For visibility

The disturbing reality we inhabit is that Trump, with a list of reasons he should be in jail or restrained in a mental institution instead of a serious candidate for POTUS, is STILL polling dead even at all. Reality has checked out and America's voters (who will STILL likely be less than 60% of all citizens again - 160M total in a nation of more than 350M people) are either not getting true information, don't care about truth or are willing to accept lies instead.

Climate change? They don't care...
Dead women who went septic waiting for life-saving care? They don't care...
Voting rights extinguished and Constitution shredded? They don't care...
A dictator imprisoning 'enemies' and starting detention camps? They don't care...
The end of 248 years of democracy and a representative republic? They don't care (nor do they know what that means)...

Well, I care.

I am keeping score and when the wars start, I will be in the resistance.
I will fight them in the fields, on the streams and rivers and from sea to sea.
I will aid guerillas and harbor fugitives.
I will subvert Trump and his evil Nazi minions at every turn and every day.

I will hide behind my 54 year old white male face and gain their confidence and succor.
I will smile at them to their faces and stab them in the back.

I will then gleefully testify at their war crimes tribunals and I will personally pull the hangman's lever to drop them to their deserved deaths.

I will not go back, I will not go quietly and I will not be alone.

The farther removed we are from the 2000 election the more upset I am that people didn't enthusiastically vote for Gore. Anyone who cared about the climate and had two brain cells to rub together should have embraced his candidacy.

it's all a hoax and build Al Gore snowmen.



This is what happens when the lunatics take over.

if any of those major currents goes away, the entire planet is in deep doo-doo.

Which makes me wonder if planetary scientists have any clue what the major currents were before the continents separated.

We will continue to change the climate. The first world will not, and in some instances, cannot be inconvenienced.

The drastic nature of the sacrifices required to make any real impact at this juncture can only come from a massive paradigm shift and its resulting upheaval from Earth’s “first world”, grassroots. This demographic is unfortunately still looking to political leaders at the top to lead. It can’t/won’t happen.

Politicians are entangled so tightly with economies, economies controlled by billionaires, that they are rendered impotent, and therefore irrelevant, where climate catastrophe is concerned.

Begin now teaching adaptive sciences, both physical and theoretical, at every level of education to help our next generations. Currently, all our next generations can see is an atmospheric tall, CO2 inflated , middle finger.

It will exasperate the global warming problem by a big multitude.

The AMOC is pretty much responsible for the relatively temperate climate that the Atlantic experiences, as well as being a major driver of weather systems. It serves as something of a thermostat - when the temperature gets too high, glaciers melt and sea ice evaporates, causing the AMOC to slow down. This in turn causes arctic air to descend farther south in winter, bringing with it fresh snow and ice with high albedos, cooling the planet. We call these ice ages, and they can last for as much as a couple of millennia, depending upon many factors. This is why I'm not that worried about global warming long term - we exceed a specific tipping point and we're back into a cooling period. This is an anomaly - when the continents were last together (around 150 million years ago) we had massive circulatory systems that were fairly simple, with the coasts periodically seeing hurricanes with 250-300 mph winds, temperatures 8 to 10 degrees Celsius above current levels, and inland areas that were completely arid. So it could always be worse.

Mind you, an ice age would likely push human civilization back to the bronze age within a couple hundred years.

It's going to get very very bad very soon.

story in Environment & Energy that goes with this:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1127177201
44 Scientists Sign Off On Warning That Atlantic Current Shutdown Risks Have Been "Greatly Underestimated"

We’re almost out of time to stop it, if it isn’t already too late

https://www.wired.com/story/is-it-time-for-an-emergency-rollout-of-carbon-eating-machines/

In a recent paper in the journal Nature Communications, a team of researchers crunched the numbers, arguing that it’s feasible for humanity to embark on a wartime-style crash deployment of a global network of machines that sequester carbon. “We think there's sort of a dearth of conversation generally, but also in the academic literature, around emergency responses to the climate crisis,” says Ryan Hanna, an energy systems researcher at the UC San Diego and lead author on the paper.

Typically, climate scientists run big, complicated models about the most economically optimal ways to decarbonize. “That envisions this very technocratic, manicured, highly granular transition,” Hanna says, “which doesn't really reflect the way transitions actually occur in reality.” So Hanna and his colleagues sketched out an alternate vision: Imagine what would happen if humanity invested in DAC like we’d invest in another world war.

The researchers broke their modeling into three parts. The first was an estimate of how much governments would need to pay for DAC plants. This would include appropriating crisis-level funding to pay private firms to build the facilities, and to pay the companies for storing the carbon they’d be capturing. The second piece of the modeling looked at how fast the plant rollout could scale using already-existing energy supplies like hydropower. (You wouldn’t want to use fossil fuels to run them, obviously.) And the last part was a climate model, representing the entire Earth system, including oceans and the atmosphere. This showed how global temperatures would change if a mass deployment of DAC facilities turned down the amount of CO2 hanging around in the atmosphere.

The researchers found that with an annual investment of between 1 and 2 percent of the global gross domestic product, humanity could scale up a DAC network to remove around 2.3 gigatons of CO2 annually by the year 2050. (For perspective, total global emissions are currently around 40 gigatons a year.)

That’s about 400 times the amount of CO2 humanity currently sequesters, so we’re talking about a massive scale-up. Still, “relative to what the integrated assessment models tell us we should do by 2050, it's actually quite small,” says Hanna. We need to remove something like 5 to 9 gigatons of CO2 per year by 2050 to meet the Paris agreement’s 1.5 degrees C goal. “What that tells us is that we need more than just a single means of negative emissions,” Hanna adds. For instance, we could also bolster wetlands and plant trees to naturally sequester carbon.

The DAC facilities themselves will need to scale as quickly as possible. To be able to remove a mere 2 to 2.5 gigatons of carbon a year by 2050—a fraction of the amount that will help get us to the Paris goals—we’d need around 800. But to truly make a dent in the skyrocketing CO2 levels, we’d need to build them much faster. We’re talking 4,000 to 9,000 plants by the year 2075, and beyond 10,000 by the end of the century, at which point we could theoretically be sequestering up to 27 gigatons of carbon a year. “It shows, in effect, that you have a really long, slow, gradual scale-up as the industry grows through 2050,” says Hanna. “Then once it sort of grows to a massive size, then it's really easy to add a lot of plants quickly, because you have this huge industrial base for the industry.”

seems small, but it WOULD add up to a significant amount.

there’s a lot of small but significant things that cd b done. i’m an evangelist for hugelkultur. rn, when u cut down trees, in cities anyway, they haul the waste off to b chopped up and composted. it shd b buried instead. it will still turn to soil, but slowly and w fungi instead of bacteria, so less co2. if farmers ringed their fields w hugelpiles, they’d stop the runoff of both soil and fertilizer. after 5-10 yrs, they spread black gold on their fields. they cd get paid to take the waste, too.

it seems dumb to me to stand up a whole huge industry that will b obsolete if we do the other things we need to do. we need an- every little bit helps- strategy. some tech like this will def b needed, tho.

to our goldilocks planet. stupid us

It'll reset. We won't

but we don't know enough to know if it's a cyclical event and that the current will speed up later on its own or if we're looking at a potential disaster for western Europe. We know from the geological record that the current has been stopped, but usually in connection with a massive flood event as glaciers melted. Other than that, little ice ages have occurred in the past, which might be associted with a periodic weakening of the current.

We're all fumbling around in the dark here, able to track changes in ocean climate by plamkton and other creatures but just a little befogged when it comes to cause and effect.

when greenland is all green again-
too late for most life on earth~

Civilizations, even multiple civilizations, have fallen but people seem to persist.

and the ability to migrate to survivable areas is not really useful in thinking about today. The times in the past did not have the density of population, the weapons technology regarding battles for resources, the degradation of water resources or the instant worldwide communication and awareness of moves for survival. That last one may be one of the most important regarding survival then versus now.

Those previous civilizations did not have to deal with others instantly knowing that a "survivable area" was inhabited or obtainable. So today if a particular area of countries are looking far more "survivable" the communication of that fact to the billions of people on the planet will be immediate and the stampede will be on along with whatever political/military pressure is employed against the "survival countries" to allow the influx. If we try to curtail the influx to areas where people can survive better then we are basically enacting extermination policies perhaps dressed up under nicer labels. Not too unlike some of the resistance to efforts to migrate that we see today.

We can't just feel we can just "move somewhere else" because, other than the Arctic/Antarctic, pretty much has population and claim/governance by others. Our ability to provide clean fresh water for ourselves is constantly going in the wrong direction for all the known reasons while the ancients did not have this struggle of having diminished so much of the world's water quality.

But it goes even beyond that because there are far more things that happen when civilizations collapse and survival attempts take place. It is not just a matter of immediate survival things like food, water and shelter. Huge changes happen within people and social dynamics as well. Far too often when we read items about climate change, environmental degradation of species etc. we usually are seeing climate scientists, biologists etc. talking about the physical impacts. Rarely do we see anywhere near the amount of "ink" given to sociologists, psychologists etc. talking about the changes in the social dynamic and in us as people when these "change scenarios" are discussed.

A good book to read about the question of "us" is "Commander One" by Peter George from 1965 and was a "sequel" of sorts to "Red Alert" which Kubrick used as the basis for "Dr. Strangelove". In "Commander One" Peter George tells the story of a world in which China plots to get the US and Russia to destroy each other so that China can take over the world. The story also is about the US having prepared for the scenario of "doomsday" and potential survival by having a plan for "survivors" to go on board a submarine to an area in the South Pacific that would be the least impacted by fallout. The scenario becomes all too real. But the storytelling ability of George is nothing short of monumental and what happens is not what one might expect one way or the other or for reasons we might have thought. The ending of the book is one of the most extraordinary things in literature I've ever seen an author do. I won't give it away because to say it is to negate experiencing it and George wrote this to be experienced rather than described or recited.

Second, you can't control it.

Third, you can't plan for it.

The more wedded you are to any of these 3 things, the less likely you are to survive any big collapse, no matter the reason. You need to be adaptable, to be able to cope on the fly,

Should be chilly and wet, not hot and dry.

I don't like suicidal, global experiments.

80 degrees here today. Last week, it was cold enough at night, 30's, to fire up the wood stove.

People think, "The Day After Tomorrow," movie could never happen. We're headed right for it.

Thank you so much for posting this❗

This most important issue get far too little attention.

👍

Bumper sticker from the 80's. They're still singing it.

Thank you.

The high temperatures are forecast to finally get out of the 80s around Nov 3rd with our first norther.. That is just much later than normal. Gulf of Mexico water temperatures set records.

Temperatures may well plummet in Scandinavia and Northern Europe. But all that heat that is now flowing northward will need to go somewhere. Most likely, it will accelerate the heating that is already happening further south.

And yes, once the circulation stops, it won’t restart for a very long time.