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

361–370 of 441 posts

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

#361

Post by gambiting »

cableshaft wrote: post #357
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Not with Lithium-Ion tech, no. But aluminum-air batteries provide an order of magnitude higher densities of energy(~1300Wh/kg), and should be able to power a large-ish plane. The main problem being of course that aluminum air batteries are not rechargable, but all you'd need to do is swap the spent aluminium rods at the airport and replace them with fresh ones - then use renewable energy nearby to melt and reform the aluminium rods to be used again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium%E2%80%93air_battery

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

#362

Post by rbanffy »

jacquesm wrote: post #96
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…

A very large fraction of the population is still in denial, and will continue to be so until they are personally hit.

My pessimistic take is that they’ll continue to be in denial until we’ll after they are personally hit.

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

#363

Post by minikites »

sokoloff wrote: post #340
minikites wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I don’t see a stable and effective long-term alternative to raising carbon-intensive energy prices. If you create a large pile of government giveaway money but keep energy cheap, people will take the money and continue to use a lot of energy. (I’ll save money on heating and use it to keep the house 74°F instead of 69°F in the winter or to take a vacation to a tropical location.) Bezos, Musk, and Gates aren’t the prob…

>If you create a large pile of government giveaway money but keep energy cheap

Why would we keep energy cheap? The economics of that also needs to change. I agree that we should also raise carbon-intensive energy prices, and do our best to structure it to penalize disproportionate users (e.g. construction costs for massive houses and buildings). I also don't understand how you could "take the money" for improvements like insulation and then still use more energy, unless you just mean fraud in general.

Change also needs to happen at a societal level. We need to tax extreme amounts of wealth, because that wealth came from society, so the burden is on them to help. On a global level, we could also do more to help developing and industrializing nations. Imagine a green version of the Marshall Plan.

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

#364

Post by ThomPete »

jacquesm wrote: post #323
ThomPete wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

sure

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

#365

Post by teh_klev »

doitLP wrote: post #359
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

Yes, but all the small parts add up.

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

#366

Post by WitCanStain »

rayiner wrote: post #190
jacquesm wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called 'trees'.

So Bangladesh will not reduce emissions until it hits developed world status. Not one bit. Can trees absorb all of Bangladesh’s growing emissions over the next 50 years? Same for India, Nigeria, etc?

Bangladesh won't be around for that much longer. 75% of it is underwater due to flooding and that number will only increase: https://www.concernusa.org/story/bangladesh-underwater-human...

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

#367

Post by cableshaft »

gambiting wrote: post #361
cableshaft wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Not with Lithium-Ion tech, no. But aluminum-air batteries provide an order of magnitude higher densities of energy(~1300Wh/kg), and should be able to power a large-ish plane. The main problem being of course that aluminum air batteries are not rechargable, but all you'd need to do is swap the spent aluminium rods at the airport and replace them with fresh ones - then use renewable energy nearby to melt and reform the…

Interesting. I'm surprised I didn't hear that solution mentioned in Bill Gates "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster" book.

He basically made the same battery weight argument and was pushing for alternative biofuels for planes, if I remember correctly. And that was just published earlier this year, and seemed pretty comprehensive about discussing all possible solutions, at least as far as I could tell.

Maybe just because it's (presumably) nowhere near the point where it could be feasible for commercial passenger planes?

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

#368

Post by rbanffy »

roenxi wrote: post #341
leppr wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m pretty sure governments only set minimum controls and remedies and communities are free to implement additional measures on top of that.

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

#369

Post by rayiner »

cloudfifty wrote: post #333
rayiner wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why is it backward? Unions enable general strikes which enable wide-ranging policy changes.

The union aspect is being pitched for things like a living wage, not strikes in favor of climate change.

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

#370

Post by joelbluminator »

gorbachev wrote: post #279
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…

No disaster, other than maybe targeted terrorist strikes, will ever hit the wealthy, because with their incredible wealth they can buffer against them in ways that poor people can't. Coastal flooding...move to your vacation home in Vail, CO. 120F heat? Fit your house with 100000W AC units...the electric bill is pocket money. Civil unrest from effects of climate change? Hire a private army to protect you.

I agree to an extent. But Fires hurt everyone, hurricanes hurt everyone. Some very rich people got hurt in the Californian fires; even if these houses were insured it's quite a traumatic event having your whole house wiped out.

But yeah, the poor will suffer much more.

> Hire a private army to protect you.

You seem to be talking about the ultra rich, like the top 1%.

Post reply on HN