“the tipping point that makes an Amoc shutdown inevitable is likely to be passed within a few decades, but that the collapse itself may not happen until 50 to 100 years later”
Long enough that everyone who got us into the mess will be dead and won’t have to suffer the consequences or admit they were wrong. 😑
Even if it happened in 5 years, those people would never admit they were wrong.
It’s on regular people to find their addresses and do what needs to be done.
I’ll be death too, yay
There could be a one-day delay and those responsible would not suffer consequences.
That’s why those fucking psychopaths are doing nothing to fix it and are exploiting the drive to do something.
The presumption in their work is that ClimatePunctuation isn’t accelerating.
That presumption is pervasive, among climate research.
It’s wrong.
The actual speed of ClimatePunctuation is bell-curved, more or less:
-
speed-of-change from the pre-existing Equilibrium is small, at the beginning…
-
speed-of-change increases, to a maximum…
-
speed-of-change decreases from the maximum down to the new Equilibrium.
Obviously, the evidence which keeps falsifying the optimism of the climate-research-field’s models is evidence of accelerating process ( the deep East Antarctic ice-sheet being warmed 2x as quickly as models predicted, e.g. recently-published )
That such evidence KEEPS getting in our face, & we KEEP ignoring that we’re getting the whole-speed-curve wrong, is evidence that paradigm-bound-thinking is overriding our ability-to-survive.
ClimatePunctuation’s still accelerating.
IF the people who reject that are predicting 50-100y before it becomes inevitable that it shuts down, THEN ClimatePunctuation’s accelerating is GUARANTEED to produce the result sooner, because they’re predicting based on the wrong curve.
It doesn’t matter, though: accountability/integrity isn’t something that’ll ever affect institutions, it’s powerless against them, right?
Our kind protects what’s most-important, & … nonaccountability is the 1st thing we protect, before our very lives.
All the last few thousand years of history backs that fact.
_ /\ _
-
Yeah, terrible news however on the bright side a bunch of companies and rich old people are making money. All at the expense of our future. /s
"So anyways I started 🔥🧊 🌀🌊 🔥🧊 🌀🌊 🔥🧊 🌀🌊 🔥🧊 🌀🌊 "
We haven’t even made it to 1 million years, yet it doesn’t matter what you think or how you reassure yourself you’ll be fine, nature will wipe us and adapt. There’s a reason act of nature are attributed to gods
nature will wipe us and adapt.
At this point I’m just ready for it to hurry up and get it over with.
This current isn’t critical to the survival of the human species.
Pretty critical to a decent percentage of it though.
And I don’t know about you but generally I’d like to thrive rather than just survive.
The person I’m responding to said “nature will wipe us and adapt.” That implies that they’re expecting extinction as a result of this.
Yes, it’ll be harmful to a decent percentage of humanity if the current fails. That’s not even remotely on the same scale of concern as human extinction.
As a result of this alone? Maybe not. As climate change as a whole? Likely.
Considering the amount of misinformation, sanewashing, and outright bullshit that comes with any climate change discussion I’m past the point of caring about linguistic pedantry.
Their point is valid, your point is pedantic.
This thread is about AMOC, not about climate change as a whole.
This is a science subreddit. I would hope that not every thread that’s remotely related to climate change would immediately devolve into a generic “oh no climate change is going to doom us all” mess, and would instead talk about the actual subject at hand.
Right, but if you read the article it’s not “remotely related” but directly.
This is an article about climate change. And your comment comes incredibly close to the MAGA sanewashing we see regularly. I’m glad after this discussion to see you’re not a nutter, but the need to call your comment out still felt necessary.
It’s been a peeve of mine for many years - decades, probably, as long as I can recall - for people in discussions like this to equate the end of their comfortable familiar current lifestyle with the literal end of the world, or the end of the human species. And then when I point out that those things are not equivalent, to flip immediately to “oh, so you’re saying there’s no problem at all?”
It’s all or nothing, black or white, absolute catastrophe or life without a care. Neither extreme is useful. How are we supposed to accomplish anything without recognizing nuance? That’s not “sanewashing”, that’s trying to be rational.
Seems like a shame that it is so difficult to get past the assumption that someone is representing a generic political agenda by deploying empty rhetoric rather than raising a disagreement with the specific thing they said they object to from their own perspective.
This is not a subreddit
Alright, it’s a science community. Does that typo change anything?
Then you don’t understand what happens when a significant-fraction of the planet’s population loses the ability to grow food in their farms,
& militarily wages war on all who are “in their way” to live where food WILL grow.
AMOC shutting-down FORCES WW3, if it hadn’t already-begun before then.
Even if Europe stays put & just accepts being destroyed, CCP’s long-game will opportunistically wage war against the remnants of the West, for sake of breaking the world to their rule, replacing the US’s rule.
“The destruction of the West is the midwife of Chinese dominion.”
Throw Putin & other powerful imperialists into the mix, & the Accelerationist-nihilist-oligarchs, & removing food-security from Europe ( by eradicating the atlantic’s warming of it in winters ) & the militarized-rabies that is produced does have extinction-level consequences.
there’s another forcing-process underlying all this, too:
population-saturation-rage.
It’s been seen in rats & humans.
In rats, if you have a closed-ecology ( just as we have, with our finite-planet ), & the rats have enough food to keep increasing their population-density,
they will…
…until they’re TOO crowded, when suddenly they become crazy, & cannibalistic, until the population’s butchered-down enough, & then they go back to sane ( there’s a hysteresis-loop in the process ).
The same happens with humans: pressurize the human-population enough, & there’s a “snap” from sanity to nihilism.
During the end of WW2, it happened in the European front, & the German word for the mind-mode produced is “lustmord”, or deathlust.
That mis-identifies it, though: it’s MURDER-greed.
I think that some of the Russians fighting in Ukraine are demonstrating it, perfectly.
It looks like the mass-shooting-epidemic in the US is demonstrating it perfectly, too.
So, what happens when entire regions get flipped into that mode, not just scattered individuals?
Mass-extinction.
“War becomes the drug.”, as some realized, in Yugoslavia, years ago…
The feedback-loops amplify everything, until sanity no-longer is any sort of option, & the result of THAT population’s enforcing its “answer” looks completely different from what we’re used-to living among.
Sorry to be blunt, but the less we know objectivity, the greater the % of the population who’ll be destroyed by our ignoring/denying ( including mine: this is global viability, not ideological )
_ /\ _
And you think this will happen simultaneously, to everyone on the planet everywhere at the same time? Including all the remote uncontacted tribes, isolated island nations, the herders and farmers in various hinterlands, and so forth? And once everyone gets “deathlusted” they’ll all just act like crazed zombies, murdering and murdering until there’s just two left and then they strangle each other in the wreckage?
You’re demonstrating another example of interpreting “the end of my personally familiar comfortable lifestyle” as “the end of the whole entire world, full stop, it’s all over and gone.”
I’m sure there were people during the Bronze Age Collapse who thought it was the end of the world. And for their definition of “the world”, I guess it was. But humanity is so much larger than your little personally-familiar corner of the world.
Sorry to be blunt, but the less we know objectivity, the greater the % of the population who’ll be destroyed by our ignoring/denying ( including mine: this is global viability, not ideological )
Bear in mind: extinction requires that the % needs to be exactly 100%. Exactly. 99% won’t do it.
It would shift the tropical rainfall belt on which many millions of people rely to grow their food, plunge western Europe into extreme cold winters and summer droughts, and add 50cm to already rising sea levels.
Seems critical to a lot though…
Yes, we’re talking about mass death. We’re not talking about extinction of the human species
…unless those that are dying decide to use nuclear weapons to obtain resources for their States
As soon as the ones more powerful and richer than me start doing all at least as much I do I’ll try to do more.
how big the water would be after collapse ? what land will be lost ?
It’s more than just a water level issue. As I understand it, the Amoc is responsable for warmer water cycling up to the coasts of western Europe resulting in warmer temperatures than they would normally get at that latitude. It would change the temperature and weather experienced there. Hank Green did a video talking about how it could potentially affect Ireland about a month ago.
I read a little, I haven’t found any issues except USA gets it’s east coast wiped with water. Maybe that’s why they building so many data centers there, to change climate so water can refresh their data. That will be hilarious to watch to be honest I can live with that.
with less cold water coming down the US east coast, temperatures will rise. With more energy (heat) in that system, hurricanes will be more severe and frequent.
to change climate so water can refresh their data
sorry what?
It affects all coastlines everywhere in the world. Most countries have major cities on the coast that will be forced to relocate. Massive damanges and refugees.
Rising oceans isn’t itself an extinction event, but poverty in a capitalist countries means a lot of people are going to die. A lot.
Hank Green needs to update his recent post
