Through two new studies in Nature , the weakening of the Gulf Stream System is back in the scientific headlines. Both can be attributed to a weakening of the AMOC in the model simulation. The green curve shows changes in water mass based on deep sea coral data, the blue curve shows the grain sizes mentioned and the yellow curve shows the RAPID measurements discussed above. And finally, Smeed et al.
It is not a question of will the slowing occur but what is the rate of the occurrence. But climate models can not even predict “past weather”. (The use of the phrase predicting the past is strange). Truth is you can’t convince anyone to go look up the truth of a matter when their personal identity/ego depends on not going and looking it up only to discover they’re wrong. You see attacks on Darwin by people who think his occasional errors somehow undermine evolution.
I AGREE with you! Got that? Now we’re starting to see inter-corporate struggles between RE companies and the fossils. The study by Thornalley and colleagues, published in Nature , used cores of sediments from a key site off Cape Hatteras in North Carolina to examine Amoc over the last 1600 years. So, if the AMOC weakens, the strength of the current of the Gulf Stream weakens. Let’s start with tomorrow’s issue of Nature , which besides the two new studies ( one of which I was involved in) also includes a News&Views commentary.
The three remaining curves are based on temperature changes – but also on three different methods. Geophysical Research Letters on the latest measurements in the RAPID project, which are also included as a linear trend in Fig. Before you criticise climate models don’t you think you first ought to learn what they actually are? If it is decades then we are all finished but if it is centuries then we have time to pull up our socks and work on it.
Remaining ego friendly means not being motivated to go look something up in a scientific field where the ego is not the expert. I keep running into recurring commentary on the snarkiness of the scientists behind these e-mails. Science is alchemy: it turns shit into gold. When you learn that models do not know how to treat areosols and clouds, but those models are used to support the statement that 100 percent of the warming is caused by man, take notice.
An example I witnessed personally (in part) was the recent skirmish over the 2% cap on rooftop solar here in South Carolina. They also used the shells of tiny marine creatures from sites across the Atlantic to measure a characteristic pattern of temperatures that indicate the strength of Amoc. Shivangi Sharma is a budding journalist who intends to build a bright career in the media industry. Everything revolves around the question of whether the Gulf Stream System has already weakened.
The curve from Rahmstorf et al. It does that in such a way that an influx of warm air from the south into Europe is encouraged. He would be doing so retrospectively, fitting a curve by scaling without any strictures on the amplitudes of the scaling, and probably varying the weighting along the way. I realize that this is off topic, but DDS’s ignorant comments seem to stem at least in part from a failure to understand scientific modeling.
Tell them a truth a thousand times even and it will make no difference. They’re really entrenched, people seem surprised to note. As for me, I’ll follow the blogs with interest and see how this all shakes out. So my solution is voice your opinion and let others do the same even if you do not like their opinion. Thus, shifting to RE is not only a no-regrets climate mitigation strategy, it’s likely a net win in terms of energy access, economics, and public health.
Both studies found that Amoc today is about 15 percent weaker than 1,600 years ago, but there were also differences in their conclusions. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Climate models predict this will be one consequence of global warming – alongside other problems such as rising sea levels and increasing heat waves, droughts and extreme precipitation. We now wanted to know what temperature changes the observational data show since the late 19th century.
In summer 2015, the subpolar Atlantic was colder than ever since records began in the 19th century – associated with a heat wave in Europe. This would be a bit like making a fourier description of a time series using a set of sinusoids, but using the “random” numbers as the sinusoids. It makes me wonder whether some of the other lay readers might benefit from a general discussion of scientific modeling.
Proof is all around. Got a real siege mentality going on, speak unkindly of the skeptics, take all kinds of cheap shots unbecoming of the lab coat. On longer time frame, I would agree. You haven’t answered my question and suggested any better way to do science, and have just posted fallacies about the science and propoganda. Still, it’s a far more favorable picture in that regard than anyone dared to dream a decade ago.
The second study suggests most of the weakening came later, and can be squarely blamed on the burning of fossil fuels. This Gulf Stream meme has been around for many years and every so often is resurrected. But is such a slowdown already underway today? My doctoral student Levke Caesar evaluated the various data sets. And the new curve from our study (dark blue) uses measured sea surface temperatures, as shown in Fig.
But really very, very unlike the much more constrained operation of a climate model, which has to relate to the scalings of real physical processes. It’s perhaps not one of our more admirable human abilities, but there it is. Illustratively, there can be–are, mathematically speaking–infinitely numerous data sets for any given mean. Some people even believe that climate science and climate scientists will save the world from the looming disasters of climate change.