▲ 551 ▼ Gulf Stream current could collapse in 2025, plunging Earth into climate chaos: 'We were actually bewildered' (www.livescience.com) submitted 3 years ago* by original_reader@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml 170 comments fedilink hide all child comments Researchers have predicted the collapse of the AMOC could happen any time between 2025 and 2095 — far sooner than previous predictions, although not all scientists are convinced. ===== What if...
[–] 1bluepixel@lemmy.world 54 points 3 years ago (11 children) So Don't Look Up. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 19 points 3 years ago That movie felt way too real watching it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Saneless@lemmy.world 11 points 3 years ago (9 children) Yes but without the part where they tried permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] HurlingDurling@lemm.ee -2 points 3 years ago (8 children) We haven't gotten to that point yet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] arefx@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 years ago* (7 children) Without some sort of violent revolution, we won't, or time runs out but it's not a movie and there's no ship to another planet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -6 points 3 years ago (6 children) Great. That's exactly what we need now - more violence permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Saneless@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago (2 children) Revolutions take over where reason stops. The people in power have the means to do the right thing, but sometimes they look out for a few people and will destroy thousands. That's not a good option, as people get more desperate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -4 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Climate change is not something that has a simple solution to it and governments just refuse to do so for whatever reason. That's a naive view that ignores all the complexity of this issue. For example: stopping all carbon emissions is not going to stop climate change. Not only do you need to become carbon-neutral but you also need to get all the excessive carbon out of the atmosphere. How? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Saneless@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago Why the extreme? Cutting back and investing in things that are better should be a mandate, not an idea or option. And certainly we cannot allow an administration to roll things backwards just because someone bribed them donated to their campaign permalink fedilink source parent [–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 years ago (2 children) If there's ever a time when it's justified, it's when our very existence is at stake. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Climate change is not an existential threat to humanity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 years ago To humanity? Probably not. To billions of people? Definitely yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 19 points 3 years ago That movie felt way too real watching it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Saneless@lemmy.world 11 points 3 years ago (9 children) Yes but without the part where they tried permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] HurlingDurling@lemm.ee -2 points 3 years ago (8 children) We haven't gotten to that point yet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] arefx@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 years ago* (7 children) Without some sort of violent revolution, we won't, or time runs out but it's not a movie and there's no ship to another planet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -6 points 3 years ago (6 children) Great. That's exactly what we need now - more violence permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Saneless@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago (2 children) Revolutions take over where reason stops. The people in power have the means to do the right thing, but sometimes they look out for a few people and will destroy thousands. That's not a good option, as people get more desperate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -4 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Climate change is not something that has a simple solution to it and governments just refuse to do so for whatever reason. That's a naive view that ignores all the complexity of this issue. For example: stopping all carbon emissions is not going to stop climate change. Not only do you need to become carbon-neutral but you also need to get all the excessive carbon out of the atmosphere. How? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Saneless@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago Why the extreme? Cutting back and investing in things that are better should be a mandate, not an idea or option. And certainly we cannot allow an administration to roll things backwards just because someone bribed them donated to their campaign permalink fedilink source parent [–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 years ago (2 children) If there's ever a time when it's justified, it's when our very existence is at stake. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Climate change is not an existential threat to humanity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 years ago To humanity? Probably not. To billions of people? Definitely yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HurlingDurling@lemm.ee -2 points 3 years ago (8 children) We haven't gotten to that point yet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] arefx@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 years ago* (7 children) Without some sort of violent revolution, we won't, or time runs out but it's not a movie and there's no ship to another planet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -6 points 3 years ago (6 children) Great. That's exactly what we need now - more violence permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Saneless@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago (2 children) Revolutions take over where reason stops. The people in power have the means to do the right thing, but sometimes they look out for a few people and will destroy thousands. That's not a good option, as people get more desperate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -4 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Climate change is not something that has a simple solution to it and governments just refuse to do so for whatever reason. That's a naive view that ignores all the complexity of this issue. For example: stopping all carbon emissions is not going to stop climate change. Not only do you need to become carbon-neutral but you also need to get all the excessive carbon out of the atmosphere. How? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Saneless@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago Why the extreme? Cutting back and investing in things that are better should be a mandate, not an idea or option. And certainly we cannot allow an administration to roll things backwards just because someone bribed them donated to their campaign permalink fedilink source parent [–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 years ago (2 children) If there's ever a time when it's justified, it's when our very existence is at stake. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Climate change is not an existential threat to humanity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 years ago To humanity? Probably not. To billions of people? Definitely yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] arefx@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 years ago* (7 children) Without some sort of violent revolution, we won't, or time runs out but it's not a movie and there's no ship to another planet. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -6 points 3 years ago (6 children) Great. That's exactly what we need now - more violence permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Saneless@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago (2 children) Revolutions take over where reason stops. The people in power have the means to do the right thing, but sometimes they look out for a few people and will destroy thousands. That's not a good option, as people get more desperate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -4 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Climate change is not something that has a simple solution to it and governments just refuse to do so for whatever reason. That's a naive view that ignores all the complexity of this issue. For example: stopping all carbon emissions is not going to stop climate change. Not only do you need to become carbon-neutral but you also need to get all the excessive carbon out of the atmosphere. How? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Saneless@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago Why the extreme? Cutting back and investing in things that are better should be a mandate, not an idea or option. And certainly we cannot allow an administration to roll things backwards just because someone bribed them donated to their campaign permalink fedilink source parent [–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 years ago (2 children) If there's ever a time when it's justified, it's when our very existence is at stake. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Climate change is not an existential threat to humanity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 years ago To humanity? Probably not. To billions of people? Definitely yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -6 points 3 years ago (6 children) Great. That's exactly what we need now - more violence permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Saneless@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago (2 children) Revolutions take over where reason stops. The people in power have the means to do the right thing, but sometimes they look out for a few people and will destroy thousands. That's not a good option, as people get more desperate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -4 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Climate change is not something that has a simple solution to it and governments just refuse to do so for whatever reason. That's a naive view that ignores all the complexity of this issue. For example: stopping all carbon emissions is not going to stop climate change. Not only do you need to become carbon-neutral but you also need to get all the excessive carbon out of the atmosphere. How? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Saneless@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago Why the extreme? Cutting back and investing in things that are better should be a mandate, not an idea or option. And certainly we cannot allow an administration to roll things backwards just because someone bribed them donated to their campaign permalink fedilink source parent [–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 years ago (2 children) If there's ever a time when it's justified, it's when our very existence is at stake. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Climate change is not an existential threat to humanity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 years ago To humanity? Probably not. To billions of people? Definitely yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Saneless@lemmy.world 6 points 3 years ago (2 children) Revolutions take over where reason stops. The people in power have the means to do the right thing, but sometimes they look out for a few people and will destroy thousands. That's not a good option, as people get more desperate permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -4 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Climate change is not something that has a simple solution to it and governments just refuse to do so for whatever reason. That's a naive view that ignores all the complexity of this issue. For example: stopping all carbon emissions is not going to stop climate change. Not only do you need to become carbon-neutral but you also need to get all the excessive carbon out of the atmosphere. How? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Saneless@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago Why the extreme? Cutting back and investing in things that are better should be a mandate, not an idea or option. And certainly we cannot allow an administration to roll things backwards just because someone bribed them donated to their campaign permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -4 points 3 years ago* (1 child) Climate change is not something that has a simple solution to it and governments just refuse to do so for whatever reason. That's a naive view that ignores all the complexity of this issue. For example: stopping all carbon emissions is not going to stop climate change. Not only do you need to become carbon-neutral but you also need to get all the excessive carbon out of the atmosphere. How? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Saneless@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago Why the extreme? Cutting back and investing in things that are better should be a mandate, not an idea or option. And certainly we cannot allow an administration to roll things backwards just because someone bribed them donated to their campaign permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Saneless@lemmy.world 4 points 3 years ago Why the extreme? Cutting back and investing in things that are better should be a mandate, not an idea or option. And certainly we cannot allow an administration to roll things backwards just because someone bribed them donated to their campaign permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 years ago (2 children) If there's ever a time when it's justified, it's when our very existence is at stake. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Climate change is not an existential threat to humanity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 years ago To humanity? Probably not. To billions of people? Definitely yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz -5 points 3 years ago (1 child) Climate change is not an existential threat to humanity permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 years ago To humanity? Probably not. To billions of people? Definitely yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Claidheamh@slrpnk.net 4 points 3 years ago To humanity? Probably not. To billions of people? Definitely yes. permalink fedilink source parent