A Major Ocean Current May Be Hurtling Towards Collapse

I've been interested in the effects of Climate Change for several years. We are certainly headed for a "tipping point", and that point seems to be getting closer, more rapidly, with every passing year. Twenty years ago, the consensus, among climatologists seemed to be more towards the end of this century. Now, many are saying major changes could occur by mid-century, with some of the more dire predictions even sooner.

There is no shortage about "talking" about reversing the effects of Climate Change, but little, or no "action" that might make a difference. I seriously doubt that anything of substance will be done, as it would require massive expenditures, and lifestyle changes for billions of people. Summers will get warmer, major storms will become more common, clean water will be increasingly scarce, coastal/low lying areas will face increased flood risk, food supplies will be impacted, and eventually the excessive growth in human populations will result in a situation which will make todays CV-19 problems seem paltry by comparison.

None of us, our age, will see much difference, but I dread the thought of the world our grandkids, and beyond are going to be faced with.
 
Don M. said:
I've been interested in the effects of Climate Change for several years. We are certainly headed for a "tipping point", and that point seems to be getting closer, more rapidly, with every passing year. Twenty years ago, the consensus, among climatologists seemed to be more towards the end of this century. Now, many are saying major changes could occur by mid-century, with some of the more dire predictions even sooner.

There is no shortage about "talking" about reversing the effects of Climate Change, but little, or no "action" that might make a difference. I seriously doubt that anything of substance will be done, as it would require massive expenditures, and lifestyle changes for billions of people. Summers will get warmer, clean water will be increasingly scarce, coastal/low lying areas will face increased flood risk, food supplies will be impacted, and eventually the excessive growth in human populations will result in a situation which will make todays CV-19 problems seem paltry by comparison.

None of us, our age, will see much different, but I dread the thought of the world our grandkids, and beyond are going to be faced with.
Click to expand...
I dread it too; the poor younger generations.
 

Don M. said:
I've been interested in the effects of Climate Change for several years. We are certainly headed for a "tipping point", and that point seems to be getting closer, more rapidly, with every passing year. Twenty years ago, the consensus, among climatologists seemed to be more towards the end of this century. Now, many are saying major changes could occur by mid-century, with some of the more dire predictions even sooner.

There is no shortage about "talking" about reversing the effects of Climate Change, but little, or no "action" that might make a difference. I seriously doubt that anything of substance will be done, as it would require massive expenditures, and lifestyle changes for billions of people. Summers will get warmer, major storms will become more common, clean water will be increasingly scarce, coastal/low lying areas will face increased flood risk, food supplies will be impacted, and eventually the excessive growth in human populations will result in a situation which will make todays CV-19 problems seem paltry by comparison.

None of us, our age, will see much difference, but I dread the thought of the world our grandkids, and beyond are going to be faced with.
Click to expand...
I firmly believe we have already reached the tipping point.

We crested some time ago and are on the slide now.

The old saying... "too little, too late", is already in motion.
 
Ever notice when these scientific reports hit the media, Hollywood starts pumping out these futuristic ELE movies? Doesn't seem so distant lately.
 
Happy Joe said:
Its all happened before (ice ages and hot periods); and will happen again... no matter what we do.
Mankind may influence when to some extent, IMO, but not if.

Enjoy!
Click to expand...
Yup. I have been reading about the collapse and end of this and that for decades and, frankly, it's getting a little boring. Snowfall didn't end in Britain, coastal cities haven't gone under water, there's not the predicted mass starvation across the world, acid rain didn't permanently damage anything, Y2K was a joke, we haven't run out of oil as was predicted in the 70s, etc. Past environmental "experts" now look rather stupid (e.g., Nobel prize winning scientist Paul Erlich) and many of the ones today will look dumber yet in the future. Below is a very small reminder.

 
Happy Joe said:
Its all happened before (ice ages and hot periods); and will happen again... no matter what we do.
Mankind may influence when to some extent, IMO, but not if. Enjoy!
Click to expand...

Yes, the earth has gone through numerous warming and cooling cycles before, and will continue to do so, no matter what humans do. However, human pollution, etc., has, and will, impact the frequency and intensity of these changes in weather patterns. Thousands of years ago, the few people that existed could merely fold their tents, and move to a better environment....that option is no longer available.

The biggest problem, in today's world, is the population growth, and the proximity to the oceans for billons of people. The ice caps at the poles, and on Greenland are melting at an increasing pace....which will cause a rise in the oceans, and flood major population centers all over the globe. It may take another 100 years before cities along the Gulf and Atlantic seaboards begin to be swamped, but when they are, millions of people will be displaced and trillions of dollars of property will be worthless.
 
JonDouglas said:
Yup. I have been reading about the collapse and end of this and that for decades and, frankly, it's getting a little boring. Snowfall didn't end in Britain, coastal cities haven't gone under water, there's not the predicted mass starvation across the world, acid rain didn't permanently damage anything, Y2K was a joke, we haven't run out of oil as was predicted in the 70s, etc. Past environmental "experts" now look rather stupid (e.g., Nobel prize winning scientist Paul Erlich) and many of the ones today will look dumber yet in the future. Below is a very small reminder.

Click to expand...

I replied to your claims in an earlier thread putting some into context and asking for more information on others yet I have to see a reply to my requests. Here you are spouting the same stuff without following up on previous inquiries. Here's the link to my reply to make it easier for you. https://www.seniorforums.com/threads/study-disputes-climate-emergency.57246/post-1628870

I agreed that I would question all of Erlich's predictions based on what I read about it but that was pretty much the only one I agreed with.

Here's a Scientific American article about climate models of the past from the 70's to 2007 and showing that 14 of the 17 examined have proven to be true based on what we're experiencing now. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-models-got-it-right-on-global-warming/ They also point out one of the inaccurate models is inaccurate because we took steps to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons. When that variable is added to the model it is accurate.

I contend that many predictions are more accurate than inaccurate but I don't have anything to back up my contention. I also think that most of the inaccurate predictions listed by people are done so by taking them out of context, not taking into account actions taken since the prediction was made or other omissions that would give a more accurate depiction of the prediction and the eventual results.

Regarding your mention of Y2K predictions, most of the issues with Y2K were addressed in software before it happened (which is another example of not taking into account actions taken based on a prediction) but there were still people who didn't believe that the computer scientists and programmers who did the work resolved the issues.
 
Happy Joe said:
Its all happened before (ice ages and hot periods); and will happen again... no matter what we do.
Mankind may influence when to some extent, IMO, but not if.

Enjoy!
Click to expand...
There's very convincing evidence that the AMOC slow-down occurs every 500-550 years and actual shifts or stops have occurred thousands of years apart. Also that the effects of slow-downs weren't seen until decades after the AMOC slowed down.
 
Murrmurr said:
There's very convincing evidence that the AMOC slow-down occurs every 500-550 years and actual shifts or stops have occurred thousands of years apart. Also that the effects of slow-downs weren't seen until decades after the AMOC slowed down.
Click to expand...

I didn't see any articles on the cyclic slow down of the AMOC. If you have some you liked please post them here.

I did find an article from 2010 that said the last time the AMOC reversed was 20000 years ago. So that means that the last time it was the reverse of it was now we (as humans) were hunter gatherers not reliant on the climate producing food where we were actively growing it. Here's the article about the reversal 20000 years ago:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101103141541.htm

Another article I found says the AMOC is it's weakest in 1600 years. The article is more recent, from 2018. https://www.scientificamerican.com/...antics-circulation-is-weakest-in-1-600-years/
 
asp3 said:
I didn't see any articles on the cyclic slow down of the AMOC. If you have some you liked please post them here.

I did find an article from 2010 that said the last time the AMOC reversed was 20000 years ago. So that means that the last time it was the reverse of it was now we (as humans) were hunter gatherers not reliant on the climate producing food where we were actively growing it. Here's the article about the reversal 20000 years ago:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101103141541.htm

Another article I found says the AMOC is it's weakest in 1600 years. The article is more recent, from 2018. https://www.scientificamerican.com/...antics-circulation-is-weakest-in-1-600-years/
Click to expand...
Asp, you would not believe the hundreds of youtube videos I had to scroll through in my Viewing History (because my 10yr-old granddaughter is here and watched the likes of Cory Kenshin, Gotcha Life, Blackpink...etc. for hours, apparently) but I came up with this one (I don't agree with all of his assertions) which was posted in Oct 2020....


I watch a lot of science videos on youtube and viewed at least 4 others on this subject. If I manage to find another one or two today, I'll add them.
 
This subject is almost as contentious as politics and religion - opinion is split down the middle, like our governments who are unable to reach a majority and hang on by a thin majority, unable to really DO anything. I'm not on the fence however, I think these current crazy weather events have happened before.
 
asp3 said:
I replied to your claims in an earlier thread putting some into context and asking for more information on others yet I have to see a reply to my requests. Here you are spouting the same stuff without following up on previous inquiries. Here's the link to my reply to make it easier for you. https://www.seniorforums.com/threads/study-disputes-climate-emergency.57246/post-1628870

I agreed that I would question all of Erlich's predictions based on what I read about it but that was pretty much the only one I agreed with.

Here's a Scientific American article about climate models of the past from the 70's to 2007 and showing that 14 of the 17 examined have proven to be true based on what we're experiencing now. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-models-got-it-right-on-global-warming/ They also point out one of the inaccurate models is inaccurate because we took steps to phase out the use of chlorofluorocarbons. When that variable is added to the model it is accurate.

I contend that many predictions are more accurate than inaccurate but I don't have anything to back up my contention. I also think that most of the inaccurate predictions listed by people are done so by taking them out of context, not taking into account actions taken since the prediction was made or other omissions that would give a more accurate depiction of the prediction and the eventual results.

Regarding your mention of Y2K predictions, most of the issues with Y2K were addressed in software before it happened (which is another example of not taking into account actions taken based on a prediction) but there were still people who didn't believe that the computer scientists and programmers who did the work resolved the issues.
Click to expand...
Having some familiarity with mathematics, computers and modeling, my only advice to you and others is don't bet the ranch, or much of anything on climate models. There are too many unknown variables and too much questionable input, insufficient model feedback loops (e.g., correlation is not causation) etc. I'll just leave it at that and perhaps people will place some emphasis on common sense (e.g., climate has and will always change, warming happens between ice ages, etc. etc.) and healthy skeptcism (i.e., the very foundation of science).
 
JonDouglas said:
Having some familiarity with mathematics, computers and modeling, my only advice to you and others is don't bet the ranch, or much of anything on climate models. There are too many unknown variables and too much questionable input, insufficient model feedback loops (e.g., correlation is not causation) etc. I'll just leave it at that and perhaps people will place some emphasis on common sense (e.g., climate has and will always change, warming happens between ice ages, etc. etc.) and healthy skeptcism (i.e., the very foundation of science).
Click to expand...

I'm also familiar with mathematics and computers but you've got me on modeling of anything other than contact center staffing. However when I see 14 out of 17 (82%) correct or 15 out of 17 (88%) correct (when one considers the model that was correct when the unexpected reduction of chlorofluorocarbons is factored in) are high enough percentages for me to give them more weight than skepticism without any figures to back it up.

I do agree it isn't enough to bet the farm on it, but it is enough to modify the farm to reduce some of the risks or to mitigate some of the expected outcomes.

I also agree that healthy skepticism is good but I don't consider the repeated mention of previous incorrect predictions as reasonable skepticism. That's especially true for me when some of the previous predictions were totally unrelated to the subject of the study being discussed.

Generally scientific skepticism is well managed in the peer reviewed journals. I do agree that there are times when the skepticism is incorrect, but science has a way of working that out by either addressing the incorrect skepticism or by doing further research to provide more solid numbers for the predictions of the initial study.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top