• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Slowing of the Gulf Stream- new data

longview said:
Thanks, I will look at the full paper, The link in the appendix of the article only had the abstract.
I think the important paragraph in the paper is this one,
Click to expand...
It isn't. As I already pointed out.


This is where they express the uncertainty of the cause.
Click to expand...
And in their conclusion, they are clear that they view other forcings, like GHGs, as the dominant factor. As I already pointed out.
 
Visbek said:
It isn't. As I already pointed out.



And in their conclusion, they are clear that they view other forcings, like GHGs, as the dominant factor. As I already pointed out.
Click to expand...

You are missing the main point,
We therefore infer that the AMOC has responded to recent centennial-scale climate change,
rather than driven it. Regardless, the weak state of the AMOC over the past 150 years may
have modified northward ocean heat transport, as well as atmospheric
warming by altering ocean–atmosphere heat transfer32,33
, underscoring the need for continued investigation of the role of the AMOC in climate change.
Click to expand...
They are saying that uncertainty of the cause exists, but perhaps with more investigation,
they can find out the cause.
 
longview said:
You are missing the main point
Click to expand...
No, I'm not, and I've already explained why not. Repeatedly cherry-picking a paper you haven't read still is not persuasive. Bored now.
 
Threegoofs said:
Two papers have come out in Nature, showing how the Gulf Stream (AMOC) seems to be slowing as a response to AGW.

One of the authors and a noted authority Stefan Rahmsdorf has a post reviewing the state of the data on the AMOC at Real Climate.

Stronger evidence for a weaker Atlantic overturning circulation « RealClimate

The studies show that the AMOC is the weakest it’s been in at least 1000 years, and that it has weakened by 15% in the last decades of the 20th century. More weakening can lead to colder conditions in Europe and the Eastern US in the winter, and heat waves in Europe in the summer, in addition to higher sea level in the Eastern US.

This is fairly big news on the earth science front. It probably will set deniers all a-twitter too. You know how they get when data doesn’t say what they want it to say.


Studies:
Anomalously weak Labrador Sea convection and Atlantic overturning during the past 150 years | Nature

http://www.nature.com/articles/s415...KyeWhlTvQKe6JHGdYV8iLm4nND7KgW4aTVEUH8xo0AA==
Click to expand...

Please show me the paragraphs outside of the abstracts of the two papers that claim it's due to AGW.

The first paper clearly states "after coming out of the maunder minima." The second paper in the abstract does claim a fingerprint with CO2, but I didn't see in the text of the paper making such explicit assertion.

Once again, you are duped by an activist pundit who is lying about what the papers actually say.
 
Threegoofs said:
Among scientists, it’s well known and known with high certainty that greenhouse gas emissions are the primary driver.

This isn’t in question among the people who study this.

It’s only doubted by American Conservatives and cranks (an overlapping set, to some extent).
Click to expand...

Just because the pundits lie to you about what the papers actually say, dousn't mean the rest of us are n9gnborant enough to buy into their lies.
 
Visbek said:
zomg... The cherry-picking just does not stop.

The two papers do not contradict one another, or numerous earlier papers investigating this topic.

Thornalley is simply looking at a longer time frame (1600 years). His position is that anthropogenic warming has perpetuated and accelerated the rate of slowdown in recent years.
Click to expand...

Please cite the paragraph or two top support your contention.
 
We know that because of altered Jet Streams and the like that our weather will almost certainly be changing biggly in some areas, both for better and for worse, and this will certainly have a huge impact on the local and regional area of the planet capacity to People as Alan Watts used to say.....so why are we not making plans and getting ready.......why are we planning to prevent the change when the entire human experience teaches that this is a hugely unlikely event?

A: Because we are willful, and we are ignorant.
 
longview said:
The connection between observed warming, the cause of the observed warming, and the attribution
of the anthropogenic portion of the observed warming, is still very subjective.
Here is what Thornalley says in his abstract,
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0007-4

and

SO he says the lack of recovery could be ether from a delayed effect from the end of the little ice age, or from recent melting from Greenland.
Also the words perpetuated and accelerated are not in the abstract.
Click to expand...

I don't think alarmists understand what "hysteresis" is.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteresis
 
Visbek said:
Yes, the best way to deal with accusations of cherry-picking is with... yet more cherry-picking!

They discuss the LIA because they're trying to explain why convection weakened in the past 150 years. I.e. they aren't citing it as a causal factor in recent changes, more as a temporal demarcation.

Their thesis is that convection is slowing, at an accelerating rate, due to melting of the GIS, which is... wait for it... accelerating due to anthropogenic causes of warming. And of course, this fits in with the evidence that the GIS is melting much faster than in the past.

There is no "subjectivity" here. Almost every climatologist in the field accepts that most of the warming and its effects over the past ~150 years is caused by human activity. Snipping a statement here and there does not change any scientists' actual views on these matters.
Click to expand...

Please cite the paragraph of the paper that supports your contention.
 
longview said:
The formula is very predictable, if it happens, ether AGW caused it, or recently maybe Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

It's all that hot air spewed from the lefties.
 
Renae said:
I know it's politically advantageous to place man at the blame, but seriously, a gas that is 0.15% of the atmosphere isn't to blame, no matter what the models say.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I thought it was only 0.04%...
 
Hawkeye10 said:
We know that because of altered Jet Streams and the like that our weather will almost certainly be changing biggly in some areas, both for better and for worse, and this will certainly have a huge impact on the local and regional area of the planet capacity to People as Alan Watts used to say.....so why are we not making plans and getting ready.......why are we planning to prevent the change when the entire human experience teaches that this is a hugely unlikely event?

A: Because we are willful, and we are ignorant.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, the jet streams change with the seasons already. Has anyone demonstrated that the change is abnormal?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Funny thing is, the jet streams change with the seasons already. Has anyone demonstrated that the change is abnormal?
Click to expand...

I dont follow this closely but my understanding is that it is now clear that the jet streams and ocean currents are changing dramatically from recent (say last 1000 years for the sake of argument) norms....which will absolutely bring big weather changes. "The Earth will be 3.8 degrees warmer on average" rather misses what matters.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I dont follow this closely but my understanding is that it is now clear that the jet streams and ocean currents are changing dramatically from recent (say last 1000 years for the sake of argument) norms....which will absolutely bring big weather changes. "The Earth will be 3.8 degrees warmer on average" rather misses what matters.
Click to expand...

Well, the jet stream changes I don't think affect the global averages that much, but I really don't know. Never really read anything informative on the topic. I would think the global average would change little vs. regions affected.

It is so annoying CO2 is being blamed for every change our planet goes through. The earth has several cycles of varying lengths affecting the climate that are completely naturally. For these idiot activists to claim that our puny existence on this earth is causing the amount of changes claimed, is total lunacy. Especially since our largest impact is due to the changes we have on the surface. Not the atmosphere.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, the jet stream changes I don't think affect the global averages that much, but I really don't know. Never really read anything informative on the topic. I would think the global average would change little vs. regions affected.

It is so annoying CO2 is being blamed for every change our planet goes through. The earth has several cycles of varying lengths affecting the climate that are completely naturally. For these idiot activists to claim that our puny existence on this earth is causing the amount of changes claimed, is total lunacy. Especially since our largest impact is due to the changes we have on the surface. Not the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

But you get that humans dont tend to win by trying to stop change, that the winning comes from adapting to change well, and that these assholes today are too dim to get this....??



EDIT: Yes, I am A Little Bitter.
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
But you get that humans dont tend to win by trying to stop change, that the winning comes from adapting to change well, and that these assholes today are too dim to get this....??
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I laugh at the arrogance that people think they can become more powerful than Mother Nature. We are a long ways away from that type of technological power.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Absolutely. I laugh at the arrogance that people think they can become more powerful than Mother Nature. We are a long ways away from that type of technological power.
Click to expand...

We have all this ancient wisdom that teaches on stuff like this but these moderns are too ignorant to know that what they need to know is right under their noses..."The word is so different now that nothing the dead white men have to say matters" these ignoramuses say.

Well the world is different, but people are much the same, human nature is the same...mostly.

What is to be done with people this dim?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Well the world is different, but people are much the same, human nature is the same...mostly.

What is to be done with people this dim?
Click to expand...

It's called Skynet.

I can see why AI's would want to exterminate us.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Interesting. I thought it was only 0.04%...
Click to expand...

SHHHHHHH....
It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, (equal to 410 ppm) which corresponds to approximately 3200 gigatons of CO2, containing approximately 870 gigatons of carbon. Each part per million by volume of CO2 in the atmosphere thus represents approximately 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

But thanks for spoiling it.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Just more model-driven blather from the reliably strident propagandist Rahmstorf and a co-author of the paper in question. NASA still disagrees.
Click to expand...

He keeps ignoring what NASA says on this topic, maybe because it doesn't have models in it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom