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

371–380 of 441 posts

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

#371

Post by rayiner »

WitCanStain wrote: post #366
rayiner wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Bangladesh has been handling flooding covering > 50% of its land for as long as it’s existed. That’s the nature of being a country built on a river delta. That doesn’t mean the country is going to cease to exist. A third of the Netherlands is below sea level, but even 19th century technology is enough to keep the sea out.

Bangladesh could lose a third of its per capita GDP by 2060 due to climate change: https://www.tbsnews.net/economy/bangladesh-lose-3649-gdp-cap.... But that’s compared to a no climate change baseline. It will still be far richer than it is today. And it’s in no danger of ceasing to exist. That’s not a scientifically supportable claim.

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

#372

Post by roenxi »

rbanffy wrote: post #368
roenxi wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I seem to recall someone, possibly the US CDC, banning alternative COVID tests to their faulty one in the early days of the pandemic.

If someone attempts set up emergency mask production they'd probably get hit by anti-gouging laws, because that isn't cheap.

And the vaccines are presumably only available because the governments relented, fast-tracked them and provided special guarantees to help people get over the testing hurdle. Normally it takes 4-8 years to get a vaccine to market. We've got evidence here that those years are more red tape than requirement, it suggests up to 75% of the regulatory process is destructive theatre.

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

#373

Post by Shorel »

cinntaile wrote: post #22
cwkoss wrote: post #12

What would happen if the Gulf Stream did collapse? Would a different similar circulatory system emerge soon after? Would the lack of a dominant system lead to many more smaller chaotic systems? Do we just not know what would happen, so that it's concerning in that it's unknowable?

Just watch The Day After Tomorrow to know what happens.

Films like that, showing immediate and extreme change over a couple of hours instead of the gradual over-decades change that is more likely to happen, are part of the problem.

People remember the film, and see nothing similar happening, and claim nothing is actually happening. All this while the change is going steady.

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

#374

Post by cloudfifty »

rayiner wrote: post #369
cloudfifty wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A higher wage can also break bad cycles like always choosing the cheapest produce etc. I assume the general message is that it's possible for people to get a better life by other means than just ruthless, unsustainable, growth.

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

#375

Post by sokoloff »

minikites wrote: post #363
sokoloff wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Right now, I only heat my house to 69°F/20.5°C in the winter (because of the cost). If a government program pays for the insulation, wall repairs, paint, and HVAC replacement to make my house more efficient, I might choose to heat my house to 74 or 75°F/24°C if energy is still cheap. That’s not fraud; that’s consumers making entirely rational trade-offs about how much each additional degree of comfort is worth to them in monetary terms.

“We should tax billionaires and raise taxes on carbon energy” is effective overwhelmingly because of the second part. You could nearly equally well say “we should chew more bubble gum and raise taxes on carbon energy”.

(It’s fine to have a separate debate on billionaire tax policy, but it seems tenuous at best to link it to energy policy.)

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

#376

Post by vaylian »

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…

> 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. Many things people don't even consider "luxuries" (like visiting family overseas) would be a non-starter.

I'm surprised that you describe this as close-to-impossible. My current situation is exactly that and I'm fine. But maybe it's a lot easier to live in the EU compared to the US.

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

#377

Post by cogman10 »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #336
VintageCool wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will be continuing to hear about wind and solar for the next 20 years for good reason: they're finally taking off. Wind production in the US has grown from about 2 million megawatt-hours / month in 2005 to 33 million megawatt-hours / month today. Solar production in the US has grown from 1.5 million megawatt-hours / month in 2014 to 17 million megawatt-hours today. Building new wind and solar is now cost-competit…

Yes I'm sure I will, because that sounds exactly like what was being repeated 20 years ago. And I will keep hearing about it for a long long time while many new gas and even coal plants get built with their 50 year lifespans. Funny thing about this movement. It's caused more greenhouse gas emissions than just about anything. Anti-nuclear "environmentalists" are just about the best friends the fossil fuel industry has…

Solar prices have been decreasing at a staggering pace. 20 years ago, solar was certainly infeasible. That's not the case today and certainly won't be in 20 years.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/sunshot-2030

> Anti-nuclear "environmentalists" are just about the best friends the fossil fuel industry has ever had.

Agreed, and that was mostly by design of the fossil fuel industry. Initial anti-nuclear rhetoric came from them.

That said, the numbers are different today than they were 20 years ago. Solar and wind cost less and has less regulatory barriers to jump over to get deployed than nuclear. That will be true right up until land becomes a premium (which it isn't).

20 years ago, solar and wind were FAR more expensive than nuclear. Now, they are nearly the cheapest form of power generation (I think existing hydro still holds that crown).

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

#378

Post by jacquesm »

cinntaile wrote: post #337
jacquesm wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you're on the wrong website.

No worries, I don't usually joke much on HN. Sometimes jokes work here, maybe climate change is a bit too polarized.

Or maybe it is just a bit too serious.

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

#379

Post by jacquesm »

thewarrior wrote: post #257
ChuckMcM wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not wrong. It has been my position from the start that we should advocate for minimizing human impact on the climate and invest in surviving the change that those who will not heed that advice will create. I can recommend the book "Apocalypse Never" by Michael Shellenberger. While I don't agree with all of his points he does call out some of the factors that drive unnecessary hype. Perhaps one of the biggest…

Can we actually get knocked back into a feudal existence ?

The more interesting question is can we avoid it?

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

#380

Post by transfer92 »

One published study does not equal scientific truth!

There's a more temperate article in the New York Times, that's worth reading analytically. Look at the carefully-phrased responses of other scientists. Some of them appear to be struggling to say something polite about the study. "Interesting," is word used both by victims of amateur chefs and fellow scientists reading a new article when confronted by something they're not sure about swallowing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/us/gulf-stream-collapse.h...

Alex Hall, the director of the Center for Climate Science at the University of California, Los Angeles:

"the findings did not signal to him that any collapse of that ocean system might be imminent" "we don’t really know the reaction we’ll cause"

Andrew Pershing, director of climate science at Climate Central:

"The work is fascinating" "The big challenge is, what do we do with that information?"

Susan Lozier, a physical oceanographer and dean at the College of Sciences at Georgia Tech:

She also called Dr. Boers’ study “interesting,” but said she wasn’t convinced that the findings showed that circulation in that ocean system is slowing.

Post reply on HN