One of the implications of the Gulf Stream weakening is that Northern Europe will get cold and Northern Northern Europe will get hella cold (eg. Norway):
"If it collapses, it could lower temperatures by up to 10 or 15 degrees in Europe and lead to rising sea levels in the eastern US. It would also disrupt rain that billions rely on for agriculture."
Why should we be concerned it's going to weaken by 100% in less than 40 years?
Why should we expect the climate will be the same in 100 years as it is today? The climate has always been changing. Europe was in an ice age from 1300 to 1850.
Do you think we could've done anything to stop that? Or should have?
Anyone know a good web site or publication that shows potential outcomes from all these different changes to global climate and where will be the best places to live in the future? Should i be looking to buy plots of property it Alaska?
For slowing currents, at least in the long run, there's reasonable evidence that, in the extreme, the ocean becomes anoxic[0], stops producing oxygen and starts releasing hydrogen sulfide instead. It's happened a few times in Earth's history [0] suspected to usually be caused climate change impacting ocean circulation.
Peter Ward's Under a Green Sky does a fantastic overview of this subject, and outlines how most mass extinction events have likely been triggered by sudden changes in atmospheric CO2 through various mechanism.
The Gulf stream is about making parts of the US east coast and northern Europe warmer. If you like being warm, you can leave those areas, but it's hard to say how much colder they will be or how quickly.
For sea-level rise climate change mitigation, look at topographical maps of coastal areas. Some coastal areas have very quick climbs in elevation as you move inland. Others remain very shallow for incredible distances. The more dense an area is with wealth (think Manhattan), the more likely it is for there to be actual mitigation to sea-level rise like substantial seawalls. But the more dispersed the population and infrastructure is, the less possible that will be.
For precipitation related changes, extreme weather / natural disaster related changes, etc. we don't have much reliable modeling. But consider what the economy and demographics are like in the area you reside in, how much existing poverty or famine there is, how reliable infrastructure is, and whether your area is a net food importer or net food exporter and how much margin it has to undergo decreased agricultural productivity and still feed itself. Consider the ease or difficulty with which net-food-importer-region displaced refugees would be able to migrate to your area, as well as the size of such populations.
The American midwest is relatively safe to settle in. St. Louis, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Detroit, and Chicago in particular.
Altitude not latitude. Alaska would be a somewhat bad spot to live if AMOC slows way down. You want places where the local climate is not driven by the ocean or air currents, meaning there is very little air above them. Think Bogota, Quito, Addis Ababa etc.
Every local climate is driven by air currents, by which I assume you mean jet stream changes driving pressure changes...aka cold/warm fronts. The jet stream is significantly controlled by the heights of the Alps and the Rocky mountain ranges in the northern hemisphere and the air currents are driven by the Earth's rotation. The Earth is not going to stop rotating and the mountains are not shrinking. This is why weather scientists have been consistent that noticeable changes from global warming will be more extreme weather not massive changes.
I agree the air currents matter. But at those altitudes the sun has a much larger impact than at lower ones. The models that rate places by impact consistently list high altitude cities with lower impacts.
The AMOC has high "inter-annual variability", it changes a lot from year to year. Which is why they need 40 years' data to run statistical tests.
North-western Europe isn't going to switch to a frozen mode, there will be hot years and cold years. It'll be all weather, all the time.
Edit: as to where to live, I'd recommend staying in an OECD country, somewhere with a temperate maritime climate. Not at sea level, but 100 metres / 300ft up is enough. Near Vancouver or Seattle maybe.
There's a book "How to Prepare for Climate Change: A Practical Guide to Surviving the Chaos" by David Pogue that I found had some decent information related to your questions.
The Day After Tomorrow by Roland Emmerich is one of the postulated scenario. It was very entertaining though a bit over the top. Part 2 sequel is very meh.
Isn't the trick to have a dead-man switch installed in your person which blows up the compound in the event that you're killed (or die of natural causes I suppose)? I'm sure they've thought through a lot of scenarios already.
I be would naïvely think to move to up north to colder places because they will get warmer and have to deal the least with climate refuges.
The equator will be death around it will be not that great, beyond that will be refuges. So Russia is looking great. There is a huge climate change boon Russia is set to receive within the next 50-100 years. Maybe Canada too and Scandinavia
Northern Michigan is projected to be the most sought after markets in the US come 2050. The jet stream is indeed moving north and the climate will become milder over time. Michigan is also surrounded by the Great Lakes which account for 20% of earth's fresh water.
Massive hyperbole. If temperatures increase 4.5 f - in South America, where most people live around the equator will be fine.
Same for Indonesia.
India's population is pretty heavily focused in the North and should will also not all overheat to death.
Don't know about Africa.
Also - moving north if you think the AOC will collapse is a losing strategy. Scandinavia will be colder than Greenland today. Europe will be colder than Canada.
True. What will happen though is that these regions will suffer from stagnating (or even declining) productivity and anaemic growth. Farms will produce less so more energy will be used on fertilizers and irrigation. Everything will have to be air conditioned - more energy expenditure. At an individual level, productivity will drop off as people deal with the heat and humidity.
Personally, living in India, I’ve watched my summers become worse and worse every year. And while I have no way to measure it, my productivity keeps going down with it in the summer.
If the science fiction authors are to believe Russia will be a horrible place. Not only will the taiga start to burn, there will be hordes of migrants pushing North to escape the unbearable South. There are quite a few people living below Mongolia....
Wouldn't it be the case that the measurement of almost any aspect of nature will show a 4% change over 40 years and so can produce similar headlines? <X> is going up / going down. This has ramifications for the globe.
- New research has found the Gulf Stream is almost certainly weakening. Measurements show the warm water current flowing through the Florida Straits has slowed by 4% over the past 4 decades.
- The Gulf Stream plays a vital role in regulating temperatures and sea levels along the U.S. East Coast and in Europe. Its weakening could have major climate impacts.
- Melting ice sheets are dumping more cold, fresh water into the oceans, which scientists believe may be causing the Gulf Stream to slow down or become less stable.
- This new study provides the strongest evidence yet that the Gulf Stream is slowing, using data from undersea cables, satellites, and on-site observations.
- The changes seen so far are small (4%) but could be the start of more dramatic shifts. Scientists emphasize the importance of continuing to monitor the Gulf Stream.
- More research is still needed to definitively link the Gulf Stream changes to human-caused climate change versus natural variability. But scientists are concerned about the potential climate consequences if the current continues to weaken.
Here are some of the potential consequences if the Gulf Stream continues to weaken:
- Cooling effects along the U.S. East Coast and Western Europe - The warm water from the Gulf Stream plays a key role in keeping these regions warmer than they otherwise would be. If it weakens, winters could get significantly colder.
- Sea level rise along the U.S. East Coast - The current helps keep water levels lower along the coast. A slowdown could lead to accelerated sea level rise.
- Changes to ocean currents and weather patterns - The Gulf Stream is part of a larger global ocean circulation system. Disruptions to it could alter currents, storm tracks, and precipitation patterns across the Atlantic and beyond.
- Marine ecosystem impacts - Many species have evolved with and depend on the warm waters of the Gulf Stream. Changes could affect food webs and fisheries.
- Increased hurricane activity - Some research suggests the Gulf Stream helps limit tropical storms. A slowdown may increase intensity and frequency of hurricanes forming off Africa.
- Accelerated ice melt - The Gulf Stream brings warm water near Greenland and Antarctica. Its weakening could disrupt this process, potentially speeding up ice sheet melt.
- Ocean oxygen depletion - Circulation changes could reduce oxygen mixing in parts of the ocean, creating more "dead zones."
- Climate feedback effects - Changes in ocean currents, temperatures, and circulation could feedback and cause additional changes to climate patterns.
So in summary, potentially wide-ranging impacts to climate, weather patterns, sea levels, ecosystems, and human societies if the observed changes continue. But more research is needed to better understand the extent and likelihood of these potential impacts.
- Accelerated ice melt - The Gulf Stream brings warm water near Greenland and Antarctica. Its weakening could disrupt this process, potentially speeding up ice sheet melt.
I don't understand this one. Why would the reduction in warm water brought to Greenland cause the ice sheets to melt more?
had to think about this a bit. It doesn't directly affect it, but it adds to the problem of global warming by increasing the temp gradient between the higher elevation interior and the cooler, lower elevation coast. This can cause more wind and increased evaporation, and, effectively, "pull" the damp air away from the central ice sheets.
But that's just me speculating. It definitely seems counterintuitive.
Overall all the effects either make the ice caps colder or warmer. If it's colder that helps with melting ice caps. If it's warmer than that makes the north more pleasant.
I mean given what we know about the Sahara and its wet and dry periods, it doesn’t seem at all illogical that ocean currents should start and stop to match.
I think it’s important to understand that the earth is deeply dynamic and constantly changing, and has incredible variation in often cyclical patterns over hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of years.
While we know human caused elements are accelerating trends, it’s important to separate the human accelerant from the fact that the Earth herself goes through regular and quite massive changes — that climate change can affect — but that are normal, quite natural and quite civilization and food growing pattern interrupting sized.
We have been in a period of unusual climate stability…
Edit: I’m getting heavily downvoted so I feel the need to clarify, as this comment is not incorrect or even controversial in climate circles. We have experienced rapid changes inside of single human lifetimes many times, and It’s important to be able to talk about science openly without labeling everyone who doesn’t parrot exactly the narrative you expect them to conform to just because it kinda sorta looks like a climate denier even though it isn’t. Very much not what I would expect of the HN crowd.
Here’s a write up:
> Most likely, freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic periodically disrupted the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again. While this mechanism is unlikely to occur today’s world, it does show us that, at least regionally, the climate is capable of extraordinary changes within a human lifetime – rapid switches we certainly want to avoid experiencing.
> A new study suggests climate conditions in the Sahara Desert have changed from wet to dry about every 20,000 years. The study was carried out by scientists at America's Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT. Findings were published in the journal Science Advances.
There is precious little discussion of the research on natural climate change and the patterns that man made climate change is enhancing, and it’s very, very important to learn about the natural cycles and how man made climate change changes them.
If that’s worth downvoting simply because it doesn’t align with the Only Allowed NarrativeTM for anything climate related then HN is no longer the discussion platform for reasonably intelligent people it once was and that would be very sad indeed.
Pathetic. Cited references with evidence and nobody even wants to look. Climate is incredibly complex. Stop looking at this whole issue one dimensionally.
I can’t imagine how you’d all react to my Native American friends who are all talking about a coming ice age. They think the opposite is about to happen.
Their data did not look for cause, it looked to measure the current.
It's refreshing to get non-sensationalized reporting. We can draw our own - very obvious - conclusion. And no, it isn't so that the 'WEF will take away your freedoms'.
Which is reasonable even if there was no climate catastrophe at all, I really hope I can fully experience unpolluted and much more silent inner cities in my lifetime!
Anyway, regarding your freedom, you are free to leave to more free countries, where you can also have your leaded pipes and other unhealthy great things back!
For the cities, I'm kinda hoping cars will be banned altogether or made really expensive like London has done. Especially in cities with amazing public transport there's no reason to have so many cars around.
"If it collapses, it could lower temperatures by up to 10 or 15 degrees in Europe and lead to rising sea levels in the eastern US. It would also disrupt rain that billions rely on for agriculture."