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

81–90 of 441 posts

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

#81

Post by rchaud »

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.

And all it needed was a Great Depression-level drop in the stock market, every ICU filled to the brim for months, and thousands dying every day.

The effects of climate change have occurred much more slowly and silently. At some point it will no longer be silent, but it will already be too late to meaningfully change its trajectory.

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

#82

Post by notJim »

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…

I agree these are huge challenges, and that climate activists are unrealistic in their expectations of how much people are willing to sacrifice or change. I would guess most climate activists take more than one flight per year, and certainly I do as someone who is concerned about climate (in non-COVID times.)

For this reason, I really think technology has to be used to solve these problems. EVs, public transit, and high-speed rail where it makes sense are very straightforward answers for many things. There is also low-hanging fruit like insulating buildings, and switching buildings to use electricity instead of natural gas. In the US, all of these could be accelerated mostly with government subsidies. There aren't really any major technical hurdles to adopting them right now.

Beyond that, I think we have to have carbon capture, and carbon-neutral biofuels. That would enable us to continue flying and eating meat. Hopefully lab-grown meats also pan out in the coming decades or so.

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

#83

Post by jacquesm »

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.

They get hijacked with some regularity.

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

#84

Post by lmilcin »

konschubert wrote: post #48
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…

But we used paper straws, isn’t that enough? In al seriousness, the next generation isn’t going to be all that different than the last 10000 generations of mankind.

This is one of the very well known biases.

Thinking that just because something has been true for a million years it is also going to be true tomorrow.

This is how our brain is wired and it helps us function, most of the time, but sometimes it is wrong and leads to overlooking things until it becomes too late to react.

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

#85

Post by randomluck040 »

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…

I get all the points but the eating meat part. We simply don’t need it, there is no benefit anymore. Not contradicting your overall point though, even if some things are luxury. We got used to it which is why we might not consider it as luxury. I don’t think we’ll have solar powered planes but maybe emission free trains?

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

#86

Post by alexilliamson »

lumost wrote: post #54
erhk wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trash from encampments is negligible when you realize how many plastics are just dumped into the ocean

If you consider how much refuse you generate per day per household member - and then consider that an encampment has next to no sanitization infrastructure, It becomes obvious that the encampment will generate orders of magnitude more waste in the ocean per capita vs. ordinary households. I wouldn't be surprised if the litter ratio was 10,000:1 or more.

What?

People in houses are probably using more plastic than people who don't have money for a house. They have more money to spend, and a large % will go to plastic, on average.

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

#89

Post by potatolicious »

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…

> It seems to be the left telling other people how to live. Heaven forbid folks live in smaller houses in the US

This doesn't seem like an exclusively left-wing ideology - anti-housing sentiment is strong across the board across US politics. Try building an apartment building in a conservative part of town and you'll get much of the same bad faith opposition as anywhere else (and more often than not, apocalyptic caterwauling).

NIMBYism is sadly a scourge that knows few political boundaries.

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

#90

Post by hughes »

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?

I for one would have no idea what "Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation" refers to.
Post reply on HN