51–60 of 248 posts
Wait I've seen this... Day before the day after tomorrow right?
The AMOC has been studied for a long time, including the effects of its possible weakening.
Where the movie is firmly in fantasy land of course is in the timeline, where the effects are nearly instant rather than likely over decades in reality.
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.
The answer can't be, let's just consume 10x less. We have to engineer our way out of it.
Isn’t calling AMOC “the primary source of warmth for northern Europe” wildly overstated?
It would be correct if it said "Abnormally high temperatures for the latitude". Most of Europe would be 10 °C colder or so without. We'd be really screwed over here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wishful thinking... I wonder how people like you end up so hostile to experts.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Climate also doesn't change in macro over a lifetime. It's very real, but the notion that it's changing over a 5 year period is nonsense. things aren't "shutting off".
I am old enough to have witnessed how the climate has completely changed in Europe, where I live. In the same place where I live now, when I was young there was permanent snow cover for 3 to 4 months. During the last 10 years, there have been years with no snow and in the others a little snow has been present for 3 or 4 days of a year, when it melted the second day after falling. I have not used again my winter boots…
What you perceive as change isn't macro, it's micro.
It doesn't mean macro change isn't happening, but it's not happening on our timescale.
I'm 50 FWIW.
I think climate change is a compelling crisis but I find these types of “could maybe happen according to some models” type of catastrophic scenarios a little frustrating because they soak up a lot of attention with scary headlines, reinforcing hopelessness in those who care while providing ammunition to skeptics when the catastrophe doesn’t materialize. It’s also easy to question methodology for anyone who has done a…
The solar panel install stats give me hope. It’s unfortunate the US is burying its head on new alt energy projects but our grifting culture is just too strong.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adx4298
Basically newer modeling has shown a stronger weakening of the system. Lots of uncertainty, but 1/3rd loss by 2100. There's a lot of unknowns with feedback loops and tipping points where the whole thing might collapse if a threshold is crossed.
I think climate change is a compelling crisis but I find these types of “could maybe happen according to some models” type of catastrophic scenarios a little frustrating because they soak up a lot of attention with scary headlines, reinforcing hopelessness in those who care while providing ammunition to skeptics when the catastrophe doesn’t materialize. It’s also easy to question methodology for anyone who has done a…
What, exactly, do you expect scientists researching these things to do? Bury their findings?
https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/products/ocean/sst/contour/
I am seeing changes, unprecidented changes, in my decades of watching, and they do not match any predicted scenario.
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…
We will have to do both I am afraid