6 ms·

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.

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.

pif 3y ago
> 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.
- tmaly 3y ago
  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.
  - phpnode 3y ago
    Too slow, it will be decades before the people going through the education system now are in a position to effect change
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - tmaly 3y ago
      What do you propose to do that is a complete solution and timely?
      - myshpa 3y ago
        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.
  - raffraffraff 3y ago
    Deleted massive rant
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  >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.
bryanlarsen 3y ago
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.
- mannykannot 3y ago
  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!"
  - uoaei 3y ago
    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.
  - jihadjihad 3y ago
    Ah, the classic "four-stage strategy"! [0] 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak
deadeye 3y ago
"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.
- Supermancho 3y ago
  AMOC includes the NAC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current Additional information, which may or may not be of interest.
- mariusor 3y ago
  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".
  - deadeye 3y ago
    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.
    - mariusor 3y ago
      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.
bad_alloc 3y ago
> Why does everything has to be put into the political view? BECAUSE THE FUTURE VIABILITY OF THE PLANET DEPENDS ON POLITICAL DECISIONS!
- notabee 3y ago
  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.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    >"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.

pif 3y ago

> 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.

tmaly 3y ago
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.
- phpnode 3y ago
  Too slow, it will be decades before the people going through the education system now are in a position to effect change
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - tmaly 3y ago
    What do you propose to do that is a complete solution and timely?
    - myshpa 3y ago
      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.
- raffraffraff 3y ago
  Deleted massive rant
mrguyorama 3y ago
>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.

bryanlarsen 3y ago

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.

mannykannot 3y ago
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!"
- uoaei 3y ago
  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.
- jihadjihad 3y ago
  Ah, the classic "four-stage strategy"! [0] 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSXIetP5iak

deadeye 3y ago

"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.

Supermancho 3y ago
AMOC includes the NAC - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current Additional information, which may or may not be of interest.
mariusor 3y ago
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".
- deadeye 3y ago
  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.
  - mariusor 3y ago
    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.

bad_alloc 3y ago

> Why does everything has to be put into the political view? BECAUSE THE FUTURE VIABILITY OF THE PLANET DEPENDS ON POLITICAL DECISIONS!

notabee 3y ago
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.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  >"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.