One can measure the rate of flow of seawater (about ~30Sv, or 30 million cubic meters per second!) by the potential induced on salt ions from moving through the earth's magnetic field on a old abandoned telegraph cable between Florida and the Bahamas.
Fed it into bing-ai and basically said either Day After Tomorrow or Interstellar, or a bit of both. I mean, its definitely NOT good.
My biggest concern is the AMOC collapsing, everything I've read about that says its gonna be a rough weekend when that happens.
From Bing Chat:
A warmer and lighter Gulf Stream could affect the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, which is a large-scale system of ocean currents that transports heat and nutrients around the globe. A slowdown or collapse of this circulation could have drastic effects on regional and global climate, such as cooling Europe, altering rainfall patterns, and changing ocean productivity2.
A closer Gulf Stream could alter the coastal ocean dynamics and ecosystems along the East Coast of the United States. It could increase coastal erosion, flooding, and storm surges by raising sea level and intensifying waves3. It could also affect marine life by changing water temperature, salinity, and nutrient availability. Some species could benefit from warmer waters, while others could face habitat loss or competition from invasive species4.
A changing Gulf Stream could also influence the weather and climate of both North America and Europe. It could modify the jet stream, which is a band of fast-moving air that steers weather systems across the continents. A weaker or more variable jet stream could lead to more extreme weather events, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and storms2. It could also affect the paths and intensity of hurricanes, which draw energy from the warm water of the Gulf Stream5.
The thermohalice cycle is a prime exchanger of water. Hot gulf stream water goes north, cools, and sinks, displacing existing cold water there & oxygenating lower levels of ocean.
We risk losing this major ocean oxygenator. I haven't heard any good theories for what happens instead, if theres still some kind of gulf stream but it mainly hugs the coast. There's been incredible warming of the Gulf of Maine in the past couple decades, for example, and that seems nowhere near deep enough to have this kind of thermohalice exchange.
Honestly, there is nothing I can do about this. Everyone who cares already know and most try to do what they can. But it is obvious from the last decades or so that it isn't enough.
The only way to do anything is to sacrifice something. And since this is such a big issue, the sacrifice also needs to be proportionally big. Personally? I cannot make that sacrifice. I had lived the "low carbon emission" lifestyle before and I do not want to go back to that. I have dedicated the better part of my life so that I do not have to be in that situation again. There are people with more impact to the environment than I am and if they don't lift a finger, why should I? Even if I do, what impact would I have compared to the guy going on a private jet twice a day?
I am tired and jaded. It will be bad and I know it. I am preparing and maybe you should too. But beyond getting ready for the worst, I doubt there is much else to do.
> The only way to do anything is to sacrifice something.
I think this narrative is not correct, or at least makes it seem like climate change will only get solved if we stop being consumerists. There is no need to be that negative, and I find that it hurts the chances we we will actually solve climate change. I get the disillusionment, I do (especially working on it every day).
Food production and distribution for 8 billion people (alone) is about 30% of climate change. So, even if we stopped everything else, climate change would still happen (albeit a bit slower). Even if we all switched to a low carbon intensity diet and literally did nothing else, it would still happen.
There are plenty of ways to mitigate climate change. For better or worse, we live in a capitalist society, and those ways are not generally profitable. However, that means (correctly) pricing carbon into our goods and services will accomplish what you want.
Anyway, I have found most folks who want to do something have never even written their representatives (which takes minutes, minutes!). Tell them you want a revenue neutral carbon tax, or pick something you think works better.
I think this solution (pricing externalities into product cost) is rational and correct but ultimately doomed. If you could keep it going for a couple generations it might eventually be ok but it's impossible for a politician to decide that pork is now 3 times as expensive and expect to get reelected. Their opponents will cast them as a 'east coast elite' gouging good Americans to pay for woke environmentalism. It's utterly impossible. We've stupided ourselves into a corner playing tribal politics.
At this point ecological disaster is probably the timeline we deserve. Last one out turn off the lights.
I abandoned the thought of "writing to representative" a while back. I can write them a hundred letters that got read by some interns and compiled into a table that at best get a glance. Or a lobbyist can pay $10000 and get a full 2h saying their piece to them over dinner.
Like I said, those who cares already tried. And it has been proven that it isn't enough. The politicians know very well how the environment is and what will come out of it. They aren't stupid. But let be honest here, if your ultimate goal is to be reelected, would you raise tax and implement disruptive measures that does not bring immediate benefits? Your policies would get scrapped within one term by your successor.
Looking at the data we know that drastic changes are coming and they are inevitable. There is no realistic way to avoid it. You can tax all the companies to bankruptcy tomorrow and it would change nothing. That is a fact. So what is it that you propose to be the solution today? Personally, I think it is cruel to make people spend the last of their few years suffering for nothing instead of letting them enjoy it. Either way, we will all suffer in a couple decades anyway. What is the point...
God, what a tired argument to deflect responsibility. Not to say I'm holy, I've also given up trying to save the planet and am just going to enjoy my life until the climate kills me either directly or indirectly (lack of resources will lead to conflict, even in the West food and water might not be guaranteed), which I think will be in the next decade.
What are the corporations doing anyway? They're selling crap to you and me, which we all addictively buy. iPhone 15, faster, shinier, newer, on sale now! RTX 4000 series, it needs a kilowatt power supply! Get Windows 11, the billions of laptops without TPM will be worthless when Windows 10 is EOLed in 2 years (Install Linux? But it's too hard to understand, I want my fucking convenience!).
Wikipedia says there are 2640 billionaires in the world[1], if they all adopted the middle class lifestyle, would that save the planet? Hmm 2640 people flying on private jets vs the billions of planetary middle class with their cars and air-conditioned homes and taste for steak and jet-setting vacations.
We're all "environmentally friendly" up to the line where beyond it it inconveniences us. For the billionaires flying commercial is inconvenient; for me, being vegan, using old tech, not allowing myself to ever see Japan again would be inconvenient. I admit that I like my luxuries, I'm not going to use the excuse that the billionaires have to do it first, even if they all turn green I'd still want my comforts, but I will support laws that force us to be greener[2].
I actually agree with you. My beef with billionaires isn't that they fly in jets or invest in companies that make cheap products. My beef with billionaires is that they by-and-large put money behind preventing the necessary climate action.
This is essentially a tragedy of the commons, which could easily be overcome if the right people got into power. The right people will never get into power, because it is against the interest of billionaires.
While I understand your point, this comment is pretty close to trite comments like "downvote me if you want, but..." or "does anyone else..." or even the sinful "first!". It sets a negative tone for everyone else who clicks on the comments, and can immediately put people on the defensive (such as someone who wasn't planning on commenting, but now will to refute your point etc.)
I don't disagree and it was posted somewhat tongue in cheek. That said, I did hope it might raise some commentary or insight into why Hacker News seems to have such a vocal cohort of posters on climate change related articles. For a community that prides itself of being logical and scientific, I've found it quite surprising how many here go against the scientific consensus on climate change.
The gulf stream isn’t moving, this is just plate tectonics pushing the continents around so it looks like it’s moving even though it’s actually staying in place.
One can measure the rate of flow of seawater (about ~30Sv, or 30 million cubic meters per second!) by the potential induced on salt ions from moving through the earth's magnetic field on a old abandoned telegraph cable between Florida and the Bahamas.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202... (TLDR, it's dropping about 1% per decade currently)