281–290 of 324 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s definitely not subject to evolutionary pressure of any sort, because the earth is completely indifferent to life.
I'm not understanding, your statement reads like a non-sequitur to me. Evolution has nothing to do with life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's mentions a potential collapse as early as 2025. More precisely 2025-2095. That is this century and it's accurate to say 2025 is imminent.
> It's mentions a potential collapse as early as 2025 "DOOM ITS THE END OF THE WORLD!" is a tale as old as time... revelations has been screaming the end is near for thousands of years now. It's "accurate to say" that prophets and prophecies are notoriously wrong which is why signs that the ice caps will be gone by 2000 have been removed from state parks. hint: they aren't gone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not understanding, your statement reads like a non-sequitur to me. Evolution has nothing to do with life.
Evolution has nothing to do with life? What? How would you define evolution then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Photosynthesis (carbon) cycle https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/151188/a-massive-se...
From what I get, yeah, there are several projects that try to use use seaweed on the open ocean to sequester CO2. [1] The yield seems to be mediocre though [2, 3]. For all seaweed that washes up on the shore, the effect reverses: It rots and releases CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. [4] So if it's a negative feedback loop, then a very weak one, if at all: CO2 emissions cause increased seaweed growth, but increase…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are completely correct I regret that word choice now. I was rushing to comment because I felt it was important to provide context on AMOC collapse scholarship.
Memento mori: top comment made the same mistake[1], your contributions reinforced the top comment, and your separate individual reply is the second comment. Rushing to comment has deep effects on HN, the threading incentivizes appending to the top comments rather than replying. This will now be a philosophical debate about scientific trust for hours just because people assume the article says "collapse is happening s…
HN does reward earliness somewhat, but less so than many other fora.
Focus more on getting it right than getting it fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For myself, I’m looking for a forum that has no up votes or down votes.
It has nothing to do with downvotes. The first person to show up decides the entire future direction of the conversation.
Random ordering can also work.
(Newest first has its own issues, notably of late-hit low-value comments. But the overall effect on the thread discussion of early low-value comments is reduced.)
I've got a background in this field and I am very surprised to see this published in Nature. The model presented is purely statistical with no representation of the underlying physics. When we are dealing with a phenomenon that is driven by well-understood physical laws (e.g. geophysical fluid dynamics, radiation physics etc) then these physical models are the most reliable basis for prediction. When I say physical m…
Based on my initial reading so far this seems like the best take. However, I’ll offer an alternative perspective. This paper identifies that IPCC does not expect a collapse in the 21st-century. That alone should be our largest biasing factor when we’re asking - from a time horizon perspective - what should we be doing? So then, why now? I think it’s compelling that they identified two preconditions for a collapse the…
I feel like "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link" is in play here in a very big way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's exceptionally relevant. Excuse my French, but this constant doomerism is really fucking up the kids. Think of the children?? Lol, as if the environment being 20 degrees hotter isn't going to "fuck up the kids". The kinds should be worried. Many of them actually are worried and try to do something about it, it's the adults that won't listen or curb behaviors, or in many cases try at all - and at worst they call…
I'm glad you just came right out and said you're anti-human, most people beat around that particular landmine of a bush.
I’m a physical oceanographer. While I have only skimmed this article I would like to make two quick comments. 1) The AMOC is one of the most studied parts of the world ocean and predictions about its collapse have been made since Stommel in 1961. I think in general any study on its imminent collapse should be taken with a grain of salt and it would be wise to wait for further replication and the consensus of the comm…
So say it does collapse, in layman's terms what does that mean?
AMOC is part of a tremendous thermal-energy circulation system from the tropics to the arctic within the Atlantic Ocean, and tying to global ocean circulation patterns. Specific impacts are difficult to identify, but could well be hotter tropics (and likely: stronger and more frequent hurricanes and extreme storms), colder North Atlantic (including a loss of the moderating influence of the Gulf Stream on Northern European climates, hence potentially far colder and more severe winters). There are also likely impacts on marine life, agriculture, general wildlife patterns (plant and animal), amongst others. Regional sea-level rise is another possible impact (through thermal expansion if I understand correctly).
Effectively: a predictable and beneficial pattern to which human and nonhuman life and existence has evolved over many thousands of years, if not longer, may be on the verge of complete disruption. That's an event without precedent for on the order of 10,000 years (since the end of the last major glaciation period).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o>
More on prospective impacts of an AMOC collapse:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturnin...>
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1181-8>
http://phys.org/news/2016-01-greenland-ice-sheet-affect-glob...>