Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Well, this isn't good: The north Atlantic current may shut down as soon as 2025...

Nylock said:
The north Atlantic current may shut down as soon as 2025...

...although it may take until 2095. Either way, this is really alarming. What mitigation steps could be taken to alleviate the worst of it? Due to the length of time it takes to reverse these changes, we're going to be potentially stuck with this for centuries to come... :(
Click to expand...

No, it's not alarming - my reading of that article is that it doesn't sound like it will shut down either in 2025 or by 2095 and that there are other aspects of climate change we should actually be focusing on that are backed up by science that is rigorous.
 
Last edited:
It's more a "both ... and" than an "either ... or" though isn't it? We need to address climate change or there are all sorts of catastrophic effects. It's not as if we are diverting resources to specific measures that will prevent the Gulf Stream from shutting down.
 
two sheds said:
It's more a "both ... and" than an "either ... or" though isn't it? We need to address climate change or there are all sorts of catastrophic effects. It's not as if we are diverting resources to specific measures that will prevent the Gulf Stream from shutting down.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that bad science (or bad headlines from useless science) is helpful to the overall cause. I know politicians like Lord Frost don't need a reason to advocate skimping on necessary climate measures, but things like this don't help. It aids the narrative that some stories are doom-mongering with insufficient evidence.
 
platinumsage said:
No, it's not alarming - my reading of that article is that it doesn't sound like it will shut down either in 2025 or by 2095 and that there are other aspects of climate change we should actually be focusing on that are backed up by science that is rigorous.
Click to expand...
The date picked up on by the media is alarmist and, like so many of these media-driven 'deadline' dates, ultimately feeds the sceptics with their 'gotcha' moments when in 2025 low and behold the Gulf stream still flows.

But the established scientific evidence of recent weakening of the current is alarming and worryingly fits some of the widely held theorising about the impact of increased ice melt product on the thermohaline circulation.
 
Not sure the alarmist headlines will make much difference tbh. Most people will register that it could happen as early as next year or by the end of the century, climate 'sceptics' will point to things like ice in the arctic and say "see there's ice there what do you mean there's global heating? :mad: "
 
brogdale said:
The date picked up on by the media is alarmist and, like so many of these media-driven 'deadline' dates, ultimately feeds the sceptics with their 'gotcha' moments when in 2025 low and behold the Gulf stream still flows.

But the established scientific evidence of recent weakening of the current is alarming and worryingly fits some of the widely held theorising about the impact of increased ice melt product on the thermohaline circulation.
Click to expand...

There has been weakening since direct measurements began in 2004, but there has also been more recent strengthening. This paper attempts to extrapolate back before 2004 simply by using SSTs but this is problematic. There's lots of superior research directly working on the AMOC at the moment which should prove far more valuable.

The 6th IPCC report stated an abrupt collapse is not likely before 2100, and that's still the consensus among scientists.
 
Nylock said:
The north Atlantic current may shut down as soon as 2025...

...although it may take until 2095. Either way, this is really alarming. What mitigation steps could be taken to alleviate the worst of it? Due to the length of time it takes to reverse these changes, we're going to be potentially stuck with this for centuries to come... :(
Click to expand...
On the plus side it says it'd make Europe colder so that'd be something to look forward to. :cool:
 
platinumsage said:
There has been weakening since direct measurements began in 2004, but there has also been more recent strengthening. This paper attempts to extrapolate back before 2004 simply by using SSTs but this is problematic. There's lots of superior research directly working on the AMOC at the moment which should prove far more valuable.

The 6th IPCC report stated an abrupt collapse is not likely before 2100, and that's still the consensus among scientists.
Click to expand...
maybe you could name or link to some of this superior research. maybe.
 
platinumsage said:
If you have read their concepts and objectives page and can't see why it's superior to the paper that's the subject of the thread then then there would be no point me doing that.
Click to expand...
given you don't even link to the concepts and objectives page, given your reticence in explaining your claim, i don't think you can do that.
 
We know how this goes. I post up some reasoning or evidence or whatever it was you asked for, and you then pick something irrelevant to pedant on so as to avoid agreeing with me. Not going to bother. yawn.gif
 
Last edited:
I am pretty sure that these type of headlines are there, almost as clickbait, to get the article in question at least looked at {if not actually read} but also to try and prompt actions from people, both individually and collectively.
Trouble is, imo, that the scale of the problem - global warming / climate change - that most individuals feel that whatever they are able to do is less than a fleas bite on a giant elephant. The other aspect is the timescale - making effective changes has results in the longer term, not the quick fix most politicians looking for re-election want to "willy-wave" about.
Whilst I feel that "every little helps" it has to be changes on the government's part & the scale is international.
When you realise that China is still building coal-fired power stations at a rate of dozens a year, closing the likes of Fros-Y-Fran seems to be almost unimportant in comparison. {which means that the heritage rail sector is importing substitute coal from halfway around the world}.
 
Pickman's model said:
you haven't posted any of your actual reasoning or evidence for your claim. so there's nothing to pedant about.
Click to expand...

No, this time I posted a link to some of the ongoing research that I had stated was superior, which is what you asked for, but quell surprise that's not what you actually wanted was it? :rolleyes:
 
platinumsage said:
No, it's not alarming - my reading of that article is that it doesn't sound like it will shut down either in 2025 or by 2095 and that there are other aspects of climate change we should actually be focusing on that are backed up by science that is rigorous.
Click to expand...
The article itself is skeptical of the study's conclusions and methodologies (as am I). However, AMOC instabilities have led to periods of famine, exceptionally harsh winters and extreme political instability across Europe in the past. Whether the negative effects of a slowdown/collapse become apparent sooner or later, the fact is that this is a significant ongoing background concern. Due to the amount of fresh water flowing into the north atlantic from the melting Greenland ice shelf increasing year on year, it's a matter of when, not if this slowdon/shutdown happens. That inevitability is backed up by both 'junk' and 'superior' research.

As to the actual point of my OP: "What mitigation steps could be taken to alleviate the worst of it?"

...Or is the enormity of the problem such that there is no way to mitigate against the worst of it?
 
Nylock said:
The article itself is skeptical of the study's conclusions and methodologies (as am I). However, AMOC instabilities have led to periods of famine, exceptionally harsh winters and extreme political instability across Europe in the past. Whether the negative effects of a slowdown/collapse become apparent sooner or later, the fact is that this is a significant ongoing background concern. Due to the amount of fresh water flowing into the north atlantic from the melting Greenland ice shelf increasing year on year, it's a matter of when, not if this slowdon/shutdown happens. That inevitability is backed up by both 'junk' and 'superior' research.

As to the actual point of my OP: "What mitigation steps could be taken to alleviate the worst of it?"

...Or is the enormity of the problem such that there is no way to mitigate against the worst of it?
Click to expand...
I suspect the latter. We can't predict with any certainty just how things will pan out, here in the UK or many other places. Hotter? Colder? Different temperature changes at different times of year? Wetter? Drier? Windier? And, if so, when? Or might it get hotter for some decades and then cooler? Etc. Sea level rise is the only real certainty.

The only mitigation, possibly, is to reverse CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
 
Nylock said:
The article itself is skeptical of the study's conclusions and methodologies (as am I). However, AMOC instabilities have led to periods of famine, exceptionally harsh winters and extreme political instability across Europe in the past. Whether the negative effects of a slowdown/collapse become apparent sooner or later, the fact is that this is a significant ongoing background concern. Due to the amount of fresh water flowing into the north atlantic from the melting Greenland ice shelf increasing year on year, it's a matter of when, not if this slowdon/shutdown happens. That inevitability is backed up by both 'junk' and 'superior' research.

As to the actual point of my OP: "What mitigation steps could be taken to alleviate the worst of it?"

...Or is the enormity of the problem such that there is no way to mitigate against the worst of it?
Click to expand...

The point in your OP I was addressing is where you said "The north Atlantic current may shut down as soon as 2025...although it may take until 2095. Either way, this is really alarming."

I contend that this is misleading because far from happening between 2025 and 2095 from worst to best case scenarios as you imply, it's actually more likely than not to happen after 2095, and that due to this fact it's not really alarming, and that the reasons for your misleading claim stem from poor research that is badly summarised by the authors and consequent news headlines.
 
platinumsage said:
No, this time I posted a link to some of the ongoing research that I had stated was superior, which is what you asked for, but quell surprise that's not what you actually wanted was it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
you've dropped an e - quelle. what i wanted was for you to support your claim but clearly that's beyond you
 
Pickman's model said:
you've dropped an e - quelle. what i wanted was for you to support your claim but clearly that's beyond you
Click to expand...

If you were even remotely interested in the topic you would have read the link you asked for, and the answer would be obvious. But I suspect that you actually couldn't care less and are just trolling as usual.

And no I'm not going to detail why the EPOC fieldwork and modelling is superior to a single widely panned paper, you can go figure, as they say.
 
platinumsage said:
If you were even remotely interested in the topic you would have read the link you asked for, and the answer would be obvious. But I suspect that you actually couldn't care less and are just trolling as usual.

And no I'm not going to detail why the EPOC fieldwork and modelling is superior to a single widely panned paper, you can go figure, as they say.
Click to expand...
yeh you've made it clear you can't
 
platinumsage said:
The point in your OP I was addressing is where you said "The north Atlantic current may shut down as soon as 2025...although it may take until 2095. Either way, this is really alarming."

I contend that this is misleading because far from happening between 2025 and 2095 from worst to best case scenarios as you imply, it's actually more likely than not to happen after 2095, and that due to this fact it's not really alarming, and that the reasons for your misleading claim stem from poor research that is badly summarised by the authors and consequent news headlines.
Click to expand...
At the risk of sounding like a pedant here: Not my claim and I implied nothing. My post heading was a summary of the earliest estimate (according to the paper cited in the article) and the opening sentence was the latter end of the estimate cited.

Not sure why I'm drawing your ire here as I am neither the author of the article or one of the co-authors of the paper cited within it. I merely drew attention to an article that caught my eye at 3:30 in the morning, the implications of which are alarming (whether they occur in two years or 75 years). Obviously at the furthest end of the timescale, you and me will be long dead so it won't be our problem as such but it will be someone's problem and giant scale fuckups like this require some form of planning and preparation surely?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

2hats
T Coronae Borealis nova (the 'Blaze Star'), likely erupting soon
Replies
3
Views
237
2hats
2hats
AnnaKarpik
Seaweed farms - good or bad?
Replies
22
Views
724
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
Aladdin
Anyone got any ideas about this?
Replies
4
Views
345
Ax^
Ax^
editor
Do not read this thread if you like strawberries. Seriously.
Replies
24
Views
887
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
farmerbarleymow
Asteroid launcher
Replies
16
Views
579
danny la rouge
danny la rouge
Back
Top Bottom