4 ms·

Hmm, so obviously we have to compensate with even more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. It is not unreasonable solution for those living the area.

by Ekaros 2y ago

ben_w 2y ago
The people living in the entirety of Europe combined are outnumbered by a factor of 10 by people who very much won't let them. :P
- RandomLensman 2y ago
  How?
  - ben_w 2y ago
    The usual methods. Not selling them stuff to burn, followed by military involvement if they try to manufacture super-greenhouse gases. Bear in mind that Europe trying to compensate for an AMOC collapse with more greenhouse gases would involve enough greenhouse gases to make India uninhabitable and that India has nukes, and that such a temperature change would significantly alter the agricultural productivity of the USA and the USA has nukes, and that half of China is a desert and China has nukes. I'm not sure if that kind of change would require global changes sufficient to melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, but if it did then that would also result in basically every costal nation also considering it an existential threat and thus warranting military action to prevent, including the UK.
    - RandomLensman 2y ago
      And Europe has nukes, too. Not sure nukes give anyone an advantage there.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        The UK and France have nukes; but (1) not many compared to the rest of the planet having a war with them, and (2) MAD still prevents industrialised production of super-greenhouse gasses. Russia has nukes but I don't think they're helped by AMOC anyway and thus wouldn't care. The scenario of "post AMOC collapse Europe tries to compensate with more global climate change" is an existential threat to at least some other nations, how many depends on the scale of the change caused by the AMOC collapse and thus the scale of the change from the super-greenhouse-gasses produced in this scenario to compensate for it; even if the UK/France nuclear arsenals were significantly larger, this would not be sufficient to deter India from using nukes in this scenario if conventional methods failed. Also, again, deliberately trying to push through an AMOC with even more greenhouse gasses is something most people don't model, so all parties would have to seriously consider if this would be at the level to melt global ice-sheets causing a (58m Antarctica + 7m Greenland =) 65m sea level rise rather than the much smaller one we'd expect in a business-as-usual scenario. Set this map to 65m: https://www.floodmap.net https://www.floodmap.net Then consider each scenario. If the AMOC fails, it's an open question how severe that even is — I've seen estimates between 2°C and 30°C of local cooling, and I expect the lower range of that hence my previous statement "Europe north of about Paris will look like southern Canada already does". At lower levels of that range, Europe just goes back to where we were a century ago, at higher levels it could only be "solved" by greenhouse gas emissions that would cause the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets to fully melt. Looking at the global map, my guess is that Spain and France end up like the USA Pacific coast, which isn't too bad, while the UK and Ireland have severe issues. But even a "mere" extra 2°C globally is enough to be an existential threat to certain populations including in parts of India, who would do whatever it takes to prevent that. If it's really a 30°C collapse — and it would have to be on that scale to seriously consider global geo-engineering rather than retrofitting buildings and building greenhouses over the farmland — then that risks the aforementioned ice sheet collapse, which neither the UK nor Ireland can risk because that would turn the problem from "it's cold and we need to import food" to "and now 50% of the country is underwater", likewise half of Belgium, all of the Netherlands, much of Denmark, and a significant part of the most densely populated regions across the continent including Italy. France, the only other nuclear armed state in the EU besides the UK, is only affected a little bit by the sea level rise, and thus the only one which might consider that course of action. But even they would have a serious engineering project to stop the Seine from flooding back to Paris. And even with that, silver bullets (your nukes) can't stop golden guns (other people's nukes). - No, if this particular disaster happened we might try to mass-migrate to Africa (to a chorus of "oh no not again" from the destination), but I don't see our governments trying to solve it in the "old lady who swallowed a fly" approach.
    - lamontcg 2y ago
      By 2050 when the AMOC collapses, Europe will be able to heat itself without greenhouse gases. They're on a pretty good course already, they're not the United States.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        That heavily depends on the details of the collapse. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the other poster's (Ekaros) scenario, but I think they were suggesting emissions of extra CO2 and other greenhouse gases as geo-engineering rather than as a mere power supply, especially given the (CalRobert) mention of starvation. I've seen estimates between 2°C and 30°C of local cooling. I expect the lower range of that hence my previous statement "Europe north of about Paris will look like southern Canada already does", and that's fine for northern Europe but may still bite Spain (the Florida of Europe) as it (or at least its Med coast) is destined for being too hot more than being too cold. Agriculture is the main thing, and I don't feel confident about predicting that, might be OK or not. 30°C of local cooling (I have no idea how that might even be possible but I've seen it as the worst case estimate) is way outside what most of the buildings are designed for.
        lamontcg 2y ago
        30C of cooling is pretty clearly ludicrous. And geoengineering to spew more CO2 into the atmosphere won't really work and is idiotic enough, it won't happen. I guess I didn't understand that line of argument because of how ridiculous it is. Much more likely that Europe just switches to energy-intensive hydroponic farming and to imports for whatever that doesn't work for.
        ben_w 2y ago
        > And geoengineering to spew more CO2 into the atmosphere won't really work and is idiotic enough, On this we both agree :) > it won't happen Sadly this doesn't follow from the premise; governments regularly do stupid things that don't work.
alex_duf 2y ago
Yes it will get cold, but paradoxically it will also get much warmer. Mote extreme weather is what's going to happen. I know this was probably sarcasm, but more co2 means more energy in the system, and more extremes.

Hmm, so obviously we have to compensate with even more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. It is not unreasonable solution for those living the area.

by Ekaros 2y ago

Hmm, so obviously we have to compensate with even more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. It is not unreasonable solution for those living the area.

ben_w 2y ago

The people living in the entirety of Europe combined are outnumbered by a factor of 10 by people who very much won't let them. :P

RandomLensman 2y ago
How?
- ben_w 2y ago
  The usual methods. Not selling them stuff to burn, followed by military involvement if they try to manufacture super-greenhouse gases. Bear in mind that Europe trying to compensate for an AMOC collapse with more greenhouse gases would involve enough greenhouse gases to make India uninhabitable and that India has nukes, and that such a temperature change would significantly alter the agricultural productivity of the USA and the USA has nukes, and that half of China is a desert and China has nukes. I'm not sure if that kind of change would require global changes sufficient to melt the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, but if it did then that would also result in basically every costal nation also considering it an existential threat and thus warranting military action to prevent, including the UK.
  - RandomLensman 2y ago
    And Europe has nukes, too. Not sure nukes give anyone an advantage there.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      The UK and France have nukes; but (1) not many compared to the rest of the planet having a war with them, and (2) MAD still prevents industrialised production of super-greenhouse gasses. Russia has nukes but I don't think they're helped by AMOC anyway and thus wouldn't care. The scenario of "post AMOC collapse Europe tries to compensate with more global climate change" is an existential threat to at least some other nations, how many depends on the scale of the change caused by the AMOC collapse and thus the scale of the change from the super-greenhouse-gasses produced in this scenario to compensate for it; even if the UK/France nuclear arsenals were significantly larger, this would not be sufficient to deter India from using nukes in this scenario if conventional methods failed. Also, again, deliberately trying to push through an AMOC with even more greenhouse gasses is something most people don't model, so all parties would have to seriously consider if this would be at the level to melt global ice-sheets causing a (58m Antarctica + 7m Greenland =) 65m sea level rise rather than the much smaller one we'd expect in a business-as-usual scenario. Set this map to 65m: https://www.floodmap.net https://www.floodmap.net Then consider each scenario. If the AMOC fails, it's an open question how severe that even is — I've seen estimates between 2°C and 30°C of local cooling, and I expect the lower range of that hence my previous statement "Europe north of about Paris will look like southern Canada already does". At lower levels of that range, Europe just goes back to where we were a century ago, at higher levels it could only be "solved" by greenhouse gas emissions that would cause the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets to fully melt. Looking at the global map, my guess is that Spain and France end up like the USA Pacific coast, which isn't too bad, while the UK and Ireland have severe issues. But even a "mere" extra 2°C globally is enough to be an existential threat to certain populations including in parts of India, who would do whatever it takes to prevent that. If it's really a 30°C collapse — and it would have to be on that scale to seriously consider global geo-engineering rather than retrofitting buildings and building greenhouses over the farmland — then that risks the aforementioned ice sheet collapse, which neither the UK nor Ireland can risk because that would turn the problem from "it's cold and we need to import food" to "and now 50% of the country is underwater", likewise half of Belgium, all of the Netherlands, much of Denmark, and a significant part of the most densely populated regions across the continent including Italy. France, the only other nuclear armed state in the EU besides the UK, is only affected a little bit by the sea level rise, and thus the only one which might consider that course of action. But even they would have a serious engineering project to stop the Seine from flooding back to Paris. And even with that, silver bullets (your nukes) can't stop golden guns (other people's nukes). - No, if this particular disaster happened we might try to mass-migrate to Africa (to a chorus of "oh no not again" from the destination), but I don't see our governments trying to solve it in the "old lady who swallowed a fly" approach.
  - lamontcg 2y ago
    By 2050 when the AMOC collapses, Europe will be able to heat itself without greenhouse gases. They're on a pretty good course already, they're not the United States.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      That heavily depends on the details of the collapse. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the other poster's (Ekaros) scenario, but I think they were suggesting emissions of extra CO2 and other greenhouse gases as geo-engineering rather than as a mere power supply, especially given the (CalRobert) mention of starvation. I've seen estimates between 2°C and 30°C of local cooling. I expect the lower range of that hence my previous statement "Europe north of about Paris will look like southern Canada already does", and that's fine for northern Europe but may still bite Spain (the Florida of Europe) as it (or at least its Med coast) is destined for being too hot more than being too cold. Agriculture is the main thing, and I don't feel confident about predicting that, might be OK or not. 30°C of local cooling (I have no idea how that might even be possible but I've seen it as the worst case estimate) is way outside what most of the buildings are designed for.
      - lamontcg 2y ago
        30C of cooling is pretty clearly ludicrous. And geoengineering to spew more CO2 into the atmosphere won't really work and is idiotic enough, it won't happen. I guess I didn't understand that line of argument because of how ridiculous it is. Much more likely that Europe just switches to energy-intensive hydroponic farming and to imports for whatever that doesn't work for.
        ben_w 2y ago
        > And geoengineering to spew more CO2 into the atmosphere won't really work and is idiotic enough, On this we both agree :) > it won't happen Sadly this doesn't follow from the premise; governments regularly do stupid things that don't work.

alex_duf 2y ago

Yes it will get cold, but paradoxically it will also get much warmer. Mote extreme weather is what's going to happen. I know this was probably sarcasm, but more co2 means more energy in the system, and more extremes.