Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BurnerAcc2020 t1_j3m4s77 wrote

That excerpt is from a study which is nearly three years old, genius. It has almost nothing to do with the study in the article, and it does not predict that there would be a collapse at that point, either, because it does not actually examine the current at all. What it does is examine the weather in the UK under the assumption it did collapse at that point. I even included the part where they say exactly that in the excerpt.

> This is a low-probability, fast and early collapse of the AMOC compared with current expectations, emphasising the idealized nature of our study and our focus on assessing impacts.

Still, next time actually click on the links. You'll learn a lot more that way.


CornucopiaOfDystopia t1_j3m70z7 wrote

And yet you used it to imply that there was no reason for any concern whatsoever, even though conditions well before a complete collapse would still be disastrous and catastrophic. That is misleading at worst, and bad science at best.

Your attitude and tone in lines like this one,

>That excerpt is from a study which is nearly three years old, genius

Is not appropriate here. If your goal is to actually engage people in an educational and scientific manner, you are failing quite badly.


BurnerAcc2020 t1_j3mey0t wrote

My cornucopian, you have repeatedly made accusations against me in this thread which were entirely based on your inability to understand what I wrote and do even the most cursory research like the clicking the OOP article or my links. If you want to see better attitude from me, how about you delete all of those comments, or edit them to acknowledge what you got wrong?

> even though conditions well before a complete collapse would still be disastrous and catastrophic.

Depends on how you define these words, I guess. A rule of thumb, though: they wouldn't have led with an impact which occurs in 2300 in their headline if they were able to prove something truly dramatic in our lifetimes.

For the record, there actually was one relatively recent peer-reviewed paper which estimated that as long as the AMOC does not shut down entirely, its slowdown would be one of the few tipping points with a positive economic impact because it would help to cancel out the impacts of climate change, although those findings are far from universally accepted.

> Slowdown of the AMOC reduces the expected SCC by 1.4% by reducing damaging warming in some countries.

> All AMOC slowdown scenarios result in a decrease in the expected SCC ranging from −0.7 to −5.7%, the latter in a scenario with a notably large two-thirds slowdown in the circulation.

(SCC stands for social cost of carbon and it's a bad thing, so it becoming lower is good.)


Kalapuya t1_j3mfx7x wrote

>nearly three years old

Things don’t change that quickly. That data is still perfectly relevant.


BurnerAcc2020 t1_j3mha38 wrote

Yes, which is why I brought it up in the first place. My point was that merely looking at the publication date would have shown that the link with the exceprt is too old to have anything to do with the OOP post outside of studying similar subject matter, yet the other commenter did not even do that and thought the excerpt was from the present study.