Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you're completely unfamiliar with science and the scientific method there's really no need - no value - in you making comments. Is there.Okay. I read it. I don't see a cause for concern. Their report is filled "coulds", and "mights".
How is this not a natural event which is unique to interglacial cycles?
How is global warming not a natural event? Because the net sum of natural, non-anthropogenic processes are acting to cool the planet. Those processes are being overwhelmed by warming from the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions.How is this not a natural event which is unique to interglacial cycles?
There have been 33 such cycles in the past 2.7 million years. Is is really a surprise that our climate has been cycling between warm and cold spells?
Calm down, ma’am. We’re in an interglacial cycle.How is global warming not a natural event? Because the net sum of natural, non-anthropogenic processes are acting to cool the planet. Those processes are being overwhelmed by warming from the greenhouse effect acting on human GHG emissions.
If you're completely unfamiliar with science and the scientific method there's really no need - no value - in you making comments. Is there.
That point became irrelevant several decades ago when, as I just noted, man made warming outpaced interglacial cooling.Calm down, ma’am. We’re in an interglacial cycle.
It seems you didn't even read the OP's abstract. What has been seen in historical data is growing instability, not a decline. The authors believe that instability is a predictor or a catastrophic change (a collapse, not a decline) in AMOC flow. Historical data support their hypothesis.Meanwhile there are few papers saying the very opposite:
1)
A 30-year reconstruction of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation shows no decline
A 30-year reconstruction of the Atlantic meridional ... - OS
https://os.copernicus.org › articles
2)
Relax, Contrary to Media Reports, Research Shows Gulf Stream Collapse Is Not Occurring
OCEAN CURRENTS AUGUST 6, 2021
3)
Climate at a Glance: Ocean Currents
Short Summary: For the past 20 years, alarmists have claimed the ocean currents are slowing down and global warming is to blame. Alarmists backed up their claims with computer models they claimed predicted and replicated the slowdown. Slower ocean currents, they claimed, would alter African and Indian rainfall patterns and impact Atlantic hurricanes. As recently as 2019, alarmist “studies” claimed ocean currents had declined to their slowest pace in 1,600 years.
The latest scientific research, however, shows ocean currents have actually been speeding up during the entire time that alarmists claimed global warming was causing slowing ocean currents. Now that evidence shows no slowdown happened, alarmists claim their computer models have always predicted that global warming would cause faster ocean currents.
=====
Alarmist/warmist lies a lot.
Ha ha, you completely ignored three sources showing the very opposite.It seems you didn't even read the OP's abstract. What has been seen in historical data is growing instability, not a decline. The authors believe that instability is a predictor or a catastrophic change (a collapse, not a decline) in AMOC flow. Historical data support their hypothesis.
Any source or reference that uses the term "alarmists" has declared itself 'NOT SCIENCE'.
ummm... no it didn't. We are still 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles.That point became irrelevant several decades ago when, as I just noted, man made warming outpaced interglacial cooling.
If you're completely unfamiliar with science and the scientific method there's really no need - no value - in you making comments. Is there.
Please explain. Nature magazine generally sets a pretty high bar. In what way do you believe the paper does not follow the scientific method.Ok. I have now studied the scientific method. This paper doesn't seem to follow it.
I am still waiting for an explanation of your comment. While doing so, however, I will make the observation that the editorial board of Nature Magazine and the degreed scientists who conducted the subject study, wrote the report and conducted its peer review are all EXTREMELY more likely to have a full and complete understanding of the scientific method than someone who has just "now studied the scientific method" for the first time.Ok. I have now studied the scientific method. This paper doesn't seem to follow it.
I think you should look elsewhere for your entertainment. We've got nothing but boring here. I'm reading up on economics and accounting and whispered golf commentary just so I can give those crazy kids at Allstate's Department of Low Interest Fiduciary Considerations a run for their money.Gee this topic is really exploding in popularity!
C'mon dude.......between you and old rocks, the level of boRiNg on the thread topics is flat-line pulse levels. The idea is to post up something compelling that will keep people engaged for a bit![]()