←back to thread

Major reversal in ocean circulation detected in the Southern Ocean

(www.icm.csic.es)
480 points riffraff | 8 comments | 04 Jul 25 04:52 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
dang ◴[04 Jul 25 09:51 UTC] No.44463006[source]▶
[stub for offtopicness]
replies(15): >>44461279 #>>44461280 #>>44461309 #>>44461334 #>>44461385 #>>44461408 #>>44461448 #>>44461634 #>>44461664 #>>44461731 #>>44461790 #>>44462060 #>>44462362 #>>44462565 #>>44462687 #
topato ◴[04 Jul 25 05:13 UTC] No.44461309[source]▶
Did it actually say it will DOUBLE the CO2 concentration? Definitely past the point of no return. I guess us millennials WILL actually see the worst climate change outcomes WELL within our lifetimes...
replies(9): >>44461393 #>>44461407 #>>44461467 #>>44461507 #>>44461657 #>>44461694 #>>44461862 #>>44462190 #>>44462905 #
flanked-evergl[dead post] ◴[04 Jul 25 05:52 UTC] No.44461507[source]▶
[flagged]
dao- ◴[04 Jul 25 05:56 UTC] No.44461532[source]▶
In climate science parlance it means it's a conservative guess and will likely happen faster than anticipated.
replies(1): >>44461569 #
flanked-evergl[dead post] ◴[04 Jul 25 06:04 UTC] No.44461569[source]▶
[flagged]
1. lynx97 ◴[04 Jul 25 06:14 UTC] No.44461614[source]▶
30 years ago I learnt in school in chemistry class that earths oil reserves will be used up in 30 years.
replies(3): >>44461633 #>>44461649 #>>44461902 #
2. panstromek ◴[04 Jul 25 06:17 UTC] No.44461633[source]▶
That was true back then though. It boils down to how oil "reserve" is defined, which is all about oil we know how to extract.
replies(1): >>44461655 #
3. dao- ◴[04 Jul 25 06:22 UTC] No.44461649[source]▶
School chemistry means it was a ~20 year old prediction 30 years ago, based on known oil deposits 50 years ago.

It would have been a hopeful prediction from today's perspective, as we would necessarily have stopped pumping and burning oil by now, but unfortunately we haven't.

4. lynx97 ◴[04 Jul 25 06:23 UTC] No.44461655[source]▶
It didn't turn out to be true though. "True back then" seems like a weird way to phrase "wrong".
replies(1): >>44461678 #
5. panstromek ◴[04 Jul 25 06:28 UTC] No.44461678{3}[source]▶
No, it wasn't wrong, because "oil reserves" are defined as: "quantities of crude oil and natural gas from known fields that can be profitably produced/recovered from an approved development", which means they change over time, when we find new oil or develop new technologies. And that's also what happened.
replies(1): >>44461870 #
6. polotics ◴[04 Jul 25 07:06 UTC] No.44461870{4}[source]▶
Also maybe at one point accept that "Oil" with an EROEI dangerously getting to below the 1.0 mark is not the same "Oil" as was talked-about 30 years ago: if your shale sands have to get burnt with local coal or natgas to get a pipeline-able liquid, but the total energy spent on the process is about as much as will be dispersed by combustion engines down the line... then you're treading very murky waters indeed.
7. palmfacehn ◴[04 Jul 25 07:10 UTC] No.44461902[source]▶
Here's an article which is nearly 30 years old. Neo-malthusians remain just as undeterred by your observation as they were in 1997.

https://www.wired.com/1997/02/the-doomslayer-2/

replies(1): >>44466272 #
8. BlueTemplar ◴[04 Jul 25 17:17 UTC] No.44466272[source]▶
Wow, was Wired... trolling ?! Did they seriously believe they could convince opponents with this ?

(But it was probably just preaching to the choir...)