Instabilities in the AMOC could indicate a major and catastrophic tipping point is near. Has nothing to do with "White Americans"

[Elton]

Please explain. Nature magazine generally sets a pretty high bar. In what way do you believe the paper does not follow the scientific method.

Please explain. Nature magazine generally sets a pretty high bar. In what way do you believe the paper does not follow the scientific method.

They make assumptions but then don't provide the slightest support for those assumptions. They also rely on vague words like "may". From what I have read about the scientific method, that is a no no. You declare your guess. You then either observe, or make an experiment that supports your guess. This paper, makes a guess, but then supports the guess, with more guesses.

That's not scientific because one of the other things I read about the scientific method is everything must be repeatable. By anyone. How can a guess be repeated?

 

[Crick]

They make assumptions but then don't provide the slightest support for those assumptions. They also rely on vague words like "may". From what I have read about the scientific method, that is a no no. You declare your guess. You then either observe, or make an experiment that supports your guess. This paper, makes a guess, but then supports the guess, with more guesses.

That's not scientific because one of the other things I read about the scientific method is everything must be repeatable. By anyone. How can a guess be repeated?

I'm afraid you have some misunderstandings about science and the scientific method. "May" is precisely the sort of term they should be using. If you read something that purports to be a study in the natural sciences and they state their results as absolute proof, you are looking at junk science bullshit. Reporting experimental results, measurements and observations as facts is fine. Stating the conclusions drawn from those observations as facts is the no-no. Sorry.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Read it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01097-4.epdf?sharing_token=qWMQcnRcVRZQmZ_yahYbd9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0ODQw4Na6S4LwvIIwjZ_S3NdBoG6pi8c5NBfIwoUKp1VK_OHHszXMnB3OMoyz8L8emOhG-hoDsJyn1YMubz_IampYbIRg_8P9vjnfIPPzRQwm6m9BfwEGfoLu0JsB4E2trSfyu4r947mOz1oZQlyxQxZLxaMkEINR4Wt7XEIrPrRkahci-lKgCSTZahFzlH7wM%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

China produces double our CO2, do they even bother reading this?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How does CO2 change the ocean currents?



Super Molecule!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

View attachment 523090
Note the interglacial cycles. Note the abrupt rise that starts each cycle. Note the abrupt rise shown about 20,000 years BP and the start of the current decline as seen in every prior cycle. Note that though we are cooler than the average peak temperatures or the peak temperature of THIS cycle, these data indicate we had another 8C of cooling in front of us. We were cooling before AGW took over. That is simply irrefutable.

You got all that from the chart you posted?

 

[Crick]

You got all that from the chart you posted?

Yes

 

[ding]

View attachment 523090
Note the interglacial cycles. Note the abrupt rise that starts each cycle. Note the abrupt rise shown about 20,000 years BP and the start of the current decline as seen in every prior cycle. Note that though we are cooler than the average peak temperatures or the peak temperature of THIS cycle, these data indicate we had another 8C of cooling in front of us. We were cooling before AGW took over. That is simply irrefutable.

So what you are saying is that CO2 saved us from the next glacial cycle which would have put a 3000 m thick sheet of ice over all of Canada, the US NE and midwest, parts of Europe and parts of Asia and displace 250 million people?

Does the saw tooth nature of ups and down in glacial and interglacial cycles not make an impression on you?

 

[ding]

That point became irrelevant several decades ago when, as I just noted, man made warming outpaced interglacial cooling.

Not sure why you think you can extrapolate that cooling when a characteristic of a bipolar glaciation world is increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty.

 

[Crick]

Not sure why you think you can extrapolate that cooling when a characteristic of a bipolar glaciation world is increased climate fluctuation and environmental uncertainty.

View attachment 532129

Look at your time scale. We're talking about a span of time roughly one one-thousandth of your smallest division.

 

[ding]

Look at your time scale. We're talking about a span of time roughly one one-thousandth of your smallest division.

So the guys who studied the D-O events in the last glacial cycle couldn't say that there were temperature swings from glacial to interglacial and from interglacial back to glacial temperatures in the matter of a few decades?

Like I said, the geologic record is littered with events where temperatures fell during an interglacial cycle and then rebounded. Just as the geologic record is littered with events where temperatures rose during a glacial cycle and then fell again.

You are making correlations to CO2 that do not exist in the geologic record and have no experimental data to justify those correlations.

 

[Crick]

Show us a link supporting your contention that temperature swings similar to the present take place during normal glacial cycles.

What "correlations to CO2" do you believe I am making?

 

[Elton]

I'm afraid you have some misunderstandings about science and the scientific method. "May" is precisely the sort of term they should be using. If you read something that purports to be a study in the natural sciences and they state their results as absolute proof, you are looking at junk science bullshit. Reporting experimental results, measurements and observations as facts is fine. Stating the conclusions drawn from those observations as facts is the no-no. Sorry.

I think it is you who doesn't understand the scientific method. "May" is NOT TESTABLE. Being able to test your theory is an essential component of the scientific method according to everything I have read. Your interpretation is the exact opposite of the scientific method.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So the guys who studied the D-O events in the last glacial cycle couldn't say that there were temperature swings from glacial to interglacial and from interglacial back to glacial temperatures in the matter of a few decades?

Like I said, the geologic record is littered with events where temperatures fell during an interglacial cycle and then rebounded. Just as the geologic record is littered with events where temperatures rose during a glacial cycle and then fell again.

You are making correlations to CO2 that do not exist in the geologic record and have no experimental data to justify those correlations.

But but but but they have consensus!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Show us a link supporting your contention that temperature swings similar to the present take place during normal glacial cycles.

What "correlations to CO2" do you believe I am making?

Well there's this. But it only covers 450,000 years. Granted that's only 3,700 time longer than your 120 year concocted, manipulated data

 

[Circe]

Read it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01097-4.epdf?sharing_token=qWMQcnRcVRZQmZ_yahYbd9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0ODQw4Na6S4LwvIIwjZ_S3NdBoG6pi8c5NBfIwoUKp1VK_OHHszXMnB3OMoyz8L8emOhG-hoDsJyn1YMubz_IampYbIRg_8P9vjnfIPPzRQwm6m9BfwEGfoLu0JsB4E2trSfyu4r947mOz1oZQlyxQxZLxaMkEINR4Wt7XEIrPrRkahci-lKgCSTZahFzlH7wM%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

Kind of incoherent for reading ----

I wish people would post in English.

 

[ding]

Show us a link supporting your contention that temperature swings similar to the present take place during normal glacial cycles.

What "correlations to CO2" do you believe I am making?

Temperature swings of what? 1C? Just look at the last 1000 years.

 

[ding]

Show us a link supporting your contention that temperature swings similar to the present take place during normal glacial cycles.

What "correlations to CO2" do you believe I am making?

That the rise in temperature from 1750 to today is a result of atmospheric CO2. That correlation.

 

[ding]

Show us a link supporting your contention that temperature swings similar to the present take place during normal glacial cycles.

What "correlations to CO2" do you believe I am making?

Temperature proxy from four ice cores for the last 140,000 years, clearly indicating the greater magnitude of the D-O effect in the northern hemisphere.

The saw tooth behavior is so obvious it's not funny. So during an interglacial there will be lots of examples of positive and negative slopes. You are pointing at a positive slope and claiming CO2 is responsible for it without any experimental evidence whatsoever.

 

[ding]

This graph is awesome. It really shows the volatility of the two poles.

 

[fncceo]

Troll your own threads, dipshit. This one's mine.

You're doing a great job all by your lonesome.