Extreme Climate Impacts from Collapse of AMOC Could Be Worse Than Expected
insideclimatenews.org
insideclimatenews.org
If the world average raises 3C, in Europe it could mean just a 1.5 or 2 C raise instead of 3.
“You cannot adapt to this. There’s some studies of what happens to agriculture in Great Britain, and it becomes like trying to grow potatoes in Northern Norway.”
So, in this case, the headline is accurately selling the article.
> Without warm water flowing toward the Arctic, he added, winter sea ice could expand as far south as England
From the study itself (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk1189):
> Under the AMOC collapse, the Arctic (March) sea-ice pack extends down to 50°N
Here's where 50°N intersects Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50th_parallel_north
Without the AMOC, western europe likely will have a climate more similar to NA at the same latitude. That means freezing in winter and burning in summer.
London is on 51N, that's about the same as Calgary, compare the weather between the two. Calgary goes way, way colder in winter.
That's just your conjecture. It seems unlikely that would be the platform for the party in its entirety. Parts of it, maybe. The party didn't set anything like this the last time. I'd expect a similar lack of cohesion and following Trump this time. Agenda 47 is the most probable.
The real problem is that both sides have gotten more extreme, more polarized, and less likely to make legitimate compromises or understand the concerns of the other side.
Edit: why disagree?
Major things you may recall are withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, placing the EPA and Interior Department under the control of officials who denied the reality of climate change, and repealing the Clean Power Plan.
In their own words, here are the changes they plan to make to the EPA and Department of the Interior if they take control again: https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHA..., https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHA.... These documents were not written to drum up votes, they are very detailed policy plans that most voters will never see.
Yes, I see 100 environmental rules rolled back. Many of which make little difference in people's lives as I said before. Most of those rules have state level rules that provide similar protections anyways. I don't see the Paris Climate Agreement as a big deal. It's a voluntary pact that we had no chance at meeting anyways. It's mostly just symbolic and both sides make a big deal about it for riling people up. I'd they really wanted to make a big deal with it, the countries would have pooled funding and worked together on a research org that could have created new technologies free to license. Many of the rules probably would have been better off left on the books, but in effect not much changed. I get that your view might differ. I'm sure you there are (non-environmental) rules that I could say are a big deal that you would argue are not.
It is also written by the former Secretary of HUD, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, several members of the presidential transition team, CFO of the Commerce Department, Chief of Staff of the EPA, Secretary of Defense, FERC Commissioner, several senior presidential advisors, director of the BLM, director of the Office of Civil Rights, FEC Commissioner, director of the OMB, director of budget policy, and many more senior officials from the previous administration. These authors represent all aspects of the last Republican administration, and combined with the 80+ organizations they represent the entirety of the party.
The 2020 meeting decided not to adopt a new one. They are using the one from 2016. This is the official platform.
"and combined with the 80+ organizations they represent the entirety of the party."
Please stop saying untrue things. Please see the official platform.
Any yes, previous officials participate in writing policy documents for various political organizations... for both sides.
Which is it?
> However, because melting is causing the Greenland Ice Sheet to recede from the coasts of Greenland, where icebergs originate, its iceberg discharge should not persist long enough to cause major disruption of the Atlantic overturning circulation by itself.
That leaves that possibility that Greenland ice melt + other factors are sufficient to cause AOMC reversal.
There are very few people I know living responsibly and enjoying life.
Over consumption is not the cause of those people's happiness, but a symptom. The lack of a sense of responsibility is the main driver. The care-free people are often the happiest. However, they also tend to cause more negative externalities in my experience.
The negative externalities.
"how long until you demand the best for yourself from yourself?"
This sounds like a fast on-ramp to the hedonic treadmill, some classic advertising pitch, and that there are some very self-important people in the world.
It's actually from Epictetus. He was a slave, but he was happy. Then he was released and taught in a school he founded. One of his students wrote up his notes into Discourses. This was eventually read by a young Marcus Aurelius, who grew up to be one of the better Roman emperors. The same philosophy united a lame slave and the most powerful man in the world, two very different people who lived ~100 years apart.
You’re not the only inhabitant of this planet, and it would be much better for the rest of us (and you!) if you found a job or career you can better tolerate. You’ll be happier and there won’t be any rush anymore.
I'm not sure you understand. If this event triggers a cooling effect, it could be better for future generations in the long term. Not to mention, if it happens sooner rather than at the projected population peak (2050ish), then fewer people might suffer.