Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CornucopiaOfDystopia t1_j3ly0sn wrote

Reply to comment by BurnerAcc2020 in Deep overturning circulation collapses with strong warming, which could cause a "disaster" in the world's oceans. by sibti

Literally not even your own quoted excerpt states that, so why are you posting this? What do you think is meant by your own quoted portion which states,

>In the present study, the AMOC collapse reverses the warming seen in the smooth climate change scenarios, generating an average fall in temperature of 3.4 °C by 2080, accompanied by a substantial reduction in rainfall (−123 mm during the growing season.

Why are you deliberately and confidently misrepresenting the science on this, in multiple parts of this thread?

7

AftyOfTheUK t1_j3m5btg wrote

He isn't, at least not in this post.

Perhaps you could quote the thing you think he has said which is misleading? Might help to explain our different understandings of what he said.

2

mrbucknut t1_j3me8zp wrote

BurnerAcc2020 didn't misrepresent anything, you just failed at reading comprehension. They correctly state the stated affects by 2300 from the posted article. They then reference another source with a different prediction, and what the worst case scenario is per that quoted article. 2 different articles with different prediction/conclusions, a presented that way. The quoted article is around 2 years older so that is another thing to consider when evaluating both.

1

CornucopiaOfDystopia t1_j3mfjkn wrote

But they did it specifically to downplay concerns that they purposefully misrepresented to be about total collapse, when even the parent comment merely and correctly expressed concerns about the current being altered, perhaps as it was when Europe was plunged into the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago causing terrible famines and extreme cold. To attempt to reframe those concerns as being only about 100% shutdown of the current is an egregious and fallacious strawman of the argument.

But even aside from that, as I said, their own references do not support their implication that the concerns are not appropriate for generations. Just because a study is three years old doesn’t mean that the cause for concern it might raise can be dismissed. There is a clear scientific consensus that thermohaline cycle disruption is a real threat to humanity, with potential for catastrophe well before 2300, and yet reading only the comment I critiqued, one would never know that. That is extremely problematic in a discussion like this one, and I stand by my critique.

1