Remember how they were saying that the Atlantic Current was doomed, and then not doomed? I guess they moved their scaremongering to the Antarctic
Earth’s Strongest Ocean Current Could Slow 20 Percent by 2050 Because of Climate Change, Study Finds
Five times stronger than the Gulf Stream and more than 100 times stronger than the Amazon River, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) is the most powerful ocean current on Earth. As it flows around Antarctica, it connects the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans and distributes nutrients around the world.
In short, the ACC is a complex marine “conveyor belt” involved in everything from absorbing heat and atmospheric carbon dioxide into the oceans to guarding against invasive marine species—but because of climate change, scientists now say it might slow down by as much as 20 percent by 2050.
“Might”? I thought this was supposed to be a scientific study, not reading a crystal ball.
Researchers used a climate simulator on Australia’s fastest supercomputer to model changes in the ACC given the projected ice melting and ocean warming under different carbon emission scenarios, as detailed in a new study published Monday in the journal Environmental Research Letters. While natural phenomena also release the planet-warming gas, humans have increased atmospheric carbon dioxide by 50 percent in less than two centuries due to burning fossil fuels, according to NASA.
And there we go, a computer model. So, this is all shite.
“The ocean is extremely complex and finely balanced. If this current ‘engine’ breaks down, there could be severe consequences, including more climate variability, with greater extremes in certain regions and accelerated global warming due to a reduction in the ocean’s capacity to act as a carbon sink,” Gayen says in the statement.
Yes, it is complex, and things are always changing on planet Earth. Climate cultists think things are always supposed to stay the same.
Here’s the scientific paper so your own research is not filtered through some science writer or Teach’s biases.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adb31c#erladb31cf5
Mr Teach repeats his perennial whine about scientists using the word “might”, implying uncertainty. There is always uncertainty in measurements, but that is not what these scientists mean. Remember: Scientific ‘findings’ are always conditional, that is they can be refuted with data and evident. They are stating their implications “might” be wrong.
Mr Teach claims the study is shit because they used computer modeling. Welcome to the new age! To the new age! (Bonus points if you ID the lyrics!) Get used to AI for all!
I hope Musk doesn’t use computers for his rockets and cars!
Jeff,
Your little paper is meaningless. Ok, some disturbance of ice, big deal. There is a brief mention of CO2 but not in context of warming, only enough to get the paper published, all papers must mention carbon to get published. Then you copied the abstract which frequently has nothing to do with the body of your paper selections.
Computer models aren’t evidence. If they had actual evidence, models wouldn’t be needed.
Don’t be stupid. They summarize the existing evidence in the intro (supplied). You can check references 1-9 if you wish.
Who’s stupid? So your info above is based on observations, not models.
Model still aren’t evidence of anything
porter,
It’s not my little paper, it’s Teach’s.
Of course, they take for granted that knowledgeable people know the Earth is warming.
The section I copied was from the Introduction, not the Abstract. Intros usually summarize the background information (with citations) to help explain why the authors conducted the reported study.
Their modeling “suggests” that continued ice melt from warming “might” slow the Antarctic Circumpolar Current . That’s all. Just relax. They could be wrong!! But it “suggests” keeping a eye on it.
They were exploring the influence of Antarctic fresh meltwater entering the Southern Ocean on the current.
Your comments are meaningless but consistent in their meaninglessness!
Jeff,
A few years ago I pulled the articles from a white paper produced by the government.
I found that the abstracts and introductions were almost completely opposite from the conclusions of the main body.
It is the reason I completely discount the references you produce. Your main objective is to try and link carbon to changes of any kind regarding the earth. You are a silly little, I am sorry large, man.
porter,
A few years ago I pulled the articles from a review article produced by LSU Med School.
I found that the abstracts and introductions were almost completely opposite from the conclusions of the main body.
It is the reason I completely discount the references you never produce. Your main objective is label everything you don’t understand as a lie. You are a silly little, I am sorry large, man, I am sorry, Thing.
Rimjob just being cute or so he thinks.
Lonely old bastard just needs more attention.
Bwaha! Lolgfy Loser!
MAGA47 Motherfucker!
I can’t believe people are still arguing “climate change”. It is so “Al Gore”. The evidence is in. The Science has spoken. The planet is fine and the climate doesn’t need protecting. The people who said otherwise were lying for their personal gain. Without the activism, Climate change has nothing.
You are correct! The Denier Cult has won!! Pat yourselves on the back. Mr Trump won’t let gubmint employees pursue, research, discuss or publish anything on global warming. The US will not engage!!