AMOC/Atlantic Ocean circulation is nearing devastating tipping point - New Study

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121808485#Comment_121808485

How about scientists being fired from their jobs at universities, or being pressured to resign, over their science based scepticism? How about the latest recipient of the Nobel prize for physics being cancelled by the IMF for saying climate science is junk science?

A couple of pages backed I posted this, without the axis labels. It is a rough record of global average temperature spanning the last 5 glacial/intergalcial cycles:

The green bits are mine. On the right, we have the current climate 'crisis'. Luck and chance have nothing to do with it, from my interpretation of that graph. The climate has not been stable these past 12,000 years, that is a monumental lie perpetrated by the climate cabal conspiring to get climate journal editors fired for being too objective.

That is as classic a case of a saw tooth pattern as you could wish for. How obvious is it to suggest that the Earth's climate is currently subject to quite regular glacial/interglacial periods?

Those near vertical increases in temperature are in absolute sync with corresponding rises in CO2, which had nothing whatsoever to do with mankind or Neanderthal kind. But this time it's different, trust me, I fiddled adjusted the surface temperature record enough, I should know.

wildefalcon

I'm not clever enough to understand the science. But I do understand that fossil "fuels" are too important to be wasted on making energy.

So, irrespective of the climate stuff, we should stop burning oil and coal.

Billcarson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121809239#Comment_121809239

What do you make of that graph?? BS???

I can't understand how the hell you don't think human emissions aren't increasing CO2 levels. I'm not even talking about that graph ( think of it what you will) . You think CO2 rises are all natural and nothing at all to do with all the extra billions of tonnes we have put into the atmosphere over the last 100 yrs in particular. Of course trees ,plants and the oceans soak up alot. But its one hell of a coincidence that since 1850 when CO2 ppm was a 280 ( unless you think that's BS too) and it's currently around 420 ppm that , it has nothing to do with human emissions.

InAtFullBack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121810019#Comment_121810019

How much deforestation and desertification (hand in hand in alot of cases) has happened since 1850? That is the other side of the story totally ignored. Pointing at all that C02 rise as all down to burning fossil fuels is rather disingenuous really.

Humans have changed the composition, terraformed if you like, the surface of this planet massively since the 1800s. This change has totally altered the balance of energy absorbed versus repelled in the lower atmosphere and directly affects temperatures and over time local microclimates.

I alluded to earlier if one was to clear forested area and replace it with tarmacadam there would be a seismic shift in the temperatures recorded in that area. Clearing forest for agriculture, urbanisation, etc... is going to really affect the microclimate in that area. Upscale it to county-wide, country-wide and even continental-wide scales all across the world and the changes are going to be profound.

While humans, whether directly through burning fossil fuels, or indirectly through clearing forest have influenced C02 levels to rise as your chart shows - moving the dial from 0.03% to 0.04% is not the alarming headline some think it is. I'd be alot more concerned about the real greenhouse gas that is there in abundance: Water Vapour.

We know now that the huge Hunga Tonga volcano drove unprecedented levels of water content right up into the atmosphere and the stratosphere. The impacts of which on a climate timeline were immediate. Increased humidity and heat, especially in the temperate and Mediterranean-style climates.

This water vapour surge coinciding with an El Nino has put some parts of the globe into getting quite unusual weather, namely higher precipitation and higher temperatures. Thankfully, these effects should abate by 2026 or thereabouts.

As for burning fossil fuels - well even to this day, it's still the best option as renewables are still infantile. They do not deliver the same standards that fossil fuels do. Considering that fossil fuels are a rather 'lossy' source of energy as they stand - how much waste is left over after the energy required is extracted (think chimney, car exhaust, etc...), renewables still cannot compete.

We need much more investment in researching non-polluting sources of energy that can power everything we need - electricity, transport, aviation, etc... Nuclear was one of those options until the Big Oil industry convinced a cabal of hippies to campaign against nuclear and form 'Green Parties' across the western world - something they still hold dear to this day. Useful idiots they were/are.

Imagine how far Nuclear could have evolved since the latter part of the last century if it were not shunned? Even to this day, Nuclear is the only source of C02 free energy that can operate at night or when it's calm and even in both scenarios. If you doubt this, look at how France is one of the lowest C02 emitters in the western world thanks to it's large nuclear fleet of stations.

Pa ElGrande

Every time you see headlines about impending  Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (AMOC) collapse, check who is looking for funding, often this scare originates from people connected with the Potsdam institute for Klimate alarm. These papers are about burning research grant money, nothing else. In this case it turns out the people running the computer models involve Greenland ice melting producing 7 times the amount of ice/water in Greenland. Oh, and 17 centuries from now for the impending AMOC collapse. These people need to step away from the computer.

Meanwhile if you are interested, as this is the weather forum see One hundred years in the Norwegian Sea (tandfonline.com), all these are associated with changes in the Atlantic currents.

• The great chill, 1900-1920
• The warming in the North, 1920-1960
• The great salinity anomaly, 1968-1982
• The warming of the abyss, 1970-present
• The freshening of the sub-arctic seas