Potential Collapse of Vital Atlantic Ocean Currents: A Looming Climate Catastrophe

[Celsius]

before this there will be COVID 2.0 and Thailand 3.0

[placeholder]

On 8/5/2024 at 5:03 AM, parallelman said:

The Earth's magnetic field is moving and could flip at any time and if the result is a weaker magnetic field it won't be enough protection from the Sun's Solar Wind, then it's goodbye. 

 

The earth's magnetic field has flipped many times.

 

No, We're Not All Doomed by Earth's Magnetic Field Flip

https://archive.ph/ebYp4#selection-4587.0-4587.55

[nobodysfriend]

11 hours ago, parallelman said:

..the reason is that to many people there is no absolute model that does the prediction correctly.

 

It is quite simple and we all know it ... it is not all about climate change ... it is about pollution , deforestation , overpopulation , and an economical system that is based on eternal growth .

Sorry , but always to favor economical growth ( stock market etc ... ) is a big mistake that  leads to exhaustion of limited natural resources without enabling us to find a sustainable way out .

Stop .

 

A few propositions :

1.

Hydrogen can replace fossil fuels and does no harm to the planet if it is generated by solar , wind , water ...

Solar cells on every roof . I do not understand why the producers of solar cells do not fabricate ' solar roof tiles ' that can replace the traditional way to make roofs .

Green energy can be used to create enough Hydrogen , even if the ratio is only 2 to 1 by now . ( to produce 1kw of hydrogen , 2kw of energy are presently needed ) , but it would still be enough ...

2.

There is an urgent need to stop plastic pollution .

Is really nobody able to invent biodegradable plastic ? Hard to believe .

For example : traditional plastic water bottles should at least , be replaced by the Tetra pack paper bottles that are used for fruit juice already .

Or , even better , make the plastic bottles reusable ... bring empty bottles to the supermarket , have them refilled and cleaned by distributors ( machines )  and use them again .

Everything you buy to day is wrapped in plastic , is that really necessary ?

3.

Need to stop deforestation and try to reestablish the ecological balance wherever that is possible .

No more over fishing , need to leave time to species to reproduce . Leave Nature alone .

Nature has shown an astonishing ability to heal harmed ecosystems , once left alone .

 

Utopia :

 

A planet that is managed by a responsible dominant species with the goal to enable a good life for everybody and every animal that is part of a naturally balanced biosphere .

People live in cities or regions that are designed for people living there .

Outside this only Nature ... but surveyed by people with the goal that no harm is done to the balance ...

F.E. : overpopulation of animals like elephants , wild boars etc , must be reduced to a sustainable level without endangering the species itself .

The planet was naturally beautiful before the industrial revolution changed many things to the worse .

Now , we have the technology and the knowledge to enable us to live in harmony with Nature .

 

But .

 

Overpopulation does too much harm .

I saw a report in TV about a Gazan family in a refugee camp .

The man complained about not having enough to eat , not having a job to help his 12 ( !!! ) kids to survive ...

Crazy , why must the poorest and most uneducated people have the most kids ?

Birth control ( sterilization after the first 2 kids ) should be implemented worldwide , not only for the poor .

 

Anyway ... very rapid climate change is a reality now , and it is too late to reverse or stop it .

 

Sorry , but Utopia , forget it .

Dystopia is a more realistic projection for the future of mankind .

 

Fault of the shortsighted politicians and ' business leaders ' who are and have been sacrificing everything for their holy profit . SHAME .

 

Edited August 7 by nobodysfriend

[parallelman]

12 hours ago, placeholder said:

First off, most models have predicted the overall rate of global warming very accurately. Even those old modals that predated the massive computing power that subsequently became available.

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming
Study debunks idea that older models were inaccurate

Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn't accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models—some half a century old—shows most of them were indeed accurate.

https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

 

Since these models were based on the warming properties of greenhouses gasses, our comments about CO2 are just obfuscation.

 

The same goes for your comment about the Earth's shape. It differs very, very slightly from a sphere.

 

"The Earth’s rotation creates an outward force that is highest at the equator and zero at the poles. Since the Earth is not perfectly solid throughout, this force results in the Earth being ‘squashed’ into a slightly flattened sphere...

The diameter at the poles is about 12,714km and at the equator is about 12,756km; hence the amount of flattening (or ‘oblateness’) is only about 0.3 per cent."

https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/why-isnt-the-earth-a-perfect-sphere

 

And satellites have been used to measure the energy balance since 1997

 

Direct Observations Confirm That Humans Are Throwing Earth's Energy Budget off Balance

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3072/direct-observations-confirm-that-humans-are-throwing-earths-energy-budget-off-balance/

 

Less than 20 years in Geoscience terms is still not long enough for satellites to have the impact expected of them.

[parallelman]

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

The earth's magnetic field has flipped many times.

 

No, We're Not All Doomed by Earth's Magnetic Field Flip

https://archive.ph/ebYp4#selection-4587.0-4587.55

Indeed it has. In fact fossil examination shows previous flips. magnetic field flips can be very complicated because filed lines become tangled which can result in a greater of lesser strength. But we won't know until it happens.

[Stargeezr]

Well!  At least they cannot blame this on us puny humans. In Canada the climate alrmists

like to blame everything they can on us humans and our effect on CO2 in the atmosphere, which is less than one half of one percent of the atmosphere

by the way. Oh and methane that Europe is all upset about is a trace gas. The cows can safely fart and burb all they want to.

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, parallelman said:

Less than 20 years in Geoscience terms is still not long enough for satellites to have the impact expected of them.

 But who exactly is expecting what impact? This are reading that show a net energy imbalance and all you've got is this? Some kind of vague generalization?

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, parallelman said:

Indeed it has. In fact fossil examination shows previous flips. magnetic field flips can be very complicated because filed lines become tangled which can result in a greater of lesser strength. But we won't know until it happens.

More gobbledygook. There have been many polarity flips. Not much evidence for disasters.

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Stargeezr said:

Well!  At least they cannot blame this on us puny humans. In Canada the climate alrmists

like to blame everything they can on us humans and our effect on CO2 in the atmosphere, which is less than one half of one percent of the atmosphere

by the way. Oh and methane that Europe is all upset about is a trace gas. The cows can safely fart and burb all they want to.

You seem bizarrely resistant to the fact that the potency of greenhouse gasses is not a matter for legitimate debate. It's been measured in laboratories. The knowledge of their potency goes all the way back to the 19th century. And their exact potency was determined long before anthropogenic climate change became an issue.

[Emdog]

If the gulf stream stops, the winters in northern latitudes near Atlantic will be extreme.

Maybe could mean and end to football (Yankee and Euro type). Maybe that threat could be an incentive to get folks on board to doing something (optimistic, eh?).

I heard about this danger from ice caps melting at least 20 years ago & I wouldn't call myself an ecologist type....

Some deniers keep splitting hairs over could this happen and to what extent.... here is an article about 97% agreement on climate change by scientists and some of the myths Science consenus on global warming

[parallelman]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

 But who exactly is expecting what impact? This are reading that show a net energy imbalance and all you've got is this? Some kind of vague generalization?

Whoa, what tickled your armpit then. What are you babbling on about about what 'Ive got'. Satellites have a great deal of mapping to do before some kind of assumed base line used and that atkes a long time and many satellites. They will impact the data we already have in due course so calm down and wait...or take some pills for your blood pressure.

[parallelman]

18 minutes ago, placeholder said:

More gobbledygook. There have been many polarity flips. Not much evidence for disasters.

I didn't mention disasters and as awlays your comments show that you just a far left-wing troll trying to fit your narrative.

[placeholder]

17 minutes ago, parallelman said:

Whoa, what tickled your armpit then. What are you babbling on about about what 'Ive got'. Satellites have a great deal of mapping to do before some kind of assumed base line used and that atkes a long time and many satellites. They will impact the data we already have in due course so calm down and wait...or take some pills for your blood pressure.

Well, on the one hand there's an unsupported opinion by an anonymous member of aseannow..com, and on the other, the conclusions of climatologists associated with NASA. It's a tough choice to make, but I'll go with the climatologists.

[placeholder]

15 minutes ago, parallelman said:

I didn't mention disasters and as awlays your comments show that you just a far left-wing troll trying to fit your narrative.

So what's your point? What does it mean to say "But we won't know until it happens." What won't we know?

[thaibeachlovers]

On 8/5/2024 at 10:59 PM, nobodysfriend said:

Climate change ( don't deny it , there is tons of evidence ... )

I hope that wasn't aimed at me, as I have said more times than I can remember that climate change exists. I also said that there is nothing we can do to change it into something else, so we seem to be on the same page there.

 

I've always been of the opinion that Gaia, or nature, will rid us unwelcome humans that have been destroying the wonderful planet we were given to inhabit, and it seems to me that that is what is happening, climate change, new diseases, drought etc are going to do the job- it just takes time. The irony is that we are the authors of our own destruction with our overpopulation, destruction of rain forests, pollution of the oceans, annihilation of other species, and refusal to moderate our population growth or our destructive habits.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, placeholder said:

First off, most models have predicted the overall rate of global warming very accurately. Even those old modals that predated the massive computing power that subsequently became available.

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming

Pity they didn't tell us how to stop it changing then. I'm constantly boggled by the mantra "the climate is changing" as that is stating the obvious. Whether it is changing faster than before is irrelevant, but the idea that we can stop it changing if only we all drive an EV or pay more taxes, or kill all the ruminants on the planet and eat bugs instead, is just nonsense, IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

Birth control ( sterilization after the first 2 kids ) should be implemented worldwide , not only for the poor .

On that I disagree, Only 1 child and only to parents able to support the child. IMO most of our problems stem from too many of us, and we need to get back to about 3 billion. The only way short of an unstoppable plague ( like the Black Death ) or nuclear war is reducing birth rate for a few generations. I believe that if we don't do it nature will do it for us and it won't be pretty.

 

I agree with most of the rest of your post.

[nobodysfriend]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

On that I disagree, Only 1 child and only to parents able to support the child.

           ...  accidental double post ,sorry .

Edited August 7 by nobodysfriend

[nobodysfriend]

1 minute ago, nobodysfriend said:

Yes , of course you are right . Only one child should be enough ...

But governments constantly complain about the aging population and not having enough young , working people to finance the elders ...

But may be  robots can take care for the old in the future ? I remember having read an article about that somewhere ...

But again , You are right , one child only per family would be the best way out of overpopulation .

 

[thaibeachlovers]

39 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

 

You might want to re post as it can't be quoted like that.

 

Short of plague or nuclear war, IMO there is no other way for the population to reduce to an acceptable level than 1 child.

 

The mantra that we need more people is political nonsense now, as robotics AI will make most workers redundant. It's been happening for ages, but getting worse as factories automate.

 

Of course robots will be able to take care of old people- humans don't want to do it any more, and I certainly would never work in an old folks home- I had enough of that as a nurse and that was in an ordinary hospital.

[nauseus]

On 8/5/2024 at 4:03 PM, parallelman said:

The Earth's magnetic field is moving and could flip at any time and if the result is a weaker magnetic field it won't be enough protection from the Sun's Solar Wind, then it's goodbye. Every November the Earth passes through the Taurid cloud and every year there is a chance that one of the larger lumps will decend and kill us all. The Sun is not as stable as we once thought and at any time a giant CME could turn us all into fried steaks. Some star just a few light years away could go SN and that would bad news too. The universe is expanding and could end it all in a 'big rip' but then again it might just collapse and end in a 'big crunch'. The universe in violent in death but that death results in new 'life'. If we don't do the job ourselves then one of the others will.

Wonder if I have time for another cup of tea and look at that movie where the aliens invade and eat us.

 

I'd love to see a solid reference with that proclamation.

 

Oh, and while Methane might still technically a trace gas (by% of gasses in the atmosphere), its presence has trebled over the last 200 years. It is also somewhere bettween 20-80 times more potent as a heat trap than CO2 and at is least a 20% contributor to atmospheric warming right now. 

 

References avaiable on request but after you.

Edited August 7 by nauseus

[parallelman]

There is a new paper published today (National Academy Of Sciences USA) about ocean temperature variability/weather/biological systems, Quite long with a few links so might take a while to read. If it is relevant to this thread I'll post details for those interested or if any forum member here is a member of that intsitution perhaps they could advise.

 

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I'd love to see a solid reference with that proclamation.

 

Oh, and while Methane might still technically a trace gas (by% of gasses in the atmosphere), its presence has trebled over the last 200 years. It is also somewhere bettween 20-80 times more potent as a heat trap than CO2 and at is least a 20% contributor to atmospheric warming right now. 

 

References avaiable on request but after you.

The calculations of methane's potency as a greenhouse gas depend on how long into the future that potency is projected. Because methane decays much more rapidly than CO2, the longer the projected timespan, the lower that methane/CO2 ratio is. Over 20 years it's 80 times as potent; over 100 years, 28 times as potent.

This links to an excellent article about how this works and why different lengths of time were chosen in the first place

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-compare-methane-carbon-dioxide-over-100-year-timeframe-are-we-underrating

 

Edited August 7 by placeholder

[placeholder]

8 hours ago, Stargeezr said:

Well!  At least they cannot blame this on us puny humans. In Canada the climate alrmists

like to blame everything they can on us humans and our effect on CO2 in the atmosphere, which is less than one half of one percent of the atmosphere

by the way. Oh and methane that Europe is all upset about is a trace gas. The cows can safely fart and burb all they want to.

Here is a link to an excellent explanation of why certain gases exert a greenhouse effect and why there are differing degrees of potency:

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-makes-methane-more-potent-greenhouse-gas-carbon-dioxide

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Pity they didn't tell us how to stop it changing then. I'm constantly boggled by the mantra "the climate is changing" as that is stating the obvious. Whether it is changing faster than before is irrelevant, but the idea that we can stop it changing if only we all drive an EV or pay more taxes, or kill all the ruminants on the planet and eat bugs instead, is just nonsense, IMO.

You cite no facts backed by links even to a non-credible source, much less a credible one. However, I do agree with your characterization of " the idea that we can stop it changing if only we all drive an EV or pay more taxes, or kill all the ruminants on the planet and eat bugs instead," is nonsense. Of course, it's nonsense of your own invention. Climatologist do no claim that any one of these actions by itself can solve the problem. That is your own invention.

You compound the nonsense by asserting that it's irrelevant whether climate "is changing faster than before." If you were offered 2 investment options, equally secure, but one that offers a rate of return  1% and another that offers a rate of 10%, you would judge that difference to be irrelevant, too?

[parallelman]

On 8/7/2024 at 4:09 PM, parallelman said:

There is a new paper published today (National Academy Of Sciences USA) about ocean temperature variability/weather/biological systems, Quite long with a few links so might take a while to read. If it is relevant to this thread I'll post details for those interested or if any forum member here is a member of that intsitution perhaps they could advise.

 

The paper mentioned is not really relevant here because it is more about the biological systems along the tropical and subtropical routes of the ocean current and not specifically about the currents. The north Atlantic part of the current was not part of the study. What was interesting were the insitu 'stations' results which recordrd hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and annual temperatures, had a greater variation than those obtained via satellite.