Observation-based early-warning signals for a collapse of the Gulf Stream • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by BeFlatXIII » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:03 PM UTC

throw0101a wrote: post #112

matttproud wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When in doubt, always blame Congress and not the president. Newt Gingrich is a bigger player here than either Bush.

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

#142

Post by Miraste » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:03 PM UTC

progbits wrote: post #16

sleepytimetea wrote: post #7

I was able to read only the abstract - "Rent or Buy article for $8.99". Brings up the question, what does "rent an article" mean ?

I suspect some shitty DRM that gives you access for a while with attempts to limit your ability to save, copy or print the article? Scummy practice nonetheless. Sci-hub doesn't have this yet but I expect it to appear there soon enough.

Sci-hub is not adding new papers as part of an attempt to win a court case in India.

https://old.reddit.com/r/scihub/comments/lofj0r/announcement...

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

#143

Post by chrisco255 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:03 PM UTC

progbits wrote: post #13

lend000 wrote: post #6

Can't read the whole article, but how radically can the Gulf Stream really change? Isn't a current going in that general direction more or less mandated by the Coriolis effect? It's why I figured the west and east coasts of continents at similar latitudes (both in the Northern and Southern hemispheres) have similar climate patterns. (West coasts more temperate, east coasts more variable and humid).

For the first part of your quesition, to quote wikipedia (feel free to check the primary sources yourself): > Atlantic overturning is not a static feature of global circulation, but rather a sensitive function of temperature and salinity distributions as well as atmospheric forcings. Paleoceanographic reconstructions of AMOC vigour and configuration have revealed significant variations over geologic time [34][35] com…

Why would the AMOC be driven by atmospheric forcing? The amount of energy and heat stored in the ocean (due to specific heat capacity of water and sheer volume and mass of the ocean) dwarfs that of the atmosphere by orders of magnitude.

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

#144

Post by minikites » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:03 PM UTC

lazide wrote: post #68

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…

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…

>And most of the time, when something does blow up, there wasn’t a clear or unambiguous difference between the thing that blew up, and all the things everyone was screaming about that did not.

History is not a linear function of progress. Conditions can and do get worse for people, sometimes for generations into the future. The stunning progress of the industrial revolution is the anomaly, not the norm.

We're in a car that's breaking down and we're hoping it will be cheaper to fix later if we ignore it now. We're seeing once-in-a-century weather events every few years. Sea level rise is currently impacting coastal communities. It's not going to go away if we ignore it and hope things get better in the future, we have to work on these things now. We've been refusing to make incremental changes for decades, so the only option left is drastic changes, and they're not going to get easier the longer we wait.

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

#145

Post by Robotbeat » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:03 PM UTC

holoduke wrote: post #33

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

We don’t really have that time. Solar and wind can be built out faster. But we should do it on the margins.

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

#146

Post by qweqwweqwe-90i » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:04 PM UTC

deanCommie wrote: post #10

Before someone makes the inevitable joke, no this will not help offset climate change temperature gains and neutralize the risk of heat-waves. The summer temperatures will continue to get hotter. It's the winter temperatures that will get colder. Both require energy use to keep housing liveable. Which, unless we dramatically transition our energy generation to renewables, will just continue exacerbating the climate p…

It would have been nice if the environmentalists hadn't stopped nuclear energy in it's tracks.

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

#147

Post by roter » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:04 PM UTC

cwkoss wrote: post #12

What would happen if the Gulf Stream did collapse? Would a different similar circulatory system emerge soon after? Would the lack of a dominant system lead to many more smaller chaotic systems? Do we just not know what would happen, so that it's concerning in that it's unknowable?

There will always be a Gulf Stream as long as there are westerlies, a coastline, and Coriolis [0]

[0] https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/chapter/9-4-west...

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

#148

Post by tablespoon » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:04 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

And chances are the blow will be more like the proverbial frog slowly boiling in water than a sudden punch in the gut, so they'll probably only get off their asses and do something to adapt to the changes rather than prevent or reverse them.

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

#149

Post by colinmhayes » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:04 PM UTC

bcrosby95 wrote: post #120

slownews45 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nuclear plants in America are old enough that many need to be upgraded. Turns out upgrading is so expensive that many choose to close instead. Just this week two in Illinois closed when the state refused to subsidize the upgrade.

It's a pretty bad look, because people see these huge subsidies and balk, thinking that nuclear is a continually expensive form of energy, even though these are one time costs.

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

#150

Post by llamaimperative » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

krtkush wrote: post #57

foota wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fairness, we did get vaccines ready nearly from the get go.

The science and tech is usually always there to tackle problems. It's the political will and policymaking ability which pulls things back.

Yeah, personally very upset about the policymaking that prevented the hundreds of vaccines/treatments ready on day 1 from hitting the market.

Or are we just talking about the ones that work?