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

401–410 of 441 posts

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

#401

Post by jacquesm »

felgueres wrote: post #393
jacquesm wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are a couple of years behind the times when it comes to your knowledge of the cost effectiveness of solar and wind. They are $ for $ competitive with nuclear, and are being rolled out at scale. 8 MW onshore turbines are now pretty normal, larger ones are on the drawing board, and in the offshore wind market there are now 15 MW turbines. Base load can be provided through carbon neutral sources, such as the burning…

'Base load can be provided through carbon neutral sources, such as the burning of rest-mass left over from crop production.' This statement is very uncalibrated. Biomass is possible just as much as tidal power but that doesn't make it viable for scale. It's not even part of the conversation. 'Smart control of appliances is another way in which the need for baseload power could be reduced' Wrong. Smart control of appl…

Nonproliferation agreements alone mean your scheme will never work. I prefer to solve problems with the available means rather than to fantasize about a world that could be, it tends to get more and faster results.

FWIW baseload is provided today by biomass augmented plants all over Europe (except for France, which does rely predominantly on nuclear. It's not yet the largest fraction but it is definitely moving the needle.

Smart control of appliances can be used to shift demand from peak, but it can also be used to shift demand away at times that baseload would have to be increased for baseload generators that are slow to ramp up (such as: nuclear).

As for storage not being optional, we are very far away from having excess power with such regularity that storing it is cheaper than reducing generating capacity. In other words we can safely ignore this problem until orders of magnitude more renewable energy generation capacity has been installed.

It looks to me like you are heavily personally invested in seeing nuclear (fission, presumably) based energy no matter the disadvantages, which are numerous and which leave us with a serious problem in terms of waste removal.

But you're the (anonymous) expert ;)

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

#402

Post by jacquesm »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #284
Permit wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So? You have made peace with these things which is commendable. That said, you must still understand how big of a change this would be for other people who have not. For example, I suspect the Canadian government would have a hard time telling indigenous populations in Nunavut that they have banned flights to their communities. Same would go for island nations like Iceland or even the state of Hawaii. You and I can…

Reality doesn't care what humans want. The options are make some voluntary changes now, or make very chaotic and much bigger forced changes later. If we make the wrong choice our culture becomes extinct. We may or may not survive as an animal species, but that's almost a secondary issue. That's it. That's what's on the table. Short of surprise alien intervention or unobtanium Magical Carbon Capture Technology™ there…

Precisely. This coin does not want to drop because people's addictions depend strongly on it continuing not to drop. It doesn't even enter consideration that there is a possible end to this bonanza because 'we wish it to be so'.

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

#403

Post by jacquesm »

lisper wrote: post #354
emn13 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> That is going to be very hard to adapt to.

If that comes to pass I hope I won't be alive to see it, but I think 'hard to adapt to' is putting it very mildly. You're talking about war and famine on a scale that the world has not seen before.

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

#404

Post by jacquesm »

lolc wrote: post #250
kktkti9 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’ve had empirical measure of industry related climate change since the 1860s hidden away by industry, who continued to be confirm through private research over and over. If our math models can predict the Higgs decades before it’s experimentally discovered, why is a math model from the 70s confirming society will implode in the 2040s any less reliable? Same correct order of operations. Reconfirmed recently by bette…

> Previous generations left behind rock and stone buildings, some sludge at worst. I don't see why we should ignore the deforestation or hunting to extinction that previous generations imposed on the planet.

Compared to what we've done in the last 50 years they were rank amateurs.

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

#405

Post by lisper »

jacquesm wrote: post #403
lisper wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> That is going to be very hard to adapt to. If that comes to pass I hope I won't be alive to see it, but I think 'hard to adapt to' is putting it very mildly. You're talking about war and famine on a scale that the world has not seen before.

Yes. That's exactly right. I think even the people who worry about climate change don't fully appreciate how grim the situation is, and how fast things are going to get really, really bad, a small number of decades tops. If you haven't already, look up "blue ocean event."

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

#406

Post by gizmondo »

908B64B197 wrote: post #389
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…

When you look at who's polluting and who's emissions are on an upward trajectory, there's one obvious country that's actively working against the environment. China's emissions aren't slowing down. Coal is incredibly cheap when there's no carbon tax or emission standards. One of the many reasons it's cheaper to manufacture in China and why North Americans and Europeans can't compete [0]. Comparing the US[1] and China…

Why would you compare derivatives and not absolute values when designating who is "actively working against the environment"? Objectively US is polluting way more per capita.

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

#407

Post by 908B64B197 »

gizmondo wrote: post #406
908B64B197 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you look at who's polluting and who's emissions are on an upward trajectory, there's one obvious country that's actively working against the environment. China's emissions aren't slowing down. Coal is incredibly cheap when there's no carbon tax or emission standards. One of the many reasons it's cheaper to manufacture in China and why North Americans and Europeans can't compete [0]. Comparing the US[1] and China…

Why would you compare derivatives and not absolute values when designating who is "actively working against the environment"? Objectively US is polluting way more per capita.

Derivatives shows trajectories.

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

#408

Post by gizmondo »

908B64B197 wrote: post #407
gizmondo wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you compare derivatives and not absolute values when designating who is "actively working against the environment"? Objectively US is polluting way more per capita.

Derivatives shows trajectories.

Obviously, so what? If you have a shop-lifter who stole 100$ worth of goods last year and 200$ this year and a fraudster who stole 100000$ last year and measly 50000$ this year, you wouldn't say that the first one is a hardened criminal and the second is an upstanding citizen, would you? Get on your high horse when US is polluting at least less than others, otherwise it makes no sense.

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

#409

Post by arcanon »

arcanon wrote: post #322
vimy wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thinking about this more… This depends on electric flight. You cant stop the refineries with uavs powered by their targets product. It may be that electric flight is the cornerstone to emission prevention.

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

#410

Post by 908B64B197 »

gizmondo wrote: post #408
908B64B197 wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Derivatives shows trajectories.

Obviously, so what? If you have a shop-lifter who stole 100$ worth of goods last year and 200$ this year and a fraudster who stole 100000$ last year and measly 50000$ this year, you wouldn't say that the first one is a hardened criminal and the second is an upstanding citizen, would you? Get on your high horse when US is polluting at least less than others, otherwise it makes no sense.

Except the orders of magnitudes you are suggesting are nowhere near the current situation regarding CO2 emissions.

We're talking about 16T per capita in the US vs almost 7T in China.

So it's more like Stealing 200$ vs 100$.

Post reply on HN