A new analysis has concluded that the Gulf Stream is definitely slowing, but whether it's due to climate change is hard to tell.
A new study has confirmed that the Gulf Stream, a crucial ocean current that helps regulate climate and sea levels, is weakening. The flow of warm water through the Florida Straits has slowed by 4% over the past four decades. This slowdown has significant implications for the world's climate, and scientists are concerned that it may be a sign of further weakening to come.
Joking aside, apathy isn't the problem. That is, the issue isn't that people don't care. Ordinary people care a great deal. The problem is that the cost of the action that would be sufficient to change things is too high personally for those ordinary people to take.
People just don't want to be gunned down by riot police or go to prison for assassinating oil executives. The solution to this problem isn't paper straws and recycling (and it never has been). Further, abandoning cars isn't feasible for stroad-bound Americans. Abandoning beef is, but your family switching to chicken and fish won't even twitch the needle.
Point is, the kind of change that's needed is societal--the kind of revolutionary change that's paid for in streets full of blood. In the "Well if enough people just ..." argument, the enough people is hundreds of millions. We have to become a fossil fuel eschewing society. Whole industries have to collapse.
The companies responsible for climate change can be counted on one person's fingers and toes, and they're names any adult can guess in a few tries.
We're not storming their doors because we don't want to be recipients of the state violence these companies will muster to stop us.
Flooding cities might change our minds, but probably only for the people who actually live there. The sad truth is the rest of us will sooner consign Miami to the depths than orphan our children for their grandchildren's sakes.
Things will change when we starve, but probably not a moment sooner.
Bang on. The Earth's population in 1950 was about 2.5 billion. We have more than tripled that number now, largely enabled by agricultural, medical, and transportation technology powered by stored energy in the form of fossil fuels. Global ecological footprint analysis shows that we "overshot" Earth's sustainable capacity limit in around 1970.
It is impractical (and probably impossible) with current technology to sustain >8 billion people on Earth without fossil fuels. And, it is impossible to keep burning fossil fuels without inducing devastating climate change. So, unless we can replace almost all fossil fuel burning with another incredibly powerful and non-harmful energy source (like fusion, I guess?), we are screwed. I agree with you that the ecological debt we have incurred will likely be paid in lives lost to starvation and conflict over food.
Covid-19 has made me even more cynical than ever. It has shown that people would rather die than accept reality. And compared to climate change, the effort to protect against covid was minuscule on an individual level. But still, too many people couldn't be asked.
For me, the biggest one is the push for a return to office. I see it as a great opportunity to contact the economy and reduce resource consumption and carbon production with a lot of white collar support. But the owners just aren't having it and insist on a return to the status quo, even though it's obvious we're killing the environments we need to survive with this status quo.
Just looked it up on Wikipedia and "Hurricane Katrina displaced over one million people from the central Gulf coast to elsewhere across the United States, becoming the largest diaspora in the history of the United States."
Having a million Americans lose their homes wasn't enough to even move the needle on climate action. Same way that over a million Americans died of COVID and many people still claim it's a "hoax". I'm convinced that the propaganda is just too much to ever overcome.
I really, really, really want to be proven wrong - but I think you could literally have entire nations be made uninhabitable, and rather than welcoming refuges and making policy changes to avoid climate disaster, we'll find a way to bury our heads in the sand and complain about immigrants taking our jobs.
Every time I read these articles I just keep waiting for all the other people to finally catch on to how fucked we are and a critical mass of people to actually do something meaningful. Still waiting.
As a result I was feeling frustrated and scared. But now I have come to bitterly accept we are probably going to kill ourselves off (mostly or completely) after mass suffering. At best, I figure whoever is left goes insane because 99% of all species will have gone extinct and the earth will have become a barren, silent, cheerless wasteland.
Hopefully we have exploited natural resources to a degree where it will be out of reach for the next sentient species. They won't find pip or gold or other minerals just lying around so maybe they will remain primitive and low population.
It's so crazy at my job where we do infrastructure stuff. We know it's getting worse. Areas are flooding that should not be flooding, rolling blackouts/greyouts are becoming more common, stuff is overheating that didn't overheat in the past.
Head of engineering keeps pushing us to think about this stuff. Build in more cooling, make stuff waterproof that shouldn't have to be. I don't know how bad it is going to get but I do know that I will be working up to the end.
Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I don't think they ever will.
It's probably not going to be a whole city at once. It's going to be a building here, a building there, barely escalating beyond local news unless it's a famous building (Mar-A-Lago?). There's going to be more and worse hurricanes, but climate deniers will point out how they weren't as bad as Katrina or Maria or Sandy. Insurers have already started leaving those areas, changing policies, and/or hiking rates.
The big exception will be if another New Orleans levy breaks. But people will blame the very idea of that city existing below sea level as being an inherently bad idea (which.... I don't think is entirely wrong) and use that to deflect away from the influence of climate change.
People still denying climate change today are either financially invested in doing so, or will need a ridiculous and dramatic event to convince them. Something like you would see in a disaster movie, like a 300ft tall Tsunami.
Psh, the capitalists will save us all with their record profits and zeros at the end of their bank accounts! I'm sure that's not why these rich assholes aren't trying to race into space or anything.
Which is still incredibly stupid. Even with climate change Earth is a better environment for humans than fucking space. But making things better on Earth would mean doing something good to people that are not them and they can't have that.
It has a plain language summary, nothing as far as dramatic. I definitely didn't find any actual study predicting a collapse.
Plain Language Summary
The Gulf Stream is a major ocean current located off the East Coast of the United States. It carries a tremendous amount of seawater and along with it heat, carbon, and other ocean constituents. Because of this, the Gulf Stream plays an important role in weather and climate, influencing phenomena as seemingly unrelated as sea level along coastal Florida and temperature and precipitation over continental Europe. Given how important this ocean current is to science and society, scientists have tried to determine whether the Gulf Stream has undergone significant changes under global warming, but so far, they have not reached a firm conclusion. Here we report our effort to synthesize available Gulf Stream observations from the Florida Straits near Miami, and to assess whether and how the Gulf Stream transport there has changed since 1982. We conclude with a high degree of confidence that Gulf Stream transport has indeed slowed by about 4% in the past 40 years, the first conclusive, unambiguous observational evidence that this ocean current has undergone significant change in the recent past. Future studies should try to identify the cause of this change.
one thing i don't see mentioned much is the fact that while Europe gets colder, the real problem will be that it's going to get very, very dry.. the supercharged hurricane cycle should bring some devastating seasonal flooding though..
It's sad to see all these climate tipping points taking hold with humans not even (really) trying to slow them down, forget reversing them.
Continiously bickering over pointless things. With wars taking over unexpectedly one after another (in retrospect, maybe not that unexpected). China just itching for anything to start their own little "special operation" next door. While some other militarized countries/organizations are too trigger happy and in fear of missing out on the action.
We may indeed not make it past the hyperobject that is Climate Change simply because we are too busy blaming inflation, opposing political views, illusions of our own imagination and an unending amount of irrationality. Since it is inconvenient/difficult to try and understand slightly complex concept such as taxation, vaccination, immigration, or even just a map amongst so many things, let alone complex systems feeding into each other such as the Human-Ecology-Climate systems.
Moreover, the prevalence of misinformation doesn't help.
After becoming YouTube educated on this matter.. Not to that extent. The main thing to notice in the short term is the slowing of the gulf stream will reallocate 'sea level' on either side of the ocean.. Which sounds like a 3ish ft increase on the west, and the same as a decline for the east.
I'm not a water science person though, so I'm just mimicking words.
It would take 5,700 years for the entire world's population to pee enough water to change the ocean's current. However, the amount of water consumed by the population would be equal to the amount of water they pee, so the net change in ocean level would be zero.