121–130 of 248 posts
Wait I've seen this... Day before the day after tomorrow right?
Generally in science when your see the same results being reproduced by different researchers your certainty should increase.
“Scientists” have been warning the world about this since Stommel issued his paper in 1961: https://tellusjournal.org/articles/10.3402/tellusa.v13i2.949... It’s going to shut down The ice caps and antartic ice are going to melt entirely The Gulf Stream is going to collapse Global emissions have skyrocketed with no brakes since then 1.5C target was a joke. 2.0 target is a joke. There is no world where humans can coord…
The problem is that by the time it becomes incontestable that the scientists were right, it will be much, much too late to do anything about it.
Depending upon timing, if the AOC shuts down, Europe may not be a bad place to live. I am not sure how the AOC will impact NE US and Eastern Canada. But between the 40th parallels could be borderline uninhabitable for humans.
Way things look now, we seem to heading straight to +3C and maybe even +4C.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they should be more like "Atlantic currents might shut down, we'll see what happens and if it'll be good or bad" when they already can tell the effects will be pretty bad? Wouldn't that be basically burying the lede?
You'd have to ask the one who raised concern with this in the first place. What is apparent, though, is that "good or bad" is contrary to science. Science seeks to understand what is, not how you might feel about it. It is interesting that things went there.
Scientists are also humans with their own value judgment which is sometimes very flawed (see e.g. Richard Lynn and his race science) and sometimes with revolutionary insights that expands our shared empathy for the world around us (see e.g. Jane Godall).
Often when I hear a statement like this I see it as a thought terminating cliché. The value judgement of a scientists is often disregarded only when it is contrary (or inconvenient) to the speaker’s argument.
“Scientists” have been warning the world about this since Stommel issued his paper in 1961: https://tellusjournal.org/articles/10.3402/tellusa.v13i2.949... It’s going to shut down The ice caps and antartic ice are going to melt entirely The Gulf Stream is going to collapse Global emissions have skyrocketed with no brakes since then 1.5C target was a joke. 2.0 target is a joke. There is no world where humans can coord…
> There is no world where humans can coordinate in a way that reduces global emissions They seem to have cooperated rather effectively on increasing them, so I wouldn't say "no world"?
We are moving that direction, but a lot of damage will be done before we get there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So many of those 'could maybe happen' are, in fact, happening right now. The researcher is also quoted as saying 'more likely than not' which is pretty big when it comes to something like the AMOC shutting down. This really is catastrophic and really should be causing governments to take immediate, massive, steps to avert it including steps to sanction countries that are causing it.
The big consequence here is for the EU. And the only way to deal with this is for the EU to force US, India and China to seriously reduce energy use, and with that, their economy. This is not going to happen. The EU can't even convince itself to stop buying from China.
The us on the other hand is well you know blowing up oil all over the world with military conflicts that are wars but aren't wars but are wars that are over but evolving and over and evolving. They are also rolling back green energy projects , fueling data centers with gas, etc.
Hot take on HN, but techno-optimism sounds so stupid when it comes to climate change... You can't engineer macro climate/ecology, since capital has no interest in human and it's surrounding environment balanced cohabitation.
Techno optimist here who expects the following to make a big contribution to reducing human made future climate change: better batteries+solar/wind, nuclear fusion, self driving cars (we'll need to manufacture less cars for the same amount of miles humanity drives), AI helping with better resource allocation in general (hopefully). The answer can't be, let's just consume 10x less. We have to engineer our way out of i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which the average person doesn’t know because this is the 50th headline they’ve read on how we’re screwed today that hasn’t happened. They’ve blown their attention budget for the layman and aren’t getting it back unless someone serious guides their attention.
This isn't some accident, the public could understand many complex situations that just don't have billions of dollars in FUD propaganda networks that takeover the Whitehouse whenever the public is starting to get what it wants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much agree. Nature will fix the climate, after it eliminates (a large number of) the humans that are causing the problem. That's really the only way.
This is a cold-hearted way to think about it. The countless people who will suffer are not the ones causing the problem. The problem is caused by the billionaires willing to sacrifice human life and the environment for profit. They actively sow climate skepticism and encourage defunding of climate research to protect their bottom line. When extreme weather events kill millions, those billionaires will be safe in thei…
two absolute facts: 1. even if there was something humans could do about it, we won't, ever 2. insurance rates are the only "control". they will skyrocket and thereby the only change to select behavior human society allows "privatize the profits, socialize the costs" so that scales from the smallest to the largest models
Pretty much agree. Nature will fix the climate, after it eliminates (a large number of) the humans that are causing the problem. That's really the only way.