56 pointsby rolph4 hours ago13 comments
  • shrubby2 hours ago
    This scary, yet almost nothing on the news.

    We're living in a fake world and pretending everything is fine.

    Adam Curtis made a movie HyperNormalisation and we're living it also today.

    Adam Curtis:

    “HyperNormalisation” is a word that was coined by a brilliant Russian historian who was writing about what it was like to live in the last years of the Soviet Union. What he said, which I thought was absolutely fascinating, was that in the 80s everyone from the top to the bottom of Soviet society knew that it wasn’t working, knew that it was corrupt, knew that the bosses were looting the system, know that the politicians had no alternative vision. And they knew that the bosses knew that they knew that. Everyone knew it was fake, but because no one had any alternative vision for a different kind of society, they just accepted this sense of total fakeness as normal. And this historian, Alexei Yurchak, coined the phrase “HyperNormalisation” to describe that feeling.

    • fallinditch2 hours ago
      Well worth watching, Adam Curtis takes you on a wild ride around recent history and strings together an amazing viewpoint - intentionally fucking with how you emotionally understand the present, by showing how power, myth, and simplification interact over time.

      Full film at https://youtu.be/to72IJzQT5k

    • coldtea2 hours ago
      The top politicians, academics, businessmen, can party with underage children and even torture them, or dicuss blatant undemocratic actions that impact billions, and it's business as usual.

      You think they'd care for something as remote as the AMOC collapse?

      • helloplanets2 hours ago
        Isn't this exactly the point the original post is making?
    • sph34 minutes ago
      Another take away from that documentary is not that politicians do not care, but that the world has become so increasingly complex, fast-moving and interconnected there is no simple or real solution to any of the problems people have. They just do not have the answers.

      Whenever a politician gets elected on the wish to fix housing, jobs, the pension system, the larger and larger divide between the ultra rich and the masses, either they are lying to you or are hopelessly naive they can achieve anything in their 4 years. At that point all they can do is just fill their pockets like everybody else is doing.

    • roenxi2 hours ago
      It isn't actually all that scary; humans cope pretty well over a wide variety of temperatures. If the change caught everyone by surprise it'd be a huge problem but it seems to be fairly well understood and there is lots of time to adjust.

      Worst case scenario seems to be that people will stop migrating to Europe.

      • SupremumLimit34 minutes ago
        The ignorance of this comment is breathtaking. How are the crops going to grow if the temperature drops by 15 degrees Celsius? What marine and terrestrial ecosystems can survive a sudden catastrophic change like that? What’s going to happen to the weather patterns after this planet-scale shift? How do you “adjust” to the collapse of your food supply and entire ecosystems?
      • PinkMilkshakean hour ago
        > humans cope pretty well over a wide variety of temperatures.

        That's not the problem, though. The problem is almost nothing else can. Livestock, staple crops, pollinating insects, etc.

        • roenxi34 minutes ago
          How big a problem is that over a multi-decade time horizon?

          There is a pretty big variation in average temperatures by country [0]. Somehow People everywhere from Thailand to Greenland manage to find food. All else failing it is a possibility to trade for calories. Let alone technology improvements that might save the day by accident.

          I mean, it might make places uninhabitable over the course of a few generations, but things that change so slowly are't actually much of a threat on an individual level. Worst of the worst cases people can move or not have children - the statistics suggest that is an acceptable option to a lot of people.

          [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_y...

          • SupremumLimit24 minutes ago
            Do you even understand how many people live in Europe and would be affected? Maybe you should look that up on Wikipedia as well. Your suggestions are completely absurd.

            Multi-decade time frame can only be thought of as catastrophic when it comes to change of this magnitude. Not to mention that ecosystems simply don't adapt on that timescale, it’s at least two orders of magnitude off.

        • greygoo22235 minutes ago
          Livestock, staple crops, and pollinating insects cope pretty well over a wide variety of temperatures. Some specific crops don't, but that's not a problem as long as changes are predicted.
      • an hour ago
        undefined
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
  • palmotea2 hours ago
    > Bye Bye Humanity: The Potential AMOC Collapse

    The title is egregiously exaggerated. It implies humanity will go extinct if this happens, when it obviously won't. The actual article doesn't even come anywhere close to making that claim.

    • 8bitsrulean hour ago
      Somehow humanity survived 10,000 years of the last ice age. Without central heating. Of course, furs will be harder to come by.
      • bawolffan hour ago
        Being cold doesn't seem that big a problem.

        I think the bigger concern is what sudden climate shifts might do to agriculture. If some farmland becomes much less viable on a wide basis, that might be much harder to adjust to on the short term.

        I can't help but think of all the historical societies that collapsed due to even mild pressure on the food supply.

        • lelanthran20 minutes ago
          > I can't help but think of all the historical societies that collapsed due to even mild pressure on the food supply.

          They didn't have the logistical advantages we have today (storage and transport).

          Okay, when prawns fished from the coast of Mozambique are no longer viable some other spot will, necessarily, become viable.

          Historical societies did not have the technology to simply farm in another place when their current place become hostile to farming. We already do this.

          The only danger we have is if the global area for farming decreases. I do not think this will happen - it will merely shift around.

      • unglaublichan hour ago
        They were already excellent at survival, and they migrated, and many of them died young. Sure, _humanity_ will survive, but a large part of the population won't.
        • palmotea8 minutes ago
          > They were already excellent at survival, and they migrated, and many of them died young. Sure, _humanity_ will survive, but a large part of the population won't.

          Hence the egregious exaggeration of the title. Even large fractions of the population dying != "Bye Bye Humanity."

      • simianparrotan hour ago
        Yeah but they didn’t have social media algorithms turning their brains into slush
        • gyrovagueGeistan hour ago
          They also didn't have nuclear weapons to use in global conflicts over resources.
  • bawolffan hour ago
    > Back in 2021, a study in Nature Geosciences showed that the AMOC was the weakest it’s been in more than 1,000 years.

    Out of curiosity, what happened 1000 years ago to make it so weak? 1000 years ago is still human time scales - there were people living in europe and north america at the time. We have written records from the europeans at least. Its not like this was 100,000 years ago.

  • aqme28an hour ago
    Yes, the title is exaggerated. But I think a lot of you are underestimating the societal impact of roughly half a billion climate refugees. That kind of destabilization could easily lead to societal collapse, world war, etc...

    The Syrian refugee crisis meant something like a million people fleeing into Europe and it caused massive political upheavals.

    • overfeedan hour ago
      > But I think a lot of you are underestimating the societal impact of roughly half a billion climate refugees.

      If North America and Europe enters an ice age, I think the preferred term is "climate-expatriates"

  • andreapaiolaan hour ago
    There is no clear or remotely clear timeline. There is no clear or remotely clear solution. So, there is no actionable.

    We don't know enough.

  • adlotsof2 hours ago
    There was this movie, 'dont look up'
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
  • renewiltord2 hours ago
    Is this real? https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/research-frontiers/how-a-swiss-... Says it’s not.

    Seems like this kind of disaster engagement bait that’s super popular now

    • roxolotl2 hours ago
      I bet this is the research cited here in the parent article[0]. While the title is totally bait the contents is far from engagement bait. It’s a very level headed piece about what might happen and the research around the AMOC.

      0: https://thatjoescott.com/2026/02/03/bye-bye-humanity-the-pot...

    • f_allwein2 hours ago
      Here’s the science: https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/possible-nort...

      „Under high-emission scenarios, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a key system of ocean currents that also includes the Gulf Stream, could shut down after the year 2100.“

      • renewiltord2 hours ago
        75 years to work on a solution to a possible problem? I rate humanity’s chances. But Europe is responsible for a third of cumulative emissions. Once they undo that bit it should be okay. Negative emissions for 75 years will be hard but they can perhaps undo the damage they’ve done to the Earth.
        • f_allwein7 minutes ago
          It is a global challenge. Climate change is caused by rich people in developed countries (the average Indian person causes very low co2 emissions). There are some good initiatives to mitigate climate change, but so far, it is too little, too late. The US taking a back seat does not help either.
        • SupremumLimit30 minutes ago
          How’s it going so far? Greenhouse gas emissions only keep rising. There’s no basis to rate humanity’s chances positively based on actual evidence to date, even despite all the positive developments in renewable energy generation and storage.
        • an hour ago
          undefined
    • gambutinan hour ago
      The last paragraph says this:

      The will-it-won’t-it collapse of the AMOC is something to keep an eye on. But there are other pressing climate change issues to address in the near term, such as food security, ecosystem degradation, and rising disease rates.

    • layman512 hours ago
      But doesn’t that article say that it hasn’t weakened from “between 1963 and 2017” with the important caveat being that after 2017, maybe there’s been more acceleration? Some other commenter on this thread also posted a similar statement about how its collapse is unlikely before 2100, but that’s not very far away which should be very concerning.
    • idiotsecant2 hours ago
      >The AMOC will decline substantially, that’s virtually certain and the consequences will be extremely grave.

      All serious experts (including the nature study you linked a popsci article about) agree this is a problem that will have a devastating impact on humanity in the future. We're just quibbling about how devastating and how soon.

      • skybrian2 hours ago
        It's important, but if it happens, the main effects are expected to be after 2100. That seems pretty relevant for any plans you might make.
  • SadErn2 hours ago
    [dead]
  • d_silin2 hours ago
    "Another study in 2024 showed that a collapse of the AMOC before the year 2100 was unlikely."
    • idiotsecant2 hours ago
      If you read the article and that's the overall conclusion you came away with I'm not sure we read the same article. They're just pointing out that timing is uncertain, but the majority of diverse models show AMOC failure within a few generations and nearly all of them do if we extrapolate continued CO2 release growth.
      • d_silin2 hours ago
        I hate endless catastrophism in the headlines.

        Article contents doesn't reflect the alarmist statement in the header.

        • coldtea2 hours ago
          "The house will burn down"

          "Don't be alarmist, it's just the curtains that are on fire. Besides, there's a good chance it might rain".

          • d_silin2 hours ago
            Literally in the article:

            “Our paper says that the Atlantic overturning has not declined yet. That doesn’t say anything about its future, but it doesn’t appear the anticipated changes have occurred yet.”

            The study is a stark contrast to a 2018 study that said the AMOC had declined over the last 70 years."

            ...

            “Our results imply that, rather than a substantial decline, the AMOC is more likely to experience a limited decline over the 21st century—still some weakening, but less drastic than previous projections suggest.”

            Am I the only person here who actually read it?

  • HardCodedBias2 hours ago
    I saw this movie! It was awesome.

    When that wave washed over New York, awesome! The freezing helicopter, woot!

    I also liked the South Park parody.

  • SanjayMehta2 hours ago
    Did Al Gore write this? Did the author also create a series of NGOs to monetise this new disaster? What's the equivalent of carbon credits for AMOC?
    • globalnode44 minutes ago
      im sure the responsibility for fixing everything will fall on all of us. maybe if we get another bin with a new coloured lid we can get busy sorting all our plastics into soft, hard, transparent, semi-opaque, labelled, bought before tuesday, stored in the fridge, etc... some busywork for the masses ought to fix things up. heavy fines and moral outrage if you dont comply! carbon credits will ofc play a big role in industries' response, and gatekeepers of public policy will make a lot of money.
  • Ygg22 hours ago
    AMOC makes Europe hotter than expected, and US east coast colder.

    Europe is already hotter than expected.

    AMOC collapse in a heating world wouldn't mean much. It seems to me that whatever cooling from it will be offset by global warming.

    AMOC could be a generally bad thing for biodiversity or crops, but it's not going to stop global warming.

    • coldtea2 hours ago
      That's some industrial level cope.

      "Climate disaster affecting a mechanism Europe depended for millenia to keep warm? No biggie, we are already have another climate disaster making Europe hotter, they'll just cancel each other out"

      Not just second and third order effects, many can't even understand first level effects.

      • Ygg22 hours ago
        Where is the cope? I said things will suck. US gets hotter, Europe gets colder and there are cascading effects from those. Changed weather patterns and biodiversity loss as temperatures rapidly shift.

        That said, a new ice age it will not be. If your local temperatures get closer to polar, and polar gets closer to tropic, I don't see the logic of it will cause an ice age. You can't have AMOC positive feedback loop from albedo if enough ice doesn't form.

        And you didn't provide any mechanisms outside of ad hominems.

        Not to mention past AMOC data is missing one key parameter - Humanity. On account of us not being there. What happens when humans are cold? They warm themselves usually with CO2 emitting heat sources. Last time AMOC was around only CO2 source was the volcano. They don't care about heat.

        We know how to warm up the planet. It's cooling down without massive casualties that's hard.

  • zkmon40 minutes ago
    As long as things gradual enough, similar to Roman empire collapse, you wouldn't even recognize the collapse. So it hardly matters.

    Any change is seen as good or bad, only by the people who saw both ends of it and categorize the change as such. If a change happens through multiple generations, each generations sees only a part of the change. Specially the younger population can only see the change through the past decade or two. That explains why the youth are always merrier than the older folks who have a bigger burden of mempries.