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

421–430 of 441 posts

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

#421

Post by rixed »

emn13 wrote: post #215
Permit wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If prices rise gradually, people will adapt. I think this is where you and I disagree. I would contend that the average citizen will resist this. I am basing this off what we saw in France when they introduced a very modest fuel tax. I think this is an issue that would actually unite both the left and the right. I suspect that if we made air travel, meat and fresh (flown-in) produce only available to the wealthiest…

So first of all - France is known for it's remarkable protest culture. That's not typical. Secondly, the fuel tax in question, while reasonable and necessary, is also a somewhat special case even in France because it represents taking away peoples everyday mobility. As cars electrify, that will be less so, and other measures - such as those targeting luxury travel like air travel - would surely not see quite the same…

> France is known for it's remarkable protest culture.

It's also known for its remarkably high tax rate on fiul:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax#/media/File%3AFuel_...

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

#422

Post by rixed »

octaonalocto wrote: post #64
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…

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.

What people would accept or not it's speculation.

People in the west were not supposed to accept a lockdown, yet they did. They were not supposed to accept election fraud, corruption, high crime rate, yet they regularly do as well.

Acceptance is really not the hard part in this problem.

Being organized in such a way that the global long term interest of the majority is only a concern when it can be positively correlated to the short term interest of a minority, is.

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

#423

Post by jay_kyburz »

jacquesm wrote: post #316
klyrs wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be surprised if any 'secret ecosystem projects' don't suffer the same fate as the Biospheres. Namely, catastrophic systemic collapse within a relativity short timescale brought on by an unmitigated pathogen.

The main reason those projects failed was quite simple: they were too small. Make it large enough, limit occupancy and stand back and nature will figure out a way to make it work, it doesn't need engineering, it needs scale and patience. After all, a planet is exactly that: a closed cycle biosphere that somehow balances itself if we don't mess too much with it.

I agree that those past projects were too small, and from what I understand they were really pedantic about what was coming in and out of the space. Rather than being so pure about it, I think it would be better to develop a system that was _mostly_ independent, then as we understand and get better at running it start closing it off.

I actually don't agree that a system of any size will just balance itself. I think maintaining a closed system that can maintain human life, as we know it now, indefinitely, would take a lot of careful balancing. It would need constant monitoring and intervention. Something as simple as an algal bloom could wipe out everything else living in your water. If your bees die of some disease, you lose pollination, and all your fruit.

Can you imagine how much tech and effort it would be to manage every bee in your colony to make sure they all don't just die one season. And what do you do if your bee population crashes, you have to have some kind of bee breeding program to get the numbers back up.

The earth doesn't somehow just balance itself, the earth could become one vast desert in just a few generations. Pockets of live here and there for thousands of years no doubt, but enough to sustain human life?

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

#424

Post by creamytaco »

BoxOfRain wrote: post #352
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…

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.

They actual elites have enough money to live comfortably for hundreds of years. They don’t have to care about climate change, maybe they even see it as welcome since it will kill billions of people if nothing is done. That’s how detached they are from the rest of us.

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

#425

Post by rbanffy »

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.

High speed rail may help here. It won’t be faster than planes anytime soon, but if you factor the TSA lines and delays in lounges, it may be a lot more comfortable for shorter routes like NYC to Chicago.

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

#426

Post by rbanffy »

roenxi wrote: post #372
rbanffy wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 te…

Clinical testing is affected by diminishing returns. Anything is a lot safer after a month of testing, but the usual safety standards demands a little more safety, and improving on “100 times less likely to kill you than the disease” thing often takes years.

This will not be our last pandemic. The lessons we leaned, and the lessons we should have learned, will come back a lot.

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

#427

Post by [deleted] »

creamytaco wrote: post #424
BoxOfRain wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They actual elites have enough money to live comfortably for hundreds of years. They don’t have to care about climate change, maybe they even see it as welcome since it will kill billions of people if nothing is done. That’s how detached they are from the rest of us.

[deleted]

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

#428

Post by benhurmarcel »

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?

If by electric you mean batteries, it’s only realistic for very short flights.

For longer flights there are other more realistic alternatives with no net emissions, which are mainly hydrogen (made from electrolysis) and biofuels (made using carbon already present in the air).

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

#429

Post by lolc »

jacquesm wrote: post #404
lolc wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The iron age required a lot of wood.

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

#430

Post by jacquesm »

lolc wrote: post #429
jacquesm wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The iron age required a lot of wood.

The iron age was a long time ago, America had not been 'discovered' yet.

Just two pictures to give you an idea of what has been lost:

https://i.pinimg.com/550x/73/62/26/736226b8437e6ce9eb1bab42e...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7a4mTiIIAEsESF?format=jpg

Multiply by a few million or so...

Post reply on HN