all 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 58 points 6 months ago (1 child)

Climate scientists have been warning about this for at least a decade. They're just not being heeded.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 32 points 6 months ago

    We'll never be able to fix the climate issue while Trump and millions around the globe go "it was cold here hurhur! What global warming?!"

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    USA today? No thanks.

    Here are the two studies:

    Observational constraints project a ~50% AMOC weakening by the end of this century: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adx4298

    Meridionally consistent decline in the observed western boundary contribution to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adz7738

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    I have very shallow understanding - I thought the gulf stream collapse would only affect Europe - freezing it. Would it also freeze NA?

    Also somehow Brazil would become a desert and Sahara back into jungle but not on the same time scale as Europe freezing over.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    I can't access this with either Ironfox or Vanadium browsers.

    Access Restricted
    We're unable to allow access to this page at this time.
    If you believe this is an error, please try again later or contact support. {RM:105}

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Do you have a reading mode button at the top? I just enable reading mode (But in Waterfox) and it starts to function without paywalls or popups.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    Trump doesn't believe in climate change, but he won't be able to escape it.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    The working plan is that their wealth + AI will allow them to survive well enough, without having to deal with us pesky poors anymore.

    It's not hard to imagine. Just imagine you had zero moral compass, and all the resources they do. What logically makes sense? No, not taking care of everyone. Bigger fence, not bigger table. And eventually the necessities of life, like not having a drone explode you, will only be availabile behind the fence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago

    We will worry about it the day after tomorrow.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    This might actually save our skiing conditions here in Norway after all, it looked dire for a while.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 6 months ago* (2 children)

    IDK if you are joking, but if this pump stops working, Norway is kind of fucked, and will become as hostile to live in as Siberia, and most harbors will become unusable most of the year, as the water will freeze around Norway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Don’t look at me. I have nothing to do with AI.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    I don't put too much trust in usatoday to give me trustworthy news on climate topics.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    That movie had a great chance to teach the word "overmorrow" into mainstream but yay backward progress (congress)

  • source
  • 65 comments in c/world@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 42 points 6 months ago
    [–] 60 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    I remember The Day After Tomorrow, it was an okay film but it solidified in me the fear of climate change. The movie may not be scientifically accurate, mainly because they got the temperatures backwards. In the movie, the world froze starting at the poles. IRL, it's going to boil and burn starting from the equator.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] 45 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Iirc that's already started. All the growing zones have moved further north or south from where they used to be when I was a kid (back in the early 60's).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Oh yeah I've seen it myself. I'd like to move up north to get ahead of it, but there's national lines to get across and taking my pets would be difficult at best.

    I've also been noticing that since I was a kid (90s/00s), back then there was a white winter every singe year in my area. Now we're lucky if we get any snow at all during winter.

    Then I'll hear some rube say that 'global warming isn't real,' like what bitch?! Have you not been paying attention?!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    While that is true. If the Atlantic ocean current stops, the poles will freeze, and start a new ice age in northern Europe and North America, while also boiling the equator.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    No government is going to do anything about something happening after the year 2100.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 18 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    If I'm not mistaken, the movie posited that the temperature collapse is happening faster than we think and accelerated to collapse all at the same time.

    The estimate is 2100 but that's just an estimate. Reality is that it could happen at any time.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago*

    At the time of the film's release, it offered a new theory about what could happen to Earth's climate in the future. Sure many scientist just laughed to this scenario. The funny thing is that AMOC research started in the same year. All we have is data from 2004 to the present, of course that is not enough to draw conclusions about our future climate.

    Earth's climate is complex, studying AMOC alone is not enough. And one of the biggest problem is that there are other MOCs, not just AMOC, any changes to AMOC will impact other MOCs. And there is a new research called the SAMOC Initiative started 5 yr ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago*

    There's nothing scientifically inaccurate about that part IMO. There's positive feedback loops hiding everywhere. The bad things come in bursts. For example, melting ice releases trapped methane, causing higher temperatures and more melting ice. Who knows how fast this goes

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 35 points 6 months ago (18 children)

    Sorry, but why would we not use the name AMOC and instead call it the "22 year old movie current"?

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Probably because most people wouldn't know what that acronym stood for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 6 points 6 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago

    As a native English speaker, I concur with your feelings on the matter. I absolutely hate when someone does that and sometimes I won't even bother to finish reading what someone wrote if they just start using acronyms all willy nilly. Hell, you can't even point out spelling errors or grammar errors anymore without upsetting someone.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    For the clicks.

    'Scientist warn that environmental acronym is fucked' is a headline everyone has learned to tune out.

    But if maybe Jake Gyllenhaal can save us.. I mean, now you want to know more, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    I was really more thinking "Wait...what happened in that movie? Shit, when did I even watch that movie? Like 2007?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    The movie was based loosely on a 'non-fiction' book written by radio host and conspiracy theorist Art Bell.

    So basically, that's where we are currently with the state of discourse involving environmental science. We are being warned about something of massive significance and dire consequence by way of a reference to a 20 year old Roland Emmerich movie based on a book written by a loonie...

    I'm not real hopeful for our chances as a species..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Compulsory "If you've been paying attention we have known about this and every other catastrophic event since at least the 1970's. We aren't listening to the right people."

    Millions if not billions of people are going to be severely at risk and even die. The vast majority of these people will be brown or black. The majority of these people will be children.

    We as a species should be ashamed putting the well being of a small few over the majority.

    The optimism is we will science our way out of this. Humanity is like a monkeys paw.

    So I guess what I'm saying is on the individual level everyone open their eyes don't be a dick and leave the world better than you came into it. Beyond that, sit back and enjoy the show no one really knows what they're doing but the majority of us are doing our best.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago*

    Maybe a little doomer view.

    I wanna point that we did listenen the right people after 1970's and we pretty much fixed the ozone hole and mitigated acidic rains. Shame we have decited to stop it for some reason.

    Also ironically to your statement AMOC effects most the northern europe and there is problem with small birthrate so in this particular catasrophe most people suffering will be white and children will be minority.

    Edit; small edit to make the text harder to misunderstand.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 6 months ago

    Remember to duck when the helicopters come tumbling down.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    In 2100. That’s more than enough time to reboot Friends at least twice. I’m not worried.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    It was shitty the first fucking time. We don't need to make that crap again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago

    Guess I'll bring my parka next time I visit Europe :(

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Oh whew, the picture only shoes the Atlantic Ocean. I’m safe then.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago
    [–] 1 point 6 months ago (8 children)

    I wonder if it would be possible to set up turbines somewhere to accelerate that current.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    France will fortunately not be affected.

  • source
  • [+] -15 points 6 months ago

    The cycle keeps northern Europe several degrees warmer than it would otherwise

    Collapsing this current should be part of EU's climate goals. If we can't stop it, lets accelerate it.

  • source
  • [+] -11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Calm down everyone, we will be fine

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • 3 comments in c/world view that post
    [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    The waves start comin’ and they don’t stop comin’

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    Yeah yeah it's the end of the world. We get it. Just bring it on already. It's not like we can change anything

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-aY I'd recommend this song as the waves are coming.

  • source