[HN Gopher] Atlantic Ocean currents weaken, signalling big weath...
___________________________________________________________________
Atlantic Ocean currents weaken, signalling big weather changes:
study
Author : gmays
Score : 148 points
Date : 2021-08-06 18:26 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| swader999 wrote:
| Obligatory shout out to The day after tomorrow.
| ben_w wrote:
| Please don't. Fiction isn't evidence, and there are too many
| people who don't want anyone to believe in reality who will
| mock those who are trying to create solutions to the real
| problems as if the fiction is the only thing which exists.
| chasd00 wrote:
| All the climate change i hear about is a change for the worse.
| Are there any places on earth where the change will be for the
| better? We've had pretty mild summers in TX for the past 5 or so
| years. If that's due to climate change then great, i'll just live
| here.
| long_time_gone wrote:
| ==We've had pretty mild summers in TX for the past 5 or so
| years.==
|
| The same Texas where hundreds of people froze to death in
| February? Seems like there has been some extreme weather.
| Diederich wrote:
| Putting more energy into a meta-stable chaotic system will
| greatly increase the number of extremes across the board.
| Models and forecasts are currently mostly focused on how the
| various averages are trending, which is fine and useful.
|
| It's most correct to plan around every location getting more
| wet, more dry, more hot, more cold, more storms and more
| droughts.
| treis wrote:
| >Putting more energy into a meta-stable chaotic system will
| greatly increase the number of extremes across the board
|
| This doesn't really track. We're talking about adding less
| than 1% increase in energy.
| gtfoutttt wrote:
| The issue is the warming planet isn't only causing a change in
| weather for various areas. Yeah for example the Arctic is
| getting a bit warmer. Which sounds like a good thing.
|
| But the warming up of the sea and atmosphere is giving more
| energy potential to our weather systems. So every hurricane
| season, tornado season, fire season, monsoonal season, etc is
| getting worse and worse. And there's no such thing as isolated
| climate. That extra energy in the system is world wide, which
| is really bad for most of us.
|
| There may be places that have slight benefits, sure. But the
| worldwide negative effects cancel those out IMO.
| IntrepidWorm wrote:
| Lets not forget that the thawing of the permafrost in the
| arctic has significant environmental impact on greenhouse
| gases such as methane.
| mempko wrote:
| Texas Power Grid laughs.
| mempko wrote:
| Texas Power Grid
| crackercrews wrote:
| Yes, many more people die of cold than of heat. Global warming
| will likely save a couple hundred thousand lives per year in
| this regard. [1]
|
| 1: https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-natural-
| disaster...
|
| edit: added "in this regard". Did not mean to suggest that we
| know how all of the implications of global warming pan out.
| freen wrote:
| Wet Bulb temperature above 35C is deadly no matter how much
| water or shade you have. If the global average increases over
| 1.5C, most of the tropics will experience prolonged deadly
| heat.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/08/global-
| heati...
| IntrepidWorm wrote:
| At the cost of horrific hurricanes in the tropical and
| subtropical regions. Locally there may be effects seen as
| beneficial, but globally it's looking to be a downhill slide.
| takeda wrote:
| A lot of people who also think about it politically
| forgetting that it will also increase migrant crisises. As
| things get unhabitable people will be migrating. This will
| apply to the southern border of US.
| crackercrews wrote:
| GP acknowledged that there are many bad things but asked if
| there were also good thing. I was only answering that
| question. I was not claiming that it is good on balance.
| soperj wrote:
| hasn't there actually been less horrific hurricanes instead
| of more? There's been one cat 5 that's hit the US since
| 2005.
| kzrdude wrote:
| People will complain if you put any change in positive terms.
| But of course there are upsides and silver linings.
|
| I won't get into some contentious discussion, but let's just
| say it's more and more viable to grow and produce wine in
| Denmark, which is on its own a positive thing. So that's just
| one example of a positive change.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| But at the same time it's becoming impossible to grow wine in
| California due to smoke taint and increasing fire insurance
| premiums. When folks are loosing what was once a nice
| climate, it's not of comfort that some foreign land with
| strict immigration rules is getting a better climate.
| kzrdude wrote:
| My comment was not provided for comfort - not much to find
| in this topic - just for conversation and exchanging ideas
| :)
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Yeah, commenters here aren't taking the spirit of the
| question into account. Overall, climate change has
| substantial negative impacts, yes. But not _literally
| everything_ will be worse because of it. The GP was just
| curious about what might end up being better - and not
| trying to justify climate change using those examples.
| whoaisme wrote:
| Yeah it's not as if Texas was frozen over helpless and without
| power not too long ago
| oliv__ wrote:
| The freeze would've been pleasant if it weren't for the power
| failure
| Afforess wrote:
| No, it wasn't. I had power the entire time and I had to
| help neighbors whose vehicles would not start and deal with
| dangerous roads. No one in Texas has the correct winter
| tires and cities lack the infrastructure to clear the roads
| quickly. It was dangerous, not pleasant, even with
| electricity.
| ornornor wrote:
| I doubt you'll be able to comfortably watch the rest of the
| world burn from there.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| Russia is supposed to be nicer. Some people believe it'll
| become the bread basket of the world if climate change
| continues unabated.
| dv_dt wrote:
| I think that's a simplistic view of it. As far as I've
| followed along, Russia has been having droughts and mega
| fires which tend to be incompatible with high crop yields.
| laurent92 wrote:
| Talking about megafires, Chernobyl's surroundings are
| sitting under dry leaves, because bacteria and insects have
| defects and don't decompose them properly.
| sgillen wrote:
| Well I believe the droughts and wildfires are not really
| occurring in Siberia, which is the area I think some are
| speculating will become a breadbasket.
|
| Edit: I was wrong.
| 3327 wrote:
| There are unprecedented wild fires in siberia. What are
| you talking about!
| headstorm wrote:
| Living around Seattle, I disagree, lately there have been
| articles just about every year about wildfires or drought
| in Siberia, and many about those fires causing smoky
| skies in Seattle.
|
| This summer:
| https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/07/05/siberia-forest-
| fir...
|
| 2019:
| https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/unprecedented-
| numbe...
|
| 2018: https://crosscut.com/2018/07/first-smoky-skies-
| season-arrive...
| bserge wrote:
| Yeah, "some people" being Russian. Fooling themselves like
| the rest of the world.
| tootie wrote:
| And it will likely open the Arctic ocean for much shorter
| shipping lanes from Russia to Canada.
| tehjoker wrote:
| Hopefully by sail boat...
| bserge wrote:
| Cruise ship.
| lamontcg wrote:
| Texas is predicted to go from 60 dangerous heat days per year
| to 115 heat days per year by 2050. I doubt that's a good thing.
| And 5 years isn't enough to establish what the trend is, a
| countercyclical trend for 5 year can happen by random or via
| any of the multidecadal climate cycles.
| hncurious wrote:
| There is no way to predict that. We can't even predict how
| many there will be this year or the next 5 years, let alone
| decades from now.
| lnwlebjel wrote:
| This is the difference between climate and weather. You can
| very easily predict that there will be on average x amount
| of days over, say, 100 deg. Predicting which days, however,
| is not really possible.
| groby_b wrote:
| You're taking about destabilising a global-spanning system with
| tremendous energies. No, there's no "change for the better"
|
| I mean, the cold y'all had this winter was possibly climate
| change, so you have that to look forward to. Likely worse
| wildfires, too. East Texas will get higher humidity.
|
| So... probably not too nice.
| cableshaft wrote:
| Texas is most likely fucked long-term. You can probably get
| away with living there another 10-15 years (total guess, some
| things could happen which could kick off some positive feedback
| loops sooner than that), but I wouldn't buy any housing there
| and maybe start looking further north before everyone else does
| and housing prices skyrocket.
| v77 wrote:
| The Canadian Prairies are getting warmer and forecasted to have
| a longer/more productive growing seasons although a bad drought
| this year isn't encouraging.
| trophycase wrote:
| Is this the new anti climate change meme? I saw nearly this
| exact post on the last climate change article about fires or
| something.
| tuatoru wrote:
| Not exactly new. It's the old misunderstanding/deliberately
| dense denier point of "global warming would mean everything
| will be just as it is now, just a degree or two warmer."
|
| Yeah, nah. It doesn't work like that.
| macintux wrote:
| Other threads today:
|
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28085342
|
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28078575
|
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28082887
| bilekas wrote:
| > If the AMOC collapsed, it would increase cooling of the
| Northern Hemisphere, sea level rise in the Atlantic
|
| This seems somewhat counter productive, if the northern
| hemesphere is cooling, how would that result with sea levels
| rising? Or they're not related ?
|
| This really seems strange, would a new `current` not naturally
| establish based on the temperature relocations ?
| laurent92 wrote:
| Another funny item is, icecaps attract water by gravity, so if
| they melt, sea would lower by ~7m around the caps, and rise
| around the tropics. Anyway, with so many parameters and
| effects, I don't venture into predictions anymore ;)
| tuatoru wrote:
| > This seems somewhat counter productive
|
| I'm guessing you mean counterintuitive.
|
| That's one of the great things about the scientific method,
| that it tells you things you never would have guessed.
|
| > how would that result with sea levels rising?
|
| The Gulf Stream (part of the AMOC) brings warm water north,
| Evaporation happens (and the evaporated water rains out over
| land, where some is absorbed or flows south). The remaing sea
| water on the surface is now saltier and denser so sinks.
|
| Without the AMOC, the surface water is less dense. The local
| mean sea level rises due to gravitational effects.
| Precipitation also happens more over the sea, freshening the
| surface sea water. Fresh water is most dense (compact) at 4
| degrees Celsius. Salt affects this, but the less salt there is,
| the smaller the effect.
|
| I guess when you crunch the numbers you get the result they
| state.
|
| > would a new `current` not naturally establish
|
| Last I checked, some years ago, I think it was believed that no
| new large-scale overturning current would establish for some
| thousands of years, which means the sea stratifies (settles
| into non-mixing layers), with a top relatively fresh and light
| layer over dense anoxic deeps.
| bilekas wrote:
| That's both crazy interesting and terrifying.. Thanks for
| clearing it up!
| jb1991 wrote:
| Wasn't this a big part of An Inconvenient Truth, how global
| warming could actually usher in a new ice age or something like
| that?
| typon wrote:
| It's depressing to think that when that documentary came out,
| the general reaction of the public was ambivalence to outright
| laughter. Al Gore really was a visionary, even if he was 30
| years late compared to the climate scientists.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Al Gore is a hack. Look at the way he lives. He doesn't walk
| the walk. He's just a publicity hound.
| airstrike wrote:
| You've just described virtually every single politician.
| freen wrote:
| Look at that serf, decrying feudalism! Such a hypocrite,
| participating in it!
|
| If you are anti-slavery, yet eat chocolate, I have bad news
| for you.
| throwaway888abc wrote:
| There is movie about this. Watched few days back, surreal to see
| the headline on Reuters.
|
| The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
| https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/
|
| 2 minutes summary - trailer
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku_IseK3xTc
| eganist wrote:
| Worth noting that TDAT took the concept of the AMOC collapsing
| and turned it into one of the most absurdly unscientific
| science-based films short of Armageddon.
|
| But it was pretty entertaining if you could find a way to stay
| plugged into the movie and not feel disenchanted by the concept
| of polar cyclones icing things with tropospheric air. Still,
| there was that initial kernel of truth to it, which is what
| we're reading about now.
|
| (not a climate guy; I'm probably getting some parts of this
| wrong)
| hindsightbias wrote:
| James Burke was doing it 1989:
|
| After the Warming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfE8wBReIxw
| awb wrote:
| From Amazon's info about the movie:
|
| > Twentieth Century Fox invited a group of scientists to
| preview this movie, to test their reactions to the "science"
| used in it. None of the scientists were impressed with what
| they say, although most conceded that the movie was enjoyable
| nonsense.
|
| > The consultation by N.A.S.A. scientists was requested before
| the filming of this movie, but N.A.S.A. stated that the events
| in this movie were too ridiculous to actually occur, and denied
| the request.
| scoofy wrote:
| >Other climate models have said the AMOC will weaken over the
| coming century but that a collapse before 2100 is unlikely.
|
| And, lets bury the lede of why no one will care about this unless
| they are already on board for fighting climate change.
| zamalek wrote:
| Exactly. Just like nobody cares about 1C. It's amazing that one
| specific party is ramming in amendments against green energy
| right now.
| _Microft wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand correctly. Do you want to say that
| the author unnecessarily relativized what he wrote about so far
| or that the last sentence is the actually interesting part and
| everything else was sort of a preface (which seems to be what
| "burying the lede" means [0], from what I can tell (as non-
| native speaker))
|
| [0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bury_the_lede
| scoofy wrote:
| "Bury the lede" here was used semi-ironically. The article
| reads like something dramatic that we should be concerned
| about.
|
| However, the effects are not felt for 80+ years, so,
| presumably, that concern will evaporate for most people alive
| today, as they will certainly not experience these
| externalities.
|
| Thus at the end, the click-bait nature of this article is
| revealed, as the author notes at the end, that all this dire
| concern will simply not influence the vast majority of
| decisions, as concerns about climate change have for the last
| 30 years.
|
| I use "bury the lede" ironically as someone who read this
| article as something that may, finally, change the idiotic
| production and development patterns we've been following in
| the face the climate change threat, when instead, the real
| part of the story is that, no, no one will care.
| bserge wrote:
| Fantastic, YOLO. The next generation can deal with it.
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| I'm totally aware climate won't have time to deteriorate
| enough for my lifetime, but for me it's like a duty to
| minimize my environment footprint, I'm really close to
| nature, I eat foraged fruits (figs! currently) and not
| polluting (bike, local food, minimal consumption/buying) is
| like a nature bro-code that I can't break. Picking up
| plastics wastes is one of my ways to thank nature for its
| food, I know it sounds maybe "spiritual" for you, but it's
| really my mentality, and I live right inside a place of
| over-consumption (French code d'azur), so I'm a bit like a
| marginal there, so you're right in sating " _almost_ no one
| will care ", but I hope more people will see the point for
| such a lifestyle (healthy, simple, happy, and environment-
| scalable)
| gdubya wrote:
| Good work! Keep at it. You're not alone.
| scottLobster wrote:
| There is nothing scalable about eating foraged
| fruits/food. Modern populations would starve without
| modern agriculture
| tehjoker wrote:
| I don't understand how someone can be born on a planet with
| the promise that the planet will be here and sustain us for
| potentially millions of years and be fine with trashing it
| to the point of ecological collapse simply because it'll
| get fully trashed slightly out of your expected lifespan.
| MauranKilom wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/2278/
| spideymans wrote:
| >If the AMOC collapsed, it would increase cooling of the Northern
| Hemisphere, sea level rise in the Atlantic, an overall fall in
| precipitation over Europe and North America and a shift in
| monsoons in South America and Afria, Britain's Met Office said.
|
| Have the other major climate models accounted for this? Most I've
| seen have predicted rapid warming in North America. Not sure how
| to reconcile the difference. Perhaps the cooling effect is more
| concentrated over the oceans and coasts?
| tuatoru wrote:
| North America is a minor fraction of the northern hemisphere.
|
| Yes, models have consistently predicted warming and drying of
| the western US at least since I was running
| climateprediction.net HadCM3 models (through BOINC) in the 00s:
| the return of the Great American Desert, basically everywhere
| west of the Mississippi and south of British Columbia.
|
| Secondly, the cooling is an average, and relative to the
| situation without collapse of the AMOC. In most places, it
| still gets hot; but in Northern Europe, not so much. It even
| cools relative to the situation in 1900, IIRC.
|
| And yes, you are right about the location. The visible part of
| the AMOC is called the Gulf Stream, and it's the reason London
| does not have the same climate as Labrador.
| Teknoman117 wrote:
| Maybe it's a bad idea to be currently thinking about buying a
| house in southern California.
|
| It's just so depressing. No one cares, no one is willing to
| do anything about it. All the politicians say that it'll get
| fixed at some point in the future (i.e. after their careers)
| so that their current donors don't get mad.
|
| You also have the people who see the evidence for a warming
| climate, and just say "well that still doesn't mean we humans
| have anything to do with it". Even if it was a completely
| natural process, the result is going to be bad for us. We
| should do _something_.
| laurent92 wrote:
| The slowing of the Gulf Stream, at least, which keeps Europe
| warm despite cooler temperatures at the same latitude in
| Canada, has always been one of the discussed scenarios. I don't
| know whether IPCC made models, though.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-06 23:00 UTC)