Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

AMOC/Atlantic Ocean circulation is nearing devastating tipping point - New Study

2»

Comments



  • Sums up the idiocy of the climate deniers! The Montreal Protocol was a multilateral agreement to ban CFCs which is why the hole in the ozone layer began to repair. The rest of your arguments are straw man nonsense used to justify your baseless beliefs.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,850 ✭✭✭aidanodr


    relevant to this topic?

    From Brian McNoldy - Senior Research Associate at the Univ. of Miami Rosenstiel School. Hurricanes, climatology, & sea level rise

    Also he added - "And just for the sake of perspective on this type of anomaly, if I apply the same outlier status (4.5 standard deviations from the 1991-2020 mean) to an Atlantic hurricane season, there would be 38 named storms, 21 hurricanes, 11 major hurricanes, and 410 ACE."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭Billcarson


    The disturbing thing is that comment got 6 likes. This being a weather forum makes that fact even worse.

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,111 ✭✭✭Longing


    I give it a like to make it 7 likes. So what will we call it now truly disturbing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭Billcarson


    You may find it all funny etc but time will tell regarding climate change. Its already telling but clearly not enough for those that deny it or at least those that deny that humans are the cause. Time always tells in the end. I doubt those that come after us will find it all that funny. Not saying they are all doomed but challenging times will be coming for humanity.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,111 ✭✭✭Longing


    No don't find it funny at all I am open to science but its definitely not settled. Just when you posted that 6 people like a post it was disturbing. Well you see people will always have different views in every part of life are these people disturbed (Need mental valuation) no they do not. It didn't fit your view on it. Your view could be correct I don't know. AMOC/Atlantic Ocean circulation study I know nothing on it. Its the first I heard of such a report.

    Almost 40 years ago I heard of another report by United States Environmental Protection Agency on Acid rain. Still no warnings on Met Eireann to stay in doors. What I'm trying to say here is not every report is gospel. Not for one min downplaying this AMOC report but no matter how hard we try time is the real truth. That's were the conflict of issues arise.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,099 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    There is still a lot of scepticism.

    Too many boy cried wolf stories about the climate disasters to bring the masses onboard.

    The scaremongering stoies about Dublin beimg underwater and London the same, just appear as agenda driven nonsense by invested parties.

    The general population just doesnt believe it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,113 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Don't worry, there is a legislator in Canada who just tabled a bill to make it illegal to commercially promote or say anything in favour of fossil fuels. I'm sure ER or some other Irish nut-job would be happy to try something similar here for people who post AGW sceptical posts, or upvote them.

    A curious clause bans the suggestion that the burning of some hydrocarbons and the emissions caused are “less harmful” than other fossil fuels. This provision would make it illegal to state the scientific fact that burning natural gas produces less than half the carbon dioxide than the burning of coal. It would also be an offence to suggest that the use of hydrocarbons would lead to positive benefits for the environment, the health of Canadians and the global economy. Whatever the facts based in science or economic observation, all these ‘wrong’ thoughts can be punished with a C$500,000 fine and two years in prison.

    And this isn't the first time people have suggested sceptics and 'climate deniers' be imprissoned for their views. There is not a little of that on boards already, with adherents to the religion of AGW suggesting sceptics and non believers have less intelligence than they do and should be derided for their mental incompetence. Got a mirrror handy?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭Billcarson


    Well imprisonment of people for their views would be going way too far. People can believe whatever they want. I'm not going to change you and others minds anymore then you are going to change mine. I believe in the science of the current situation. If you believe and rightly so that the climate has always changed and we know this from science and what scientists have told us. So why believe they (or many of them) have got it so wrong now? Regarding the current situation. Sounds like a contradiction to me.

    We have been lucky the last 10,000 yrs or so. The climate has been relatively stable in that time which has allowed humans to flourish and create civilisations. Whatever humans do or don't do the climate will change at some point of course anyway. With nature it's all a game of chance and luck. We've been on a roll. I believe we are playing with that luck now. I'd rather not take the chance that maybe the science could be wrong. We have to clean up our act anyway.



  • Advertisement


  • Climate deniers ? Nothing about ye ludars ignoring published scientific reports that co2 is not an issue !!!

    Typical lefties, everyone is wrong bar you

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Mike on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,113 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    How about scientists being fired from their jobs at universities, or being pressured to resign, over their science based scepticism? How about the latest recipient of the Nobel prize for physics being cancelled by the IMF for saying climate science is junk science?

    A couple of pages backed I posted this, without the axis labels. It is a rough record of global average temperature spanning the last 5 glacial/intergalcial cycles:

    The green bits are mine. On the right, we have the current climate 'crisis'. Luck and chance have nothing to do with it, from my interpretation of that graph. The climate has not been stable these past 12,000 years, that is a monumental lie perpetrated by the climate cabal conspiring to get climate journal editors fired for being too objective.

    That is as classic a case of a saw tooth pattern as you could wish for. How obvious is it to suggest that the Earth's climate is currently subject to quite regular glacial/interglacial periods?

    Those near vertical increases in temperature are in absolute sync with corresponding rises in CO2, which had nothing whatsoever to do with mankind or Neanderthal kind. But this time it's different, trust me, I fiddled adjusted the surface temperature record enough, I should know.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 935 ✭✭✭wildefalcon


    I'm not clever enough to understand the science. But I do understand that fossil "fuels" are too important to be wasted on making energy.

    So, irrespective of the climate stuff, we should stop burning oil and coal.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,579 ✭✭✭Billcarson


    What do you make of that graph?? BS???

    I can't understand how the hell you don't think human emissions aren't increasing CO2 levels. I'm not even talking about that graph ( think of it what you will) . You think CO2 rises are all natural and nothing at all to do with all the extra billions of tonnes we have put into the atmosphere over the last 100 yrs in particular. Of course trees ,plants and the oceans soak up alot. But its one hell of a coincidence that since 1850 when CO2 ppm was a 280 ( unless you think that's BS too) and it's currently around 420 ppm that , it has nothing to do with human emissions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 635 ✭✭✭InAtFullBack


    How much deforestation and desertification (hand in hand in alot of cases) has happened since 1850? That is the other side of the story totally ignored. Pointing at all that C02 rise as all down to burning fossil fuels is rather disingenuous really.

    Humans have changed the composition, terraformed if you like, the surface of this planet massively since the 1800s. This change has totally altered the balance of energy absorbed versus repelled in the lower atmosphere and directly affects temperatures and over time local microclimates.

    I alluded to earlier if one was to clear forested area and replace it with tarmacadam there would be a seismic shift in the temperatures recorded in that area. Clearing forest for agriculture, urbanisation, etc... is going to really affect the microclimate in that area. Upscale it to county-wide, country-wide and even continental-wide scales all across the world and the changes are going to be profound.

    While humans, whether directly through burning fossil fuels, or indirectly through clearing forest have influenced C02 levels to rise as your chart shows - moving the dial from 0.03% to 0.04% is not the alarming headline some think it is. I'd be alot more concerned about the real greenhouse gas that is there in abundance: Water Vapour.

    We know now that the huge Hunga Tonga volcano drove unprecedented levels of water content right up into the atmosphere and the stratosphere. The impacts of which on a climate timeline were immediate. Increased humidity and heat, especially in the temperate and Mediterranean-style climates.

    This water vapour surge coinciding with an El Nino has put some parts of the globe into getting quite unusual weather, namely higher precipitation and higher temperatures. Thankfully, these effects should abate by 2026 or thereabouts.

    As for burning fossil fuels - well even to this day, it's still the best option as renewables are still infantile. They do not deliver the same standards that fossil fuels do. Considering that fossil fuels are a rather 'lossy' source of energy as they stand - how much waste is left over after the energy required is extracted (think chimney, car exhaust, etc...), renewables still cannot compete.

    We need much more investment in researching non-polluting sources of energy that can power everything we need - electricity, transport, aviation, etc... Nuclear was one of those options until the Big Oil industry convinced a cabal of hippies to campaign against nuclear and form 'Green Parties' across the western world - something they still hold dear to this day. Useful idiots they were/are.

    Imagine how far Nuclear could have evolved since the latter part of the last century if it were not shunned? Even to this day, Nuclear is the only source of C02 free energy that can operate at night or when it's calm and even in both scenarios. If you doubt this, look at how France is one of the lowest C02 emitters in the western world thanks to it's large nuclear fleet of stations.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,639 ✭✭✭Pa ElGrande


    Every time you see headlines about impending  Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (AMOC) collapse, check who is looking for funding, often this scare originates from people connected with the Potsdam institute for Klimate alarm. These papers are about burning research grant money, nothing else. In this case it turns out the people running the computer models involve Greenland ice melting producing 7 times the amount of ice/water in Greenland. Oh, and 17 centuries from now for the impending AMOC collapse. These people need to step away from the computer.

    Meanwhile if you are interested, as this is the weather forum see One hundred years in the Norwegian Sea (tandfonline.com), all these are associated with changes in the Atlantic currents.

    • The great chill, 1900-1920
    • The warming in the North, 1920-1960
    • The great salinity anomaly, 1968-1982
    • The warming of the abyss, 1970-present
    • The freshening of the sub-arctic seas


    Net Zero means we are paying for the destruction of our economy and society in pursuit of an unachievable and pointless policy.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement