6 ms·
Crucial system of ocean currents is collapsing; ‘affects everyone on the planet’
- localplume 3y ago[dead]
- candiodari 3y agoWhy does everything has to be put into the political view? If this ocean current is collapsing because of the current temperature anomaly, then it has happened. Nothing that any amount of CO2 limiting will do about it, because even the most optimistic IPCC projections with 100% adoption only say temperature will stabilize ~2060. That base-case is worse than the worst case considered in this paper. So this should be treated as this current having collapsed. It's like a building toppled, it's shaking, but not many bricks have hit the ground yet, but everybody's running. Well, except that in this case half the people still want to believe it isn't happening. What we really need to know is what will be happening, where, and how much.
- pif 3y ago> half the people still want to believe it isn't happening. The problem is twofold: on one side, you have those who think they can choose whether to believe in facts; on the other side, you have those who believe without understanding! As you said, we are past the return point. This is happening, and we should be doing something that actually addresses the problems caused by the ocean currents shutting down, but too many activists will block the traffic, piss everybody off, show a sign with "STOP OIL" painted on it, accomplish nothing but fomenting the hate, and call it a day.
- tmaly 3y agoI believe we can solve both problems if we would focus more on the scientific method and rational thinking. Improving the educational system is the only way we get there.
- phpnode 3y agoToo slow, it will be decades before the people going through the education system now are in a position to effect change
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tmaly 3y agoWhat do you propose to do that is a complete solution and timely?
- myshpa 3y agoLots of people know what needs doing, but changing things up is tough when we're so used to doing things a certain way. Plus, it doesn't help that laws often slow down the changes we need. And let's be real, these changes might not be everyone's cup of tea, especially when there's so much distrust and confusion often spread by the media. Our current problems: - Climate Change (CC) - Biodiversity Loss (BL) - Deforestation (D) - Water Scarcity (WS) - Ocean Acidification (OA) - Resource Depletion (RD) - Pollution (P) - Land Degradation (LD) - Food Insecurity (FI) - Social Inequity (SI) We have to solve all those to have a chance to repair things. Repair too little and we'll end up as Rome did (they also tried to solve their problems when they realized they're facing the end, but did too little and paid the price). All those problems have their main culprits and plethora of solutions. It's not that we don't know what and how, but we don't have the will. a] acknowledge that our problem is ecological overshoot, and climate change is just one of its symptoms b] stop polluting atmosphere ... stop fossil fuels asap, stop adding unnecessary co2 + methane + n20 (CC, P) c] stop polluting soils & water ... reform agriculture, stop animal agriculture, plant-based diets (BL, WS, OA, P) d] stop economic drivers of exponential growth of humans ... reform political, economic & financial system, handle inequality, ubi, housing, etc. (SI, FI) e] stop overconsumption ... degrowth, ubi, walkable cities & reform zone planning, public transport, wfh, remove subsidies for polluting & unsustainable sectors (CC, BL, D, OA, RD, P, LD, FI, SI) f] stop overexploiting nature ... circular economy, degrowth (BL, D, RD, P) g] store carbon - reforest, rewild (abolishment of animal ag frees up an area as big as Africa) (CC, BL, D, WS, OA, RD, P, LD, FI, SI) h] store carbon - enable return of wildlife ... big, continuous primeval rain forests and grasslands (CC, BL, D, WS, LD) i] store carbon - stop industrial fishing, let marine life rebound to previous levels (70-90% gone already, incl. plankton) (CC, BL, OA, SI) I'm probably forgetting a lot. But that'd be enough to stop it and begin the path towards sustainability.
- mrguyorama 3y ago>As you said, we are past the return point. This is happening, and we should be doing something that actually addresses the problems caused by the ocean currents shutting down, but too many activists will block the traffic, piss everybody off, show a sign with "STOP OIL" painted on it, accomplish nothing but fomenting the hate, and call it a day. Ah yes, 80 million people vote for the guy who says that climate change is a chinese hoax and we should be burning """clean""" coal but the actual problem is the people who don't like pretending things are fine.
- bryanlarsen 3y agoHalf want to believe it isn't happening so therefore we should do nothing, and it feels like the other half believes that because it's inevitable we should just accept we're doomed and do nothing because we're doomed anyways. We need to work to minimize the number of impacts like this one. We can't prevent this one, but we can prevent the next one.
- mannykannot 3y agoI feel there is considerable overlap between the people who once said "ignore the science! global warming is a fallacy!" and those who are now saying "follow the science! it's too late to do anything!"
- uoaei 3y agoYou've pretty succinctly demonstrated in synecdoche the fallacy of hardline reactionary conservative talking points. Things aren't problems until they are. If we can see them coming, we should do something about it. But the conservatively-minded always seem to want more evidence before devoting any resources to anticipation of problems.
- jihadjihad 3y agoAh, the classic "four-stage strategy"! [0] 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak
- deadeye 3y ago"If this ocean current is collapsing because of the current temperature anomaly, then it has happened." It must be my reading comprehension that's off, but what has happened? What is "it", the ocean current collapsing? The thing is, I don't see anywhere in the article that says it is collapsing. "A new study published Tuesday in the journal Nature, found that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current – of which the Gulf Stream is a part – could collapse around the middle of the century, or even as early as 2025." Nowhere does it say it is in the process of collapse, at least that I could find.
- Supermancho 3y agoAMOC includes the NAC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current Additional information, which may or may not be of interest.
- mariusor 3y agoI think what OP wants to say is that despite the timeline for the event being in the future, nothing we can do today will prevent it from happening. The triggers for the event are in the past and nothing can be done, therefore "it has happened".
- deadeye 3y agoThat only makes sense if the predictions are accurate and highly probable. Time unfortunately, has shown that these dire predictions are often wrong. There has been a good 20 years of climate hysteria to pull from. All one has to do is look at old newspapers and read the dire predictions from 2010 to have a good laugh at our sensational media.
- mariusor 3y agoI was merely presenting my interpretation of what OP wanted to say. However I wouldn't classify Nature as "sensational media", the authors of the original are a physicist and a mathematician from a well known University. And I wouldn't call it hysteria when barely anything gets done for the actual climate at a nation state level.
- bad_alloc 3y ago> Why does everything has to be put into the political view? BECAUSE THE FUTURE VIABILITY OF THE PLANET DEPENDS ON POLITICAL DECISIONS!
- notabee 3y agoIt's long past time we should stop tolerating the semantic evasion of "anything that I don't like to talk about is political and therefore out of bounds". The term itself has been stretched and mutilated to the point of absurdity, and especially any topic that has valid and exhaustive empirical research should be discussed in those terms and not shut down with a big taboo sticker slapped on it. Discussion of the state of the world's climate and humans' effects on it: science. Inventing a bunch of word games, truisms, nonsensical "decorum" rules about discussing factual evidence: political.
- mrguyorama 3y ago>"anything that I don't like to talk about is political and therefore out of bounds". What's funny is we did that exact experiment right here on HN several years ago and it went predictably tits up, since everything is political in some way, because politics TOUCHES EVERYTHING.
- jokoon 3y ago[flagged]
- Jeff_Brown 3y agoA war economy just gives the government control of more stuff; it doesn't reduce their incentive to use the stuff. Faith in that is essentiañly faith in autocracy. Proper pricing of externalities would be better.
- ta1243 3y agoNon-carbon energy production in the UK tends to be delayed by years through planning appeals as some rich person doesn't want "their view" spoiled. In 1939 the UK built dozens or hundreds of airbases across the country. No consultation, no hang wringing, just got on and did it. Climate change is a larger threat to the UK than Nazi Germany. We need to treat it as such.
- deadeye 3y agoI, for one, applaud you for saying the quite part out loud.
- thunderbird120 3y agoWell, that would certainly be an effective way of instantly and permanently killing any public support for climate change related policies.
- AlgorithmicTime 3y ago[dead]
- ta1243 3y agoDon't worry, it will come.
- Supermancho 3y agoEventually, you have to go to war with the humans that don't care. Unlike smoking (where people chose to die, rather than change), you can't exactly wait them out.
- ldehaan 3y ago[dead]
- flint 3y agoHere is the #1 story on HN right now https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39810-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39810-w
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- bryanrasmussen 3y agodiscussion on actual Nature Communications article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36864319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36864319
- dgan 3y agoLet's imagine we stopped all C02 production tomorrow. How long it will take for climate to start going back to "sane" measurements?
- davisr 3y agoIt would take shorter than if we were to stop CO2 production at any later date. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, and the second-best time is right now. Do what you can. Live sustainably. Vote righteously. Have consideration for the future.
- nonameking2026 3y agoProbably best not starve the trees. Co2 is only 300-400ppm on the atmosphere
- marapuru 3y agoThanks for that first sentence. I'll share that with people around me that propose delaying.
- moffkalast 3y agoWell according to the c-roads simulator, if we reduce emmissions to zero this year, it still results in +1.5 C increase by the end of the century and stays there. I think that's roughly accurate if I recall the last IPCC report. At this point it's more a question of what we can do to prepare ourselves for the fallout, we've done our waving to the moments when we could do something as they passed by. The real question is what will destroy the ocean's food chain first, China's overfishing, the acidity and temperature increases, or the collapse of currents. Taking bets now.
- algo_trader 3y ago> if we reduce emmissions to zero this year, it still results in +1.5 C increase by the end of the century this is non-sense according to the ipcc models for 1.5C, we still have a budget of 200BN tonCO2e for 2C, we have about 1TN tonCO2e for 2.5C, 2TN ton, is within current trajectory of progress we currently emmit about 50BN tons/annum All of the above are bad, but degrees (ha! pun!) matter > China's overfishing Bashing the developing world is not helpful. The US account for a massive chunk of historical emissions and excess consumption.
- Dig1t 3y agoCNN has done so much to tarnish their reputation that my gut reaction is to distrust the information they discuss simply based on their past behavior. I think these mainstream publications are actually harming the causes they seek to highlight. It seems there are others in this thread that feel the same way.
- Swenrekcah 3y agoOk but please don’t let your disappointment in CNN become yet another excuse for you or other people to keep ignoring the brutal realities of climate change.
- black6 3y agoHow can anyone on HN ignore it when there are a dozen climate emergency articles on the front page every day? Fatigue is setting in.
- nonameking2026 3y agoWe should plan for it, not ban another “plastic straw”
- gfdsgvbcd 3y agomaybe if we pay more taxes and stop eating hamburgers we can solve it
- Swenrekcah 3y agoWe the people dont need to pay more taxes but the polluting companies should. We the people should not keep doing the polluting companies favours by focusing on complaining about things like veggie burgers and paper straws. We should keep demanding real action. If you think paper straws and tree planting is dumb and useless (which I can totally relate to), don’t use that to mock the whole enterprise but pressure all the politicians to resist the moneyed interests and take meaningful action.
- 3y ago
- sys32768 3y agoSo what's the plan to force China to cease being the world leader in CO2 emissions?
- mberger 3y agoBuild more american LNG generators
- nyargh 3y agoTo retake first place, or..?
- crtified 3y agoPresumably the majority of what China produces only exists because every day billions of people in other countries open their wallets, deliberately choose dozens of items with "Made in China" stamped firmly upon them, and thus routinely cast their financial vote about how the world should continue.
- DLA 3y agoAnd India is coming up fast as demographics propel them to become the world’s most populous country, replacing China.
- badcppdev 3y agoThis is a silly comment. China's per person emissions are far lower than most industrialised countries. Qatar is at the top with almost 40 tons of CO2 per person per year.
- sys32768 3y agoWho was talking about per-person? China leads the world in greenhouse gas emissions, double that of the USA. China, USA, and India contribute 42.6% total emissions, while the bottom 100 countries only account for 2.9%. https://www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows-changes-worlds-top-10-emitters https://www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows-changes...
- 3y ago
- c-linkage 3y ago[dead]
- DLA 3y agoHN headline is very click-baity. Context: Collapse around the middle of the century or as soon as 2025. (That’s a big error bar.) (CNN) A vital system of ocean currents could collapse within a few decades if the world continues to pump out planet-heating pollution, scientists are warning – an event that would be catastrophic for global weather and “affect every person on the planet.” A new study published Tuesday in the journal Nature, found that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current – of which the Gulf Stream is a part – could collapse around the middle of the century, or even as early as 2025.
- mock-possum 3y agoYeah there is a bit of a gulf between “is collapsing” and “could collapse if”
- DLA 3y agoSorry to post twice on this thread, but this concept gets so little relative attention, and to me, this is a huge and viable idea. And low cost. Sure you need to cover a lot of land but if this technique was applied to farm lands it cloud have a disproportionate carbon sink effect relative to things like direct air capture or carbon storage. Worth additional attention IMO. “Sprinkling basalt over soil could remove huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere” https://physicsworld.com/a/sprinkling-basalt-over-soil-could-remove-huge-amounts-of-carbon-dioxide-from-the-atmosphere/ https://physicsworld.com/a/sprinkling-basalt-over-soil-could...
- it_citizen 3y ago> Goll’s team used a land surface model to the simulate the effects of applying 5 kg/m2 of basalt dust over a vegetated area of 55 million square kilometres (about one third of the land on Earth). They found it has the potential to remove 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, where roughly half was stored in the biomass. Am I misunderstanding something? We emitted 37 billion tons in 2021. This solution would offset 2.5 billion tons (~7%) of our annual emissions. And to do that we would need to put 5KG of basalt per square meter on 1/3 of all land available on earth. Isn't it completely crazy and unrealistic?