

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

#356

Post by Mulpze15 »

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…

I see this as a very US centric view. I remember ecological issues were huge in Germany as early as the 80s. The pandemic has been well managed by a number of countries across the globe.

Especially about global warming, it is not a specie problem. It is possible to fix, and some countries / groups of people are better than others at it.

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

#357

Post by cableshaft »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #232
tomcooks wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Many things people don't even consider "luxuries" (like visiting family overseas) would be a non-starter. So literally what was normal life in Europe up to the 80's, even 90s for some regions. It's not difficult to imagine how to ac…

Are electric planes physically impossible or just not realistic with current oil prices and no carbon tax?

There are electric planes out there, but they're pretty small. You're not likely going to see any electric 747s anytime soon, if ever.

"A battery's efficiency, or ability to hold power, is measured in specific energy. Right now, even the best batteries have a specific energy of only 250 watt-hours per kilogram, but we have to get closer to 800 to really start flying, and that is still nothing compared to jet fuel's specific energy, which is nearly 12,000 watt-hours per kilogram."

"So if you want to add more power to a plane, you need to get a bigger battery, and to get that plane airborne despite the weight, you'll need even bigger battery that's more powerful, but that means more weight. And then you'll need an even bigger battery to offset that weight."

https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-planes-future-of-av...

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

#358

Post by Zedronar »

RikNieu wrote: post #349
NonContro wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I read your blog post. I agree with most of it. But...

> resource-depleted hellhole within a century or two

I wish I could be as optimistic as you are. We're seeing extreme, unpredictable weather _right now_. This could lead to reduced food production a few years from now.

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

#359

Post by doitLP »

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…

Lots of responses here focusing on planes and air travel. Just wanted to call out what a small part (1.9%) of the problem that actually is: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

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

#360

Post by tremon »

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.

That scenario isn't so far-fetched, sadly. WW3 is a real possibility if we can't solve this problem another way.
Post reply on HN