Gulf Stream itself in danger of disruption - open discussion

[Into the Night]

Yet another thread that is trying to hide in the kiddie pool. Bringing it out for open discussion.
OP by Moon:

Atlantic Ocean circulation at weakest in a millennium, say scientists
Decline in system underpinning Gulf Stream could lead to more extreme weather in Europe and higher sea levels on US east coast

The Atlantic Ocean circulation that underpins the Gulf Stream, the weather system that brings warm and mild weather to Europe, is at its weakest in more than a millennium, and climate breakdown is the probable cause, according to new data.

Further weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) could result in more storms battering the UK, more intense winters and an increase in damaging heatwaves and droughts across Europe.

Scientists predict that the AMOC will weaken further if global heating continues, and could reduce by about 34% to 45% by the end of this century, which could bring us close to a “tipping point” at which the system could become irrevocably unstable. A weakened Gulf Stream would also raise sea levels on the Atlantic coast of the US, with potentially disastrous consequences.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...say-scientists
You'd better worry.
When they say ' by the end of the century ' they mean that our century may be ending prematurely.

[Into the Night]

The Gulf Stream doesn't go anywhere near Europe.

[Into the Night]

The shutting off of the Gulf Stream will be a catastrophic climatic event. Here's what would happen;

Arctic ice melt will produce massive quantities of cold water which will sink and flow south .
These masses of cold water will encounter the warm Gulf Stream currents flowing north and , literally, block their northern progress.
The far denser cold water will firstly flow beneath the warm stream until it just ain't warm no more, girls and boys.

We've been warned about this for over fifty years- and now it appears imminent.

Ebay has some good deals on Norwegian thermal socks.

This story about the 'Gulf Stream Shutting Down' is a fairly old one. Most of it is based on illiteracy in geography. The remainder simply denies physics. The Gulf Stream does not go near the Arctic. It is not possible to 'shut down' a current. As long as there is unequal heating, there will be ocean and air currents.

[Into the Night]

There are, probably, plenty of people who think that global warming means that it's going to get warmer everywhere.
These are the same people that think that sea level rises will be globally uniform.



Haw, haw..........................haw.

Moon is convinced that 'global warming' essentially means 'climate change'. Neither phrase has any meaning. No one has ever defined either phrase. As a member of the Church of Global Warming, he believes that a Holy Gas somehow can affect the temperature of Earth. This is of course denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

[Into the Night]

Can you comment on this? LOL you wouldn't even know what a correlation is if it bit you in the ass
Attachment 19222

This graph is a graph of random numbers. There is no correlation of random number to random numbers. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There simply are nowhere near enough thermometers to even begin a sensible statistical analysis.

[Into the Night]

Here's another link you have no clue how to debunk
But MUH CO2!!!!!
Modeled and Observed Multidecadal Variability in the North Atlantic JetStream and Its Connection to Sea Surface Temperatures
https://escholarship.org/content/qt1...dbe362cc8d.pdf

You sure you know how science works? LOL fucking warmers

There is no science here. Science is not random numbers used as data. It is a set of falsifiable theories. No more. No less. It is not possible to measure the temperature of large stretches of ocean. There is also a reversal fallacy here. The jetstream is not controlling sea surface temperatures. Sea surface temperatures can affect the jet stream.

[tinfoil]

This graph is a graph of random numbers. There is no correlation of random number to random numbers. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There simply are nowhere near enough thermometers to even begin a sensible statistical analysis.

LOL ok. But given the data we have collected, this is the best we can do. Sorry it's not perfect. The point is natural heat cycle exist and affect climate much more than CO2 concentration according to statistical analysis.
I can't do anything more on the subject

[Into the Night]

You know you're outmatched. LOL
You can't even attempt because you know I know my shit so wqell you wouldn't stand a chance

But I'll ask again. Please debunk my post so I can be as learned in climate science as you are

Asking Moon to debunk your post is not really possible for Moon. He is illiterate in science and mathematics and simply spends his time calling people names.

[tinfoil]

Asking Moon to debunk your post is not really possible for Moon. He is illiterate in science and mathematics and simply spends his time calling people names.

That was the purpose of the post. To highlight that alarmists don't know shit except what they're told to think

[Into the Night]

LOL ok. But given the data we have collected, this is the best we can do. Sorry it's not perfect. The point is natural heat cycle exist and affect climate much more than CO2 concentration according to statistical analysis.
I can't do anything more on the subject

The trouble is that no one has collected ANY data of global temperatures. The problem, you see, is one of mathematics. A statistical summary must have the raw data available. It must be unbiased. It must be raw data. You must declare and justify the variance. You must calculate the margin of error value, and that value must accompany any averages performed upon the data. Selection of the data must be by randN. Normalization must be performed by paired randR. You can't just say "it's not perfect". Mathematically, you are guessing.

Heat is not a cycle. Heat is defined by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is the flow of thermal energy. Nothing else. It is not the energy itself.
Climate is a subjective word. It has no quantitative values. There is nothing to 'change' in climate.
CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. It is not possible to create energy from nothing, or to reduce entropy in any system, nor is it possible to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
Claiming a statistical analysis that hasn't been done is just a void argument.
Statistical math is incapable of prediction normally inherent in mathematics due to it's use of random numbers. A summary is not a crystal ball.

Temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile.

[tinfoil]

The trouble is that no one has collected ANY data of global temperatures. The problem, you see, is one of mathematics. A statistical summary must have the raw data available. It must be unbiased. It must be raw data. You must declare and justify the variance. You must calculate the margin of error value, and that value must accompany any averages performed upon the data. Selection of the data must be by randN. Normalization must be performed by paired randR. You can't just say "it's not perfect". Mathematically, you are guessing.

Heat is not a cycle. Heat is defined by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is the flow of thermal energy. Nothing else. It is not the energy itself.
Climate is a subjective word. It has no quantitative values. There is nothing to 'change' in climate.
CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. It is not possible to create energy from nothing, or to reduce entropy in any system, nor is it possible to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
Claiming a statistical analysis that hasn't been done is just a void argument.
Statistical math is incapable of prediction normally inherent in mathematics due to it's use of random numbers. A summary is not a crystal ball.

Temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile.

Can you please google and read up on what the AMO is? It's a product of statistical analysis. It's not random numbers

[cancel2 2022]

The Gulf Stream doesn't go anywhere near Europe.

That's just not true, where do you get your info from?

[Into the Night]

That was the purpose of the post. To highlight that alarmists don't know shit except what they're told to think

Bingo. The High Priests of the Church of Global Warming tell their worshipers what to think and say.
But there are others that fall into the same trap, though they do not believe in the hype. I warn those as well. They are ignoring science and mathematics.

[Into the Night]

Can you please google and read up on what the AMO is? It's a product of statistical analysis. It's not random numbers

You cannot have a statistical summary without raw data. That data must be published. That data must be free of biasing influences. You must have a variance declared and justified. You must have the margin of error calculate and it must accompany the summary.

NOTHING is a product of statistical analysis. The summary is not capable of prediction that is normally inherent in mathematics due to the use of random numbers. Statistical summaries are not a crystal ball.
There is NO SUCH THING as summaries without published and available raw data.

[tinfoil]

You cannot have a statistical summary without raw data. That data must be published. That data must be free of biasing influences. You must have a variance declared and justified. You must have the margin of error calculate and it must accompany the summary.

NOTHING is a product of statistical analysis. The summary is not capable of prediction that is normally inherent in mathematics due to the use of random numbers. Statistical summaries are not a crystal ball.
There is NO SUCH THING as summaries without published and available raw data.

Honestly, I don't know how to respond to this. I like you, but statistics is all about using a minimum amount of data to attempt to derive a signal. It's no different than machine learning. Surely you would agree that AI is able to find patterns using minimal data? That's why there are confidence intervals and minimum sample sizes