Thanks again for your helpful response! I use this account sparingly mostly to ask climate science questions and it's been so great how patient and open pretty much every scientist I've spoken with on here has been.

Collapse of critical Atlantic current more likely than thought Earlier this year we followed British scientists out into the Atlantic studying one of the planet's most critical life support systems.

That's good to know and somewhat comforting. I suppose I'll have to wait until the next IPCC report to get the definitive update. Again, it's just difficult to read these studies and review the news coverage. I did enjoy this BBC segment with your colleague: www.channel4.com/news/collaps...

But I suppose your answer would be largely the same. It does seem like the consensus is moving towards "collapse before 2100" and/or "if not in 2100, then almost certainly afterwards" but it's hard to assess as a layman based off media coverage.

Thanks, that makes sense. I accidentally added the wrong article (I meant to add that post-2100 article as a supplement to). Apologies for the confusion. I was really focused on this new modeling study that seems to have everyone talking: www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...

Scientists warn the Gulf Stream is shifting north, which means an ocean current collapse is imminent Scientists have detected a northward Gulf Stream shift that may signal a looming Atlantic climate tipping point.

Hope this is right but contra that quoted expert and the article (which is from last year), there is additional evidence that the current is weakening: www.earth.com/news/gulf-st...

Shutdown of northern Atlantic overturning after 2100 following deep mixing collapse in CMIP6 projections Shutdown of northern Atlantic overturning after 2100 following deep mixing collapse in CMIP6 projections, Drijfhout, Sybren, Angevaare, Joran R, Mecking, Jennifer, van Westen, René M, Rahmstorf, Stefan

I am curious if you have seen this study or if you have any thoughts: iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...

News coverage (The Guardian) has described the study as indicating that AMOC collapse is all-but inevitable after 2100.

Well this seems more and more like an inevitability at this point? Am I missing something?

I agree but passing a constitutional amendment seems very difficult.

Doesn't work now, sure, but I am convinced we need to at least plow some research money into it. I'm afraid we will soon discover that warming is accelerating and even politically untenable emissions reductions aren't enough to stabilize things... You're the expert obviously, I have mixed feelings.

I'm not biased and I agree

the serious version of carbon removal would be publicly owned and managed, and involve corporations in the way that (well implemented and enforced) corporate taxes involve corporations

We can't rock weather and biochar our way out of needing jet fuel, for example?

We will need some DAC though, won't we? And I am not sure if Microsoft is just pausing or suspending entirely?

Did you read the article? Three Dems did exactly what you describe here. They showed up unannounced and reported to the media. That's where we got the article.

How are we going to cope when this is just normal? or events much more extreme than this?

context?

I don't think Platner is a "real deal diehard Nazi."

No more Ivory Soap environmentalism.

I've updated my El Niño forecast plume with the latest April data (ECMWF, NMME, CFSv2, Canadian models). Its now looking like it might end up giving 2015/2016 a run for its money in terms of strength, with a peak of ~2.6C in the ENSO3.4 region by end of year: dashboard.theclimate...

This one is tongue and cheek I'm sure but yeah fair point haha

I assume he means that if you support Ukraine morally you have to support Gaza and Iran fighting against Israel/US?

Noah blocked me for this? Why? I'm anon on here so I'm not that offended but kind of funny in context.

Regardless of what happens with the climate in the next couple of years, "all of the above" with an eye towards accelerating as much as possible as the problem gets worse is probably the best we can do politically. "climate emergency" framing probably wont work even if accurate.

Like, "the left has had pretty much zero affect on actual immigration policy and almost none on public debate." I don't think this is true at all? Certainly not re the "public debate." It's fine if you disagree but even the essay provides counter-examples at least on the "public debate" question.

It's really just worth reading the essay in full: archive.is/202604022142...

The allergy on bsky to admit that the left maybe maybe maybe made any tactical errors during peak woke is strange. I'm not fully convinced either but the anger this has summoned is totally disproportionate.

But his core point in the essay is that he has always hated and disagreed with the political requirement to distinguish between illegal/legal immigration but he now realized that that distinction made reform conversations possible.

I am not an expert on this issue. The essay is very short. His book might respond to Denvir, I don't know. I am sure the argument in the book is more sophisticated than this page-long essay.

Dr.Foley I admire you but the headline is clearly a parody of the exact phenomenon you are describing here.

Yeah this is all good. I am not even saying that I agree with the original article, mostly just found it confusing why he faced so much vitriol.

oh yeah that's a great example.