Warning Signs: The Looming Collapse of a Critical Ocean System

[Caldera]

That will have people panicking again... 

[newbee2022]

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Can't beat nature. Humanity has behaved very badly towards the host planet and Gaia is going to punish us for it.

 

The world must act swiftly

LOL. IMO never going to happen, and in any event IMO nobody has any real solutions to prevent an entirely natural event occurring. I'm sure a few more taxes will be levied, a few more trees will be grown, a few EVs will be sold and a few windmills will be erected, and a whole lot of profit will be in the usual suspects wallets,but the result will be no more than what Canute achieved. IMO the green parties of the world should proclaim Canute their patron saint.

 

I've been waiting a long time for someone on here to come up with actual policies that are affordable, acceptable and effective, but I suspect I'll still be waiting in year's time.

Don't be desperate. 

Good things will come to you:

Americans created Godzilla, Spiderman, Barbi and Ken.

They have Black people, White people, Red People, slit eyes people, Blue Aliens and soon this Orange Man.

What are you afraid of now? What worse to come?

They will create something new. Believe me.

[parallelman]

5 hours ago, HK MacPhooey said:

There are still too many people accepting all these pseudo scientific reports on impending climate catastrophe when the reality is that we do not have sufficient computing capacity to model more than a fraction of the earth’s atmospheric, oceanic and geographic variables and how they  relate to climatic conditions - we cannot even predict regional weather conditions with any degree of certainty.

 

Sure we have hundreds of thousands of scientists working the issues and finding just the right results to justify the scaremongering that their paymasters (whoever they are) wish to put on us gullible sheeple.

 

David Bowie told us we only had ‘Five years’ back in 1973 and here we are fifty years later - if we couldn’t trust Bowie then, why should we trust the scientists today🤨

Anyone that thinks that that climate change is by now an exact science is wrong and here I'm referring to just natural climate. All climate Models (and there are a few) revolve around solving PDE's (Navier-Stokes for example) for quite a few variables. Only in very simple states can the PDE's be sovolved analytically but for the climate they have to be numerically approximated. Then there is the problem differentiating land and sea effects and further differentiatin terrain, mountains, forests, hills, valleys and planes which all react differently and affect each other. Not to mention various forces that also need to be accounted for. Now add to that Global Warming (human/animal influence on climate) concrete buildings and roads, how close or far they apart, big small and so on and on. The enclosed picture is from a MIT lecture, 2008, describing a simple 1 year computer model simulation. Each square is divided further into 'grid-cells' and some basic equations applied. It apparently took about 1.5 trillion calculations. More complete simulations require a great deal more computing power...and where does that come from?

Some people argue that we have better technology now but what they don't relaise is that the information we are collecting now will not impact predictions until several years time.

Yes, there is a general upward trend but the reality could be worse or not so bad depending how the approximations are viewed.

 

[LosLobo]

20 minutes ago, parallelman said:

Anyone that thinks that that climate change is by now an exact science is wrong and here I'm referring to just natural climate. All climate Models (and there are a few) revolve around solving PDE's (Navier-Stokes for example) for quite a few variables. Only in very simple states can the PDE's be sovolved analytically but for the climate they have to be numerically approximated. Then there is the problem differentiating land and sea effects and further differentiatin terrain, mountains, forests, hills, valleys and planes which all react differently and affect each other. Not to mention various forces that also need to be accounted for. Now add to that Global Warming (human/animal influence on climate) concrete buildings and roads, how close or far they apart, big small and so on and on. The enclosed picture is from a MIT lecture, 2008, describing a simple 1 year computer model simulation. Each square is divided further into 'grid-cells' and some basic equations applied. It apparently took about 1.5 trillion calculations. More complete simulations require a great deal more computing power...and where does that come from?

Some people argue that we have better technology now but what they don't relaise is that the information we are collecting now will not impact predictions until several years time.

Yes, there is a general upward trend but the reality could be worse or not so bad depending how the approximations are viewed.

 

 

You’re correct that climate models rely on solving PDEs like Navier-Stokes and require numerical approximations due to the complexity of Earth's systems. However, the claim that better technology won’t impact predictions for years overlooks how iterative improvements refine both short- and long-term forecasts.
 

Uncertainties are a feature of modeling complex systems, not a flaw, and the consistent upward trend in global temperatures is supported by robust, independently verified models. Uncertainty often points to the potential for worse outcomes, not less severe ones.
 

As for the graphic, it’s outdated and adds little to the discussion. The coarse 2.8° x 2.8° grid from CCM3 reflects decades-old modeling, while modern models use much finer resolutions, capturing regional effects far more accurately. Using such an example doesn’t reflect today’s advanced climate science.

[gamb00ler]

14 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've been waiting a long time for someone on here to come up with actual policies that are affordable, acceptable and effective, but I suspect I'll still be waiting in year's time.

That's a pretty naive list of requirements.  I suppose if you had a child with a congenital heart defect you'd be waiting for the same kind of affordable, acceptable and effective solution when in reality the only hope is a prohibitively expensive and painful heart transplant.

 

Talk about an overly simplistic opinion which admirably serves to illustrate your lack of knowledge and concern.

[Lacessit]

8 hours ago, HK MacPhooey said:

The first idiot comment on this thread

Yours was the second.

[Lacessit]

9 hours ago, Gsxrnz said:

I had a strange dream a while ago. I woke up believing that this big bright yellow thing shining in the sky might have a lot to do with our weather and climate. 

 

But apparently I was wrong. It turns out that a natural gas that makes plants grow and constitutes about 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere is the real climate controller.  

 

If you want to see a dazed look on the face of a climate activist's face and melt their tiny brains, tell them about solar maximum and minimum, solar cycle sun spot variations, solar winds, Milankovitch's orbital wobble and orbital eccentricity, the Maunder minimum, the medieval warm period, and the truth behind the myth that 97% of scientists agree.

 

 

I'm guessing the same dazed look would appear on your face if I asked you to define the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[parallelman]

2 hours ago, LosLobo said:

 

You’re correct that climate models rely on solving PDEs like Navier-Stokes and require numerical approximations due to the complexity of Earth's systems. However, the claim that better technology won’t impact predictions for years overlooks how iterative improvements refine both short- and long-term forecasts.
 

Uncertainties are a feature of modeling complex systems, not a flaw, and the consistent upward trend in global temperatures is supported by robust, independently verified models. Uncertainty often points to the potential for worse outcomes, not less severe ones.
 

As for the graphic, it’s outdated and adds little to the discussion. The coarse 2.8° x 2.8° grid from CCM3 reflects decades-old modeling, while modern models use much finer resolutions, capturing regional effects far more accurately. Using such an example doesn’t reflect today’s advanced climate science.

Firstly, the 'outdated' MIT grid was never meant to be advanced only to show the very simplest of what a simulation takes into account. You would have noticed that if you had interpreted my comment correctly. You call it 'today's advance climate science' but it is not advanced and that's the point. It is yet in its infancy and we maybe able to call it advanced when later discoveries are made where the maths fits the data within narrow error margins. Take for example aerosol emission where scientists are still trying fix the lack of data. And another point from 2023 was the sudden jump in temperatures which went beyond rate increase predictions. Scientists 2023/2024 are just beginning to introduce AI to help solve some of the problems. So we have along way to go before we can say our climate science is advanced. If it were that advanced then there would only be one interpretation of results but at present, that is not the case

[Cryingdick]

10 hours ago, Celsius said:

can't bother to read the article because I don't care I'll be dead

 

You will be singing a different tune when you learn it will make the price of avocados goes up during your lifetime.