Atlantic Ocean currents weaken, signalling big weather changes: study(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Atlantic Ocean currents weaken, signalling big weather changes: study
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/atlantic-ocean-currents-weaken-signalling-big-weather-changes-study-2021-08-05/
161 comments
All the climate change i hear about is a change for the worse. Are there any places on earth where the change will be for the better? We've had pretty mild summers in TX for the past 5 or so years. If that's due to climate change then great, i'll just live here.
Putting more energy into a meta-stable chaotic system will greatly increase the number of extremes across the board. Models and forecasts are currently mostly focused on how the various averages are trending, which is fine and useful.
It's most correct to plan around every location getting more wet, more dry, more hot, more cold, more storms and more droughts.
It's most correct to plan around every location getting more wet, more dry, more hot, more cold, more storms and more droughts.
So the best climate is an ice age then?
It's not only about the climate but also the rate of change of climate. When the climate changes very quickly, ecosystems cannot adapt and they die.
Remember that humans are actually very adaptable, our range of habitats extends from the arctic to the tropics, desert to rainforest. Most life is not so tolerant.
Remember that humans are actually very adaptable, our range of habitats extends from the arctic to the tropics, desert to rainforest. Most life is not so tolerant.
Our range of habitat has been artificially extended by cheap plentiful energy. Watch this space.
Indigenous peoples have been living in all corners of the globe for thousands of years. The range of our habitat has stayed roughly the same since antiquity, but the population that any given land can support has been vastly boosted by technology.
Not really. Given pelts and basic hand tools human populations can survive damn near anywhere.
Both of these things are true, depending on what is meant by our range of habitat. A small number of people can survive just about anywhere just as you describe, but current population densities are not sustainable in many places without cheap abundant energy.
(I’m not actually concerned with us running out of cheap abundant energy; PV is already fantastic in this regard, and in a hypothetical collapse of all dispatchable power sources that included never being able to make more batteries, we would be severely inconvenienced rather than utterly finished).
(I’m not actually concerned with us running out of cheap abundant energy; PV is already fantastic in this regard, and in a hypothetical collapse of all dispatchable power sources that included never being able to make more batteries, we would be severely inconvenienced rather than utterly finished).
>Putting more energy into a meta-stable chaotic system will greatly increase the number of extremes across the board
This doesn't really track. We're talking about adding less than 1% increase in energy.
This doesn't really track. We're talking about adding less than 1% increase in energy.
You body temperature is 309 degrees Kelvin. 1% less, and you die of hypothermia. 1% more, and you get braindamage and can die in convultions.
> chaotic system
What exactly is your point?
A chaotic system is generally defined to mean one in which small changes to the inputs lead to large variations in the outputs. So your reply noting that it’s only a 1% change doesn’t contradict the previous statements.
>A chaotic system is generally defined to mean on in which small changes to the inputs lead to large variations in the outputs.
A large variation, yes. A direct relationship between a small increase in input and a corresponding large increase in a specific output, no.
A large variation, yes. A direct relationship between a small increase in input and a corresponding large increase in a specific output, no.
It depends on the system, I’m not familiar enough with climate science to state anything about the particular case at hand, but chaotic systems can be deterministic.
>It depends on the system
Sure, which makes the blanket statement the GP made incorrect:
>Putting more energy into a meta-stable chaotic system will greatly increase the number of extremes across the board
Sure, which makes the blanket statement the GP made incorrect:
>Putting more energy into a meta-stable chaotic system will greatly increase the number of extremes across the board
I think you’re being a bit pedantic, in context GP was clearly referring to the climate, not making blanket statements about all chaotic systems.
In either case, a 1% change in energy input is always going to be a big deal with regards to an energy dependent chaotic system.
In either case, a 1% change in energy input is always going to be a big deal with regards to an energy dependent chaotic system.
You're being pedantic.
Chaotic systems, in essence, are known for its unpredictability. Watch this to get an idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEjZd-AvPco
Chaotic systems, in essence, are known for its unpredictability. Watch this to get an idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEjZd-AvPco
The issue is the warming planet isn't only causing a change in weather for various areas. Yeah for example the Arctic is getting a bit warmer. Which sounds like a good thing.
But the warming up of the sea and atmosphere is giving more energy potential to our weather systems. So every hurricane season, tornado season, fire season, monsoonal season, etc is getting worse and worse. And there's no such thing as isolated climate. That extra energy in the system is world wide, which is really bad for most of us.
There may be places that have slight benefits, sure. But the worldwide negative effects cancel those out IMO.
But the warming up of the sea and atmosphere is giving more energy potential to our weather systems. So every hurricane season, tornado season, fire season, monsoonal season, etc is getting worse and worse. And there's no such thing as isolated climate. That extra energy in the system is world wide, which is really bad for most of us.
There may be places that have slight benefits, sure. But the worldwide negative effects cancel those out IMO.
Lets not forget that the thawing of the permafrost in the arctic has significant environmental impact on greenhouse gases such as methane.
Do you have data showing that every hurricane, tornado, fire and monsoon season is “getting worse and worse”?
This is something which you can easily check yourself. We shouldn't expect people to make citations for statements which can be verified by typing the exact question into a search engine.
That’s not how this works at all. You don’t get to make claims and then tell people they should go find supporting evidence themselves.
>But the warming up of the sea and atmosphere is giving more energy potential to our weather systems. So every hurricane season, tornado season, fire season, monsoonal season, etc is getting worse and worse.
Global warming is adding somewhere between 0.3 and 0.5% more energy to the system. It's a neglible amount of energy for the overall system.
What it does is change the equilibrium of a complex system. Things are going to be different. Not necessarily more intense across the board.
Global warming is adding somewhere between 0.3 and 0.5% more energy to the system. It's a neglible amount of energy for the overall system.
What it does is change the equilibrium of a complex system. Things are going to be different. Not necessarily more intense across the board.
I think the assumption that there ever was a long term climate equillibrium is false. Climate has always been changing. The radiative input from the sun is always changing. The composition of the atmosphere is always changing. The albedo of the earth is always changing.
I believe humans may be contributing significantly to current change by increasing greenhouse gases.
It is unknown whether this is a significant problem or a problem humans can or should solve.
I believe humans may be contributing significantly to current change by increasing greenhouse gases.
It is unknown whether this is a significant problem or a problem humans can or should solve.
The assumption has been that climate does change over time. The problem with the current climate change is the rate of change is much higher that most changes not driven by human actions. Most plants/animals (and civilizations) will struggle to adapt to this rate of change.
I’m not sure any informed person disagrees. People are concerned about the comfortable temperature range for people and large scale agriculture.
We’ll probably adapt, but it might be really bumpy for a decade or so in the 2050s.
We’ll probably adapt, but it might be really bumpy for a decade or so in the 2050s.
Maybe. But again I think it would be a bumpy road regardless. Humans have undergone an inflection point in the past couple hundred years. We are probably vastly surpassing the long term carrying capacity of the Earth. This may be an unpopular opinion but I think the best thing that could happen to the human species in the long run would be to drop the population perhaps below 500 million in coming decades as the Georgia Guide Stones recommend.
Texas is predicted to go from 60 dangerous heat days per year to 115 heat days per year by 2050. I doubt that's a good thing. And 5 years isn't enough to establish what the trend is, a countercyclical trend for 5 year can happen by random or via any of the multidecadal climate cycles.
Where’s your source for this?
There is no way to predict that. We can't even predict how many there will be this year or the next 5 years, let alone decades from now.
This is the difference between climate and weather. You can very easily predict that there will be on average x amount of days over, say, 100 deg. Predicting which days, however, is not really possible.
Russia is supposed to be nicer. Some people believe it’ll become the bread basket of the world if climate change continues unabated.
I think that’s a simplistic view of it. As far as I’ve followed along, Russia has been having droughts and mega fires which tend to be incompatible with high crop yields.
Talking about megafires, Chernobyl’s surroundings are sitting under dry leaves, because bacteria and insects have defects and don’t decompose them properly.
You have a source on this?
Sure but give it a few thousand years
Well I believe the droughts and wildfires are not really occurring in Siberia, which is the area I think some are speculating will become a breadbasket.
Edit: I was wrong.
Edit: I was wrong.
Living around Seattle, I disagree, lately there have been articles just about every year about wildfires or drought in Siberia, and many about those fires causing smoky skies in Seattle.
This summer: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/07/05/siberia-forest-fir...
2019: https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/unprecedented-numbe...
2018: https://crosscut.com/2018/07/first-smoky-skies-season-arrive...
This summer: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/07/05/siberia-forest-fir...
2019: https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/unprecedented-numbe...
2018: https://crosscut.com/2018/07/first-smoky-skies-season-arrive...
Siberia has awful soil that doesn't have nearly the nutrients necessary to support large scale agriculture even if the temperature shifts. You could fix that, but it would take the same amount of time as trying to fix climate change (at least on a big enough scale).
There are unprecedented wild fires in siberia. What are you talking about!
Perhaps they argue for this case over in https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/16/magazine/russ.... I haven't read the article, I just keep the bookmark around.
Do you think thawed permafrost is usable as arable land with the snap of a finger? Furthermore one could wonder what else will thaw and give us some nasty surprises.
Im thinking of the scene in Jurassic Park where Jeff Goldblum says: 'Life finds a way.'
Im thinking of the scene in Jurassic Park where Jeff Goldblum says: 'Life finds a way.'
Our society is highly optimized to the current climate. Any change is for the worse.
This what people fail to grasp - if you move where deserts, forests and rivers are, even if you loose nothing 'net', now your city is in in the desert, has no fresh water, the suer system doesnt work because the ocean level is higher, and all you infrastructure needs to be rebuilt
Doesn't even have to change a great deal. Been watching real estate in regional towns where I live in Australia and places that are somewhat dry now but at risk of getting drier/hotter are full of cheap houses struggling to sell. Everyone's thinking the same thing about the prospects of that town in 10-20 years, and it's on top of the usual plight of small country towns.
I doubt you’ll be able to comfortably watch the rest of the world burn from there.
The Canadian Prairies are getting warmer and forecasted to have a longer/more productive growing seasons although a bad drought this year isn't encouraging.
Climate resiliency was a primary factor in our decision to move last year to western New York. Farmland, fresh water, and not too hot. Check out Figure 10 in the linked report...
http://uploads.oneregionforward.org/content/uploads/2015/01/...
http://uploads.oneregionforward.org/content/uploads/2015/01/...
How's the groundwater contamination? I was looking at Minnesota but the PFAS/... contamination is rampant, just terrible.
It's a concern, unfortunately. We read quite a bit about specific local issues before buying our house; our water is pretty good though I also installed a filter. Love Canal, where the Superfund program was born, is in Niagara Falls. In Tonawanda the army intentionally poured Manhattan Project leftovers into dispersed wells to hide the source... [1] And WNY was generally a center of late 19C/early 20C industry which generally left messes behind.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/01/nyregion/big-atom-waste-s...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/01/nyregion/big-atom-waste-s...
Looks like you'll be growing peaches, pecans and Vidalia onions in a few decades, yikes!
Actually, Niagara County is surprisingly temperate--warmer and much less snowy than Buffalo and the south towns. It's been famous for apples, pears, and stone fruit since the 19th century; we even have some vineyards. But yeah, maybe we'll add figs and bananas.
> But yeah, maybe we'll add figs and bananas.
Give it a few years. I live in Bucharest (Romania), located at ~45 Northern latitude, and I’ve first started seeing fig trees around here about 10 years ago. In the last few years I’ve started seeing more and more of them, so much so that I’ve started taking photos of almost all of them and I’m thinking of putting those photos on a map and exporting the geo-locations somewhere on GitHub in a .kml or geo-json file for other people to look at.
Give it a few years. I live in Bucharest (Romania), located at ~45 Northern latitude, and I’ve first started seeing fig trees around here about 10 years ago. In the last few years I’ve started seeing more and more of them, so much so that I’ve started taking photos of almost all of them and I’m thinking of putting those photos on a map and exporting the geo-locations somewhere on GitHub in a .kml or geo-json file for other people to look at.
They grow like weeds in most places I've seen!
WNY isn't completely immune. A drought five years ago killed the corn crop. Long term stats are only updated every ten years and we only just switched over to data including 2010-2020.
Extreem changes in a system deeply adapted to a current situation is always a problem, that's why you hear mostly about the down and not the up.
Slow or local changes are ok because life adapts nicely.
Brutal or global changes will also see adaptation, but will cause much pain and damages.
Moving a cristal glass on a few yards or meters at the average speed of 4 miles or km an hour may be fine for the glass or not, depending if your speed is mostly constant, or not.
If you move the glass excrucingly slowly first, of throw it brutally at the last inch/cm, it will be bad for the glass. You won't hear about the good stories about this, because there are not aligned with the nature if the situation.
Slow or local changes are ok because life adapts nicely.
Brutal or global changes will also see adaptation, but will cause much pain and damages.
Moving a cristal glass on a few yards or meters at the average speed of 4 miles or km an hour may be fine for the glass or not, depending if your speed is mostly constant, or not.
If you move the glass excrucingly slowly first, of throw it brutally at the last inch/cm, it will be bad for the glass. You won't hear about the good stories about this, because there are not aligned with the nature if the situation.
Texas is most likely fucked long-term. You can probably get away with living there another 10-15 years (total guess, some things could happen which could kick off some positive feedback loops sooner than that), but I wouldn't buy any housing there and maybe start looking further north before everyone else does and housing prices skyrocket.
Fortunately (?) people are dumb and the rush will happen at the last minute.
I think the northern migration will start at a trickle, slowly start increasing but still slow enough people don't really notice, and then suddenly and without much warning become a flood.
Just need to make sure you sneak in before that flood, but if you try to time it just right you'll probably wait too long and be in the same situation as everyone else.
Just need to make sure you sneak in before that flood, but if you try to time it just right you'll probably wait too long and be in the same situation as everyone else.
Shill me your housing bag, whereabouts?
I own a home in the Chicago region right now (not the city itself). It'll probably fare better than Texas but if the Earth warms up 2-3 degrees Celsius it's probably not going to be a good idea to stay here either. Much more than that and it probably doesn't matter where I go.
I would like to sell it and move further north in the next 5-7 years myself, hopefully, probably either Wisconsin or Michigan, near the Great Lakes. The decision isn't 100% up to me, though, as I'm married. We have been talking about it, though.
I would like to sell it and move further north in the next 5-7 years myself, hopefully, probably either Wisconsin or Michigan, near the Great Lakes. The decision isn't 100% up to me, though, as I'm married. We have been talking about it, though.
>It'll probably fare better than Texas but if the Earth warms up 2-3 degrees Celsius it's probably not going to be a good idea to stay here either. Much more than that and it probably doesn't matter where I go.
Why is that? Chicago flooding risk?
Why is that? Chicago flooding risk?
Various things, one of which being Illinois is expected to turn into the equivalent of what Texas weather and temperatures were about 5-10 years ago, by end-of-century according to this link[1], but there are articles that keep saying we're reaching these tipping points much faster than forecasted[2], so I'm guessing by around mid-century is more likely. And I don't particularly enjoy Texas weather, what I've experienced of it.
Also I'm asthmatic, and the air quality where I live already has several days a year where it's unwise for me to go outside for too long (and so my dogs don't get their walks :/), and the number of those days are expected to triple by 2050. I can't find that link offhand, but here's one that says that Chicago now has worse air quality than Los Angeles, having stretches of 2 weeks of bad air quality, and that's last year, not in the future[3].
I'm not super concerned about flooding where I live specifically, since I'm in the far suburbs. I do live near enough to a river that it floods some streets in my city that I drive on, but it's already doing that now anyway. Downtown Chicago could see some flooding from the Lake, but it won't be anywhere near as bad as the coasts. I'm actually considering moving to a place that's much closer to Lake Michigan, just up in Wisconsin or Michigan.
But also if we blow past our estimates of warming and get to 4 degrees Celsius or higher, then a good chunk of the US is expected to start turning into a desert, and where I live is approximately where the edge of that is expected to be[4].
I imagine the process will take long enough that I'll be dead before it fully happens, but I also would like to secure a decent home further North before the eventual rush so I can still get a place at a cheap-to-decent price.
[1]: https://climatechange.chicago.gov/climate-impacts/climate-im...
[2]: https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/world-to-hit-t...
[3]: https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-air-quality-weather-unhealth...
[4]: https://youtu.be/ZfFvLJyPf3o
Also I'm asthmatic, and the air quality where I live already has several days a year where it's unwise for me to go outside for too long (and so my dogs don't get their walks :/), and the number of those days are expected to triple by 2050. I can't find that link offhand, but here's one that says that Chicago now has worse air quality than Los Angeles, having stretches of 2 weeks of bad air quality, and that's last year, not in the future[3].
I'm not super concerned about flooding where I live specifically, since I'm in the far suburbs. I do live near enough to a river that it floods some streets in my city that I drive on, but it's already doing that now anyway. Downtown Chicago could see some flooding from the Lake, but it won't be anywhere near as bad as the coasts. I'm actually considering moving to a place that's much closer to Lake Michigan, just up in Wisconsin or Michigan.
But also if we blow past our estimates of warming and get to 4 degrees Celsius or higher, then a good chunk of the US is expected to start turning into a desert, and where I live is approximately where the edge of that is expected to be[4].
I imagine the process will take long enough that I'll be dead before it fully happens, but I also would like to secure a decent home further North before the eventual rush so I can still get a place at a cheap-to-decent price.
[1]: https://climatechange.chicago.gov/climate-impacts/climate-im...
[2]: https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/world-to-hit-t...
[3]: https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-air-quality-weather-unhealth...
[4]: https://youtu.be/ZfFvLJyPf3o
> pretty mild summers in TX for the past 5 or so years. If that's due to climate change then great, i'll just live here.
There have been two weather related massive grid failures in Texas this year so far. I would not want to live there as climate change intensifies. The winters are going to suck.
There have been two weather related massive grid failures in Texas this year so far. I would not want to live there as climate change intensifies. The winters are going to suck.
Let's say the weather gets better in one place due to climate change. Isn't that nice. You have that on the one hand.
On the other hand, there are big risks inherent to change. You don't get to pick just the good parts of climate change. Spitballing here: risks to food stability from droughts, fires, etc. Some areas no longer economically support farming. Other areas open up but aren't as productive, so food is a bigger part of your budget and might be subject to disruption. Political risks: displaced people start eyeing the habitable places and find ways to make life miserabile unless they're let in. Costs of the disruption while everyone tries to adapt weigh on the economy and make the products/services you take for granted today more expensive or unavailable. Your children (or others that you care about) will have to deal with even worse. And things don't stop getting worse until greenhouse gas emissions are dealt with.
The mentality of looking at the silver lining while ignoring the rest is wrong on so many obvious levels.
On the other hand, there are big risks inherent to change. You don't get to pick just the good parts of climate change. Spitballing here: risks to food stability from droughts, fires, etc. Some areas no longer economically support farming. Other areas open up but aren't as productive, so food is a bigger part of your budget and might be subject to disruption. Political risks: displaced people start eyeing the habitable places and find ways to make life miserabile unless they're let in. Costs of the disruption while everyone tries to adapt weigh on the economy and make the products/services you take for granted today more expensive or unavailable. Your children (or others that you care about) will have to deal with even worse. And things don't stop getting worse until greenhouse gas emissions are dealt with.
The mentality of looking at the silver lining while ignoring the rest is wrong on so many obvious levels.
You're taking about destabilising a global-spanning system with tremendous energies. No, there's no "change for the better"
I mean, the cold y'all had this winter was possibly climate change, so you have that to look forward to. Likely worse wildfires, too. East Texas will get higher humidity.
So... probably not too nice.
I mean, the cold y'all had this winter was possibly climate change, so you have that to look forward to. Likely worse wildfires, too. East Texas will get higher humidity.
So... probably not too nice.
Yes. Nordic countries like Russia and Canada will benefit the most, especially considering the opening of maritime routes and the easier exploitation of natural sources that were usually locked up under ice or permafrost.
Would mosquitoes become a major hassle in those areas? I understand they're already bad for part of the year.
Great Lakes area (Toronto etc.) supposed to benefit.
Yeah it's not as if Texas was frozen over helpless and without power not too long ago
The freeze would've been pleasant if it weren't for the power failure
No, it wasn't. I had power the entire time and I had to help neighbors whose vehicles would not start and deal with dangerous roads. No one in Texas has the correct winter tires and cities lack the infrastructure to clear the roads quickly. It was dangerous, not pleasant, even with electricity.
Oh please, I was driving the whole time. It was fun if anything.
Winter tires can't really help on ice. Source: live in michigan.
wot!? regular tires are terrifying on ice.
source: canadian
source: canadian
As a Minnesotan I concur, but most people don’t put winter tires on. It’s infuriating.
For those not in the know, the rubber is formulated to be softer at cold temperatures. Summer/performance tires get ridiculously hard and all-season tires are “meh” at best.
For those not in the know, the rubber is formulated to be softer at cold temperatures. Summer/performance tires get ridiculously hard and all-season tires are “meh” at best.
And winter tires are just as terrifying on ice.
Texas Power Grid
Texas Power Grid laughs.
Is this the new anti climate change meme? I saw nearly this exact post on the last climate change article about fires or something.
Not exactly new. It's the old misunderstanding/deliberately dense denier point of "global warming would mean everything will be just as it is now, just a degree or two warmer."
Yeah, nah. It doesn't work like that.
Yeah, nah. It doesn't work like that.
I used to have a personal list of stages but can't find it at the moment. Denying it's a problem/claiming it's a good thing is not the last one though.
But:
But:
1. Deny the Problem Exists
2. Deny We're the Cause
3. Deny It's a Problem
4. Deny We can Solve It
5. It's too Late
5b. And it's the fault of doom prophets who scared us into denying it (it's a mechanism to resist stress) and should have communicated better.
==We've had pretty mild summers in TX for the past 5 or so years.==
The same Texas where hundreds of people froze to death in February? Seems like there has been some extreme weather.
The same Texas where hundreds of people froze to death in February? Seems like there has been some extreme weather.
People will complain if you put any change in positive terms. But of course there are upsides and silver linings.
I won't get into some contentious discussion, but let's just say it's more and more viable to grow and produce wine in Denmark, which is on its own a positive thing. So that's just one example of a positive change.
I won't get into some contentious discussion, but let's just say it's more and more viable to grow and produce wine in Denmark, which is on its own a positive thing. So that's just one example of a positive change.
But at the same time it’s becoming impossible to grow wine in California due to smoke taint and increasing fire insurance premiums. When folks are loosing what was once a nice climate, it’s not of comfort that some foreign land with strict immigration rules is getting a better climate.
My comment was not provided for comfort - not much to find in this topic - just for conversation and exchanging ideas :)
Yeah, commenters here aren't taking the spirit of the question into account. Overall, climate change has substantial negative impacts, yes. But not literally everything will be worse because of it. The GP was just curious about what might end up being better - and not trying to justify climate change using those examples.
Yes, many more people die of cold than of heat. Global warming will likely save a couple hundred thousand lives per year in this regard. [1]
1: https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-natural-disaster...
edit: added "in this regard". Did not mean to suggest that we know how all of the implications of global warming pan out.
1: https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-natural-disaster...
edit: added "in this regard". Did not mean to suggest that we know how all of the implications of global warming pan out.
At the cost of horrific hurricanes in the tropical and subtropical regions. Locally there may be effects seen as beneficial, but globally it's looking to be a downhill slide.
A lot of people who also think about it politically forgetting that it will also increase migrant crisises. As things get unhabitable people will be migrating. This will apply to the southern border of US.
GP acknowledged that there are many bad things but asked if there were also good thing. I was only answering that question. I was not claiming that it is good on balance.
hasn't there actually been less horrific hurricanes instead of more?
There's been one cat 5 that's hit the US since 2005.
Wet Bulb temperature above 35C is deadly no matter how much water or shade you have. If the global average increases over 1.5C, most of the tropics will experience prolonged deadly heat.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/08/global-heati...
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/08/global-heati...
>If the AMOC collapsed, it would increase cooling of the Northern Hemisphere, sea level rise in the Atlantic, an overall fall in precipitation over Europe and North America and a shift in monsoons in South America and Afria, Britain's Met Office said.
Have the other major climate models accounted for this? Most I've seen have predicted rapid warming in North America. Not sure how to reconcile the difference. Perhaps the cooling effect is more concentrated over the oceans and coasts?
Have the other major climate models accounted for this? Most I've seen have predicted rapid warming in North America. Not sure how to reconcile the difference. Perhaps the cooling effect is more concentrated over the oceans and coasts?
North America is a minor fraction of the northern hemisphere.
Yes, models have consistently predicted warming and drying of the western US at least since I was running climateprediction.net HadCM3 models (through BOINC) in the 00s: the return of the Great American Desert, basically everywhere west of the Mississippi and south of British Columbia.
Secondly, the cooling is an average, and relative to the situation without collapse of the AMOC. In most places, it still gets hot; but in Northern Europe, not so much. It even cools relative to the situation in 1900, IIRC.
And yes, you are right about the location. The visible part of the AMOC is called the Gulf Stream, and it's the reason London does not have the same climate as Labrador.
Yes, models have consistently predicted warming and drying of the western US at least since I was running climateprediction.net HadCM3 models (through BOINC) in the 00s: the return of the Great American Desert, basically everywhere west of the Mississippi and south of British Columbia.
Secondly, the cooling is an average, and relative to the situation without collapse of the AMOC. In most places, it still gets hot; but in Northern Europe, not so much. It even cools relative to the situation in 1900, IIRC.
And yes, you are right about the location. The visible part of the AMOC is called the Gulf Stream, and it's the reason London does not have the same climate as Labrador.
Maybe it's a bad idea to be currently thinking about buying a house in southern California.
It's just so depressing. No one cares, no one is willing to do anything about it. All the politicians say that it'll get fixed at some point in the future (i.e. after their careers) so that their current donors don't get mad.
You also have the people who see the evidence for a warming climate, and just say "well that still doesn't mean we humans have anything to do with it". Even if it was a completely natural process, the result is going to be bad for us. We should do something.
It's just so depressing. No one cares, no one is willing to do anything about it. All the politicians say that it'll get fixed at some point in the future (i.e. after their careers) so that their current donors don't get mad.
You also have the people who see the evidence for a warming climate, and just say "well that still doesn't mean we humans have anything to do with it". Even if it was a completely natural process, the result is going to be bad for us. We should do something.
Me, I’d given up on we, so I do what I can.
I moved off grid two years ago, bought 5ha of abandoned farmland, now more like 30ha, and am rewilding it - transplanted lots of saplings, encouraged wildlife, and within two years we’ve gone from fire-risk scrub to a young ash and oak forest, which is already providing cover for third succession species. We had a fire from a cigarette by a road last week, and it just stopped at the edge of the forest. Green undergrowth doesn’t burn very well.
Long dry springs have started running. Local farmers are taking notice - we’ve had people coming by and turning green with envy at our running water, in August. There was nothing on this land - just a few hopeful looking dips that looked like old water courses. Other people are now planting up around their old springs, which they all bulldozed bare decades ago when they got pumped irrigation from the river - which now runs dry from June - Sept every year, as all the water is pumped out to evaporate on the bare earth of the highlands.
Hunting is a huge part of the lifestyle here, and it’s done pretty sustainably - I’ve been really enheartened talking to people here about the importance of large wildlife to the ecosystem. Local hunt have agreed to have a two year moratorium on boar hunting near us, so we can collect data on population and the impact of their activities - our hope is that by providing habitat for them they stop being an agricultural pest, and their numbers can rebound to the point where their population is stable, and able to support apex predators - wolves. Normal, rural folk are seeing the devastation the changing climate is bringing (fires, floods, fires, floods), and there’s a genuine desire to do something.
Our energy is all renewable, apart from a few weeks in the winter when we run the generator (although that goes next year - new hydro turbine on order).
We don’t fly any more - covid made that decision really easy - all travel is overland. Sure, takes longer - and gives you so much more to see.
I can’t stop global climate change, but I can at least stop being part of the problem - and if enough people take that step, then maybe there’s hope for “we”.
I moved off grid two years ago, bought 5ha of abandoned farmland, now more like 30ha, and am rewilding it - transplanted lots of saplings, encouraged wildlife, and within two years we’ve gone from fire-risk scrub to a young ash and oak forest, which is already providing cover for third succession species. We had a fire from a cigarette by a road last week, and it just stopped at the edge of the forest. Green undergrowth doesn’t burn very well.
Long dry springs have started running. Local farmers are taking notice - we’ve had people coming by and turning green with envy at our running water, in August. There was nothing on this land - just a few hopeful looking dips that looked like old water courses. Other people are now planting up around their old springs, which they all bulldozed bare decades ago when they got pumped irrigation from the river - which now runs dry from June - Sept every year, as all the water is pumped out to evaporate on the bare earth of the highlands.
Hunting is a huge part of the lifestyle here, and it’s done pretty sustainably - I’ve been really enheartened talking to people here about the importance of large wildlife to the ecosystem. Local hunt have agreed to have a two year moratorium on boar hunting near us, so we can collect data on population and the impact of their activities - our hope is that by providing habitat for them they stop being an agricultural pest, and their numbers can rebound to the point where their population is stable, and able to support apex predators - wolves. Normal, rural folk are seeing the devastation the changing climate is bringing (fires, floods, fires, floods), and there’s a genuine desire to do something.
Our energy is all renewable, apart from a few weeks in the winter when we run the generator (although that goes next year - new hydro turbine on order).
We don’t fly any more - covid made that decision really easy - all travel is overland. Sure, takes longer - and gives you so much more to see.
I can’t stop global climate change, but I can at least stop being part of the problem - and if enough people take that step, then maybe there’s hope for “we”.
With work from home this kind of setup can become a viable option for many.
Living in the city feels really more and more repulsive to me, so hearing about people who have moved off-grid or to a rural location sounds super interesting. I have so many questions now, sorry.
Where are you located roughly geographically? (Trying to map your story into places close to me. I'm in Sweden and trying to form a picture of everything you described, and judging from the biome with ash and oak you're likely to the south of my location, latitude-wise.)
Was the farmland a big investment? Do you have prior professional experience with what you do there -- I mean, what you've done sounds successful, how did you know what has to be done? Do you work from your farm? Do you have a blog or something?
Living in the city feels really more and more repulsive to me, so hearing about people who have moved off-grid or to a rural location sounds super interesting. I have so many questions now, sorry.
Where are you located roughly geographically? (Trying to map your story into places close to me. I'm in Sweden and trying to form a picture of everything you described, and judging from the biome with ash and oak you're likely to the south of my location, latitude-wise.)
Was the farmland a big investment? Do you have prior professional experience with what you do there -- I mean, what you've done sounds successful, how did you know what has to be done? Do you work from your farm? Do you have a blog or something?
I’m in the mountains of the north of portugal - cold winters, warm summers, and massive rural depopulation - a lot of places here are abandoned or on their way. There’s good LTE infrastructure nearby, which is how we connect - with a home-made relay mast.
No, the land was dirt cheap (less than €0.10 per m2), and we’re only working a small orchard garden - we’ll likely expand that a little in time, and add some glasshouses for winter produce. Relying heavily on automation, as farming is a faff. It’s all a learning experience - both the forestry and rewilding processes, as well as the small agricultural experiments we’re doing.
No, the land was dirt cheap (less than €0.10 per m2), and we’re only working a small orchard garden - we’ll likely expand that a little in time, and add some glasshouses for winter produce. Relying heavily on automation, as farming is a faff. It’s all a learning experience - both the forestry and rewilding processes, as well as the small agricultural experiments we’re doing.
Thank you for your amazing work! :)
Honestly, I do this for me, and I feel I have a lot to make up for.
> All the politicians say that it'll get fixed at some point in the future
To be perfectly clear, there is exactly one political party in the United States who still doesn't even acknowledge anthropogenic climate change, never mind taking any steps to change things. It's incredibly frustrating that this too gets framed as a "both sides" issue despite all evidence indicating it's a one sided issue.
To be perfectly clear, there is exactly one political party in the United States who still doesn't even acknowledge anthropogenic climate change, never mind taking any steps to change things. It's incredibly frustrating that this too gets framed as a "both sides" issue despite all evidence indicating it's a one sided issue.
This is short sighted since political parties are both playing for the same team: they are owned by finance and corporations. These are entities that are absolutely not going to allow the radical changes needed to stay within 2c temperature gain (which is still bad, millions will die, but maybe not catastrophic for the species as a whole). Alas, 2c is already priced in given current policies, we will be lucky to stay below 3c. The societal changes from that alone will be devastating.
> We should do something.
Oh, we (the global "we") will, eventually. It's just that the incentives for politicians are to let crises get bad before acting, so that people notice them and remember them.
No-one (well hardly anyone) remembers people who stopped a catastrophe from happening in the first place. For example, Stanislav Petrov ought to have a statue in every town in the world.[1] But "who's he?" is what you get when you mention him.
In the case of climate change, when the effects are bad enough for politicians to act, their actions will be draconian but ineffective. I can't offer any Disney ending to the story, but we must carry on anyway. It won't be the end of the world, just a much worse future than we might have had.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
Oh, we (the global "we") will, eventually. It's just that the incentives for politicians are to let crises get bad before acting, so that people notice them and remember them.
No-one (well hardly anyone) remembers people who stopped a catastrophe from happening in the first place. For example, Stanislav Petrov ought to have a statue in every town in the world.[1] But "who's he?" is what you get when you mention him.
In the case of climate change, when the effects are bad enough for politicians to act, their actions will be draconian but ineffective. I can't offer any Disney ending to the story, but we must carry on anyway. It won't be the end of the world, just a much worse future than we might have had.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
So - laws and regulations need changing.
We have science and easily observable evidence to guide this change.
Just need to do it now.
Intransigent politicians will be out, and politicians who're in-step with the populace will be in.
2.5% improvement since last US Congress electoral cycle, of more politicians who acknowledge climate science.
Climate deniers: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2021/03/3...
Still with 32% (139 of 435) denying climate science, we have a ways to go.
Totals: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members
We have science and easily observable evidence to guide this change.
Just need to do it now.
Intransigent politicians will be out, and politicians who're in-step with the populace will be in.
2.5% improvement since last US Congress electoral cycle, of more politicians who acknowledge climate science.
Climate deniers: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2021/03/3...
Still with 32% (139 of 435) denying climate science, we have a ways to go.
Totals: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members
People still talk like the y2k bug was nothing because of all the hard work done to prepare for it.
The slowing of the Gulf Stream, at least, which keeps Europe warm despite cooler temperatures at the same latitude in Canada, has always been one of the discussed scenarios. I don’t know whether IPCC made models, though.
So the only thing to do is keep emissions as low as possible. The likelihood of this extremely high-impact event happening increases with every gram of CO2 that we put into the atmosphere.
It's unlikely we will be able to achieve our emissions targets. We need a combination of CO2 scrubbing, non-intermittent renewables, and even geoengineering to restore Earth's energy budget.
Before any of that we need a heavy carbon tax. "We" being every developed country. A tall order... but absolutely vital.
I think carbon border adjustment taxes by the EU and US would probably be enough to get started.
TL;DR this article is about a model, which differs from many other models. It is not about new evidence or a dramatic event that has been recorded.
Wasn't this a big part of An Inconvenient Truth, how global warming could actually usher in a new ice age or something like that?
It's depressing to think that when that documentary came out, the general reaction of the public was ambivalence to outright laughter. Al Gore really was a visionary, even if he was 30 years late compared to the climate scientists.
Thats’s funny, Florida isn’t underwater and Mt. Kilimanjaro still has snow.
That movie was nothing more than modern day, “the end is nigh” doomsaying. Is man made global warming real? Almost certainly, but it’s hard to call a documentary visionary when basically none of its predictions have panned out.
That movie was nothing more than modern day, “the end is nigh” doomsaying. Is man made global warming real? Almost certainly, but it’s hard to call a documentary visionary when basically none of its predictions have panned out.
I don't recall the documentary predicting that by 2021 Florida would be underwater -- however many parts of Miami are indeed experiencing "sunny day flooding" as the ocean is claiming land.
Obligatory shout out to The day after tomorrow.
Please don’t. Fiction isn’t evidence, and there are too many people who don’t want anyone to believe in reality who will mock those who are trying to create solutions to the real problems as if the fiction is the only thing which exists.
Because science fiction never becomes science fact?
Mainly because of the reasons I just gave.
Also because even though stopped clocks are right twice a day, you shouldn’t use them for timekeeping — Fiction can be satire, or have a social message, or be hard science to give a narrative explanation to confusing-but-real physics, but it can also be Harry Potter, The Hobbit… or the wildly implausible specific events and timescales in The Day After Tomorrow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow#Politic...
Also because even though stopped clocks are right twice a day, you shouldn’t use them for timekeeping — Fiction can be satire, or have a social message, or be hard science to give a narrative explanation to confusing-but-real physics, but it can also be Harry Potter, The Hobbit… or the wildly implausible specific events and timescales in The Day After Tomorrow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After_Tomorrow#Politic...
Been a while since I've seen someone quote Fox Mulder.
> If the AMOC collapsed, it would increase cooling of the Northern Hemisphere, sea level rise in the Atlantic
This seems somewhat counter productive, if the northern hemesphere is cooling, how would that result with sea levels rising? Or they're not related ?
This really seems strange, would a new `current` not naturally establish based on the temperature relocations ?
This seems somewhat counter productive, if the northern hemesphere is cooling, how would that result with sea levels rising? Or they're not related ?
This really seems strange, would a new `current` not naturally establish based on the temperature relocations ?
> This seems somewhat counter productive
I'm guessing you mean counterintuitive.
That's one of the great things about the scientific method, that it tells you things you never would have guessed.
> how would that result with sea levels rising?
The Gulf Stream (part of the AMOC) brings warm water north, Evaporation happens (and the evaporated water rains out over land, where some is absorbed or flows south). The remaing sea water on the surface is now saltier and denser so sinks.
Without the AMOC, the surface water is less dense. The local mean sea level rises due to gravitational effects. Precipitation also happens more over the sea, freshening the surface sea water. Fresh water is most dense (compact) at 4 degrees Celsius. Salt affects this, but the less salt there is, the smaller the effect.
I guess when you crunch the numbers you get the result they state.
> would a new `current` not naturally establish
Last I checked, some years ago, I think it was believed that no new large-scale overturning current would establish for some thousands of years, which means the sea stratifies (settles into non-mixing layers), with a top relatively fresh and light layer over dense anoxic deeps.
I'm guessing you mean counterintuitive.
That's one of the great things about the scientific method, that it tells you things you never would have guessed.
> how would that result with sea levels rising?
The Gulf Stream (part of the AMOC) brings warm water north, Evaporation happens (and the evaporated water rains out over land, where some is absorbed or flows south). The remaing sea water on the surface is now saltier and denser so sinks.
Without the AMOC, the surface water is less dense. The local mean sea level rises due to gravitational effects. Precipitation also happens more over the sea, freshening the surface sea water. Fresh water is most dense (compact) at 4 degrees Celsius. Salt affects this, but the less salt there is, the smaller the effect.
I guess when you crunch the numbers you get the result they state.
> would a new `current` not naturally establish
Last I checked, some years ago, I think it was believed that no new large-scale overturning current would establish for some thousands of years, which means the sea stratifies (settles into non-mixing layers), with a top relatively fresh and light layer over dense anoxic deeps.
That's both crazy interesting and terrifying.. Thanks for clearing it up!
Another funny item is, icecaps attract water by gravity, so if they melt, sea would lower by ~7m around the caps, and rise around the tropics. Anyway, with so many parameters and effects, I don’t venture into predictions anymore ;)
>Other climate models have said the AMOC will weaken over the coming century but that a collapse before 2100 is unlikely.
And, lets bury the lede of why no one will care about this unless they are already on board for fighting climate change.
And, lets bury the lede of why no one will care about this unless they are already on board for fighting climate change.
I'm not sure I understand correctly. Do you want to say that the author unnecessarily relativized what he wrote about so far or that the last sentence is the actually interesting part and everything else was sort of a preface (which seems to be what "burying the lede" means [0], from what I can tell (as non-native speaker))
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bury_the_lede
[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bury_the_lede
"Bury the lede" here was used semi-ironically. The article reads like something dramatic that we should be concerned about.
However, the effects are not felt for 80+ years, so, presumably, that concern will evaporate for most people alive today, as they will certainly not experience these externalities.
Thus at the end, the click-bait nature of this article is revealed, as the author notes at the end, that all this dire concern will simply not influence the vast majority of decisions, as concerns about climate change have for the last 30 years.
I use "bury the lede" ironically as someone who read this article as something that may, finally, change the idiotic production and development patterns we've been following in the face the climate change threat, when instead, the real part of the story is that, no, no one will care.
However, the effects are not felt for 80+ years, so, presumably, that concern will evaporate for most people alive today, as they will certainly not experience these externalities.
Thus at the end, the click-bait nature of this article is revealed, as the author notes at the end, that all this dire concern will simply not influence the vast majority of decisions, as concerns about climate change have for the last 30 years.
I use "bury the lede" ironically as someone who read this article as something that may, finally, change the idiotic production and development patterns we've been following in the face the climate change threat, when instead, the real part of the story is that, no, no one will care.
I'm totally aware climate won't have time to deteriorate enough for my lifetime, but for me it's like a duty to minimize my environment footprint, I'm really close to nature, I eat foraged fruits (figs! currently) and not polluting (bike, local food, minimal consumption/buying) is like a nature bro-code that I can't break. Picking up plastics wastes is one of my ways to thank nature for its food, I know it sounds maybe "spiritual" for you, but it's really my mentality, and I live right inside a place of over-consumption (French code d'azur), so I'm a bit like a marginal there, so you're right in sating "almost no one will care", but I hope more people will see the point for such a lifestyle (healthy, simple, happy, and environment-scalable)
There is nothing scalable about eating foraged fruits/food. Modern populations would starve without modern agriculture
There are many ways to eat more or less local food, via producers. If you take France for example, it could easily be self-sufficient in fruits/vegetables (currenly it's not because of how they destroyed the beautiful old agriculture (orchards, permacultures) to grow intensive monocultures of corn and things for industrial derived products instead (they are less efficient by yield/surface, and much more demanding in resources, more polluting, creates more erosion, kill life in the soil,..). Eating mostly plant-based food is definitely scalable https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
News flash!
Population setup to be reliant on current system will need to change to use different systems.
Population setup to be reliant on current system will need to change to use different systems.
Good work! Keep at it. You're not alone.
I don't understand how someone can be born on a planet with the promise that the planet will be here and sustain us for potentially millions of years and be fine with trashing it to the point of ecological collapse simply because it'll get fully trashed slightly out of your expected lifespan.
Fantastic, YOLO. The next generation can deal with it.
Exactly. Just like nobody cares about 1C. It's amazing that one specific party is ramming in amendments against green energy right now.
[deleted]
There is movie about this. Watched few days back, surreal to see the headline on Reuters.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/
2 minutes summary - trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku_IseK3xTc
The Day After Tomorrow (2004) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/
2 minutes summary - trailer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku_IseK3xTc
Worth noting that TDAT took the concept of the AMOC collapsing and turned it into one of the most absurdly unscientific science-based films short of Armageddon.
But it was pretty entertaining if you could find a way to stay plugged into the movie and not feel disenchanted by the concept of polar cyclones icing things with tropospheric air. Still, there was that initial kernel of truth to it, which is what we're reading about now.
(not a climate guy; I'm probably getting some parts of this wrong)
But it was pretty entertaining if you could find a way to stay plugged into the movie and not feel disenchanted by the concept of polar cyclones icing things with tropospheric air. Still, there was that initial kernel of truth to it, which is what we're reading about now.
(not a climate guy; I'm probably getting some parts of this wrong)
From Amazon's info about the movie:
> Twentieth Century Fox invited a group of scientists to preview this movie, to test their reactions to the "science" used in it. None of the scientists were impressed with what they say, although most conceded that the movie was enjoyable nonsense.
> The consultation by N.A.S.A. scientists was requested before the filming of this movie, but N.A.S.A. stated that the events in this movie were too ridiculous to actually occur, and denied the request.
> Twentieth Century Fox invited a group of scientists to preview this movie, to test their reactions to the "science" used in it. None of the scientists were impressed with what they say, although most conceded that the movie was enjoyable nonsense.
> The consultation by N.A.S.A. scientists was requested before the filming of this movie, but N.A.S.A. stated that the events in this movie were too ridiculous to actually occur, and denied the request.
That's really funny. It almost reads like The Onion.
James Burke was doing it 1989:
After the Warming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfE8wBReIxw
After the Warming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfE8wBReIxw
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28085342
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28078575
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28082887