You must log in or register to comment.

Thermodynamicist t1_jb0wccn wrote


I suppose this is going to make life pretty challenging in the UK.


[deleted] t1_jb0zjr7 wrote

Everywhere really. The entire climate that people and animals have been used to for 1000s of years will change to less hospitable conditions.


Taparu t1_jb59jcm wrote

I imagine some places that are currently inhospitable or at least uncomfortable will get better.


[deleted] t1_jb63tz7 wrote

Maybe not. They might flood. Like, lots of water in a desert isn’t actually good.


bar10 t1_jb49877 wrote

>AMOC will bring less warm water northwards, and this will partly offset the warming effect of the greenhouse gases over western Europe. For the gradual weakening that is likely over the 21st Century, the overall effect is still a warming.


Thermodynamicist t1_jb5vyoq wrote

The question is how this overall warming effect is distributed.

E.g. assume it's 15 ºC average to begin with. We might approximate this as a sine wave over the year with an amplitude of 10 ºC.

In the case of 3 ºC warming, we might then have 18 ºC with the same 10 ºC amplitude sine wave, or we might have 18 ºC ± 20 ºC. These scenarios would be very different despite having the same average temperature.


[deleted] t1_jb2x0ed wrote

This and glacial melt is why we need solar blocking/filtering/reflecting sooner than later, and perhaps extra focused on the poles to protect the necessary temperature differential/stop melting at our largest ice reserves. The sooner we start the less sunlight we need to block, the later we start the more sunlight we need to block. Lower or even zero emissions is not enough, the melting is much faster than predicted so our response has to be. Minimalism and population reduction doesn't actually remove the CO2 and the warming is fast enough that you don't have a good option to just wait it out over 300+ years and absorb the damage.

Stop fight our best tool for controlling heat when the heat is easily the most damaging part!

Humans have added over 2000 gigatons and things are this bad and getting worse fast. The Earth only sequesters about 4-5 gigatons per year. The rest of the CO2 stays up there and keep building up, so the Earth stays hot, ice melts, the Earth heats even faster and the zero net emissions take hundreds of years to get the climate back to normal. AND because you didn't clean the CO2 up your just shifting an atmospheric chemical imbalance into the soil and oceans.

I think just the pure emissions plan may seem like the virtuous solution vs the arrogance of solar blocking, but lower emissions without addressing the actual heat AND acidifying the oceans with all the CO2 is kind of a crap plan!

A plan that uses emissions reduction, solar blocking and artificial CO2 sequestration seems like a much safer bet and of those currently emissions reduction is somewhat practical where it works well like with fossil fuels, Co2 removal is not practical and solar blocking might be fairly easy for a massive increase in control over the heat.. but we can't know much until the public and government gets more serious about emission reduction on their own not be anywhere near enough.


mikebug t1_jb2c6nz wrote

yet another nail in the coffin


jawshoeaw t1_jb44bhu wrote

It’s starting to feel like more nail than coffin


slickhedstrong t1_jb3824i wrote

now say it in english please


Professor226 t1_jb39dq5 wrote

The Atlantic meridian current is the flow of water that transfers cold water to the tropics. It’s sensitive to increased fresh water pouring in from the melting glaciers. If there is too much fresh water it will stop. That means then current that regulates the temperature in europe will stop moving the cold water to the south. This has happened before and created a “mini ice age” in Europe.


NemeshisuEM t1_jb3gb08 wrote

It's not so much about bringing cold water to the tropics. It's about the other part of the cycle that brings warm water to the higher latitudes, which is what keeps Europe warm.


the_other_brand t1_jb3n7vq wrote

In simpler terms, Europe will share the same weather as Canada if this ocean current stops.


ConsciousLiterature t1_jb4os2b wrote

The planet is on the path to have catastrophic climate change. So severe it's possible most species on the planet will go extinct if this happens.

The good news is that it's not going to happen in your lifetime. You'll be fine.


[deleted] t1_jb5bzp8 wrote



[deleted] t1_jb22bwz wrote

That is freaking serious.. yet, we dillydally around with silly wars instead.


[deleted] t1_jb2s2sd wrote

I don't think defending Ukraine's democracy from an obvious authoritarian invader is silly. It wouldn't be silly if it was your house being blown up for no good reason or your kids/wife getting kidnaped/raped/tortured/killed. What's the point in climate action if not to save human life? You just worried about the fish?

Climate change sucks, but if we give up all our morality just to fight climate change than why bother? You want to let all the rapist and murders free because that distract from climate action also?

If humans can't multi-task then it's just time for us to go. If we can't have reasonable law and order and basic morality AND fight climate change, just smoke em while you got em because the species isn't worth saving.


[deleted] t1_jb2xeiw wrote

TBF he might the war is unnecessary and he might have been saying that about Russia.

I agree though, defending Ukraine is the right thing to do.


[deleted] t1_jb31gur wrote

Anyone who claims to be "anti-war" but isn't also explicitly anti-Russia is questionable. You cannot be anti-war without also being anti-Russia.


obroz t1_jb34jm3 wrote

Serious question. Is the war forcing European dependence on coal and oil from Russia and hastening their pace towards green energies?


Alphaplague t1_jb6bu89 wrote

The war destabilizing global energy supply is going to push a lot of countries away from green energy.

Most green energy requires cooperation between nations at multiple points during production. It's an order of magnitude easier to burn coal.


Grandmas_Cozy t1_jb3yuj8 wrote

Tried to read it- it’s a little dense for me. Can someone explain the estimated time line to me?


AutoModerator t1_jb0s38c wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


boones_farmer t1_jb3fhv0 wrote

Cool, cool. We're well good and fucked then huh? Get ready for Europe to freeze.


Byte_the_hand t1_jb3hrxj wrote

And the NE in the US. And where does all that heat come from? Around the Caribbean, so with that heat not being transported from there, the SW is going to be hotter and more humid. With hotter water will come massively larger hurricanes that spool up in hours rather than days.

Interesting times ahead indeed.


Suspicious_Diver4234 t1_jb4dswd wrote

That's really concerning. Given how much the ocean affects climate and weather, this could have serious consequences for the delicate global ecosystem.