4 ms·

The terms "imminent" and "predict the time" seem like missing the point of the article you acknowledged you have only skimmed. I felt the article was clear col

The terms "imminent" and "predict the time" seem like missing the point of the article you acknowledged you have only skimmed. I felt the article was clear collapse is not imminent, not even in this century. I felt it noted focus was not on imminence, but on changes worth mentioning in aspects of interest. Perhaps the difference is this article is talking of timing for transitions of significance, rather than the forthcoming collapse more likely to arrive sooner after such transitions?

oceanthrowaway 3y ago
You are completely correct I regret that word choice now. I was rushing to comment because I felt it was important to provide context on AMOC collapse scholarship.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  Memento mori: top comment made the same mistake[1], your contributions reinforced the top comment, and your separate individual reply is the second comment. Rushing to comment has deep effects on HN, the threading incentivizes appending to the top comments rather than replying. This will now be a philosophical debate about scientific trust for hours just because people assume the article says "collapse is happening shortly by X date", but its just a statistical model :( Don't mean to make you feel bad or call you out, most people don't read the article if it's popular. It's my attempt to give a little back to the community to note it, been here a very long time, and when people try calling it out coarsely it isn't constructive. [1] sort of: they understood it was a statistical model but spent so much time hand-wringing about Nature publishing a statistical model that it came off like there was something wrong with the article, causing a rush of replies of "how can I trust anything??"
  - oceanthrowaway 3y ago
    Thank you for your kind tone (genuinely). I understand your concern. I certainly hope it does not become a debate about scientific trust for hours although you are right its headed that way. I have a great amount of trust in the scientific consensus, am a publishing climate scientist myself, and did genuinely enjoy this paper. It is my opinion that is instructive for people to know that studies on AMOC collapse are often misinterpreted when they are spread widely, similar maybe to headlines about experimental new battery designs. I do not think that the authors of the study have any ill intent or that their work is unimportant, but rather that AMOC collapse is an incredibly complex topic and that when studies on it are often posted to sites like hacker news (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28085342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28085342 I have been here a decade just not on this throwaway ;) ) they are often taken as a significant change in the understanding of the field which they are not (yet at least). I see your point that harping on this fact is perhaps boring and repetitive so I apologize for that.
  - nerpderp82 3y ago
    This is the single biggest flaw in how HN discussions are formed. I almost always downvote the top comment. Often they completely derail any sort of meaningful discussion. I have fantasized around a "forum garden" where we could experiment with other ways of facilitating discussions.
    - bonestamp2 3y ago
      There should at least be several ways to sort the comments (like reddit) and then each page load should randomly select one way to sort it unless a user has explicitly set a sort method preference in their account settings.
    - FollowingTheDao 3y ago
      For myself, I’m looking for a forum that has no up votes or down votes.
      - nerpderp82 3y ago
        It has nothing to do with downvotes. The first person to show up decides the entire future direction of the conversation.
        dredmorbius 3y ago
        One presentation format which utterly flips this is to post newest message first. Random ordering can also work. (Newest first has its own issues, notably of late-hit low-value comments. But the overall effect on the thread discussion of early low-value comments is reduced.)
        nerpderp82 3y ago
        Which is a great idea and HN does. I'd love to see a chatmodel as a forum board moderator. They understand nuances, so it would be able to spot people just fighting or adding too much snark. A real net nanny.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    I don't know. I'd rather have the top comment be from a physical oceanographer than from, say, some random web programmer. Both the perspective and the background context information are valuable.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    I've more than once made a late comment to a thread that I've felt has gone ... seriously pear-shaped ... and found that comment rising to or near the top of the thread. HN does reward earliness somewhat, but less so than many other fora. Focus more on getting it right than getting it fast.
mschild 3y ago
It's mentions a potential collapse as early as 2025. More precisely 2025-2095. That is this century and it's accurate to say 2025 is imminent.
- olddustytrail 3y ago
  Yes, but I - and probably you - will die sometime between 2025 and 2095. I wouldn't say that therefore our deaths are imminent.
  - meheleventyone 3y ago
    Right but that's just you making a bad comparison on the timescale of this thing having collapsed previously it's pretty imminent.
  - mschild 3y ago
    Likely, but if the collapse happens in say 2030, the rest of my life and that of almost everyone else, however short or long that may be, is not going to be pleasent. Regardless, I would like to see humanity safely thrive. I don't want earth to become an example of the great filter theory.
  - wredue 3y ago
    That’s a ridiculous comparison. Single human lifetimes are only measured in decades. If the entirety of humans were very likely to be wiped out from 2025 to 2095, you would definitely call that imminent, and is a much more apt comparison.
    - olddustytrail 3y ago
      That’s a ridiculous comparison. The vast majority of humans don't live anywhere near the Atlantic so there's no way the entirety of humans would be wiped out. My comparison was much more apt.
      - jychang 3y ago

oceanthrowaway 3y ago

You are completely correct I regret that word choice now. I was rushing to comment because I felt it was important to provide context on AMOC collapse scholarship.

refulgentis 3y ago
Memento mori: top comment made the same mistake[1], your contributions reinforced the top comment, and your separate individual reply is the second comment. Rushing to comment has deep effects on HN, the threading incentivizes appending to the top comments rather than replying. This will now be a philosophical debate about scientific trust for hours just because people assume the article says "collapse is happening shortly by X date", but its just a statistical model :( Don't mean to make you feel bad or call you out, most people don't read the article if it's popular. It's my attempt to give a little back to the community to note it, been here a very long time, and when people try calling it out coarsely it isn't constructive. [1] sort of: they understood it was a statistical model but spent so much time hand-wringing about Nature publishing a statistical model that it came off like there was something wrong with the article, causing a rush of replies of "how can I trust anything??"
- oceanthrowaway 3y ago
  Thank you for your kind tone (genuinely). I understand your concern. I certainly hope it does not become a debate about scientific trust for hours although you are right its headed that way. I have a great amount of trust in the scientific consensus, am a publishing climate scientist myself, and did genuinely enjoy this paper. It is my opinion that is instructive for people to know that studies on AMOC collapse are often misinterpreted when they are spread widely, similar maybe to headlines about experimental new battery designs. I do not think that the authors of the study have any ill intent or that their work is unimportant, but rather that AMOC collapse is an incredibly complex topic and that when studies on it are often posted to sites like hacker news (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28085342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28085342 I have been here a decade just not on this throwaway ;) ) they are often taken as a significant change in the understanding of the field which they are not (yet at least). I see your point that harping on this fact is perhaps boring and repetitive so I apologize for that.
- nerpderp82 3y ago
  This is the single biggest flaw in how HN discussions are formed. I almost always downvote the top comment. Often they completely derail any sort of meaningful discussion. I have fantasized around a "forum garden" where we could experiment with other ways of facilitating discussions.
  - bonestamp2 3y ago
    There should at least be several ways to sort the comments (like reddit) and then each page load should randomly select one way to sort it unless a user has explicitly set a sort method preference in their account settings.
  - FollowingTheDao 3y ago
    For myself, I’m looking for a forum that has no up votes or down votes.
    - nerpderp82 3y ago
      It has nothing to do with downvotes. The first person to show up decides the entire future direction of the conversation.
      - dredmorbius 3y ago
        One presentation format which utterly flips this is to post newest message first. Random ordering can also work. (Newest first has its own issues, notably of late-hit low-value comments. But the overall effect on the thread discussion of early low-value comments is reduced.)
        nerpderp82 3y ago
        Which is a great idea and HN does. I'd love to see a chatmodel as a forum board moderator. They understand nuances, so it would be able to spot people just fighting or adding too much snark. A real net nanny.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  I don't know. I'd rather have the top comment be from a physical oceanographer than from, say, some random web programmer. Both the perspective and the background context information are valuable.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  I've more than once made a late comment to a thread that I've felt has gone ... seriously pear-shaped ... and found that comment rising to or near the top of the thread. HN does reward earliness somewhat, but less so than many other fora. Focus more on getting it right than getting it fast.

mschild 3y ago

It's mentions a potential collapse as early as 2025. More precisely 2025-2095. That is this century and it's accurate to say 2025 is imminent.

olddustytrail 3y ago
Yes, but I - and probably you - will die sometime between 2025 and 2095. I wouldn't say that therefore our deaths are imminent.
- meheleventyone 3y ago
  Right but that's just you making a bad comparison on the timescale of this thing having collapsed previously it's pretty imminent.
- mschild 3y ago
  Likely, but if the collapse happens in say 2030, the rest of my life and that of almost everyone else, however short or long that may be, is not going to be pleasent. Regardless, I would like to see humanity safely thrive. I don't want earth to become an example of the great filter theory.
- wredue 3y ago
  That’s a ridiculous comparison. Single human lifetimes are only measured in decades. If the entirety of humans were very likely to be wiped out from 2025 to 2095, you would definitely call that imminent, and is a much more apt comparison.
  - olddustytrail 3y ago
    That’s a ridiculous comparison. The vast majority of humans don't live anywhere near the Atlantic so there's no way the entirety of humans would be wiped out. My comparison was much more apt.
    - jychang 3y ago