While it's a warning of similar things that could happen due to rising temperatures:

> Quite why the sea-ice platform on the edge of the Brunt shelf has failed to regenerate is unclear. There is no obvious climate signal to point to in this case; atmospheric and ocean observations in the vicinity of the Brunt reveal little in the way of change.

Examples of disasters isn't enough. There must be some technology involved in the article that shows how future disaster is being prevented, otherwise it's just needless clickbait. We already know about climate change, not really anything more to be curious about there. I have flagged the article.

Why must technology be involved. Is technology the only topic of interest to hackers? Not history, art, the natural world. It seems patently untrue that content that doesn't mention technology is needless clickbait.

> I'd argue that examples of disasters that are incredibly likely to be a consequence of rising global temperatures would fill the "intellectual curiosity" niche.

I'd disagree, because good hackers are already familiar with the subject and possible consequences and such news aren't going to change anything. We're already being spammed with daily climate apocalypse news on all major news sites and come to HN for stuff that isn't from Reuters/AP/BBC/etc. ...

I for one was not familiar with the fact that over half the world’s population of this species may die off by the end of the century due to climate change. Science and computers are essential to understanding these complex and urgent effects and thus it is eminently appropriate for HN.

How do those good hackers learn the things that all good hackers know?

https://xkcd.com/1053/

They have seen the last 100 (apparent) climate alarmism posts on HN in the past few months.

Perhaps this isn't the community for you, if it is failing to meet your standards.