Crucial system of ocean currents is collapsing; ‘affects everyone on the planet’(cnn.com)
cnn.com
Crucial system of ocean currents is collapsing; ‘affects everyone on the planet’
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/25/world/gulf-stream-atlantic-current-collapse-climate-scn-intl/index.html
68 comments
discussion on actual Nature Communications article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36864319
Here is the #1 story on HN right now
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39810-w
HN headline is very click-baity.
Context: Collapse around the middle of the century or as soon as 2025. (That’s a big error bar.)
(CNN) A vital system of ocean currents could collapse within a few decades if the world continues to pump out planet-heating pollution, scientists are warning – an event that would be catastrophic for global weather and “affect every person on the planet.”
A new study published Tuesday in the journal Nature, found that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current – of which the Gulf Stream is a part – could collapse around the middle of the century, or even as early as 2025.
Context: Collapse around the middle of the century or as soon as 2025. (That’s a big error bar.)
(CNN) A vital system of ocean currents could collapse within a few decades if the world continues to pump out planet-heating pollution, scientists are warning – an event that would be catastrophic for global weather and “affect every person on the planet.”
A new study published Tuesday in the journal Nature, found that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current – of which the Gulf Stream is a part – could collapse around the middle of the century, or even as early as 2025.
Yeah there is a bit of a gulf between “is collapsing” and “could collapse if”
Sorry to post twice on this thread, but this concept gets so little relative attention, and to me, this is a huge and viable idea. And low cost. Sure you need to cover a lot of land but if this technique was applied to farm lands it cloud have a disproportionate carbon sink effect relative to things like direct air capture or carbon storage. Worth additional attention IMO.
“Sprinkling basalt over soil could remove huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere”
https://physicsworld.com/a/sprinkling-basalt-over-soil-could...
“Sprinkling basalt over soil could remove huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere”
https://physicsworld.com/a/sprinkling-basalt-over-soil-could...
> Goll’s team used a land surface model to the simulate the effects of applying 5 kg/m2 of basalt dust over a vegetated area of 55 million square kilometres (about one third of the land on Earth). They found it has the potential to remove 2.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, where roughly half was stored in the biomass.
Am I misunderstanding something?
We emitted 37 billion tons in 2021.
This solution would offset 2.5 billion tons (~7%) of our annual emissions. And to do that we would need to put 5KG of basalt per square meter on 1/3 of all land available on earth. Isn't it completely crazy and unrealistic?
Am I misunderstanding something?
We emitted 37 billion tons in 2021.
This solution would offset 2.5 billion tons (~7%) of our annual emissions. And to do that we would need to put 5KG of basalt per square meter on 1/3 of all land available on earth. Isn't it completely crazy and unrealistic?
So what's the plan to force China to cease being the world leader in CO2 emissions?
Presumably the majority of what China produces only exists because every day billions of people in other countries open their wallets, deliberately choose dozens of items with "Made in China" stamped firmly upon them, and thus routinely cast their financial vote about how the world should continue.
The bigger problem is the US. The EU, US, Canada and Australia could easily tax China into submission.
This is a silly comment.
China's per person emissions are far lower than most industrialised countries. Qatar is at the top with almost 40 tons of CO2 per person per year.
China's per person emissions are far lower than most industrialised countries. Qatar is at the top with almost 40 tons of CO2 per person per year.
Who was talking about per-person?
China leads the world in greenhouse gas emissions, double that of the USA.
China, USA, and India contribute 42.6% total emissions, while the bottom 100 countries only account for 2.9%.
https://www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows-changes...
China leads the world in greenhouse gas emissions, double that of the USA.
China, USA, and India contribute 42.6% total emissions, while the bottom 100 countries only account for 2.9%.
https://www.wri.org/insights/interactive-chart-shows-changes...
And India is coming up fast as demographics propel them to become the world’s most populous country, replacing China.
Let's imagine we stopped all C02 production tomorrow. How long it will take for climate to start going back to "sane" measurements?
It would take shorter than if we were to stop CO2 production at any later date. The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, and the second-best time is right now.
Do what you can. Live sustainably. Vote righteously. Have consideration for the future.
Do what you can. Live sustainably. Vote righteously. Have consideration for the future.
Well according to the c-roads simulator, if we reduce emmissions to zero this year, it still results in +1.5 C increase by the end of the century and stays there. I think that's roughly accurate if I recall the last IPCC report.
At this point it's more a question of what we can do to prepare ourselves for the fallout, we've done our waving to the moments when we could do something as they passed by.
The real question is what will destroy the ocean's food chain first, China's overfishing, the acidity and temperature increases, or the collapse of currents. Taking bets now.
At this point it's more a question of what we can do to prepare ourselves for the fallout, we've done our waving to the moments when we could do something as they passed by.
The real question is what will destroy the ocean's food chain first, China's overfishing, the acidity and temperature increases, or the collapse of currents. Taking bets now.
> if we reduce emmissions to zero this year, it still results in +1.5 C increase by the end of the century
this is non-sense according to the ipcc models
for 1.5C, we still have a budget of 200BN tonCO2e
for 2C, we have about 1TN tonCO2e
for 2.5C, 2TN ton, is within current trajectory of progress
we currently emmit about 50BN tons/annum
All of the above are bad, but degrees (ha! pun!) matter
> China's overfishing
Bashing the developing world is not helpful. The US account for a massive chunk of historical emissions and excess consumption.
this is non-sense according to the ipcc models
for 1.5C, we still have a budget of 200BN tonCO2e
for 2C, we have about 1TN tonCO2e
for 2.5C, 2TN ton, is within current trajectory of progress
we currently emmit about 50BN tons/annum
All of the above are bad, but degrees (ha! pun!) matter
> China's overfishing
Bashing the developing world is not helpful. The US account for a massive chunk of historical emissions and excess consumption.
> or 1.5C, we still have a budget of 200BN tonCO2e
> we currently emmit about 50BN tons/annum
So, 4 years till we definitively get there? That honestly sounds worse because this was a hypothetical, we absolutely cannot stop our emissions to any meaningful degree if we want to continue living in a society.
And even if we magically did stop all direct emissions, there are secondary warming processes that have started and cannot be stopped. The oceans absorb a quarter of all CO2 which they will start to outgass once the atmosphere concentration stops increasing. The melted glacial masses have reduced the planet's reflectivity, increasing the greenhouse effect. Permafrost thawing is causing methane releases, etc.
> Bashing the developing world is not helpful. The US account for a massive chunk of historical emissions and excess consumption.
Oh my bad, do keep doing it until all the fish are completely gone and we all starve to death because dumb people did things centuries ago. Yes the developed world has an obligation to assist in all ways possible to make sure progress and development can continue in a clean and sustainable way, but past crimes don't condone present ones.
I mentioned China here specifically since they're an outlier in the topic, with vast ocean going fishing fleets emptying stock in even less developed countries that need it, i.e. Indonesia, Africa.
> we currently emmit about 50BN tons/annum
So, 4 years till we definitively get there? That honestly sounds worse because this was a hypothetical, we absolutely cannot stop our emissions to any meaningful degree if we want to continue living in a society.
And even if we magically did stop all direct emissions, there are secondary warming processes that have started and cannot be stopped. The oceans absorb a quarter of all CO2 which they will start to outgass once the atmosphere concentration stops increasing. The melted glacial masses have reduced the planet's reflectivity, increasing the greenhouse effect. Permafrost thawing is causing methane releases, etc.
> Bashing the developing world is not helpful. The US account for a massive chunk of historical emissions and excess consumption.
Oh my bad, do keep doing it until all the fish are completely gone and we all starve to death because dumb people did things centuries ago. Yes the developed world has an obligation to assist in all ways possible to make sure progress and development can continue in a clean and sustainable way, but past crimes don't condone present ones.
I mentioned China here specifically since they're an outlier in the topic, with vast ocean going fishing fleets emptying stock in even less developed countries that need it, i.e. Indonesia, Africa.
US army is the largest non country entity
[deleted]
CNN has done so much to tarnish their reputation that my gut reaction is to distrust the information they discuss simply based on their past behavior. I think these mainstream publications are actually harming the causes they seek to highlight. It seems there are others in this thread that feel the same way.
Ok but please don’t let your disappointment in CNN become yet another excuse for you or other people to keep ignoring the brutal realities of climate change.
maybe if we pay more taxes and stop eating hamburgers we can solve it
We the people dont need to pay more taxes but the polluting companies should.
We the people should not keep doing the polluting companies favours by focusing on complaining about things like veggie burgers and paper straws. We should keep demanding real action.
If you think paper straws and tree planting is dumb and useless (which I can totally relate to), don’t use that to mock the whole enterprise but pressure all the politicians to resist the moneyed interests and take meaningful action.
If you think paper straws and tree planting is dumb and useless (which I can totally relate to), don’t use that to mock the whole enterprise but pressure all the politicians to resist the moneyed interests and take meaningful action.
unfortunately the reality is that our rights get removed while the big guys get to continue doing as they please
I know that is a risk but it is only made worse by talking about the useless stuff and not talking about the real actions that should be directed towards the large corporations.
We should plan for it, not ban another “plastic straw”
How can anyone on HN ignore it when there are a dozen climate emergency articles on the front page every day? Fatigue is setting in.
CNN is led by the people who sell garbage “reality” tv shows on Discovery channel and whatnot. That should give people enough pause before investing much in what CNN publishes.
jokoon(6)
Why does everything has to be put into the political view? If this ocean current is collapsing because of the current temperature anomaly, then it has happened. Nothing that any amount of CO2 limiting will do about it, because even the most optimistic IPCC projections with 100% adoption only say temperature will stabilize ~2060. That base-case is worse than the worst case considered in this paper.
So this should be treated as this current having collapsed. It's like a building toppled, it's shaking, but not many bricks have hit the ground yet, but everybody's running.
Well, except that in this case half the people still want to believe it isn't happening.
What we really need to know is what will be happening, where, and how much.
So this should be treated as this current having collapsed. It's like a building toppled, it's shaking, but not many bricks have hit the ground yet, but everybody's running.
Well, except that in this case half the people still want to believe it isn't happening.
What we really need to know is what will be happening, where, and how much.
> Why does everything has to be put into the political view?
BECAUSE THE FUTURE VIABILITY OF THE PLANET DEPENDS ON POLITICAL DECISIONS!
BECAUSE THE FUTURE VIABILITY OF THE PLANET DEPENDS ON POLITICAL DECISIONS!
It's long past time we should stop tolerating the semantic evasion of "anything that I don't like to talk about is political and therefore out of bounds".
The term itself has been stretched and mutilated to the point of absurdity, and especially any topic that has valid and exhaustive empirical research should be discussed in those terms and not shut down with a big taboo sticker slapped on it.
Discussion of the state of the world's climate and humans' effects on it: science.
Inventing a bunch of word games, truisms, nonsensical "decorum" rules about discussing factual evidence: political.
The term itself has been stretched and mutilated to the point of absurdity, and especially any topic that has valid and exhaustive empirical research should be discussed in those terms and not shut down with a big taboo sticker slapped on it.
Discussion of the state of the world's climate and humans' effects on it: science.
Inventing a bunch of word games, truisms, nonsensical "decorum" rules about discussing factual evidence: political.
>"anything that I don't like to talk about is political and therefore out of bounds".
What's funny is we did that exact experiment right here on HN several years ago and it went predictably tits up, since everything is political in some way, because politics TOUCHES EVERYTHING.
What's funny is we did that exact experiment right here on HN several years ago and it went predictably tits up, since everything is political in some way, because politics TOUCHES EVERYTHING.
> half the people still want to believe it isn't happening.
The problem is twofold: on one side, you have those who think they can choose whether to believe in facts; on the other side, you have those who believe without understanding!
As you said, we are past the return point. This is happening, and we should be doing something that actually addresses the problems caused by the ocean currents shutting down, but too many activists will block the traffic, piss everybody off, show a sign with "STOP OIL" painted on it, accomplish nothing but fomenting the hate, and call it a day.
The problem is twofold: on one side, you have those who think they can choose whether to believe in facts; on the other side, you have those who believe without understanding!
As you said, we are past the return point. This is happening, and we should be doing something that actually addresses the problems caused by the ocean currents shutting down, but too many activists will block the traffic, piss everybody off, show a sign with "STOP OIL" painted on it, accomplish nothing but fomenting the hate, and call it a day.
>As you said, we are past the return point. This is happening, and we should be doing something that actually addresses the problems caused by the ocean currents shutting down, but too many activists will block the traffic, piss everybody off, show a sign with "STOP OIL" painted on it, accomplish nothing but fomenting the hate, and call it a day.
Ah yes, 80 million people vote for the guy who says that climate change is a chinese hoax and we should be burning """clean""" coal but the actual problem is the people who don't like pretending things are fine.
Ah yes, 80 million people vote for the guy who says that climate change is a chinese hoax and we should be burning """clean""" coal but the actual problem is the people who don't like pretending things are fine.
I believe we can solve both problems if we would focus more on the scientific method and rational thinking.
Improving the educational system is the only way we get there.
Improving the educational system is the only way we get there.
Too slow, it will be decades before the people going through the education system now are in a position to effect change
Climate moves a lot slower.
What do you propose to do that is a complete solution and timely?
Lots of people know what needs doing, but changing things up is tough when we're so used to doing things a certain way. Plus, it doesn't help that laws often slow down the changes we need. And let's be real, these changes might not be everyone's cup of tea, especially when there's so much distrust and confusion often spread by the media.
Our current problems:
- Climate Change (CC)
- Biodiversity Loss (BL)
- Deforestation (D)
- Water Scarcity (WS)
- Ocean Acidification (OA)
- Resource Depletion (RD)
- Pollution (P)
- Land Degradation (LD)
- Food Insecurity (FI)
- Social Inequity (SI)
We have to solve all those to have a chance to repair things. Repair too little and we'll end up as Rome did (they also tried to solve their problems when they realized they're facing the end, but did too little and paid the price). All those problems have their main culprits and plethora of solutions. It's not that we don't know what and how, but we don't have the will.
a] acknowledge that our problem is ecological overshoot, and climate change is just one of its symptoms
b] stop polluting atmosphere ... stop fossil fuels asap, stop adding unnecessary co2 + methane + n20 (CC, P)
c] stop polluting soils & water ... reform agriculture, stop animal agriculture, plant-based diets (BL, WS, OA, P)
d] stop economic drivers of exponential growth of humans ... reform political, economic & financial system, handle inequality, ubi, housing, etc. (SI, FI)
e] stop overconsumption ... degrowth, ubi, walkable cities & reform zone planning, public transport, wfh, remove subsidies for polluting & unsustainable sectors (CC, BL, D, OA, RD, P, LD, FI, SI)
f] stop overexploiting nature ... circular economy, degrowth (BL, D, RD, P)
g] store carbon - reforest, rewild (abolishment of animal ag frees up an area as big as Africa) (CC, BL, D, WS, OA, RD, P, LD, FI, SI)
h] store carbon - enable return of wildlife ... big, continuous primeval rain forests and grasslands (CC, BL, D, WS, LD)
i] store carbon - stop industrial fishing, let marine life rebound to previous levels (70-90% gone already, incl. plankton) (CC, BL, OA, SI)
I'm probably forgetting a lot. But that'd be enough to stop it and begin the path towards sustainability.
Our current problems:
- Climate Change (CC)
- Biodiversity Loss (BL)
- Deforestation (D)
- Water Scarcity (WS)
- Ocean Acidification (OA)
- Resource Depletion (RD)
- Pollution (P)
- Land Degradation (LD)
- Food Insecurity (FI)
- Social Inequity (SI)
We have to solve all those to have a chance to repair things. Repair too little and we'll end up as Rome did (they also tried to solve their problems when they realized they're facing the end, but did too little and paid the price). All those problems have their main culprits and plethora of solutions. It's not that we don't know what and how, but we don't have the will.
a] acknowledge that our problem is ecological overshoot, and climate change is just one of its symptoms
b] stop polluting atmosphere ... stop fossil fuels asap, stop adding unnecessary co2 + methane + n20 (CC, P)
c] stop polluting soils & water ... reform agriculture, stop animal agriculture, plant-based diets (BL, WS, OA, P)
d] stop economic drivers of exponential growth of humans ... reform political, economic & financial system, handle inequality, ubi, housing, etc. (SI, FI)
e] stop overconsumption ... degrowth, ubi, walkable cities & reform zone planning, public transport, wfh, remove subsidies for polluting & unsustainable sectors (CC, BL, D, OA, RD, P, LD, FI, SI)
f] stop overexploiting nature ... circular economy, degrowth (BL, D, RD, P)
g] store carbon - reforest, rewild (abolishment of animal ag frees up an area as big as Africa) (CC, BL, D, WS, OA, RD, P, LD, FI, SI)
h] store carbon - enable return of wildlife ... big, continuous primeval rain forests and grasslands (CC, BL, D, WS, LD)
i] store carbon - stop industrial fishing, let marine life rebound to previous levels (70-90% gone already, incl. plankton) (CC, BL, OA, SI)
I'm probably forgetting a lot. But that'd be enough to stop it and begin the path towards sustainability.
[deleted]
Deleted massive rant
"If this ocean current is collapsing because of the current temperature anomaly, then it has happened."
It must be my reading comprehension that's off, but what has happened? What is "it", the ocean current collapsing?
The thing is, I don't see anywhere in the article that says it is collapsing.
"A new study published Tuesday in the journal Nature, found that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current – of which the Gulf Stream is a part – could collapse around the middle of the century, or even as early as 2025."
Nowhere does it say it is in the process of collapse, at least that I could find.
It must be my reading comprehension that's off, but what has happened? What is "it", the ocean current collapsing?
The thing is, I don't see anywhere in the article that says it is collapsing.
"A new study published Tuesday in the journal Nature, found that the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current – of which the Gulf Stream is a part – could collapse around the middle of the century, or even as early as 2025."
Nowhere does it say it is in the process of collapse, at least that I could find.
I think what OP wants to say is that despite the timeline for the event being in the future, nothing we can do today will prevent it from happening. The triggers for the event are in the past and nothing can be done, therefore "it has happened".
That only makes sense if the predictions are accurate and highly probable. Time unfortunately, has shown that these dire predictions are often wrong.
There has been a good 20 years of climate hysteria to pull from. All one has to do is look at old newspapers and read the dire predictions from 2010 to have a good laugh at our sensational media.
There has been a good 20 years of climate hysteria to pull from. All one has to do is look at old newspapers and read the dire predictions from 2010 to have a good laugh at our sensational media.
I was merely presenting my interpretation of what OP wanted to say.
However I wouldn't classify Nature as "sensational media", the authors of the original are a physicist and a mathematician from a well known University.
And I wouldn't call it hysteria when barely anything gets done for the actual climate at a nation state level.
However I wouldn't classify Nature as "sensational media", the authors of the original are a physicist and a mathematician from a well known University.
And I wouldn't call it hysteria when barely anything gets done for the actual climate at a nation state level.
First, it would be fortunate that dire predictions are often wrong. But they haven't been. Massive environmental predictions have been correct for decades (or feel free to provide examples).
Consider the fact that there are thousands of environmental predictions. Are some right? Of course, some are. Perhaps only due to the fact that some HAD to be right given a normal distribution of predictions. That could just be survivorship bias. IDK.
To find environmental predictions that didn't happen try a google search for "Environmental Predictions that didn't happen", I promise you won't have to dig for results to find what you're looking for.
In the lists in various articles you'll find, notice that these predictions are often made by credentialed scientists from prestigious institutions, not an overhyped journalist making leaps from a scientific paper they don't understand.
One of biggest problem with the climate science is that it suffers from a selection bias. I think most people who go into that field already have their mind made up and their goal is to affirm their belief. And if they didn't, they'd be an unfunded nobody labeled a crackpot...as the skeptics/moderates often are.
To find environmental predictions that didn't happen try a google search for "Environmental Predictions that didn't happen", I promise you won't have to dig for results to find what you're looking for.
In the lists in various articles you'll find, notice that these predictions are often made by credentialed scientists from prestigious institutions, not an overhyped journalist making leaps from a scientific paper they don't understand.
One of biggest problem with the climate science is that it suffers from a selection bias. I think most people who go into that field already have their mind made up and their goal is to affirm their belief. And if they didn't, they'd be an unfunded nobody labeled a crackpot...as the skeptics/moderates often are.
I'm talking about the massive predictions. Those with a good amount of agreement among scientists.
I won't do you research for you. Try to find some examples, and you'll find that the scientific community has been correct. Or prove me wrong!
I won't do you research for you. Try to find some examples, and you'll find that the scientific community has been correct. Or prove me wrong!
AMOC includes the NAC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current
Additional information, which may or may not be of interest.
Additional information, which may or may not be of interest.
Half want to believe it isn't happening so therefore we should do nothing, and it feels like the other half believes that because it's inevitable we should just accept we're doomed and do nothing because we're doomed anyways.
We need to work to minimize the number of impacts like this one. We can't prevent this one, but we can prevent the next one.
We need to work to minimize the number of impacts like this one. We can't prevent this one, but we can prevent the next one.
I feel there is considerable overlap between the people who once said "ignore the science! global warming is a fallacy!" and those who are now saying "follow the science! it's too late to do anything!"
You've pretty succinctly demonstrated in synecdoche the fallacy of hardline reactionary conservative talking points.
Things aren't problems until they are. If we can see them coming, we should do something about it. But the conservatively-minded always seem to want more evidence before devoting any resources to anticipation of problems.
Things aren't problems until they are. If we can see them coming, we should do something about it. But the conservatively-minded always seem to want more evidence before devoting any resources to anticipation of problems.
Ah, the classic "four-stage strategy"! [0]
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak