Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom

The old state record was 10.75" in 24 hours

There is no possible world in which watching a single video would make us stop credibly mocking you or your message.

Four blog posts in a row in under four hours. Impressive!

Try watching it ....

Weird that you somehow still think this is the issue.

It's you, man. Just you.

This is THE ISSUE.

I can't think of any issue more important.

The video may be enlightening but it is your "style" that is off-putting. Like Victor, there is no world where I'll watch a video that you post.

I never claimed to have an attractive style.

Just the insight on the vulnerabilities of human civilization. If that's not interesting to you .... so be it.

Have you watched it ? The science is well explained in the video.

The new science related to understanding AMOC can be described as follows.

It has long been understood that the southward flow of the AMOC on the ocean floor pins the surface gulfstream in place. Using satellite records from the past 33 years, researchers can see that the gulfstream has shifted north by 53km as a result of the current weakening.

Since the satellites didn't exist before 1993, they have no confirmation on how much the gulfstream had shifted in the years prior to 1993.

Enhanced models which reduced the Atlantic ocean grid size to 10km * 10 km pixels (from prior models of 100km * 100km) required massive computing power to run. The Dutch national supercomputer Snellius was tasked with running a model for 6 consecutive months at 14 quadrillion calculations per second to attempt to model an AMOC shutdown which happens abruptly in the model when the gulfstream shifts north by ~ 180 km.

Because we don't know how much the shift was prior to 1993, we're kinda flying blind vis a vis when the tipping point arrives.

But the mechanism of tipping is already understood and recreated from the AMOC stoppage 13k years ago. Fresh water input is reducing density where the AMOC sinks in the N Atlantic.

We now have an observable metric (gulfstream drift north) which informs us of the pace at which we are approaching a collapse ..... we just don't know exactly where the collapse point is.

Going forward, we'll have the data as to how much the gulfstream is drifting in real time.

I guess this is a very difficult kind of knowledge to absorb.

I've been following climate change for 10 years. And I recall the nausea in the beginning of realizing how profoundly humans were changing the planet.

It's difficult to imagine a natural Earth system which drives >1 petawatt of energy supply when the sum of all human energy generation is less than 2% of that system. To grasp that we have the power to hit the off switch as a result of heating the atmosphere with gas emissions that melt enough ice to give them system a stroke that will last 1,000 years.

To create a version of Earth which will dramatically reduce the number of people it can support and risk a brutal and chaotic adaptation in an effort to carry on.

It takes a strong stomach to be able to be still with such potential heaviness.

I try not to dwell in the outcome. Life is a journey and an adventure. I don't want to know how the story ends. I want to live in accordance with my conscience and not quit on my children's future. So I try to reach people and reason with them and lobby for a pathway which avoids that brutal and chaotic adaptation in favor of something more peaceful and orderly.

This is a system that any curious person can easily understand. It's mechanisms of operation are quite simple.

Your message on the threat of climate change seems perfectly fine.

There's a part of me which feels like an intruder .... throwing out stuff people would rather not know about.

Maybe but who cares. Thats on them. I dont think i ever questioned your climate concerns or the credibility of them. I questioned the idea of removing money, registering everyone to a community captain to work who knows what for no money. Remove airplanes and cars. And having it implemented worldwide and on the assumption that a extremely unpopular idea would work if we just nudged everyone along while also actually lowering emissions in real life.

But again, who cares.

Literally nobody here has challenged NutNut's claim that there is a climate crisis. NutNut doesn't seem to grasp that basic fact. The debate is strictly concerned with what to do about it.

Does anyone else have a plan that gives us a reasonable shot at keeping the AMOC running ?

Nobody that I know of in this forum - including YOU - has given a realistic workable plan.

Probably in part because nobody posting in this thread claims to be a Climate Scientist.

Trong thị trường giải trí trực tuyến ngày càng phát triển,

https://hon68.com/

boxiez.nl

ON68 ⚜️ ON68.COM | Nền Tảng Game Online Số 1 Việt Nam

Here's a link to the research paper if anyone is interested.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-0...

If there aren't any realistic plans .... maybe we should consider the plans which seem unrealistic ?

And .... does one have to be a climate scientist in order to understand what the climate scientists are telling us ?

Unfortunately the only people with any sort of realistic plan are those going down the sunlight blocking path. It's a desperate plan but I wouldn't bet a dime against it being used.

Beyond that the best plans are slowing it down and mitigation as much as possible - the future ain't writ yet and tech is developing fast.

Sunlight blocking doesn't prevent the ocean from continuing to acidify as a result of CO2 absorption. And if the sunlight block is successful in cooling the Earth's surface, the rate of ocean CO2 absorption will increase.

And you're right about it being a desperate plan .... it's a roll of the dice with potentially highly variable regional consequences.

I didn't say they aren't ANY realistic plans. And I explained why: there aren't any Climate Scientists posting in this thread.

Probably. (And ofc not all climate scientists agree on timelines and the ultimate effect of climate change on the world.)

It seems that my plan is unrealistic based on the premise that it is politically unrealistic.

But maybe it's politically unrealistic because no one has the courage to come out and say they prefer it.

Are people rejecting my suggestion because it's something they personally don't want or because it's their projection that the masses don't want it ?