Researchers have predicted the collapse of the AMOC could happen any time between 2025 and 2095 — far sooner than previous predictions, although not all scientists are convinced.
=====
What if…
Researchers have predicted the collapse of the AMOC could happen any time between 2025 and 2095 — far sooner than previous predictions, although not all scientists are convinced.
=====
What if…
Is it just me who thinks we should act as if it is going to collapse soon, even if a few scientists aren’t sure?
But what if it’s all a hoax and we make the world a better place for no reason?
Won’t someone think of the shareholders?
I am never going to recover financially from this.
I mean, that is always a concern lol.
I really hate this line of thinking.
“Making the world a better place” would be an enormous sacrifice for most people. There would be massive financial ramifications. Our quality of life would decrease significantly.
You can’t eat money. Our quality of life is already decreasing because of this. How do you think people’s quality of life in Europe is going to be when the Gulfstream current shuts down and stops bringing warm tropical water to them? Reducing our exploitation of natural resources is not a sacrifice, it’s the right thing to do. What we’ve been doing is wrong.
I think you missed the hypothetical line of thought I responded to in which this is “all a hoax”.
Aha! So that one fringe scientists isn’t sure? Then maybe nothing will happen so let’s continue the course!
World leaders mentality
I think it’s more 99.9% of the scientists think it will get proper fucked up in the 2100s, but this one report says it’ll happen in the next few years.
But we should be doing something about it anyway.
If we actually cared we’d ban everything that’s fucking the world up, and ban any imports from countries that don’t agree. But if the last 5 years or so have told us anything, it’s that a lot of people don’t care. Even about things that directly affect them.
And people who do care often feel impotent to do anything about it.
Agree that drastic measures are necessary. It doesn’t even have to mean a drop in living standards; but it will take radical changes to protect (and even raise) those standards.
Agree about imports. The problem I see is that even if products with a high carbon footprint are imported, it doesn’t mean the person responsible for that carbon footprint isn’t domestic to e.g. (going by your ‘feddit.uk’ handle) the UK. This could still be captured by an import ban (i.e. shareholders can’t just export their emissions and pretend everything is okay), but the people with the power to export their emissions tend to have a lot of power to lobby the government, sit on government decision-making panels, or even choose MPs. They’re unlikely to shoot themselves in the foot like that.
An example is laptops. They break every few years. For the past decade-or-so, they’re made to be irreparable. They become landfill, and all that embodied carbon is wasted. Today’s laptops don’t even do anything that laptops of 15 years ago couldn’t do, except deal with websites bloated with adverts. It doesn’t matter so much where that consumer item is produced. The problem is the decision to make it so that it breaks and has to be replaced. Those decisions tend to be made in the west by people who will never willingly change their ways. It’s all about profit.
I think part of the reason that people feel apathetic is that they know it’s all about profit and are convinced that a system based on profit is the only way, so there’s nothing to be done. Another way is possible, though, people just need to be organised and educated§ to achieve it.
§ I mean working-class education, not e.g. going to college/university.
Actions that work in the possible world in which it collapses soon are actively harmful in possible worlds in which it doesn’t. Acting as if a threat will happen only makes sense if the action isn’t significantly harmful in cases where it doesn’t, where significantly is based on the harm of not being prepared and the chance of it happening.
If the Gulf Stream will collapse by 2025, the response isn’t to be more eco-friendly. In fact, it’s the opposite. Everyone in the north should prepare to burn a lot more fuel, and concern for global warming would definitely be reduced. Global warming is something you can only afford to give a shit about when temperatures haven’t just dropped by 3.5C and you haven’t just lost 78% of your arable land.
Do you mean that people need to see how their life will get worse before they will be willing to act? That sounds a little accelerationist to me. But I’m not entirely sure of your argument. You seem to be saying that people would not be worried if they lost 4/5ths of their arable land, but I think I must be misunderstanding something.
(I think it’s s tributary to the Gulf Stream that is at risk of collapsing, not the Gulf Stream itself, which, I’m told, is based on the earth’s rotation rather than climate.)
You are. People would be very worried. It’s just that their worry would not be expressed in attempts to improve things in the long-term when there’s a short-term disaster.
If the Gulf Stream will definitely collapse in 2025 (which is not what the study says), then that’s too soon to do anything about, so the priority is surviving it rather than preventing it. Fundamentally, things that help prevent disaster are not the same as things that help survive it.
I see, yes, that makes more sense: if conditions get that bad that quickly, it won’t be a question of preventing worse change, it’ll be figuring out how to survive day-to-day.
Well, all their predictions were wrong so far
Citation?
https://thenewamerican.com/print/climate-alarmists-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything/
A scientific source. Not y’all’quida magazine…
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-new-american/
No thanks. Considering they don’t support the consensus on climate change and are a far right, anti-government, anti-immigration group. I doubt their articles on climate change are factually sound. So miss us with your bullshit.
I wouldn’t dismiss an article just because a fact check website down rates it.
In this instance, though, it’s not far off. “The famous scientists at the Newsweek lab got things wrong a few decades ago, so all scientists today must be wrong.”
They are not far right, just right. And very credible. I’ll look for another source I guess.
“And very credible.” Lol. These are opinion pieces you are linking to. Let us know when you have a scientific article (ie Science, PNAS, Nature) to support your climate denial.
I would never deny the existence of the climate.
So deflection is your response to looking like a fool. You should go back to your echo chamber. 
“Just right” is no more credible than “far right.” Right-wing politics is a pack of lies and absolutely nothing else.
Ring wing news sources actually value the truth, unlike establishment and left wing news sources.
Right-wing ideology only exists to protect power and privilege, Clyde - it exists to hide the truth and nothing else.
But hey… maybe all that ivermectin you’ve been drinking will actually start working one of these days instead of slowly killing you, eh?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-new-american/
Not exactly a news source known for it’s unbiased and trustworthy reporting.
Even if it were credible, the article is almost 10 years old.
You need to do better than use a far-right organization’s outlet. Go to the true scientists, not reporters with a political agenda.
Reputable sources such as NASA, the United Nations, and the National Geographic Society, which base their conclusions on scientific evidence and rigorous research are much more reliable.
It is understandable to feel unhappy with the current reality. However, ignoring the situation and trying to find evidence that it is not real will not benefit anyone. In fact, it may even cause harm. As the saying goes, it is better to be safe than sorry.
It is important to face the reality and take appropriate actions to improve the situation. How else will a difference ever be made?
Edit: I named American websites (apart from the UN), because I assume by your source that you are American. This is a global issue, though. European reputable institutions:
Okay, acknowledged
https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326
That’s already been addressed.
So do you have a better citation?
“There were people in the 1970’s (around half a century ago) who didn’t have a clear picture of the global climate changes because they didn’t have a way to accurately track weather and climate trends, so OBVIOUSLY all climate change science is bullshit!” -That Article, which I had the displeasure of reading all the way through.
Edit: Sea Ice. Understanding trends versus anomalous seasons is key to participating in the conversation
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent
Are you okay now? I had to sit down after about six paragraphs. Metaphorically, of course; I wouldn’t stand up to read a dissertation on climate denial.
I’ve been on the Internet long enough to be used to it, but I feel like I need a palate cleanser.
There are much newer wrong predictions as well. Point is though, that you can’t find a correct prediction.
Most predictions are generalized statements like “the world as a whole will be hotter” or “extreme weather will be more common”. I’d bet good money that you could verify both of those predictions using only your own personal experience and that of the people you know. You’re not being honest with yourself if you say the climate isn’t changing at all. If your point is that predicting the future is hard and therefore there’s no point in trying to understand what’s happening then that’s an idiotic point of view that shouldn’t require a rebuttal.
I can tell from the way you’re speaking that you have your mind made up and none of these responses will make any difference to you but they may help someone else reading them.
I meant more specific predictions. But you also saw the predictions about global cooling.
You mean, the ones through 2023 that show land ice / glaciers on a downward trend, Arctic ice steadily declining, weather patterns becoming unpredictable? It’s easy to cherry pick data to support a politically driven opinion.
No, that’s it
That article was the epitome of the old saying “figures don’t lie, but lists can figure”. They cherry picked studies and statistics to support the conclusion they wanted to reach, absolute garbage “science”.
Journalistic sealioning, that.
Well yes we keep finding it’s getting worse quicker than anticipated
Your right, they said we had way longer before the climate would start collapsing, they should have warned us HARDER
We should have been dead by now, 20 times, according to the scientists
You are on some heavy street drugs, I can tell.
Meth induced psychosis is real, please seek help.
What is your honest opinion - do you think the climate is not warming due to increased CO2 that humans are releasing into the atmosphere?
I think yes, but there’s no accurate model on how much exactly the greenhouse gasses are affecting the average temperatures.
But if it’s non-zero, shouldn’t we be working to fix that problem regardless?
I suppose, but the urgency factor may be wildly different.
deleted by creator
Genuine question: What do you understand by scientific ‘prediction’?
Make a prediction model, plug in the data and release the results to the public. Prediction turns out to be wrong, rinse and repeat
That’s not far off liberal scientific methodology, to be fair, but it seems to put the cart before the horse. You might want to look up ‘falsifiability’, ‘confidence factors’, and, if you have the time and inclination, Karl Popper’s Objective Knowledge.
This won’t give you everything but it should go some way to explaining the scientific method in more detail.
The process is roughly as follows:
The more times the hypothesises is not disproved, the more likely it is too be correct, the more confident the prediction. According to this theory, it’s impossible to prove anything; we can only be confident that knowledge is objectively true if we have tried and failed to disprove it. This is a bit of a blunt summary.
If you don’t trust this method, I wouldn’t ever get on a plane or take any medication.
The key point being that a prediction won’t become the consensus until it has a fairly high confidence factor (i.e. lots of people have tried and failed to disprove the prediction). Climate change is one of those things. Every time someone conducts another experiment, the new data strengthens the view that global warming cannot be disapproved.
Just to put all my cards on the table, I think Popper is wrong. But he sets the scene for a lot of liberal conceptions of science. It’s his ideas that underpin many of the kinds of predictions that you’re talking about, I think. (When I say liberal, I’m referring to the main ideology of capitalism, not to the ‘left’ brand of US politics.)
That is, climate change about as ‘true’ as things can get, and so it is predicted. But even ‘prediction’ in this sense, makes it seem as if we’re taking about something in the future (I couldn’t help but challenge the Popperian model just a little bit, I’m afraid). But climate change is already here. It’s the present. The prediction only concerns how bad it’s going to get.
Thanks for this write up and the Popper reference!
You’re welcome.
Feel free to come back if you want to talk about Popper more. His work can be quite difficult to read. Some paragraphs/chapters read smoothly, then others are very technical. It might be worth having a quick look into ‘hypothetical deductive methodology’ for an overview of Popper’s main idea before tackling him directly.
It might also help to know that his theory comes from his anti-communism. So when he’s talking about the problems of prediction and historicism, he’s challenging the Marxist method (poorly, IMO, but I won’t get into why, here, unless you want to talk about it).