Comments
kenlasalle t1_je7ausk wrote
Absolutely well before. I wouldn't be surprised if it was changed to 2030.
Climate change has always exceeded both time and severity estimates. That must has been consistent.
Substantial-Pass-992 t1_je7bf6e wrote
Can someone ELI Michael Scott how?
wordswontcomeout OP t1_je7ca5b wrote
Influx of cold water changes temperature gradients that effect how the current works in moving cold water to hot areas and hot water to cold areas I think.
Bomb_Shell14 t1_je7ckkz wrote
So your parents give you a dollar to start a lemonade stand..
[deleted] t1_je7dxwu wrote
Was this the plot of the Day After Tomorrow movie?
[deleted] t1_je7e0cv wrote
I think the Roland Emmerech movie The Day After Tomorrow had this as a plot line?
PurpleQueenLily t1_je7efks wrote
So we could see, for exemple, Quebec getting the France climate and inversaly?
xwing_n_it t1_je7gw3f wrote
So next year then
MSeanF t1_je7hoox wrote
I think salinity levels also play a part.
radleft t1_je7hwsw wrote
Extremely cold/dense water underneath Antarctic's floating/shelf glaciers sinks to the bottom & flows North. The sinking of the water pulls in more water under the glacier, and this interaction drives the system.
The deep cold currents split & keep heading North until they upwell in various places, and this helps to cool the environments in which these events occur.
The sudden collapse of a floating/shelf glacier would instantly shut off the system that keeps the water flowing. The upwelling may occur for a short time after, just from momentum, but the 'pressure' driving the system has been cut off.
The effected environments would suffer rapid heating; with attending biological disasters.
StuffNbutts t1_je7hz2u wrote
I'm sure this won't have irreversible negative consequences for all currently living species.
Fenix_Volatilis t1_je7in6r wrote
Lmao I love this. Thanks.
[deleted] t1_je7iqdq wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je7j5di wrote
[removed]
totallyawesome143 t1_je7jqgy wrote
Maybe the deep current will shift to a more shallow current and everyone can benefit from this?
rmoss20 t1_je7l0xu wrote
“This plantation, we're running low on greenbacks. We're having problems paying the people who give us the seeds and the dirt. We can't pay"
kenlasalle t1_je7o5vx wrote
I didn't say it's worse than the IPCC says. I was referring to history, the past 50 years. Put down your knee jerk and listen.
-SPOF t1_je7plph wrote
It seems to be that good news just finished.
kingofpotatopeople92 t1_je7tvtc wrote
2027...But most of you won't be around to care.
Nightgaun7 t1_je80olt wrote
There is a feasible offramp. People just refuse to take it.
Grouchy_Wish_9843 t1_je819iw wrote
Unfortunately the Gov is stuck in a war and international fairs and will get back to you next Presidential Election.
Biden 2024 /s , but why is he seriously the #1 Poll?
Grouchy_Wish_9843 t1_je81my4 wrote
Have you seen the heat bubble eating away the crab population?
mtandy t1_je87ga7 wrote
>In a study accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Zeke Hausfather of the University of California, Berkeley, conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of past climate models. The team compared 17 increasingly sophisticated model projections of global average temperature developed between 1970 and 2007, including some originally developed by NASA, with actual changes in global temperature observed through the end of 2017. The observational temperature data came from multiple sources, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) time series, an estimate of global surface temperature change.
>The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections.
> Put down your knee jerk and listen.
4inaroom t1_je8afu6 wrote
So, invest in Air Conditioning stocks?
No point in living on a super heated planet, stuck indoors, and being poor, right?
Subject_Bite7007 t1_je8cm2o wrote
This is a concious choice by all of humanity to sink this ship no matter what you tell yourselves we have allowed this to happen because we want "easy lives" or "to live our dreams" whatever that crud means, Blame the corps all you want but we are implicit in this all the same
Arthunter420 t1_je8e38u wrote
This causing an ice age
[deleted] t1_je8l9kt wrote
[removed]
agrk t1_je8n4ye wrote
Wrong ocean current and a somewhat unrealistic scenario, but yes, it has.
In the real world, the North-Atlantic current has been struggling for almost a decade now. The adjoining Gulf stream almost stopped completely for a while during that BP oil spill, and the system has been wonky since.
Luckily, there's no current risk of people being deep frozen within minutes. Lots of snow and warm winters are coming though.
Itoucheditfora t1_je8wmyi wrote
I would say more of stagnant movement of waters, death of food cycles and the communities that depend upon them... including commercial businesses.
tarkofkntuesday t1_je9bcu6 wrote
Collapse porn mmm
Consignore t1_je9hkz8 wrote
At one point the earth had much higher seas and people managed, all this means is those living next to the sea will have to relocate, yes many large cities but it will result in more being built inland.
Consignore t1_je9hr40 wrote
Nope it will decimate some but this is a cycle, the seas were much higher and will become so again then recede.
SirThatOneGuy42 t1_je9nhwz wrote
sounds like millions of dead people idk why you're treating such change as "normal"
themoocowgoesmeow t1_je9pjqx wrote
The logistics of that though... your explanation is missing the sense of difficulty to relocate such a massive amount of people. Population and population density in coastal regions is much different now than whichever time period you are referring to.
[deleted] t1_je9ruq9 wrote
Wow, did not know that about the BP spill, how was that able to happen?
totallyawesome143 t1_jeadosi wrote
Maybe the heat bubbles will force the crabs to move to a better spot where we can more easily capture and eat them? Also, maybe the heat bubbles will make it so fishes who like heat bubbles will thrive and grow to be super fish that eat plastics and the waste byproduct from their rectum is food for other fishe.
lonewolf420 t1_jebda8n wrote
more likely sea walls will be built and capital intensive pump stations will be utilized in last ditch efforts to save major metro areas along the coast and tributaries.
we are talking most large populous cities in the US as they are mostly costal, The less populated cities will just be abandoned as it won't be worth saving causing immigration into other areas further exacerbating living situations on cities or communities not prepared for large influx of people moving inland or to sea-walled city outskirts were climate refuge camps will most likely be erected.
agrk t1_jebej4i wrote
I won't claim I understand the details, but there were quite a few reports of disruptions of the Gulf Stream during the months after the incident. Mind you, temporary disruptions happen everey now and then -- the main issues if they were permanent would be the effects of the weather and the underwater ecosystem in the North Atlantic.
Longshotsquirrely t1_jebn43n wrote
Two questions. 1. Is their any chance of this fixing and what are the scenarios/timelines for that(btw I mean like the currents restarting or resuming over time) 2. If the currents are slowing down faster than expected is there any chance they resume or speed back up faster than expected?
[deleted] t1_jebvj8t wrote
Hmmmm, I just did not know oil spills could do this. Unless it was just becasue the oil spill was so historically huge.
agrk t1_jedgidz wrote
It was huge. It also contained lots of methane, they sprayed chemicals all over the Mexican gulf to contain the spill, an explosion, a sunken oil rig, etc. As mentioned, I remember it from the news back then and don't really have a clue about the details. :D
Regardless, the point was that currents can change without Jake Gyllenhall having to chase antibiotics on a derelict frozen tanker in NYC.
The changes will mostly destabilize the weather, and prevent heat from being transferred from A to B. And long those long-term weather effects are scarier than Hollywood blockbusters.
[deleted] t1_jeep2hs wrote
Would it make the weather colder, warmer, or just more extreme in general?
agrk t1_jefo80y wrote
Currents transport heat from one place to another, so "all of the above".
[deleted] t1_je79vuy wrote
[deleted]