Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

'We Don't Know Where the Tipping Point Is': Climate Expert on Potential Collapse of Atlantic Circulation 69

Posted by msmash from the grave-concerns dept.
Scientists from 15 countries warned in an open letter that the potential collapse of the Atlantic Ocean's main circulation system (AMOC) has been "greatly underestimated" and could have devastating global impacts, according to oceanographer Stefan Rahmstorf who spoke to The Guardian. The AMOC system, which moves heat through the northern Atlantic and influences weather patterns across Europe, has shown signs of weakening over the past 60-70 years due to global warming, with indicators including a persistent cold spot in the northern Atlantic and record-low salt levels in seawater.

Rahmstorf, who heads the Earth system analysis department at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, estimates a 50% chance of the system reaching a critical tipping point this century, which could trigger severe consequences including regional cooling in northwestern Europe, shifting rainfall patterns, and rising sea levels.

'We Don't Know Where the Tipping Point Is': Climate Expert on Potential Collapse of Atlantic Circulation More | Reply

'We Don't Know Where the Tipping Point Is': Climate Expert on Potential Collapse of Atlantic Circulation

Comments Filter:

  • An accurate headline (Score:5, Informative)

    by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Friday October 25, 2024 @11:27AM (#64893437) Homepage

    An accurate headline, for a change. In fact, we don't know where the tipping points are.

    This is a real problem. Should we worry about worst case scenarios when we don't know when, exactly, they get triggered?

    Another thing to note is that we don't really know for sure what the effect of the AMOC on European climate is. This is still debated. (Good article here, though: https://www.science.org/doi/10... [science.org] )

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The story is from the guardian. Was there no semi-reputable news source willing to publish this?

      The guardiian isn't fit to line the bottom of a bird cage or as fish wrap.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Baron_Yam ( 643147 )

      Jesus.

      "There's this potentially really, really bad thing that is going to happen, but we aren't 100% certain about the exact timing or effects so let's just forget about it".

      That has to be the absolute dumbest thing I've read on the Internet this month. And I periodically read about cryptocurrency on Slashdot.

      • We're also going to run out of oil sooner or later. Efforts like shale oil extraction prove that it's already becoming harder and more expensive to find oil, and this also affects consumer prices. So people who drive gas guzzlers should have a good reason to consider alternatives, whether or not they understand/care about climate science. There are also good reasons to start the transition early, rather than wait until they've burned the last drop. But again, people keep driving their dinosaur crematories l

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Rei ( 128717 )

          I didn't realize you "Peak Oil" people still existed after having spent the past 50 years screaming that the sky is falling while oil reserves continued to grow, and now we've finally more or less hit a demand peak as transportation starts to electrify (~12% of all new car sales now).

          TL/DR:

          1) The "harder" the resources you draw from, the exponentially more (not linearly more) is available

          2) Advancing technology makes extraction cheaper, and thus puts exponentially more online for the same price

          3) Oil can be

        • We're also going to run out of oil sooner or later. Efforts like shale oil extraction prove that it's already becoming harder and more expensive to find oil, and this also affects consumer prices. So people who drive gas guzzlers should have a good reason to consider alternatives, whether or not they understand/care about climate science. There are also good reasons to start the transition early, rather than wait until they've burned the last drop. But again, people keep driving their dinosaur crematories l

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lsllll ( 830002 )

          First of all, we don't really know when we're going to run out of oil. Estimates vary greatly. But the more important thing is that, we DO know what will happen when we run out of oil, because what we do with oil is known and when there's no oil, we can't do those things anymore. So it's a lot easier to prepare for running out of oil than to prepare for something whose effects we really aren't sure.

    • They don't know. And they make no scientific statements — because anything containing a "could" is not falsifiable [wikipedia.org]...

      Time to stop listening to these self-important bozos — and to stop funding them too.

      • Re:... and no scientific statements either (Score:5, Informative)

        by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Friday October 25, 2024 @12:00PM (#64893525) Homepage

        They don't know. And they make no scientific statements — because anything containing a "could" is not falsifiable...

        To the contrary. The phrase "could" indicates a hypothesis, and that hypothesis definitely is falsifiable. The science consists of gathering better evidence and fitting that evidence to models, to either support the hypothesis, or reject it. To do this, quoting from the article [theguardian.com]:

        We need to keep monitoring the flow of water in the Atlantic, which is being done with the Rapid [rapid.ac.uk] project. We should also monitor deep winter mixing in the northern Atlantic and Nordic seas. If the deep mixing starts to decline a lot, that could be an early indicator that we are approaching a tipping point. There are some signs of this, but we don’t have enough data yet to be sure.

        The science consists of getting that data.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by mi ( 197448 )

          and that hypothesis definitely is falsifiable

          Wrong. A statement "The X could happen" is not falsifiable. Whether X actually happens or not, the statement was not false.

          To make it falsifiable, the "could" must be replaced with "will". Amazing, that such basics need to be explained on Slashdot...

          And, yeah, most of "Climate Science" is not falsifiable — as admitted by its practitioners [theconversation.com]. Which makes it not a science at all...

          • Did you miss the headline? "We don't know"?

            "We don't know" is the very start of science.

            "Let's find out" is the next step.

            This is how science works.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by mi ( 197448 )

              "We don't know" is the very start of science.

              That's a start of many things, but what I said remains true: "X could happen" is not falsifiable statement, and therefore not scientific.

              To be falsifiable, a prediction must use "will", rather than "could". And "Climate scientists" know this — because they used to be more assertive in the past. But, with multiple eggs on their faces [aei.org], they've changed their tune over the decades.

              And I don't want to dwell on their failures — indeed, any science has plent

    • Re:An accurate headline (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 4wdloop ( 1031398 ) on Friday October 25, 2024 @11:46AM (#64893485)

      Accurate but perhaps highlighting the wrong point.

      Typical human would react to "we do not know" with "so nothing to worry about yet". However, we do know that there will be a tipping point and we may have already crossed it. Or be close to it. Or not, but certainly we still contribute to keep going towards it.

      The article though is more about effect of the collapse.
      Better title: "Collapse of AMOC will be catastrophic and we do not know when exactly it will happen."

      • It's an old trick bad actors use (Score:4, Insightful)

        by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday October 25, 2024 @12:38PM (#64893627)
        scientists will not speak in definites. Ever. So if you're trying to cast doubt on scientific findings it's easy to do.

        The tobacco industry did it. The leaded gas industry did it. Religious Extremists do it. And of course the oil industry does it.

        This is why it's so important to teach critical thinking skills and media literacy in public schools. We need better information consumers.

        And it's also why we're not doing that. Reagan's people literally said they didn't want an educated proletariat [reddit.com] (their words, not mine).

        They want you and your kids dumb and pliable so you'll do as they say.

        • Scientists speak in definitives all the time.

          Pick up a freshman physics or chemistry book. There is nothing fuzzy in them.

          As far as your Reagan link goes, this is what the guy actually said (from your link):

          "Freeman’s remarks were reported the next day in the San Francisco Chronicle under the headline “Professor Sees Peril in Education.” According to the Chronicle article, Freeman said, “We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat. That’s dynamite! We have to be sel

      • The article is actually very clear: prepare for cooler weather and rising seas across Europe. However, the solution is not for everyone to buy EVs or plant the trees, it is to prepare crops that will grow in cooler climate and move critical infrastructure away from shoreline. People trust climate scientists. They don't trust "climate warriors".
    • There’s a saying, 'Fuck around and find out,' which pretty much sums up humanity’s response to warnings like this.

    • Re:An accurate headline (Score:5, Funny)

      by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Friday October 25, 2024 @12:21PM (#64893575) Journal
      This is a real problem. Should we worry about worst case scenarios when we don't know when, exactly, they get triggered?

      Absolutely. You never plan for the worst case scenario. You just assume it will never happen. It's like in IT where there's no need to test your backup procedures, or disaster recovery, or anything else which might bring your entire system down. It will never happen so need to plan for it.

      • The thing about pessimists is that the are correct much more often than optimists, and their pessimism results in worst case planning, which usually results in better outcomes

        In regards to the effect of shutting down warm water circulation in the Atlantic ocean... one thing is abundantly clear which is that the English Isles will become much colder than they are now

      • Yeah. My first DR exercise for a banking count, I show up after the shower only to be flagged over by the VP about a mile away (Main Street, they had the other routes covered). The exercise would emulate a water main break. The offices, motel marshalling point, and alternative parking lot were lost.

        I offered my office, 15 miles away. "Too far...". Um, without physical resources, it didn't matter where. We went.

        You prepare, sometimes, to be flexible. I dunno where we put Europe though...

    • so no, we shouldn't worry about it. It's fine. Everything's fine. Have you seen the new Toyota RAV4? It's awesome. Everything's fine.
    • There is only one way to find the tipping point... let it tip while we discuss that the only certainty in life is uncertainty.
    • has to be one of the stupidest sayings in human discourse.

      The reality is that what you don't know is one of the likeliest things to hurt you.

      That's actually why we bother to try to know things, evolutionarily speaking.

      So yes, we should model and try to prevent the worst-case scenarios of AMOC collapse, despite not being certain when it is likely to be triggered.

      So long as it is a highly plausible mechanism in the atmosphere+ocean system on current temperature trends, and carries plausible high risks, we sho

  • It doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Friday October 25, 2024 @11:33AM (#64893455)

    It is exceedingly clear that humanity is completely incapable of cooperating to stop making things worse, never mind attempt to undo the damage done in the last century.

    We are taking steps, but only where it makes economic sense in the short term. There is no will to say, "we're all going to suffer together to get this done so things aren't much, much worse in 50-100 years".

    We will find the tipping point when it is crossed. We will deal with consequences when they happen, and not one minute sooner, so long as there is an immediate economic benefit to doing so.

    I'm fine - I'm going to be dead before real problems happen. Right now it's "more powerful and more frequent storms, a bit more heat on average, and the glaciers are disappearing". That's not enough to motivate enough people to drive change. When people are starving because their local agriculture isn't productive enough any longer, when they're migrating in mass to avoid newly inhospitable regions and triggering wars as they cross borders... people will starve and kill each other.

    The billionaires will be FINE. And even my kids will be OK, because like many (if not most) people enjoying the luxury of posting on an Internet forum, I'm fucking rich compared to the average human being on this planet. And it's people with money who determine policy while the people without it will suffer.

    It's wrong, and there's fuck all a single person can do about it because it's human nature. I vote where it seems like it might help. I try to reduce my personal environmental impact where I can without ending up living in a tent in the woods. And I expect things to continue to show signs of getting worse throughout the rest of my life regardless.

    • 3 mile island and chernobyl hurt clean nuke power!

      • The mis-understanding that 3 Mile Island was in any way like the movie, China Syndrome, which was released in similar time frame did hurt public perception of nuclear energy

        Chernobyl, on the other hand, showed the effects of incompetent management and the dangers of testing without safety guidelines

        In both cases, the fossil fuel industries profited by funding anti-nuclear environmental groups and delaying the adoption of nuclear power, which in turn will depress fossil fuel profits

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by XXongo ( 3986865 )

          Chernobyl, on the other hand, showed the effects of incompetent management and the dangers of testing without safety guidelines

          Yep. Quoting Douglas Adams, "A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."

          In both cases, the fossil fuel industries profited by funding anti-nuclear environmental groups and delaying the adoption of nuclear power, which in turn will depress fossil fuel profits

          Mostly nuclear power doesn't compete with oil, which is the big money driving political disinformation.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Rinnon ( 1474161 )

      Unfortunately, you nailed it. There's only so much one person, or even the entire group of environmental activists, can do if we aren't going to mandate dramatic change from the top of our society, and enforce those changes with the powers they have at their disposal. Personally I would vote in favour of massive austerity in order to meet some of our targets, but that's not even given as an option at the ballot box; that's how far we are from it happening.

      I'm resigned to it at this point. It's a shame when

      • >There's only so much one person, or even the entire group of environmental activists, can do if we aren't going to mandate dramatic change from the top of our society, and enforce those changes with the powers they have at their disposal.

        This is it - a tragedy of the commons situation. Everyone does a little bit of damage knowing that if they don't... they alone suffer the effects of austerity without the benefit of any significant change.

        The solution must be top-down, it must be enforced strictly and

      • Every person is individually doing a little bit of damage.

        What are you doing to personally eliminate the damage you do?

        And before you ask, I power my AC, my Tesla and everything else from solar, returning extra power to the grid even on overcast days, don't have any gas appliances, and avoid unnecessary long trips.

        We all have a part to do. You don't have to force other people to live a life of austerity to do something useful. Just do it. Live by example. Every bit counts.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )

      Sorry, but there are lags in the system. We won't find the tipping point until well after it has been crossed. And it's not like we haven't known about this problem for a long time.

    • Re:It doesn't matter (Score:4, Interesting)

      by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Friday October 25, 2024 @12:10PM (#64893545)

      It is exceedingly clear that humanity is completely incapable of cooperating to stop making things worse, never mind attempt to undo the damage done in the last century.

      We are taking steps, but only where it makes economic sense in the short term. There is no will to say, "we're all going to suffer together to get this done so things aren't much, much worse in 50-100 years".

      We will find the tipping point when it is crossed. We will deal with consequences when they happen, and not one minute sooner, so long as there is an immediate economic benefit to doing so.

      I'm fine - I'm going to be dead before real problems happen. Right now it's "more powerful and more frequent storms, a bit more heat on average, and the glaciers are disappearing". That's not enough to motivate enough people to drive change. When people are starving because their local agriculture isn't productive enough any longer, when they're migrating in mass to avoid newly inhospitable regions and triggering wars as they cross borders... people will starve and kill each other.

      The billionaires will be FINE. And even my kids will be OK, because like many (if not most) people enjoying the luxury of posting on an Internet forum, I'm fucking rich compared to the average human being on this planet. And it's people with money who determine policy while the people without it will suffer.

      It's wrong, and there's fuck all a single person can do about it because it's human nature. I vote where it seems like it might help. I try to reduce my personal environmental impact where I can without ending up living in a tent in the woods. And I expect things to continue to show signs of getting worse throughout the rest of my life regardless.

      We *COULD* change things. The problem is that we have somehow equated wealth with morality. More wealth = more morally upright = more equipped to make decisions for the rest of us. If we stopped prioritizing wealth above all else, maybe actually paid attention to science, actual science, and attempted to find mitigation strategies without prioritizing wealth consolidation over them, we could have a chance.

      But priority #1 is and remains "wealth consolidation." We *MUST* make sure profit potential is not negatively impacted. Wall Street is more important than the biosphere. Even if 99.9% of humanity dies, so long as we have a few protected uber-rich, it's full steam ahead and forget about it until it impacts you directly.

      Like you, I do what I can to stem my own personal negative impact on the planet, without living in a tent in the woods. I try to vote for candidates that pay lip service to the environment, though not a god damned one of them do anything to actually help once elected. All of them prioritize Wall Street above all. Seems pretty hopeless.

      As someone that grew up with big hopes for where humanity might take itself? Now my biggest hope is that someone preserves the best of our knowledge, our creative output, and our scientific discoveries as we start to decimate our own population. IF we pooled our resources and worked together, we could do amazing things. Instead our main concentration is developing wealth for those who have plenty, and finding new, more efficient ways to kill one another in their name. Humans are like cockroaches. We'll survive in some way or another as long as there's any way to do so. But it's gonna be an ugly ride while we get to that future that no longer looks so bright and shiny.

    • This is all you needed to say really: humanity is completely incapable of cooperating

      Most are busy living their lives fixing their own personal problems, and then we die. And I suspect humanity won't really start doing much of anything until the population starts to shrink - and shrink significantly.
    • or if you're going to give up, at least do the 'delete your account' thing and go spend what time you have left in peace.

      We fixed the ozone hole, so we're not total basket cases. Education is increasing, lowering birth rates are making workers and people in general more valuable.

      You can't reduce your personal impact. That's not how this works. You've bought into right wing propaganda where we're all just individuals and systems do not exist. So you're trying to solve a systemic problem with individu

      • Of course individuals exist and have impact. We're not ants or bees. I'm sure you'd love a society where everyone was exactly the same no matter what effort they put in or value they provide but that's not how the world has ever worked anywhere at any time.

        Society is many individuals agreeing to work together to some extent because groups are generally more successful on the whole than individuals but that does not mean individuals are subsumed into the mindless fog of society. Individuals have impact an

  • Consider the opportunities for skiing in the Cotswolds. Cotswolds are definitely hilly. They are characterized by their rolling hills, picturesque villages, and stunning countryside. This hilly terrain is a major part of their charm and contributes to the region's unique beauty. And with the perfectly natural collapse of the Gulf Stream, there will be plenty of snow.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mysidia ( 191772 )

      And with the perfectly natural collapse of the Gulf Stream, there will be plenty of snow.

      Except for this case there may not be much snow, since the reduction in temperature comes with a huge reduction in precipitation, so your picturesque rolling hills may become a cold barren dessert scene -- frozen ground, some ice, hardly any snow though.

  • Just keep adding more and more until it tips. Then you know where the tipping point is.

  • Regardless of the real danger, we've had AMOC reversal models with absolutely zero predictive value for decades. There's a couple more every year and the ones this year don't seem special to me.

  • I think there is way too much tipping any more. I'd say the optimal tipping point is probably 15% or maybe 20%.

Slashdot Top Deals

Everybody needs a little love sometime; stop hacking and fall in love!

Close