Gulf Stream itself in danger of disruption - open discussion

Into the Night Soil
200w.webp


Your thread is essentially dead. Everyone moved over here. Chew on that, dumbass.

Once again, demented dipshit, quality over quantity. Your copycat thread is open to the forum dross- mine is not. You're banned from it, for example.


Haw, haw..........................................haw.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night Soil
200w.webp


Moonbat has revealed he is simply cut and pasting crap from Google searches.


Says the forum fool who composes his apologies for content by tossing a Scrabble set and picking up pieces with his buttocks.



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

Haw, haw............................................................................haw.
 
Time to knock the thread parrot off its perch;


Introduction;

02/25/2021 - Never before in over 1000 years the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), also known as Gulf Stream System, has been as weak as in the last decades. This is the result of a new study by scientists from Ireland, Britain and Germany. The researchers compiled so-called proxy data – taken mainly from natural archives like ocean sediments or ice cores – reaching back many hundreds of years to reconstruct the flow history of the AMOC. They found consistent evidence that its slowdown in the 20th century is unprecedented in the past millennium – it is likely linked to human-caused climate change. The giant ocean circulation is relevant for weather patterns in Europe and regional sea-levels in the US; its slowdown is also associated with an observed ‘cold blob’ in the northern Atlantic.

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/...am-system-at-its-weakest-in-over-a-millennium

The paper;

Current Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation weakest in last millennium

L. Caesar, G. D. McCarthy, D. J. R. Thornalley, N. Cahill & S. Rahmstorf
Nature Geoscience (2021)


Abstract
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)—one of Earth’s major ocean circulation systems—redistributes heat on our planet and has a major impact on climate. Here, we compare a variety of published proxy records to reconstruct the evolution of the AMOC since about AD 400. A fairly consistent picture of the AMOC emerges: after a long and relatively stable period, there was an initial weakening starting in the nineteenth century, followed by a second, more rapid, decline in the mid-twentieth century, leading to the weakest state of the AMOC occurring in recent decades.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00699-z


Debunk that with your dogma and chemistry sets.

Haw, haw..................................haw.
 
Time to knock the thread parrot off its perch;


Introduction;



The paper;




Debunk that with your dogma and chemistry sets.

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

Argument by proxy. False authority fallacies. Argument from randU fallacies. Leaping to conclusion.
 
Time to knock the thread parrot off its perch;


Introduction;



The paper;




Debunk that with your dogma and chemistry sets.

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

Stephan Rahmstorf - Potsdam Institute for Climate ...
is the alarmist's alarmist along with the PIK. They are barking mad as evidenced by this loony paper from them!

Sea-level rise too big to be pumped away

From the POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH (PIK)

Future sea-level rise is a problem probably too big to be solved even by unprecedented geo-engineering such as pumping water masses onto the Antarctic continent. The idea has been investigated by scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact. While the pumped water would certainly freeze to solid ice, the weight of it would speed up the ice-flow into the ocean at the Antarctic coast. To store the water for a millennium, it would have to be pumped at least 700 kilometer inland, the team found. Overall that would require more than one tenth of the present annual global energy supply to balance the current rate of sea-level rise.

“We explored a way to at least delay the rise of sea level we can no longer avoid by even the strictest climate-change mitigation strategies. This is estimated to reach about 40 cm by the end of the century,” says lead-author Katja Frieler. “Our approach is definitely extreme, but so is the challenge of sea-level rise.” Burning fossil fuels leads to greenhouse-gas emissions that drive up global temperatures. Consequently, the thermal expansion of ocean water and the melting of glaciers and ice-sheets slowly raise sea levels, which will continue for millennia. Under unabated warming, sea level rise may exceed 130 centimeters by 2100.


Sacrificing Antarctica for saving Bangladesh?

“This is huge. Local adaptation, for instance building dikes, will not be physically possible or economically feasible everywhere,” Frieler says. “Protection may depend on your economic situation – so New York might be saved, but sadly not Bangladesh, and this clearly raises an equity issue,” she adds. “Hence the interest in a universal protection measure. We wanted to check whether sacrificing the uninhabited Antarctic region might theoretically enable us to save populated shores around the world.” Rising oceans are already increasing storm surge risks, threatening millions of people worldwide, and in the long run can redraw the planet’s coastlines.

The scientists addressed the problem from an ice-dynamics perspective, using state-of-the-art computer simulations of Antarctica. Since the ice is continually moving, ocean water put on its surface can only delay sea-level rise – and if it is placed too close to the coast, ice-sheet mass loss and thus sea-level rise after some time could even increase, they found. As a consequence the water has to be pumped a long way inland onto the ice sheet.


“Even if this was feasible, it would only buy time”

The Antarctic ice sheet is up to 4000 meters high, and that would mean an inconceivable engineering effort. Pumping so much water that high up onto the ice sheet requires enormous amounts of energy. Antarctica is very windy, so the power for the pumping could in principle be generated by wind turbines – yet this would require building roughly 850.000 wind-energy plants onto the ice continent. The costs are expected to be much higher than those associated with local adaptation in other studies, though these measures by definition are limited in scope and scale, the scientists state.

“The magnitude of sea-level rise is so enormous, it turns out it is unlikely that any engineering approach imaginable can mitigate it,” concludes co-author Anders Levermann, head of Global Adaptation Strategies at PIK and scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory. “Even if this was feasible, it would only buy time – when we stop the pumping one day, additional discharge from Antarctica will increase the rate of sea-level rise even beyond the warming-induced rate. This would mean putting another sea-level debt onto future generations.” Also, the most sensitive coastal ecosystems of Antarctica would of course be seriously affected by this measure.


Greenhouse-gas reductions, local coastal protection, and abandonment

If possible at all, delaying the rise by storing water on Antarctica would only show significant effects in a scenario of ambitious climate policy, strictly limiting global warming. “If we’d continue to do business as usual and churn out emissions,” says Levermann, “not even such an immense macro-adaptation project as storing water on Antarctica would suffice to limit long-term sea-level rise – more than 50 meters in the very long term without climate change mitigation. So either way, rapid greenhouse-gas emission reductions are indispensable if sea-level rise is to be kept manageable. In any way substantial investment into long-term local coastal protection will be required if we want to avoid a stepwise abandonment of coastal areas.”

###

Article: Frieler, K., Mengel, M., Levermann, A. (2016): Delaying future sea-level rise by storing water in Antarctica. Earth System Dynamics
 
Last edited:
The gist, maggot, is that you can't pour a quart into a pint pot.
I don't suppose that there are any educational establishments in your portfolio ?



Haw, haw..............................haw.
 
Into the Night Soil
200w.webp


Argument by proxy. False authority fallacies. Argument from randU fallacies. Leaping to conclusion.

Like I said- ' Argument from the kick-ass accuracy ' You're done, buttock-gripper


Haw, haw..............................haw.
 
Last edited:
.

This just gives you some idea how full of shit the media is and the way they just assume that you're totally gullible and will swallow any old bullshit. Of course in Moonshi'ite's case they are pushing at an open door!

CNN.com Gaslights Readers on Failed Ocean Predictions – Now Claims Opposite
By James Taylor- March 2, 20210


Just one year after climate activists and their media allies spread fear with claims that global warming is causing the world’s ocean currents to speed up, CNN.com is now claiming the opposite – and claiming scientists predicted a slowing of ocean currents all along. CNN’s attempt at “Gaslighting” (a term derived from the 1944 movie Gaslight, in which a man attempts to convince his wife that she cannot believe her own memory) reveals the lack of honesty and lack of scientific basis for alarmist climate claims.

CNN published an article this morning titled, “The slowing down of ocean currents could have a devastating effect on our climate.” In the course of claiming all sorts of existential threats caused by slow ocean currents – including stronger hurricanes, heat waves, and sea-level rise – CNN asserted, “The slowdown of ocean circulation is directly caused by warming global temperatures and has been predicted by climate scientists.”

Except that “climate scientists” and the activist media were telling us exactly the opposite just one year ago.

On February 6, 2020, NASA published an article titled, “Arctic Ice Melt Is Changing Ocean Currents.” The article claimed global warming is speeding up ocean currents. According to the article, “A major ocean current in the Arctic is faster and more turbulent as a result of rapid sea ice melt, a new study from NASA shows. The current is part of a delicate Arctic environment that is now flooded with fresh water, an effect of human-caused climate change.”

On February 6, 2020, Scientific American published an article titled, “Ocean Currents Are Speeding Up, Driven by Faster Winds.” The article claims, “Climate change may in part be spurring the acceleration, which could change how heat and nutrients are pushed around the oceans.”

On February 5, 2020, Science magazine published an article titled, “Global warming is speeding up Earth’s massive ocean currents.” Quoting a scientist reviewing data on ocean-current speeds derived from instruments on Argo robotic floats, Science reported, “The evidence in the Argo data is absolutely astonishing,”

On February 6, 2020, the website Live Science published an article titled, “Ocean currents are getting faster.” The article claimed, “The change is driven by global warming and wind.”

To ensure the public was sufficiently aware and sufficiently alarmed about accelerating ocean currents, Washington Post climate change reporter Chris Mooney published a February 5, 2020, article titled, “World’s oceans are speeding up – another mega-scale consequence of climate change.” According to the article, “It’s the latest dramatic finding about the stark transformation of the global ocean — joining revelations about massive coral die-offs, upheaval to fisheries, ocean-driven melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, increasingly intense ocean heat waves and accelerating sea level rise. … This suggests the Earth might actually be more sensitive to climate change than our simulations can currently show.”

On February 11, 2020, NBC News published an article titled, “Climate change models predicted ocean currents would speed up – but not this soon.” According to the article, “Climate models had predicted that ocean circulation would accelerate with unmitigated climate change, but the changes had not been expected until much later this century … The disparity suggests that some climate models may underestimate the effects of global warming.”

Now, quickly and completely forget everything you just read. New data are destroying all those claims of climate change speeding up ocean currents. As CNN reports this morning, ocean currents now appear to be slowing down, not speeding up, due to global warming. And, remember, as CNN tells us, climate scientists predicted this all along.

https://climaterealism.com/2021/03/c...aims-opposite/
.

An estimated 61-80,000 Americans died and 800,000 were hospitalised in the 2017-18 flu season, including the most virulent Type A version of H3N2, so why didn't you arseholes call for the total destruction of the world's economic system then? I hope you have plenty of time to ponder over that when you all lose your houses, jobs and relationships!
Edit / DeleteEdit Post Quick reply to this messageReply Reply With QuoteReply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Blog this Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Primavera For This Post:
tinfoil (Yesterday)
Yesterday, 07:06 PM#17 | TopPrimavera's AvatarPrimavera Primavera is online now
Spring has sprung
JPP Contributor
Join Date
Apr 2009
Location
Earth
Posts
92,535
Thanks
45,590
Thanked 28,636 Times in 21,871 PostsGroans37,496Groaned 4,181 Times in 3,987 PostsBlog Entries50
Default
.
Physicians don’t put patients on life support when patients register a temperature of 98.7 degrees, and neither should politicians declare a climate crisis as a result of modest warming, advises Dr. Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor of meteorology at MIT and one of the most brilliant and accomplished atmospheric scientists of our time.

Lindzen further urges climate realists to call out the overall absurdity of the alarmist narrative and avoid getting caught up “punching away at details” in the climate change debate.

Here is a statement Dr. Lindzen sent me to read during my presentation yesterday at CPAC in Orlando, Florida. Climate Realism intends to post video of that presentation later this week.

“One problem with conveying our message is the difficulty people have in recognizing the absurdity of the alarmist climate message. They can’t believe that something so absurd could gain such universal acceptance. Consider the following situation. Your physician declares that your complete physical will consist in simply taking your temperature. This would immediately suggest something wrong with your physician. He further claims that if your temperature is 98.7 degrees Fahrenheit, rather than 98.6, you must be put on life support. Now you know he is certifiably insane. The same situation for climate (a comparably complex system with a much more poorly defined index – globally averaged temperature anomaly) is considered ‘settled science.’”

“If this weren’t silly enough, we are bombarded with claims that the impacts of this climate change include such things as obesity and the Syrian civil war. The claims of impacts are then circularly claimed to be overwhelming evidence of dangerous climate change. It doesn’t matter that most of these claims are wrong and/or irrelevant. It doesn’t matter that none of these claims can be related to CO2 except via model projections. In almost all cases, even the model projections are non-existent.

“Somehow, the sheer volume of misinformation seems to overwhelm us. In case, you retain any skepticism, there is John Kerry’s claim that climate (unlike physics and chemistry) is simple enough for any child to understand. Presumably, if you can’t see the existential danger of CO2, you’re a stupid denier.

“Our task is to show people the overall stupidity of this issue rather than punching away at details. If public relations advisors can solve this problem, they would be well worth hiring, but I have my doubts.”

https://climaterealism.com/2021/02/l...e-temperature/
.

https://os.copernicus.org/articles/17/285/2021/
 
They haven't ' claimed the opposite ' at all, maggot. Your deception dirigible has crashed and burned.


Haw, haw.............................................haw.
 
It seems to me that the ONLY sane approach to combating global warming- and its inherent climate changes- is to err on the side of caution, despite the raging of self-obsessed capitalist dumbasses.

This is known as a Pascal Wager's fallacy. Pascal once used this type of argument to justify Christianity as 'science'. It is commonly used to justify the joining of a religion as 'the only safe alternative' or as 'science'.
Here he also shows how the Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx, by despising capitalism in favor of socialism (in this case, fascism).
 
The research paper;

Current Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation weakest in last millennium

L. Caesar, G. D. McCarthy, D. J. R. Thornalley, N. Cahill & S. Rahmstorf
Nature Geoscience (2021)


Abstract
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)—one of Earth’s major ocean circulation systems—redistributes heat on our planet and has a major impact on climate. Here, we compare a variety of published proxy records to reconstruct the evolution of the AMOC since about AD 400. A fairly consistent picture of the AMOC emerges: after a long and relatively stable period, there was an initial weakening starting in the nineteenth century, followed by a second, more rapid, decline in the mid-twentieth century, leading to the weakest state of the AMOC occurring in recent decades.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00699-z

Here Moon attempts to quote from a website as if it were a proof in science, yet it denies science. Specifically, it denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics by attempting to redefine the word 'heat'. It also denies mathematics, specifically statistical mathematics. It is not possible to measure the total flow rate of currents in any ocean.

Heat is not something that is 'redistributed'. It is not contains in anything. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.
Science does not use proxy measurements. It only uses direct measurements. Proxies are speculations and require leaping to conclusions (which in and of itself is a fallacy).
The paper authors,
L. Caesar, G. D. McCarthy, D. J. R. Thornalley, N. Cahill & S. Rahmstorf,
are quoting from made up numbers being used as data. This is the argument from randU fallacy. I would fail this paper for this reason and for it's misuse of the word 'heat', were I to grade it.

For more ridiculous research projects and papers, see the Ignoble Prize winners throughout the years.

Science is not a research paper or study.
 
Remember- they WANT it to be ' too late ' . Inhibiting climate action is part of their insane agenda.

This simply results in a void argument. Using meaningless buzzwords like 'climate action' as the primary subject creates a void argument fallacy. This is why the use of buzzwords themselves is a fallacy.
Not the attempt to induce panic, for somehow not doing something that is undefined.
 
Silly wanker.
...
Buttock-gripper is on a roll.

Haw, haw.....................................haw.
Here, note that Moonbat has no counter-argument, so he simply turns to hurling insults, as if somehow they ...prove his case???
This is followed by his usual hollow 'laughter', as if to ...prove his case???

This kind of thing is common among illiterates and Democrats.
 
Buttock-gripper...you're a source of forum amusement.

Argument from the kick-ass accuracy.

Haw, haw................................haw.
 
Back
Top