Yepp, nothing to worry about here.
It feels like governments have just seen this as a foregone conclusion and are trying to position in an “every person for themselves” kind of deal. Sure, we’ve finally done something to cut emissions, but it’s the slowest possible move they can make.
I have thought about this for a while now. it just seems that some countries have gamed this out and decided… “sure, ‘we’ all might die, but you’re gonna die first - so screw you!”
the maxim of “he who dies richest, wins” seems to be the only ideal at play here.
Actually, probably not
deleted by creator
Wait, if we have an ice age during global warming… Won’t they kinda cancel each other out?
No, but this kind of reasoning is why it’s referred to as climate change now. We don’t just get higher temperatures, the defining feature is unpredictable weather.
So does that mean you can’t say because we don’t know the actual effects? They’re unpredictable?
…but isn’t the main theory about the AMOC shutting down that it may bring on an ice age?
the idea of northern europe ending up in a deep freeze while much of the rest of the world bakes is not new. these scenarios have been modeled for decades. I remember over 20 years ago, while naively considering “escape options”, learning about the AMOC, the great conveyer and other modeled outcomes.
long story short… there is no escape. we either fix the fundamental problems in our societies (and adapt to the damage we have already done) or it all collapses into a probable species ending spiral.
deleted by creator
