From what I have read articles in the past, "Freeze Europe" is not quite what the headline indicates. The cooling they said is based upon the higher world average.
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.
> From what I have read articles in the past, "Freeze Europe" is not quite what the headline indicates.
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.
I'm going to make this political, but as this is an election year for the US, Republicans have outright stated they will gut and destroy the EPA should they take the White House this year which would be disastrous for the climate.
Project 2025 exists, and should Trump win in November it will be implemented. They spell out a plan which would dismantle the EPA and rollback the goals set forth to avoid the worst outcomes of climate change (temperatures increasing at or over 2C within 100 years).
Yes Agenda 47 is Trump's proposed agenda should he win; Project 2025 would be the platform of the Republican party as a whole should he win. The Heritage Foundation has been using purity tests within the Republican Party for years to force politicians in line, and will continue to do so to push forward Project 2025.
"Project 2025 would be the platform of the Republican party as a whole should he win."
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 reasoning process from their perspective is (I don't agree BTW) that "China and India won't cut emissions so it doesn't matter if we do, so we should just say fuck it."
I'm a little skeptical. Most politicians are just drumming up votes. Last time Trump won I believe they had the House, Senate, and White House for a year ot two. They didn't do very much. Most of it was small changes that didn't affect most people. It's unlikely this time would be any different, especially with less legislative branch support.
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.
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.
You do realize Project 2025 is a political subgroup of about 80 people/orgs, right? This is not official policy documents of the entire political party. Even Trump's policies are not fully aligned to the party, but you can look at those under the Agenda 47 project. This would be like me saying Brand New Congress or Our Revolution are official policies of the Democrat party. There may be overlap, but they're political subgroups.
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.
There is no official policy document of the entire political party, the last "official" one is from 2016. This platform is as you say written and endorsed by more than 80 organizations that represent the full breadth of the Republican coalition.
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 2016 Republican Platform advocates for increasing mineral and oil production domestically and scaling back the EPA on several fronts because the environment gets better every year without additional regulations. I don't agree.
That's good. I'm not saying people have to agree with anything. It sounds like you actually looked at the pertinent document and not just misrepresenting things.
You didn't make this political. The oil lobby bought politicians, who made this political. They've bought their fair share of Democrats too, but the way this has become a point of identity for Republicans is indeed scary.
This stuff is kind of interesting to read about. I don't like my job and reading about these scenarios makes it feel like what's the point. If it's going to happen, just do it now so that I don't end up working a job I hate just to have the apocalyptic scenarios ruin my retirement. Better to just happen now and get it over with before I waste those years toiling.
if you're waiting for retirement to enjoy your life, you're doing it wrong. you might die tomorrow and it'll all have been for nothing. don't get me wrong, it's all pointless anyway, but if there's something you want from life, don't put it off - you don't even know if your health will be any good by the time you retire, much less the state of the economy or the biosphere.
Eh, I don't know. It seems like most of the people enjoying life now are people who either make thier money off of others, or offload the externalities of their actions onto others. Seems like my life and level of enjoyment is pretty average.
That's a loaded question and varies greatly by the circumstances. But generally the people enjoying life are the ones living care-free and either over consuming or letting others pay their bills (rich kids, assistance gamers, or people neglecting their future responsibilities eg not saving for retirement and emergencies).
There are very few people I know living responsibly and enjoying life.
is it possible you just don't know that many people? if your only idea of happiness is "over consuming", then maybe you've got entirely the wrong idea of what happiness is.
I know many people, but I'm based in the US. Consumerism is the big thing here. I do know some people who are happy and responsible, but not many.
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.
what do you care how many people are happy for reasons you don't approve of? what are you doing to make yourself happy? how long until you demand the best for yourself from yourself?
"what do you care how many people are happy for reasons you don't approve of?"
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.
> 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.
But there's a huge amount missing when one just says you deserve the best things. I think his teachings are more about self discipline and making the best of things.
You’re asking for it to happen sooner because you don’t like your job.
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.
Why would it be better for the rest of the world to delay it? It's possible it would be better to happen now before the world population is expected to peak so it affects fewer people. You might not want it to happen right now, but maybe you're just wishing it onto more people because you don't want to deal with it?
Because then there is still hope the species will rally to mitigate it, and we all get to enjoy years (decades?) of a life we don’t all hate. I’d be gutted to die tomorrow. You might not share that sentiment but that doesn’t give you the right to decide for everyone else.
Just because it happens tomorrow doesn't mean we die tomorrow. It doesn't seem there's any mitigation strategy here. Even if we stop increasing warming, the current level of warming could still trigger it.
Still. I personally would rather have more time and a chance for the species to band together and mitigate than ending it all already. I think we can both agree a climate apocalypse won’t be a good time for anyone whenever it starts, and the more it warms up the worse the outcome.
Again, there is no feasible mitigation for this specific issue at this point, and it's not like life will end. Yes, major changes will happen. Yes, reducing temperature would be good and higher temperatures are worse. But perhaps preventing this specific event is worse ad it can act to re-establish norther sea ice and begin balancing the climate again. Sure, on the timescale of your life it's bad, but on the timescale of the species/planet it may actually be good.
There is no scenario where climate change causes an apocalypse quickly enough to get you out of your job. I'm sorry but even if you're ok with sacrificing the rest of humanity to get out of work sooner, you are not powerful enough to make it happen. The most you can do is make things worse for the next generation.
"The most you can do is make things worse for the next generation."
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.
This paper is specifically investigating if ice melt in Greenland is strong enough to reverse the AOMC. The editor summarizes,
> 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.
61 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadIf 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
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.
And I live in a place likely to be the best places to have civilization to survive.
Trying a random thing to shake the discussion on some relatively influential forum onto some novel tracks is one thing to try.
Last time my post was a bit longer and ellicited some interesting information.
One positive thing was this one claim that by some projection climate enissions might start finally going down in 2025
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40415541
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.
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.