This scary, yet almost nothing on the news.<p>We're living in a fake world and pretending everything is fine.<p>Adam Curtis made a movie HyperNormalisation and we're living it also today.<p>Adam Curtis:<p>“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.
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.<p>Full film at <a href="https://youtu.be/Gr7T07WfIhM" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/Gr7T07WfIhM</a>
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.<p>You think they'd care for something as remote as the AMOC collapse?
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.<p>Worst case scenario seems to be that people will stop migrating to Europe.
There was this movie, 'dont look up'
Is this real? <a href="https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/research-frontiers/how-a-swiss-us-study-challenges-what-we-know-about-the-gulf-stream/88789245" rel="nofollow">https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/research-frontiers/how-a-swiss-...</a> Says it’s not.<p>Seems like this kind of disaster engagement bait that’s super popular now
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.<p>0: <a href="https://thatjoescott.com/2026/02/03/bye-bye-humanity-the-potential-amoc-collapse/#:~:text=Then%20there%E2%80%99s%20a%20paper%20published%20in%20Nature%20Communications%20in%20January%202025%20that%20found%20that%20the%20AMOC%20hasn%E2%80%99t%20declined%20in%20the%20last%2060%20years." rel="nofollow">https://thatjoescott.com/2026/02/03/bye-bye-humanity-the-pot...</a>
Here’s the science: <a href="https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/possible-north-atlantic-overturning-circulation-shutdown-after-2100-in-high-emission-future" rel="nofollow">https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/possible-nort...</a><p>„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.“
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.
>The AMOC will decline substantially, that’s virtually certain and the consequences will be extremely grave.<p>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.
"Another study in 2024 showed that a collapse of the AMOC before the year 2100 was unlikely."
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.
[dead]
I saw this movie! It was awesome.<p>When that wave washed over New York, awesome! The freezing helicopter, woot!<p>I also liked the South Park parody.
AMOC makes Europe hotter than expected, and US east coast colder.<p>Europe is already hotter than expected.<p>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.<p>AMOC could be a generally bad thing for biodiversity or crops, but it's not going to stop global warming.
That's some industrial level cope.<p>"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"<p>Not just second and third order effects, many can't even understand first level effects.
Where is the cope? I said things will suck. US gets hotter, Europe gets colder and there are cascading effects from those.<p>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.<p>Not to mention past AMOC data is missing one key parameter - Humanity. On account of us not being there. We know how to warm up the planet. It's cooling down that's hard.
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?