AIBU to feel frightened about the risk of AMOC collapse?

[rockinrobins]

The likelihood of an apocalyptic ice age scenario happening in our lifetimes is now higher than not.

Is no one else scared about this for themselves and their children? Why aren't we talking about it?

If the AMOC collapses, we will be living in temperatures of -20 to -30 degrees Celsius within our lifetime. There is nothing we can do, but it's terrifying, and no one is discussing it.

From Google:

Recent studies suggest a high likelihood of an Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) collapse, with some projections estimating a 42%–76% chance of collapse before 2050 or 50%–70% within this century. A 2026 study predicts a 42%-58% slowdown by 2100, which is likely to end in collapse. This is no longer seen as a low-likelihood event.

Its not going to happen in the next generations, thesee sorts of changes happen over at least hundreds of years. Moreso thousands of years

The earth has been here for billions of years and will continue to be, but perhaps with different living creatures. Or no living creatures.

If that's what you think then you clearly haven't read up on this. The whole point is that this is pretty likely to happen in our lifetimes, and even more likely in our children's lifetimes.

Theres no one consensus on anything, so no I dont accept or believe that.

OP,
you seem determined to worry about something you have no control
over, so go ahead and pick at that scab. Or perhaps do some thing proactive about it like research which land masses will be best placed for survival and find a way to get there now before the borders close.

Yes, I think the main problem is that governments will stick their heads in the sand and not prepare.

But I will be long dead by 2100 when it's due to happen and I doubt my son will be still alive either. So nothing for me to worry about and I think my carbon footprint is lower than most already so I probably could do something to help the situation but I think those who fly private jets are the first priority (as well as old men stopping blowing things up that will need to rebuilt at environmental cost).

In fact if there really are fuel shortages in a few weeks, private jets should be grounded first.

The articles I read said it would be 2100 so definitely not in my lifetime and my son would be in his 90s.

There's a 42%–76% chance of collapse before 2050.

You’re not unreasonable and all the people who are saying there’s nothing you can do are wrong.

we can vote for councillors and governments that take climate change seriously and actually have plans to do something about it. We can patronise companies and financial institutions that don’t support fossil fuel investment but do support renewables. We can consistently say we are worried about it and demand change by writing to MPs, on companies social media, protesting, signing petitions etc.

I for one am not prepared to just sit there and do nothing and if more people used their voices, votes and consumer power we might have a chance of this scenario not playing out. It’s precisely because people are passive we are in this mess. Consumers got CFCs banned and the ozone layer is repairing, if we unite behind things we collectively have a lot of power.

You know people have catastrophised about the end of the world since they hadd a concept for what the world is.

You quote lower percentages for the end of the century, how does that work together

Given the OP believes (and I dont believe this) that this catastrophic apocalypse is going to occur in just 24 years time, what do you think you can achieve?

An easier position to accept, if not bothering and caring wasn't the reason it is happening as it is anyway. The entire planet will be gone in billions of years, so we also shouldnt care about driving countless species to extinction or finishing the ones close off then surely?

And why care if entire populations of humans die off as climate wipes out viable places to live? Might as well continue what we are doing regardless. The list goes on for what is essentially the same as what you are saying.

YANBU, it's really frightening and I think about it a lot

But now that catastrophizing is backed up by Science.
The AMOC collapse and the resulting consequences are not a theory or a belief.
It is a demonstrable scientific fact that emissions are affecting the AMOC and that there is a time limit on slowing down or reversing the damage.

Just as everyone's finished planting their gardens with heat and drought resistant plants 😄. The irony.

Funny how only a couple of years ago it was all about how we were going to be experiencing extreme heatwaves and would be dying of over exposure, and in the blink of an eye we’re expecting an ice age?

Okayyyyy.

Me thinks some people spend far too much time on the internet, and banning social media should just become a worldwide concept, not just for under 16’s.

And really, if the world ends, so what? You’re going to die anyway, in the next 50/60 years you’ll be dead of old age assuming you don’t get hit by a bus, or an iceberg. ;)

Seriously get a grip, this level of hysteria is far to unhealthy and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

It’s a load of bollocks.

We should treat it in the same way we treat flat earthers and their ilk.

A full collapse before 2100 is high impact but medium likelihood scenario (from low) in latest projections. It’s not a certainty. The science isn’t exact and it’s not fully known at what point the tipping point would be reached.

But we definitely know if we continue to have continued reliance on fossil fuels and methane release we will reach it faster and increase the medium likelihood to high and that very rapid decarbonisation is the only way to be sure of not reaching the tipping point. (Some increases are unfortunately already locked in) so it’s a question of looking at something that may very well happen to something that will definitely happen.

therefore the time to act is now. I work for an environmental organisation- it’s not a case of ‘belief’ it’s a case of scientific modelling and scenarios. Never have we affected the planet so quickly at at such a scale as we have in the last 100 years. The AMOC collapse would have catastrophic effects but it’s not the only tipping point. We are destroying the very things we need to survive. Yes we are experiencing serious effects already (millions of people currently displaced due to drought and flooding and this is going to increase in my lifetime but I’m more worried about my child and those to come. How could I not do something if I know (not ‘believe’) this?

I used to worry about this but I teach teens - honestly they don’t give a crap. They love their Shein and Temu shit. I have always bought second hand. DH and I rarely replace anything but my DD would happily wear a t-shirt once and throw it in the bin if I allowed her. I used to think it was us “oldies” who ruin the Earth but I really don’t think our future generations care either. Influencer culture has a lot to answer for!

The irony.

I think like many things on here, teens and kids being earnest about the planet is literally another world (no pun intended), I only really hear about this on adverts or this forum

Back in the real world, and I work with children and their families (not teaching), they're smoking, vaping, wearing disposable crap, eating disposable crap, having kids willy nilly. Dare to suggest second hand or not replacing that phone to be met with bemusement or affront.

OP, you're focusing on on one paper out of many. Just because it is the most recently published paper on the issue does not mean that it reflects the current scientific consensus.

By way of analogy, think of opinion polls on elections. During a political campaign, there will be a plethora of polling companies trying to forecast the ultimate winner. They will each have their own methodology, be taken at different times, survey different people and produce different outcomes.

Each individual poll is a relevant data point, and recency is relevant, but its not as if the most recently published one can suddenly be said to definitively capture current public sentiment - even more so if it appears to be an outlier.

E.g., if 9 pollsters published polls implying Party A has between a 5% and 15% chance of winning an election, then pollster 10 published one showing a 50% chance...that might shift the average, but it isn't the new consensus.

And modeling elections is far less complex than global environmental systems.

This study is a concerning data point, and may be part of a wider, concerning trend - but you're (unintentionally) cherry-picking the most pessimistic data point, that appears something of an outlier, and interpreting it as definitive.

You’ve just made yourself look a bit dim with this comment, to be honest. It’s been all over mainstream media for the last week. It’s not about taking a digital detox, what a patronising comment.

Oh dear. Its not an internet conspiracy theory.

The science is in agreement that AMOC has destabilised somewhat; that it could collapse; and that the worst of the effects would come some decades after collapse.

Now, there are some fairly big disagreements about how much destabilisation has happened, and how close it might be to collapse.

It's something that policy-makers should be taking into account, making contingency plans for, and most importantly putting lots of monitoring in place to study what's happening.