Gulf Stream

[auburnatl1 4,914]

Whether you believe humans are driving global warming is another debate. Regardless, the Gulf Stream eventually collapsing has been predicted for several decades (regardless of cause). If you look what latitudes Europe is at - much of it is across from … Labrador.  It’s unnaturally warm due to the Gulf Stream drawing up Caribbean  water. Otherwise - Alaska temps. Will be interesting /scary to see how this trends and plays out.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/09/climate/atlantic-circulation-collapse-weather-climate/index.html

[jj3jordan 2,053]

On 2/9/2024 at 5:47 PM, auburnatl1 said:

Whether you believe humans are driving global warming is another debate. Regardless, the Gulf Stream eventually collapsing has been predicted for several decades (regardless of cause). If you look what latitudes Europe is at - much of it is across from … Labrador.  It’s unnaturally warm due to the Gulf Stream drawing up Caribbean  water. Otherwise - Alaska temps. Will be interesting /scary to see how this trends and plays out.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/09/climate/atlantic-circulation-collapse-weather-climate/index.html

You have to stick it out to the next to last paragraph to see the bottom line.

 

Modern data shows the AMOC’s strength fluctuates, but there is no observed evidence yet of a decline, Hirschi said. “Whether abrupt changes in the AMOC similar to those seen in the past will occur as our climate continues to warm is an important open question.”

 

I guess they had to admit it for CYA purposes.

[auburnatl1 4,914]

31 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

You have to stick it out to the next to last paragraph to see the bottom line.

 

Modern data shows the AMOC’s strength fluctuates, but there is no observed evidence yet of a decline, Hirschi said. “Whether abrupt changes in the AMOC similar to those seen in the past will occur as our climate continues to warm is an important open question.”

 

I guess they had to admit it for CYA purposes.

I did an Alaska cruise several years ago and did one 25 years earlier - was shocked how far back the glaciers had retreated. Again - whether it’s natural fluctuations or co2 is another debate. But in either case our (great?) grand children may define “normal” differently than we did.

[homersapien 11,373]

Similar - or analogous - changes are happening to the polar vortex:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-arctic-polar-vortex

 

One could argue it's all a "natural" part of the Anthropocene. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene  (Just for you DKW )

 

Edited February 11 by homersapien

[Son of A Tiger 561]

Some things like the size and depth of glaciers have been changing back and forth for thousands of years. Kind of like a sine wave.

[homersapien 11,373]

18 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Some things like the size and depth of glaciers have been changing back and forth for thousands of years. Kind of like a sine wave.

Irrelevant. 

The current warming is a result of the industrial revolution.  It's not a part of epochal climate cycles. It's the same mechanism that drove these historical cycles, but highly accelerated due to our unleashing the carbon stored during the carboniferous period.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

Edited March 9 by homersapien

[Son of A Tiger 561]

There are scientists who disagree but I'm not going down that path since it has no end.

[Leftfield 2,598]

39 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

There are scientists who disagree but I'm not going down that path since it has no end.

There are some who disagree that the Earth is round.

The vast majority of scientists, particularly those in climate related fields, do agree, but by all means continue to be a "flat climater."

[auburnatl1 4,914]

1 hour ago, Son of A Tiger said:

There are scientists who disagree but I'm not going down that path since it has no end.

I agree that everyone can pick the scientist that supports their pov.  2 thoughts: 1)  the overwhelming majority of scientists (including nasa) believe it’s man made - carbon dioxide is the highest ever recorded 2) yes climate heavily sinusoids over the millenniums - but that’s in 10s of thousands  of years. Not decades. 

Im not an over the top green guy - but when you've got over a billion cars today plus industry emissions - combined with with a breakable atmosphere only 4 miles up, it ain’t a stretch to see there might be… consequences.

Nonetheless, people will believe what they chose to. 

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

38 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

2 thoughts:

Some different thoughts:  If the pundits had made a prediction that actually came true since the 60’s, people might believe *the science*.

If all the rich people would sell all their beach front property and stop flying private jets, people might start listening.  John Kerry would be more believable if he didn’t spout off about Russia being more liked if they would be more green (hint: Russia and China could care less about being more green).  The UN’s prediction of 2030 being the point of no return has already been extended to 2050.  Is trying to destroy the fossil fuel industry a smart move when we aren’t ready to do without fossil fuels?

Are farmers really contributing that much to the decay of the atmosphere that European government are destroying their businesses?  Ireland wants the cattle ranchers to eliminate a percentage of their livestock just because…..the fear of the unknown.

*The science* wants to spend $trillions so we can get to carbon neutral and can’t tell you how much if any the temps will be affected after spending such money.

Does this sound practical to you? Does it sound like *the science* knows what they are talking about and can fix the problem, or is it more of a big experiment?

Remember; *the science* can turn a boy into a girl just by plastic surgery and expects you to believe it.

[auburnatl1 4,914]

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Some different thoughts:  If the pundits had made a prediction that actually came true since the 60’s, people might believe *the science*.

If all the rich people would sell all their beach front property and stop flying private jets, people might start listening.  John Kerry would be more believable if he didn’t spout off about Russia being more liked if they would be more green (hint: Russia and China could care less about being more green).  The UN’s prediction of 2030 being the point of no return has already been extended to 2050.  Is trying to destroy the fossil fuel industry a smart move when we aren’t ready to do without fossil fuels?

Are farmers really contributing that much to the decay of the atmosphere that European government are destroying their businesses?  Ireland wants the cattle ranchers to eliminate a percentage of their livestock just because…..the fear of the unknown.

*The science* wants to spend $trillions so we can get to carbon neutral and can’t tell you how much if any the temps will be affected after spending such money.

Does this sound practical to you? Does it sound like *the science* knows what they are talking about and can fix the problem, or is it more of a big experiment?

Remember; *the science* can turn a boy into a girl just by plastic surgery and expects you to believe it.

I wasn’t offering a solution. Just the problem. Btw your smart phone, computer, the software architecture that enables all the conspiracy theory sites, and the communications network that connects it all together. Bad news - designed by thousands of phd “scientists”.  Yep - they’re out to get us too I guess.

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

I wasn’t offering a solution. Just the problem. Btw your smart phone, computer, the software architecture that enables all the conspiracy theory sites, and the communications network that connects it all together. Bad news - designed by thousands of phd “scientists”.  Yep - they’re out to get us too I guess.

We live in a practical world, the people you have put your faith in live in this world too.  If we have such a problem with climate change, why are the rulers not changing their habits?  Why do they not lead by example?

As to the phd *scientists*; do you believe what Gemini AI came up with when they started showing their thoughts on our founding fathers and the Pope?  

Oh, by the way, the 10th Covid booster will be available soon, make an appointment.

I’m do not have disdain for all of *the science*, just the ones that lie to me and it is obvious that they do.

[auburnatl1 4,914]

Got it. Btw my firm designs software platforms leveraging  AI (Gemini and OpenAI).  Over he next 5 years you’ll have much more than just scientists to worry about. 

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

11 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Got it. Btw my firm designs software platforms leveraging  AI (Gemini and OpenAI).  Over he next 5 years you’ll have much more than just scientists to worry about. 

Looking forward to it. 

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

Can anybody explain why; if climate change is an existential threat to the world (according to this administration), why we are involved in two wars that daily spew CO2 and other harmful particulents in the air that undoubtedly contributes negatively to the climate crisis?

The message is not what reality is as demonstrated by this administration.

 

[Leftfield 2,598]

17 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Some different thoughts:  If the pundits had made a prediction that actually came true since the 60’s, people might believe *the science*.

So we're back to this? Didn't we go through this discussion a few years ago? I asked someone, can't remember who (edit: it was keywest), to post some of the supposedly garbage claims climate scientists had made over the years that never came true. I remember they posted a list late one evening, and then when I hadn't responded by the next morning you and JJ were gloating about it, never thinking I would actually take the time to go through the list and show how it was all complete BS. Unsurprisingly, you two shut right up after that and never rebutted. Do you have new examples to show outside of that list?

 

17 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 *the science*

You've graduated from parentheses to stars. Congratulations! Maybe you can add some smiley faces and rainbows around it next.

Still looking forward to your book review.

 

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

 

Lol.....you used this one back then, too. (edit: it was johnnyau, not you)

 

Edited March 10 by Leftfield

[auburnatl1 4,914]

We just have to accept the earth is flat, the center of the solar system. and 4000 years old.  We like science when it suits us but when it doesn’t -  go old school and burn em at the stake.

How people can house so many contradictions in their head and still function and drive a car is a psychological  wonder.

Edited March 10 by auburnatl1

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

@Leftfield, a lot of hit and misses here.  “Wasn’t it you, no it was someone else”.  

The point being, the climate does change and it has since the beginning of time.  Science is good at looking back and explaining what happened, but they are horrendous at predicting the future.  This administration is doubling down on predictions that are just predictions from knowledgeable people, but the bottom line is man has yet to change nature in a meaningful way with respect to climate and weather.  And we are to believe this time under this adminstration we have got all the answers?

Call me skeptical if you will, but *the science* is susceptible to dollars.  I learned that during the COVID fiasco and our lord Dr. Fauci, who under the guise of gain of function (probably) created COVID and tried to cover up his deeds.  A brief review: it originated in the Wet Market of Wuhan and later; the story that it leaked from a lab is preposterous.  Now it looks like it did leak from a lab, the same lab Dr Fauci oversaw the gain of function research.  During all this mess he changed the definition of gain of function.  Why would Fauci (I am *the science*) do that?

I am a lot more skeptical than you, obviously, but the good part is we both get to have our own opinions.  I will remain skeptical of anything this administration tries to promote whether it be climate change, open borders or the sexual mutilation of our youth.

Edited March 10 by I_M4_AU

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

Just now, auburnatl1 said:

We just have to accept the earth is flat, the center of the solar system. and 4000 years old.  We like science when it suits us but when it doesn’t -  go old school and burn em at the stake.

How people can house so many contradictions in their head and still function and drive a car is a psychological  wonder.

Well, I’m glad I know the earth isn’t flat and the earth isn’t the center of the solar system.  I will take the word of scientists on how old it is, because I have no idea.

I guess it depends on if the car is powered by an internal combustion engine or an EV.

Why are people triggered by a person that doesn’t believe climate change is an existential threat?  

[Leftfield 2,598]

20 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

@Leftfield, a lot of hit and misses here.  “Wasn’t it you, no it was someone else”.  

So one is a lot? No wonder you're a denier.

 

22 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The point being, the climate does change and it has since the beginning of time.

Proving you have not learned one thing about the climate since this all began. For the I-don't-know-how-manynth time, of course the climate changes. That's not the problem. The problem is how quickly it's changing. Why can't you grasp this?

24 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Science is good at looking back and explaining what happened, but they are horrendous at predicting the future.

I'm assuming you have examples of climate scientists being drastically wrong, as I asked for in my previous post?

 

25 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 This administration is doubling down on predictions that are just predictions from knowledgeable people, but the bottom line is man has yet to change nature in a meaningful way with respect to climate and weather. 

You say the predictions come from knowledgeable people, then assert, without proof or any alternate explanation for changes in the climate, that man has not change anything in a meaningful way. You don't see any problem with your logic here?

 

28 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

And we are to believe this time under this adminstration we have got all the answers?

What does this even mean? How in the hell does the Biden administration have anything to do with what scientists are modeling or predicting? Every time this discussion starts to move to facts, you make it political. 

 

30 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Call me skeptical if you will, but *the science* is susceptible to dollars. 

And, as mentioned in the thread years ago, it's absolutely ridiculous to claim that the vast majority of climate scientists are on the take. Back in the 80's and 90's, there may have been an argument to be made, but believing it to be plausible to silence that much opposition and create that much false information is bonkers-level conspiracy thinking.

 

34 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I am a lot more skeptical than you, obviously, but the good part is we both get to have our own opinions.  I will remain skeptical of anything this administration tries to promote whether it be climate change, open borders or the sexual mutilation of our youth.

No, you're more rigid in your thinking than me. I told you in that last discussion that I was also a skeptic many years ago, but we're far past that now. Too many people ringing the alarms, and the data is proving out, despite your claims that it's not. Corrupt scientists is all you have to hang your hat on now, and you can't let it go, particularly because it allows you to further bash Biden. Over the years you have proven yourself nearly incapable of admitting you're wrong, even on extremely minor issues, so I have no doubt you never will on this.

Perfect proof of all this is that you keep bringing up completely unrelated topics, as evidenced in your last sentence. You have no facts, so you revert bashing the administration that is actually reacting to the data.

 

[Leftfield 2,598]

37 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Why are people triggered by a person that doesn’t believe climate change is an existential threat?  

I'm sure you understand that one person wouldn't be a problem. The problem is there are enough that buy into the idea that nothing is wrong that it is preventing changes to mitigate it.

 

[Leftfield 2,598]

The discussion I was referring to....

 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

It is true that scientists with their climate change models have not been perfectly accurate.

The bad news is they've apparently understated the rate of climate warming:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/

Scientists Have Been Underestimating the Pace of Climate Change

 

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

25 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I'm sure you understand that one person wouldn't be a problem. The problem is there are enough that buy into the idea that nothing is wrong that it is preventing changes to mitigate it.

 

We are not preventing any change to mitigate supposed climate change.  Governments are demanding autos sold after a certain date be EVs (I believe 2035 in Europe), oil drilling has been restricted (even though Biden is producing more oil, for now) and the infrastructure bill includes 500,000 new charging stations for EVs across America.  How is this preventing changes?  It’s forced compliance and people really don’t like that.