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

111–120 of 441 posts

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

#111

Post by closeparen »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #73
jacquesm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a non-proliferation issue more than anything else.

Let the nuclear powers build the reactors and design the ships to slide them in like big batteries then IMHO. There can't be more than a few thousand cargo ships in the world--it's a risk that could be managed.

Each nuclear facility has a small army onsite, plus full-scale armies that can be summoned within a few minutes by panic button. In the middle of an Iowa cornfield.

Compare that to the threat environment at sea, plus the logistical difficulties of carrying around that much security. I doubt the Navy can spare a battle group to escort each container ship.

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

#112

Post by throw0101a »

matttproud wrote: post #74
throw0101a wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Makes me look back at the last 20-30 years of discourse in the United States and let out a deep sigh. George H.W. Bush ("Bush 41") actually had a decent track record on the environment and climate change: * https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/george-h-w-bush-underst... The craziness with the GOP started more recently (post-1990s).

1992, Bush utters “Ozone Man” into the lexicon as a pejorative against Al Gore. There is a difference between campaign rhetoric and policy, to be sure, but the country lost clarity of focus rapidly as a nation after the Gulf War and began to let trivial things divide it. (I remember the 1990s culture wars, and I’d like to forget.) Bush senior may have been one of the last decent human Republicans outside of his perio…

And yet Reagan (with Bush as VP) signed the Montreal Protocol. And Bush 41 created the acid rain pact with Canada (PM Mulroney).

A lot of blame goes to Bush 43 ("Dubya") for a lot of things, but I generally view him as a patsy for those around him that actually made the decisions and pushed them through.

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

#113

Post by roter »

7402 wrote: post #30

The actual title is "Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation." I don't think the AMOC is exactly the same as the Gulf Stream, although I believe they are related. This is not my area of expertise. Could anyone explain this a little better? Why was the title changed?

As long as the winds blow and the Earth spins, we will have a Gulf Stream. What the paper is referring to is the three-dimensional circulation driven by salt and heat fluxes. Sinking cold water near places like Iceland and gradual upwelling of hot water in the tropics. Net result is transport of heat from tropics to poles and since it is water with a high heat capacity, a lot of heat! If this 3D flow is lessened, it means other things must adjust to compensate --- like midlatitude storms etc. The AMOC also "pulls" the Gulf Stream more northerly before it closes the loop and comes down the coast of western Europe. So UK, Ireland warmer than you'd expect given the latitude. Clear as mud?

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

#114

Post by nerdponx »

ghastmaster wrote: post #55

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream > The warm water and temperature contrast along the edge of the Gulf Stream often increase the intensity of cyclones, tropical or otherwise. There should be less quantity and intensity of storms in the Atlantic, in the event this takes place.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/25/atlantic...

The opposite appears to be true, according to this article at least:

> Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who co-authored the study published on Thursday in Nature Geoscience, told the Guardian that a weakening AMOC would increase the number and severity of storms hitting Britain, and bring more heatwaves to Europe.

> He said the circulation had already slowed by about 15%, and the impacts were being seen. “In 20 to 30 years it is likely to weaken further, and that will inevitably influence our weather, so we would see an increase in storms and heatwaves in Europe, and sea level rises on the east coast of the US,” he said.

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28079665

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

#115

Post by 74d-fe6-2c6 »

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…

you must be pretty delusional to even consider the next generation to be more farsighted. they'll just suffer and blame their parents.

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

#116

Post by api »

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…

It's okay. Europe will just turn into tundra and we'll have to deal. We'll find some way to blame liberalism for it after liberals warned of it for generations and were ignored.

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

#117

Post by ordu »

holoduke wrote: post #33

Nuclear power is needed everywhere. All major grids. And all containerships. Doable in 20-40 years with some serious effort.

It would be fun watching headlines about a ship being stuck in Suez, if Ever Given was a nuclear powered ship. And what to do about terrorists capturing ships and threatening to blow them up.

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

#118

Post by rhacker »

weatherlight wrote: post #100
lazide wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re inundated with folks screaming about danger and hyping up fear from every angle - everything from economic collapse, to stock market crashes, to apocalyptic visions from every angle about climate, etc. And what most people, especially younger folks, don’t realize is that it’s AlWAYS been this way. And most of the time, when something does blow up, there wasn’t a clear or unambiguous difference between the thing…

People naturally have a survivorship bias. Thomas Ligotti has this great quote about why people, most people, are Optimistic (specifically with existence), that this is all okay, and nothing will go wrong, and that when things do go wrong, it'll be okay in the end “The point that in the absence of birth nobody exists who can be deprived of happiness is terribly conspicuous. For optimists, this fact plays no part in t…

favorited that... thanks

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

#119

Post by vimy »

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…

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 % lower emissions in 2020. A reduction that can only be achieved once, you can’t close the same factory twice. We need 10 % lower every year…

That’s not worth changing my whole lifestyle for. I’d rather pay for geo-engineering solutions instead of something that lowers my quality of life and ultimately doesn’t do much to solve the problem.

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

#120

Post by bcrosby95 »

slownews45 wrote: post #14
matttproud wrote: post #5

Makes me look back at the last 20-30 years of discourse in the United States and let out a deep sigh. Had CFC propellants emerged today, I highly doubt the U.S. would have been a signatory to the Montreal Protocol — just to own the libs or avoid hindering the market by a boogeyman of 0.0001% overhead or some other form of contrarian political identity differentiation.

Yeah - even where I am there has been a pull back on stuff. We've got a ban on plastic straws (ie, you can't use one then throw it in the trash in the resteraunt) to help save nature. But you go outside and the amount of trash just blowing into the water from various encampments near the water is just nuts. Their are claims of concerns about carbon emissions, but absolute opposition to any work around nuclear. If car…

According to a friend that works with utility companies to plan out future capacity, nuclear's problem is the high upfront cost. Companies don't want to invest in building one for this reason alone. Building a new one puts a lot of capital at risk.
Post reply on HN