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

71–80 of 441 posts

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

#71

Post by jacquesm »

foota wrote: post #52
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…

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

In fairness, scientists have no doubt about climate change either. And yet, here we are. That's exactly my point.

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

#72

Post by tomcooks »

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…

>In order to reach 1.61 metric tons an individual would not be able to own a gas-powered car, could not regularly consume meat, could not live in remote areas only visitable by plane etc. Many things people don't even consider "luxuries" (like visiting family overseas) would be a non-starter.

So literally what was normal life in Europe up to the 80's, even 90s for some regions.

It's not difficult to imagine how to accomplish this, we have even more available to make life comfortable.

Ask anyone born in the 50's, they'll share tricks.

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

#73

Post by qbasic_forever »

jacquesm wrote: post #47
qbasic_forever wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear container ships are such a good idea. It is maddening we haven't done this and only turn war ships into nuclear power.

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.

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

#74

Post by matttproud »

throw0101a wrote: post #50
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.

> 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 periodic populist gestures. I’d say Nixon (modulo corruption) or Ford (ineptitude) or Eisenhower was probably the last. I’ll never forgive the Bush son for pissing away my generations’ future and Rove’s mobilization of the demos into this gerrymandered hellscape.

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

#75

Post by lowdose »

krona wrote: post #65
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…

I'm just about ready to pack it in and hope the next generation is smarter than this one Sorry, the Flynn effect is dead.

The negative Darwinian effect as Musk calls it.

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

#76

Post by jacquesm »

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…

Yes, it's the boy who cried wolf on a planet wide scale. But it just so happens that this planet is the only planet we've got and we're doing a piss-poor job of stewardship. Regardless of alarmists that much at least should be obvious to anybody with a normal IQ and up. But it's so convenient to ignore it all and get on with the hunt for that extra buck.

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

#77

Post by cool_dude85 »

lettergram wrote: post #61
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.

I’m frankly less concerned about climate change - in reality we don’t have enough data for super definitive answers. Further, we can and the world can fairly easily adapt. A few degrees over a hundred years is easily manageable. In contrast, insect populations are dropping like a stone. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_population... We’re going to have serious problems within the next 5-10 years if t…

>A few degrees over a hundred years is easily manageable.

No it's not.

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

#78

Post by Permit »

jacquesm wrote: post #40
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…

> That strikes me as close-to-impossible for industrialized nations to achieve. A round-trip flight from NYC to SF emits 1.5 metric tons per passenger. In order to reach 1.61 metric tons an individual would not be able to own a gas-powered car, could not regularly consume meat, could not live in remote areas only visitable by plane etc. So? > Many things people don't even consider "luxuries" (like visiting family ove…

> So?

You have made peace with these things which is commendable.

That said, you must still understand how big of a change this would be for other people who have not. For example, I suspect the Canadian government would have a hard time telling indigenous populations in Nunavut that they have banned flights to their communities. Same would go for island nations like Iceland or even the state of Hawaii.

You and I can probably both agree that others will be reluctant to give up eating meat, fresh fruits/vegetables that have been flown in from warmer climates. We can probably also agree that most people would not vote for a party that promised to shut down global international tourism.

I cannot see any political solution to this problem.

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

#79

Post by backprop1993 »

I think back to how we have responded to this pandemic. We were in denial until the pandemic was spreading unchecked wildly through the population, and even a good chunk of the population is still in denial after 100,000s of dead.

We are a hopeless species when it comes to organizing effective collective action ahead of known disaster. We seem to only respond collectively once disaster has struck, and even then it takes time.

I read a book in 1997 that was about this. Can not remember the name or author of it for the life of me. It was about climate change and the risk that North Atlantic currents would shift causing a state change that would be hard to reverse. 24 years later we think it is getting closer, but we still do not act swiftly.

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

#80

Post by snarf21 »

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…

I don't see it as political at all. It is simply NIMBYism. Everyone wants trash pick-up but not a landfill near them. They want sewer that always flushes but no water treatment near them. They don't want new malls because of traffic. They don't want new apartments because they are afraid of who may move in and their property values.

The only reason straws caught on is because no one cared. We are all absolutely willing to give up straws since they don't require any real change in our behavior. Most stores offer reusable bags but people (and lobbyists) would fight back if disposable bags were outlawed. We could charge for them but people would rather pay an extra $0.50 at the grocery store than change behavior. We are addicted to convenience. People hate change, more than the pieces of change, more than anything else. There is a lot of awful in this world driven specifically by people's fear of change.

Post reply on HN