Scientists spot warning signs of Gulf Stream collapse

[Nithavela]

“The signs of destabilisation being visible already is something that I wouldn’t have expected and that I find scary,” said Niklas Boers, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, who did the research. “It’s something you just can’t [allow to] happen.”

It is not known what level of CO2 would trigger an AMOC collapse, he said. “So the only thing to do is keep emissions as low as possible. The likelihood of this extremely high-impact event happening increases with every gram of CO2 that we put into the atmosphere”.

Climate crisis: Scientists spot warning signs of Gulf Stream collapse

 

[mindfulzen]

Well, that is a bummer for farming in my country. I think it would be many degrees colder if the gulf streams shuts down. And I think it affeacts the fishery too. The fish at the coast is adapted to the current temperatures. I wonder if they migrate away if this happen, and need to be replaced by other fish. Could there be any positive impacts if it comes about?

 

[Nithavela]

Well, that is a bummer for farming in my country. I think it would be many degrees colder if the gulf streams shuts down. And I think it affeacts the fishery too. The fish at the coast is adapted to the current temperatures. I wonder if they migrate away if this happen, and need to be replaced by other fish. Could there be any positive impacts if it comes about?

Human extinction, hopefully within our lifetime (or rather, in the timespan that would have been our lifetime if we hadn't collectively destroyed our means of living).

 

[HTacianas]

Climate crisis: Scientists spot warning signs of Gulf Stream collapse

Just like last time.

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia

 

[mindfulzen]

Human extinction, hopefully within our lifetime (or rather, in the timespan that would have been our lifetime if we hadn't collectively destroyed our means of living).

I do not think so, bit hyperbolic and pessimistic. I just commented on my country and the effects, not the entire world. And I try to see past the negative, and find positives. Maybe we do not need such a strong gulfstream if the temperature goes up 2 degrees. Perhaps it is Gaia balancing out nature, adapting to changes. Perhaps it is God doing it, ever consider that?

 

[Crwth]

Human extinction, hopefully within our lifetime (or rather, in the timespan that would have been our lifetime if we hadn't collectively destroyed our means of living).

you're hoping for human extinction??

 

[Crwth]

I do not think so, bit hyperbolic and pessimistic. I just commented on my country and the effects, not the entire world. And I try to see past the negative, and find positives. Maybe we do not need such a strong gulfstream if the temperature goes up 2 degrees. Perhaps it is Gaia balancing out nature, adapting to changes. Perhaps it is God doing it, ever consider that?

The effects, if this report is indeed accurate, could be either catastrophic or even beneficial, but change the global "landscape" they most likely will, somehow.

 

[Nithavela]

you're hoping for human extinction??

Yes.

 

[Nithavela]

I do not think so, bit hyperbolic and pessimistic. I just commented on my country and the effects, not the entire world. And I try to see past the negative, and find positives. Maybe we do not need such a strong gulfstream if the temperature goes up 2 degrees. Perhaps it is Gaia balancing out nature, adapting to changes. Perhaps it is God doing it, ever consider that?

Considered and soundly rejected. We did this to ourselves, no supernatural component required.

 

[Crwth]

Yes.

Noted.

 

[durangodawood]

Noted.

The humans generally dont respect the rest of the living world. A few do. More would like to think they do. If I was any other being than perhaps a domesticated cat, Id say "humans... good riddance".

 

[mindfulzen]

The effects, if this report is indeed accurate, could be either catastrophic or even beneficial, but change the global "landscape" they most likely will, somehow.

How would you know? Have you read the sourcematerial, and looked at the modelling they use? Do you know who the authors of the report are? Do you know who the scientists behind the research is, and what ties they have, where their funding comes from? And their starting premiss for the research, for whatever agenda? And their network? It is a heck of a timeconsuming job to verify a report, so I am not doing it anymore. The issue does not interest me anymore. If it is not about the process, the politics in it, and possible solutions and technological advances that could be implemented and be cheap enough for a global fight. If not, it is just an addiction to a doom and gloom scenario, without anything constructive in it. I am not emotionally invested in it, only logical. And needs specifics if you wonder about details. I spent thousands of hours reading about it, so I got some meat to put on the bone if you want that.

 

[Crwth]

How would you know? Have you read the sourcematerial, and looked at the modelling they use? Do you know who the authors of the report are? Do you know who the scientists behind the research is, and what ties they have, where their funding comes from? And their starting premiss for the research, for whatever agenda? And their network? It is a heck of a timeconsuming job to verify a report, so I am not doing it anymore. The issue does not interest me anymore. If it is not about the process, the politics in it, and possible solutions and technological advances that could be implemented and be cheap enough for a global fight. If not, it is just an addiction to a doom and gloom scenario, without anything constructive in it. I am not emotionally invested in it, only logical. And needs specifics if you wonder about details. I spent thousands of hours reading about it, so I got some meat to put on the bone if you want that.

Why are you jumping all over my case? Good grief. I wasn't even taking issue with your post in the first place. I merely stated, and qualified it with a very clear "if this report is indeed accurate..." and then followed that with an extremely broad range of possible outcomes "catastrophic or even beneficial" and then concluded with a very general opinion (my total bad) that "change the global "landscape" they most likely will, somehow."

Source material? Modelling? Authorship? Scientists? Funding? Premises? Agenda? Network?

How in the world my post remotely prompt, let alone warrant all that?

 

[mindfulzen]

Why are you jumping all over my case? Good grief. I wasn't even taking issue with your post in the first place. I merely stated, and qualified it with a very clear "if this report is indeed accurate..." and then followed that with an extremely broad range of possible outcomes "catastrophic or even beneficial" and then concluded with a very general opinion (my total bad) that "change the global "landscape" they most likely will, somehow."

Source material? Modelling? Authorship? Scientists? Funding? Premises? Agenda? Network?

How in the world my post remotely prompt, let alone warrant all that?

Not jumping at your case. Being honest with you, saying I do not have a topic to conversate about yet. CO2=bad, is not even to vague. We utilize it in greenhouses, it is a must there. So that CO2 is good. So, if we want to move it to solutions, if we just agree that the goal is to cut greenhousegasses, to stop the warming as best we can, then we can talk in agreement. And we can brainstorm ideas, or exchange ideas if you will. So you and others can get some hope, that humankind can solve it, and have some good tools. So people can protest about getting those simple, cheap and highly effective measures implemented, that can be done global. That also have synergyeffects, will create some new industries and be good for animal welfare, etc.

The world is kind of gridlocked now right. one side is for and the others kind of against, and nothing gets done as a result. Or one side wants this solution, the other want that one. Disagree on spending. One side overpromise, and cannot commit, and voters are disappointed. So how about talking about the measures that are available, that RNC would agree with, and could not complain about costs on. And then you can make others awere of them, and read a little about it. It is interesting. If it is a global effort, logically, it would have to be measures that all countries could implement, right? And fast too, since there is a timelimit. A cutoffpoint of no return, got to reduce it in 15 years, to buy more time, to avoid 2 degrees in 2050.

All those questions yu wonder why I asked you. That is kind of the process you should take, when you peer review a report. But unfortunately few do that. I understand that it is too timeconsuming. So we take it somewhat on faith and that is fine, people have busy lives, nobody drops spending time with family or friends to reading hundres of pages of sourcematerial. But I wasted time doing just that. And had a professor at my College in the energyengineering division, who was head of research there. And in his latest day at the job, he held a lecture about how he greenlighted projects that studentgroups worked on in their projects in green tech. Oversold effect and undersold costs, etc. That was how it got bumped up to university. And with that help, many private energycompanies got green light on projects that could not deliver what they promised, that would otherwise not get built. So it released federal green grantmoney so subsidize it.

That is just how it works. Did the same with oil and gas. If an energycompany want a gasplant built, they must do the same, fund research at a university, allocate resoureces and facilitate the ones doing the research for them. Then the university must be overly positive, to get it going, and release grantmoney and taxcredits. Which is why we have a gasplant built 20 years ago almost to the day, that cost 2-3 billion dollars, that just ran for some months or a year. Because it was promised to be totally emissionfree, which turns out to not be possible yet, so it was shutdown. So we can talk solutions for that, there is reports that say that we can drill into the rocksurface in the sea, and deposit CO2 from land into it. Do you like that idea. Talks about coastnations being trashdepots, doing this for all of europe, and cut bigtime. Then you have old oilplatforms that need to pressurize their wells, they pump water and CO2 in to do that. Could we make it economically viable to ship landCO2 to those? Could you do this in texas for instance? Even decommissioned ones, just to store it safely from current industryemissions. This is where my focus is. If I ever get distracted with the subject. I have some cool links, or projects if you want to search up some stuff, and see hope.

 

[East of Eden]

Like our bodies, it's a dying planet, to be replaced by a perfect, eternal one.