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.

[candide]

5 hours ago, parallelman said:

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

Actually, it seems the old plain models made rather accurate predictions. Was it just luck?

 

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

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

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.

and your solutions are?????????

 

I won't hold my breath waiting as likely you have as many as the scientists ie ZERO.

 

BTW, with the medical situation you mention the solution is obvious, but with nature nothing is obvious.

 

Good try, but no cigar. 😪

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

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

I live near an avocado tree. I pay nothing for them.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, parallelman said:

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

I'm constantly boggled by posters claiming that science is

a/ fixed

b/ always right

c/ advanced.

 

Our science is so primitive it can't even prevent cancer.

 

However, it is very good at making better ways to kill each other. Perhaps if they stopped spending money on better ways to kill each other and spent it on public good, we might have a better society.

[parallelman]

9 hours ago, candide said:

Actually, it seems the old plain models made rather accurate predictions. Was it just luck?

 

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

And it took 50 years for that to be noticed? Proves my point. Secondly, that article (from 2019) quotes 'Today, the models are much more sophisticated. Mainframe computers driven by paper punch cards have given way to supercomputers running trillions of calculations in 1 second.'

A single supercomputer cannot run at trillions of calulations per second...one source, Greenly had this to say (Feb. 2024)...'Looking to the future, the European Union has recently approved plans to develop two new supercomputing infrastructures which will be used in part for climate modeling. The first supercomputer is being installed in Germany and is known as JUPITER. Once the supercomputer is up and running it will be the most powerful computer in Europe, and the first to achieve exascale performance (ie. the capability to carry out over one billion calculations per second!)'

which is a thousand times less than a trillion.

[gamb00ler]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

BTW, with the medical situation you mention the solution is obvious, but with nature nothing is obvious.

Of course to the uneducated and inexperienced... nothing is obvious.. you've nicely confirmed you lack of knowledge.

 

It seems you're so naive that you expect some simple, cheap and effective solution for a planet wide problem. 

Edited yesterday at 05:22 AM by gamb00ler

[rickudon]

Trump is obviously mentioned because he doesn't believe in Climate change and says he will withdraw from all the global climate deals. Drill baby drill will not help. Co2 levels are higher than they have been in a million years, and physics indisputably proves that CO2 warms the atmosphere. Methane also does (fracking doesn't help here).

 

There are too many variables affecting climate to model it completely, so exactly how much warmer it will get and how long it takes are not fully known, hence the range of computer models looking at the variables. But all of them say ....Temperature up.

 

In some ways the collapse of AMOC would be good for some - it will cool the Northern temperate regions - but - the tropics  will get hotter - maybe enough for a good cull of humanity.

[GammaGlobulin]

Nothing to worry about, really!

 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/ocean-tipping-point-climate-change-b2657442.html

 

We will all be dead before the impact is felt in any significant way.

 

Also, this is OLD NEWS.

We have known for years that this will happen, just as it has happened in the past.

Europe will become a giant SNOWBALL....

So what?

 

Here in Thailand, though, the affects will be less drastic.

Anyway....we will probably all starve to death due to drastic decrease in food production and crop yields sooner than 2150, just due to another 1.5 degree C warming, which is likely in 2050.

 

Therefore, this thermocline problem may turn out to be insignificant, in the end.

 

No worries.

What, me worry?

 

Actually, the Independent article seems based on this article that they link:

 

 

https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2024/11/meltwater-greenland-arctic-weakening-ocean-circulation

 

But, if you really want to know what's going on in Science, then don't get it from a UK newspaper...Instead, just read the science journals.

 

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by GammaGlobulin

[GammaGlobulin]

On 12/2/2024 at 6:33 PM, Lacessit said:

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.

 

I could explain it to you.....but then...

I would have to.....you know what...

 

[Lacessit]

7 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

I could explain it to you.....but then...

I would have to.....you know what...

 

Do me a favor, please. Try to avoid posting idiotic responses.

[tomazbodner]

On 12/2/2024 at 10:14 AM, Yagoda said:

Apparently, you know some science. How come when folks tell me the world is warming, they can never tell me how much warmer it is then on the equivalent to Dec 1, 1000000000 BC?

Great you're putting your intelligence on display for all to see.

[Lacessit]

 

[Patong2021]

On 12/1/2024 at 9:42 PM, john donson said:

global winter, but still 20-25 degrees in thailand, now that would be great

 

It would result in catastrophic droughts and typhoons resultin in famine and economic destruction.

[Patong2021]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Do me a favor, please. Try to avoid posting idiotic responses.

 

She can't help it.

[Patong2021]

A few more years of catastrophic hurricanes, floods, wildfires, droughts  and maybe some countries will  understand the problem.

[GammaGlobulin]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Do me a favor, please. Try to avoid posting idiotic responses.

 

It's all about Entropy.

 

[ChaiyaTH]

Oh wait, so suddenly the thing that conspiracy thinkers said is actually the case, now slowly turns to be the case? Which means an actually cooling of the planet rather than a warming of it? Or does this finally confirms that climate always changes and that it in reality has very very little to do with our human input.

 

The continent of africa is also breaking up, eventually forming a new ocean, but can take another 500K years.

Edited 5 hours ago by ChaiyaTH

[Lacessit]

33 minutes ago, ChaiyaTH said:

Oh wait, so suddenly the thing that conspiracy thinkers said is actually the case, now slowly turns to be the case? Which means an actually cooling of the planet rather than a warming of it? Or does this finally confirms that climate always changes and that it in reality has very very little to do with our human input.

 

The continent of africa is also breaking up, eventually forming a new ocean, but can take another 500K years.

I suggest you check how rapidly property insurance premiums have escalated over the last 3-4 years for high risk areas.

 

Global warming and climate change have everything to do with human activity, but for many it is easier to be in denial.

 

Please explain how the earth has had a constant average temperature for the last 20,000 years, then managed to elevate that temperature by 1.1 C in a mere 150 years.

Edited 4 hours ago by Lacessit

[BritManToo]

31 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Please explain how the earth has had a constant average temperature for the last 20,000 years, then managed to elevate that temperature by 1.1 C in a mere 150 years.

Because it's an average, and deviation from the mean of 3c is entirely normal.

[BritManToo]

35 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I suggest you check how rapidly property insurance premiums have escalated over the last 3-4 years for high risk areas.

 

As land prices rise, people take more risks where they build, and expect insurance to cover any loss.

When land was cheap and plentiful, people built in safer areas, and at their own risk of loss.

Edited 4 hours ago by BritManToo

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/2/2024 at 1:14 PM, newbee2022 said:

There are still too many people denying any climate change (some are even in US govt)

I suspect it's the "man made" part they don't believe. It's a bit hard to deny that climate is changing.

 

IMO the man made part was introduced so governments could levy more taxes and give taxpayers money to countries that are making zero attempts to prepare for natural climate change. They want to give a trillion $ to "poor countries" LOL, but no mention of how the money would be spent. One suspects very little of whatever money is given gets past certain government pockets.