• brvslvrnst
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    8 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    Yepp, nothing to worry about here.

    It feels like governments have just seen this as a foregone conclusion and are trying to position in an “every person for themselves” kind of deal. Sure, we’ve finally done something to cut emissions, but it’s the slowest possible move they can make.

    • qprimedEnglish
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      8 months ago
      edit-2
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      I have thought about this for a while now. it just seems that some countries have gamed this out and decided “sure, ‘we’ all might die, but you’re gonna die first - so screw you!

      the maxim of “he who dies richest, wins” seems to be the only ideal at play here.

  • Derrick
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    Is it just me, or does anyone else who sees temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit (without a Celsius conversion) in a summary of a scientific report like this just automatically consider it an American fluff piece and click-bait to be ignored?

    You should read the actual report https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk1189.

    It might be my naive reading, but it seems that flooding the ocean with 4-5% of the gulf stream flow with fresh water from glacier melt (I think that’s a lot) will cause a shut down in the year 3700 or so. Even I, as a climate change believer, think that’s a little too far out there to be considered germane.

    • Montagge
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Oh good. It won’t be like a disaster movie because it was never going to. It’s still going to be bad, but with less bad acting and more starvation.

  • antidote101
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    8 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    Wait, if we have an ice age during global warming Won’t they kinda cancel each other out?

    • Tikiporch
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      No, but this kind of reasoning is why it’s referred to as climate change now. We don’t just get higher temperatures, the defining feature is unpredictable weather.

      • antidote101
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        So does that mean you can’t say because we don’t know the actual effects? They’re unpredictable?

        but isn’t the main theory about the AMOC shutting down that it may bring on an ice age?

        • qprimedEnglish
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          8 months ago
          edit-2
          8 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          the idea of northern europe ending up in a deep freeze while much of the rest of the world bakes is not new. these scenarios have been modeled for decades. I remember over 20 years ago, while naively considering “escape options”, learning about the AMOC, the great conveyer and other modeled outcomes.

          long story short there is no escape. we either fix the fundamental problems in our societies (and adapt to the damage we have already done) or it all collapses into a probable species ending spiral.