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

[platinumsage]

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 just said you're skeptical of the study's conclusions and methodologies, so I'm not really sure why you've gone back to referring to the timescale range contained therein as if it were established fact, or why you still think the implications are alarming.

Surely the implications of the paper are not alarming, they are "very little", because it hasn't really advanced our knowledge on the topic.

 

[Nylock]

Jesus christ

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm just bored of your demands for stuff you don't actually care about, you do it across loads of threads while not actually contributing anything meaningful yourself.

You wouldn't know meaningful debate it it strolled up and slapped you round the chops. Instead you post up stuff without research on the question at hand

 

[Signal 11]

a single widely panned paper

Show us your best three sources that have "panned" it.

 

[platinumsage]

Show us your best three sources that have "panned" it.

There aren't any "sources" yet that I've seen yet, publication takes time. When I said widely panned I meant by the likes of Professor Jochem Marotzke who is Director of the Department of the Ocean in the Earth System at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology who said "the statement so confidently made in this paper that collapse will occur in the 21st century has feet of clay" and Niklas Boers, Professor of Earth System Modelling at the Technical University of Munich who said “I do not agree with the outcome of this study [as] uncertainties in the heavily oversimplified model assumptions by the authors are too high", and Professor Penny Holliday who is Head of Marine Physics and Ocean Circulation at the National Oceanography Centre who has detailed a number of "questionable assertions and decisions in the methods".

All these responses are just a ten second Google search away for anyone who is actually interested the topic, and I'm not sure why anyone on this the science forum would have read the criticisms contained in the BBC article from the OP and not immediately found them.

 

[Signal 11]

Quotes above were taken very selectively from this source which does have some valid criticism as expected with a new approach like this. It's worth putting them back into context though:

Niklas Boers, Professor of Earth System Modelling at the Technical University of Munich who said “I do not agree with the outcome of this study [as] uncertainties in the heavily oversimplified model assumptions by the authors are too high"

"There is the paper by my PIK colleague Niklas Boers (2021), which used 8 different data series (Figure 6) and concluded there is “strong evidence that the AMOC is indeed approaching a critical, bifurcation-induced transition.” source as posted earlier

Professor Penny Holliday who is Head of Marine Physics and Ocean Circulation at the National Oceanography Centre who has detailed a number of "questionable assertions and decisions in the methods [...] The authors are appropriately careful not to overspeculate in the text, although the title of the paper and the text of the abstract is rather more dramatic and conveys a more certain outcome than the authors actually write in the results and discussion. They describe the potential for AMOC collapse within a few years as “worrisome” and the evidence as something that we should not ignore. It’s hard to disagree with that."

The big picture is that this is one more piece of evidence that the already too high risk stated by the IPCC was too optimistic. same source again:

It has long been my opinion that “very unlikely”, meaning less than 10% in the calibrated IPCC uncertainty jargon, is not at all reassuring for a risk we really should rule out with 99.9 % probability, given the devastating consequences should a collapse occur [...] Timing of the critical AMOC transition is still highly uncertain, but increasingly the evidence points to the risk being far greater than 10 % during this century

 

[platinumsage]

I stand by "widely panned" and made no criticism of wider AMOC research, simply that the notion it is "alarming that the AMOC may shut down as soon as 2025 although it may take until 2095" is based on flawed methods and reasoning.

 

[Elpenor]

Can’t really take any of PS posts on this thread seriously as they take any opportunity to discredit climate change research they can, ulterior motive no doubt

 

[platinumsage]

Can’t really take any of PS posts on this thread seriously as they take any opportunity to discredit climate change research they can, ulterior motive no doubt

Absolute bollocks, I'm fully behind climate change science and even sang the praises of some climate change research on this very thread, which you presumably you haven't even read.

 

[Karl Masks]

 

[Sasaferrato]

At the risk of sounding completely defeatist, it is my personal view that the possibility of mitigating adverse climate events is long gone. We should have started fifty years ago.

As I see it, we now need to work towards being able to live in a much hotter climate. Establishment of cooling centres etc, use the sun, use its power via solar electricity to power cooling centres, ditto home aircon. Use a system of a fixed charge for electricity for cooling.

Why there aren't huge solar farms creating fresh water in the Middle East is a mystery to me, they have square miles of non productive land and endless sunshine.

I was watching cricket from Dallas last night, it was 16:00 there, and the temp was 100f, dropping to a low of 80f at about 05:00 their time. How can people live in that?

 

[Signal 11]

At the risk of sounding completely defeatist, it is my personal view that the possibility of mitigating adverse climate events is long gone.

Was it gone when you posted this?

No. The climate change believers have been well and truly had, gullible twats that they are.

The first evidence of data manipulation came when, because it was realised that the earth is cooling, not warming, the nomenclature was changed from ' Global Warming ' ' To Climate change. '.

Then they were caught in the ' hockey stick ' lie, and had to reinstate the medieval warm period that was conveniently missed out.

The earth has a natural cycle, for fuck's sake, in Roman times they were growing grapes in North Yorkshire, you haven't been able to that for a while.

Thank Christ that Copenhagen failed. By the time that they assemble again, sanity will be restored. The exposure of the corruption in the Climate Change Panel is a good start, the next step is to find out how many others on the panel are pursuing their personal financial interests.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Was it gone when you posted this?

Yes. As is obvious, in the face of increasing evidence, I was wrong, very wrong.

Only an idiot doesn't change their view when presented with proof that they are wrong.

In the intervening fourteen years since I posted that, it has become very obvious that the climate is changing in terrifying ways.

 

[teuchter]

Yes. As is obvious, in the face of increasing evidence, I was wrong, very wrong.

Only an idiot doesn't change their view when presented with proof that they are wrong.

In the intervening fourteen years since I posted that, it has become very obvious that the climate is changing in terrifying ways.

I'm curious about when/how the evidence changed from your point of view, because in 2009 (and for some decades previous) it was already very clear.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I'm curious about when/how the evidence changed from your point of view, because in 2009 (and for some decades previous) it was already very clear.

The world burning down around us. Rain like we've never seen before. 'Once in a century' weather events happening several times a year...

In 2009, there was a measure of ambiguity. Now there very much isn't.

 

[Nylock]

Tbf the only ambiguity stemmed from professional bullshitters in the back pocket of the fossil fuel giants muddying the waters via every media outlet those shifty cunts could get their stinking carcasses on. Even back then. But at least you've come around now...