From the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON and the “lets study science fiction by using climate model fiction” department.
Could ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ happen?
A researcher from the University of Southampton has produced a scientific study of the climate scenario featured in the disaster movie ‘The Day After Tomorrow’.
In the 2004 film, climate warming caused an abrupt collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), leading to catastrophic events such as tornados destroying Los Angeles, New York being flooded and the northern hemisphere freezing.
Although the scientific credibility of the film drew criticism from climate scientists, the scenario of an abrupt collapse of the AMOC, as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming, was never assessed with a state-of-the-art climate model.
Using the German climate model ECHAM at the Max-Planck Institute in Hamburg, Professor Sybren Drijfhout from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton found that, for a period of 20 years, the earth will cool instead of warm if global warming and a collapse of the AMOC occur simultaneously. Thereafter, global warming continues as if the AMOC never collapsed, but with a globally averaged temperature offset of about 0.8°C.
Professor Drijfhout said: “The planet earth recovers from the AMOC collapse in about 40 years when global warming continues at present-day rates, but near the eastern boundary of the North Atlantic (including the British Isles) it takes more than a century before temperature is back to normal.”
Interestingly, the effect of atmospheric cooling due to an AMOC collapse is associated with heat flow from the atmosphere into the ocean, which has been witnessed during the climate hiatus of the last 15 years.
Professor Drijfhout added: “When a similar cooling or reduced heating is caused by volcanic eruptions or decreasing greenhouse emissions the heat flow is reversed, from the ocean into the atmosphere. A similar reversal of energy flow is also visible at the top of the atmosphere. These very different fingerprints in energy flow between atmospheric radiative forcing and internal ocean circulation processes make it possible to attribute the cause of a climate hiatus period.”
However, the study, which appears in Scientific Reports, says that the recent period of very weak warming cannot be attributed to one single cause. Most probably El Niño plays a role and possibly also changes in the Southern Ocean due to shifting and increasing westerlies.
Professor Sybren said: “It can be excluded, however, that this hiatus period was solely caused by changes in atmospheric forcing, either due to volcanic eruptions, more aerosols emissions in Asia, or reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Changes in ocean circulation must have played an important role. Natural variations have counteracted the greenhouse effect for a decade or so, but I expect this period is over now.”
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have a model that says that if large enough asteroid hits the earth, it won’t matter. Both this model and mine are as equally likely to happen withing the next number of millenniums.
i bought a model of Superman when i was a kid. the plastic was colored blue, but not “Superman blue”.even though the bottle of paint cost $0.15. my dad advised not to buy the paint. i should have bought the paint. blue is not always the correct blue.
Sorry to hear that you blue it back then. Sounds like it still hurts.
Seems to me that this last sentence
“Natural variations have counteracted the greenhouse effect for a decade or so, but I expect this period is over now.” (IOW Warming to begin again)
Should more probably read
‘The Greenhouse effect has counteracted Natural Variations for a decade or so, but I expect this period is over now.”’ (IOW Cooling to begin again)
“Natural variations have counteracted the greenhouse effect for a decade or so, but I expect this period is over now.”
… just another quote to file away and bring back in a decade or two for exhibition in the this-is-what-they-once-thought Department.
In view of the chaotic periodicity of current and ancient proxied global temperatures, it seems very foolish to me for anyone to believe that from this time forward, a linear fit to all future global temperatures will always be positive.
He also mentions ‘..warming continues at its current rate..’ – what as in not all? The denial really now seems to be more from the warmists denying the flatlining temperature.
At some point the Earth will be hit by a large asteroid unless we have a Star Trek future which would guarantee our safety. Failing that, we will get hit, it is just a matter of when….the laws of probability guarantee it.
“[T]he laws of probability guarantee it”.
Please leave discussion of the laws of probability to people who KNOW the laws of probability.
First of all the laws of probability do not DETERMINE the probability of any event; they only CALCULATE (and sometimes only estimate) that probability. Does a calculator determine the sum of 1 and 2? Does a thermometer determine temperature? Does a scale determine the weight of an object? No, and neither do the laws of probability determine the probability of an event. And if they can’t determine the probability of an event, they certainly can’t make that event certain.
Second, by definition, in the study of probability, NOTHING is CERTAIN. In fact, UNcertainty is the very BASIS of the study of probability. There are no guarantees in probability. Anything that IS guaranteed has no place in the study of probability, and the laws of probability do not apply to it.
Third, it is the LAWS OF NATURE that determine the probability that a large asteroid will hit the Earth. But to the extent that the Laws of Probability can be used to calculate that probability, it is less than 1. It may be very close to 1. It may be “nearly certain”. It may be “virtually guaranteed”. But it is not guaranteed or certain.
Regards,
Trevor
You have a point there… hahahah
TDAT has never been too popular in warmist circles really. It shows global warming with a catastrophic ice age, thereby confusing the public. Also it shows that there is no disaster to film really, if things get warmer, so the director and script writers had to get stuff freezing instead. Furthermore if warming causes cooling there is nothing to prepare for and we might as well emit as much CO2 as possible while the party keeps goiing.
See the top picture?
Statue Statistics –
Thickness of copper sheeting: 3/32 of an inch, the thickness of two pennies placed together.
Wind Sway: 50 mph winds cause the Statue to sway up to 3 inches and the torch up to 6 inches.
In the movie, the pretty lady got splashed over her shoulders with a tidal wave. Anyone want to calculate the odds the copper sheeting, supported on a Cast Iron frame, would still be in a recognizable shape?
http://staticmass.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/day_2.jpg
Another little problem, as the Liberty is positioned to faced the new arrivals coming by ship, her back getting hit means the wave came from New Jersey. But it is still good enough to base a ‘Climate Model’ on.
I always loved when the hero picks up his kid on the beach when the cold front lands and follows the car on the road…
He talks like it actually means something, as thought it tells what may happen if the AMOC runs a moc.
He needs to start by finding a model that got even half way close to matching the first ten years of expolation before worrying about what it projects when extrapolated 50 or more.
At least he seems to recognise that climate models are better adapted to modelling fictional climate scenarios than what real climate will do.
Small progess there.
Jersey? I’m really resisting telling a Chis Christy joke here.
You mean the movie was FAKE!
OMG!
We been had!
LOL
TDAT had massive stories caused by high pressure centers. It’s simply not possible to have a vortex, like a hurricane, around out flowing air.
It is also not possible for air to descend and cool.
BUT the special effects were soooo cooool, especially the helicopter fuel and pilots in instant freeze….
………” if warming causes cooling ”
Ever hear of a “Heat Pump”? this is a “Natural one”, I suppose. Need money to study the catastrophic phenomenon!!
Hiatus?!?! He used the word hiatus?
Its all right. He’s been sent for treatment and will not be using the term any more. It was a slip of the tongue, a brain snap if you like. Fortunately its treatable although the initial phases are debilitating and the medication does produce side effects.
Right wasn’t that in the 1940’s? (sarc)
see: 2:50-3:22 [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw&w=420&h=315%5D
I had a record player years back that would stick on a track, much like Mr. Mair is so stuck on his track. It too was from the 40’s.
97%…awk…97%…awk Polly want a cracker!
The preponderance of the data proves the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around the Earth.
It is no longer up for discussion.
The preponderance of the data proves that acidic oceans are blanching coral reefs.
It is not longer up for discussion…..regardless of the starfish destroying the reefs.
The preponderance of the data proves that industries dumping hazmat on the Border causes fetal tube syndromes and deaths.
It is no longer up for discussion…..regardless of the facts that folic acid prevents these deaths and no hazmat was found.
So refreshing to see another person stand up to this bogus crapola and actually has his facts in hand.
Thank you for sharing and many thanks to Cruz.
Cruz did A great job of “Race Horse Haynes” technique of having Meyers commit to ‘science’ and then cornered him. Cockroach.
Would have been nice if Cruz had taken apart the man’s default claim of 97%.
I remember when the experts didn’t suggest Folic Acid supplements to prevent neural tube defect. They considered it unnecessary and against consensus. End of debate.
97% of all climate scientists on earth ? I thought it was only approx 60-90 carefully handpicked scientists who actually are the 97% . When will these lies end .
The General public at large are totally unaware of the malfeasance perpetrated in their face day after day on Global Warming . And the shame is all the data proving the falsehood is readily available and relatively easily understandable by a moderately educated person especially if one can read and understand graphs . And this Mr Mair who did not supply a single intelligent answer or opinion may well have just have not turned up and just phoned it in for all the value he contributed .
Mair kept turning around with a deer in the headlights look- like a grade school kid in a play who forgot his next line looks at the teacher for his prompt.
Just another activist for hire, pledging blind faith in anyone who supports the anti-humanist dogma.
Oh!!! I remember him!!! He (or someone who looks like him), said that some island might tilt if we put too many troops on it. No wonder he can’t read a trend line rate of change, and likely does not know what a y intercept is either. But then isn’t the Sierra Club a spendy bar that serves phoo phoo drinks with umbrellas? I’m pretty sure 97% of the people would state that as a fact.
Pamela, congressman Hank Johnson said that,
I know. I was being very unpolitically incorrect.
He meant to say “the so-called ‘hiatus’, which does not exist, since the OHC grows abated, were over now, if it existed.” Simple. You just remember to talk about the ‘hiatus’ in quotes. Professor made the mistake of not rolling his eyes up enough when he said ‘hiatus’ so the university press release missed the scare quotes.
BTW have you ever wondered what is a ‘press release’? Like you press, and then release? Isn’t that the normal case? You seldom press without releasing, right? A good typist does hundreds of press-releases in a minute.
tell this guy
http://www.freewebs.com/horseloversveen/the-far-side-comic.jpg
Every time I push on a door that is labeled “pull”, or try to pull on a “push” I am reminded of the farside cartoon … I have a deep affinity for the kid in the cartoon.
In my experience, people who are enwrapped within the academic world, are often sheltered from everyday reality. They may have a PhD or a professorship, but that doesn’t mean that much outside academia.
An old story of the Agricultural Extension Service and academia interacting support your statement Alan. Milk producers came to a famous University and asked why their milk production was going down. Weeks later after much study and discussion at the University, the milk producers were called to a meeting and the first University speaker was from the Physics Dept. He said, “First, assume the cow is spherical…”.
Maybe Dr. Sheldon Cooper is a realistic character after all…
“They may have a PhD or a professorship, but that doesn’t mean that much outside academia.”
You can take a moron and drag him though a university. You can even confer a PhD on him; but he is still a moron. (H/T Mencken)
“Nature abhors a moron.”
—H.L. Mencken
“Nature abhors a moron.”
—H.L. Mencken
But they still publish them…..
I have 3 brothers in law one is the apple of his Mums eye and can do very little wrong, one is very clever and can baffle me when he starts talking and the third has a gift for the practical and seeing through problems, He described the second one thus after he had been doing some repairs.
“His common sense finishes at his elbows!”.
I think this may be true of many very highly educated people practical things just are often beyond them.
James Bull
My father, who survived the Depression and fought on the front in WWII, worked with a lot of scientists who didn’t seem to understand practical everyday things. His term for them was “educated fools”
So, at a rate of effectively zero. Yay! We’re not doomed!
Is he gonna return all that wasted grant money?
To bolster his credibility, our modeler opines that the current/hiatus/pause/data-heresy may be due to reduced CO2 emissions (since when?), volcanoes (secret ones as opposed to the ones known and measured), aerosols (even true believers have stopped beating that horse) or undefined changes in ocean circulation that cause theoretical warming to cause actual cooling.
I think there should be a psychological screening process for entry into the study of climate science: if you are incapable of embarrassment you may not do graduate work in climate science but must go directly into political science or a Vox.com internship.
Or a quiet rural retreat with friendly nurses and a high security fence.
Anybody think Hollywood will do a movie version of ‘State of Fear’?
They attempted a new film version of Atlas Shrugged, so a small part of me is still holding out hope.
Additional news is coming. Sorry, I must be cryptic for now.
The two movies they did make of Atlas shrugged were terrible. If I hadn’t read the book I would not have had any idea what I was watching.
Part III was also made. At least they got Galt right–or nearly so. I wouldn’t call this trilogy awful, although it could have had much better acting, directing, budget, and script. A competent re-make would be interesting.
I’d really like to see “State of Fear” made into a movie.
Atlas Shrugged was a horrible movie, and not a really good book either, even though I agree with the principle it was trying to get across.
But imagine a producer who is told there is a new book by one of the top authors whose books have been turned into some of the most successful movies and tv shows of all time. I would think that producer would love to make a movie out this new book, but nobody seems to have shown interest when the book first came out, I doubt they will now.
I wonder why Crichton didn’t title the book “Climate of Fear.”
@ur momisugly Mike –
Because the AGW scare is a product of the State, not of the climate.
AS the movie was essentially a self-funded indie vanity project. Hollywood proper would probably never touch it. Definitely wouldn’t do it right.
In one of the Tom Clancey movies they changed the Arab terrorists to a bunch of neo-Nazis, so I don’t hold out much hope that the movie version will have much resemblance to the book.
Before ‘Kingsmen’, I would have agreed that we’d never see true version of ‘State of Fear’ come out of Hollywood. Now…
The movie Interstellar also featured the ‘remarkable’ Dr. Mann.
So there is hope.
No the writer of that book doesn’t have a good track record of his books being turned into movies or tv shows.
Opps sorry I guess his record is ok. Um, well then it must be because 97% of producers say global warming isn’t happening.
Another prediction to watch.
Somehow natural variations have not done what they’ve expectedso far…
But it does ring of scientific authority, doesn’t it?
That statement is his Affirmation of Faith, a statement of fealty to the climate orthodoxy, so that he won’t labeled a heretic by the Church of CAGW religious police.
I am much more likely to adhere to the cycles of past change when contemplating the possible future.
The model seems to be based on a linear speculation of the buildup of ‘the missing heat’ causing disruption of the AMOC.
Just tells me that the models will predict anything you program them to.
Natural variations have counteracted the greenhouse effect
================
the IPCC tells us the natural variations are small – therefore the warming from 1980-2000 could only be due to CO2.
Now we hear that natural variation can overwhelm CO2 warming – which contradicts the IPCC – which means that the 1980-2000 warming could have been due to something other than CO2.
The problem for Climate Science is that the entire CO2 “proof” relies on natural variation being small. If it is large, then the modern warming may simply be due to natural variation and CO2 may play no role at all.
Thanks, +1
Such simple logic and so true. Amazing the media and politicians don’t get it.
I wonder who paid for this fantastic piece of work, could it be UK tax payers? Good to see they’re geting good value for their money!
The very existence of the CRAWL means that natural variations at least very nearly equal human CO2. There is no other possibility except that some other aspect of unnatural human combustion also counteracts human CO2. All the angles have been worked to death. None of them play. It boils down to the saturation of CO2.
James Hansen flip-flopped on this very point-
Back In 2003 When Climate Science Was Settled-
“As we shall see, the small forces that drove millennial climate changes are now overwhelmed by human forcings.”
Hansen et al., 2003 bulletin, Columbia University
More Recent Post-Hoc Settled Science-
“”The longevity of the recent protracted solar minimum, at least two years longer than prior minima of the satellite era, makes that solar minimum potentially a potent force for cooling,” Hansen and his co-authors said.”
Hansen et al., “Earth’s energy imbalance and implications”, 2011 bulletin, Columbia University
“The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing…The annual increment in the greenhouse gas forcing (Fig. 5) has declined from about 0.05 W/m2 in the 1980s to about 0.035 W/m2 in recent years.”
Hansen et al, 2013 bulletin, Columbia University
A few decades ago, they were proclaiming that CO2 was so powerful that it would completely swamp all natural variability, which is why they didn’t need to worry about including them in their models.
Not just a few decades ago. Here are the folks at ‘skeptical science’ 5 years ago.
Somehow natural variations have not done what they’ve supposed to so far…
FIFY.
The statement seems to say that until about 50 years or so ago, there was no greenhouse effect, however inappropriately named. I wonder if he realizes how ridiculous that statement really is.
I don’t recall a study that has “witnessed” heat take-up by the oceans *that is based on actual measurements*. Am I wrong? Onset of senile dementia?
Nope, you are right.
I was just about to make the exact same point.
You are not wrong. Indeed, the very expensive systems put in place have all shown that the oceans have not ‘taken up heat’ – so satellites and Argo Float data are discarded. However, there hare several hypotheses that posit heat taken up by the oceans. These hypotheses obviously take precedence over any mere observational science as they match preconceptions essential to continue the venal activities of climate scientists and politicians.
But doesn’t “witness” imply “observe”?
Not in post modern science.
@retired engineer jim It does but AGW theorists have a retort to that : Who you gonna believe me; or your lying eyes!
“Thereafter, global warming continues as if the AMOC never collapsed, but with a globally averaged temperature offset of about 0.8°C”
The model means absolutely nothing until observations can back this up. We have proxy observations that show the temperature difference being up to ~8 c not 0.8 c. Why has the model suggested it is 10 x smaller than observed? If this was the case then there would never be enough energy moving North to come out of an ice age quickly or a decrease in energy to come into one quickly. The AMOC greatly affects most of the Arctic ocean too, so to show warming there no different from some areas of the world is not supported by any scientific evidence. Another major problem being hardly any difference between the Tropics and the poles, again no scientific evidence supports this.
There are many problems with the model graphic shown because ice cores and ocean sediments have shown changes in the North Atlantic region much larger. The UK has been greatly affected by the AMOC in the past and Greenland has shown huge changes with this. Yet we are to believe a model showing virtually no changes in Greenland, Scandinavia, Western Europe and Iceland.
Where is the evidence?
They are all living in a fantasy land.
Just another big stretch of the scientific envelope.
The above study is all fantasy as it ignores real world findings.
Studies of bottom sediments between Florida and Cuba have found that the AMOC slows down with cooling and speeds up with warming. Warmer water will evaporate more water into the atmosphere, increasing density more rapidly
Water viscosity also plays a role. Cold water, more viscous, slower flow; warm water, less viscous, faster flow. And not a model in sight.
Just to say that’s the Gulf stream between Florida and Cuba not the AMOC.
I believe I may apply for a grant to study if climate alarmism is a form of mental retardation.
There seems to be oodles of evidence mounting that it must be.
I see climate alarmism as a form of ‘brainwashing’ or mass programming. The only problem is that some folks think analytically rather than emotionally and the whole movement is based on faith and guilt. Bounces right off folks who put things into perspective by informing themselves beyond the daily media blitz.
with a globally averaged temperature offset of about 0.8°C.
…….can’t even measure it
This is an example of the reason why I left the academic rat race. So many ” researchers” are mediocre hangers-on half wits who get old and end up looking “credible”. Tenure needs to be an ongoing process to root out these career know-nothings who seek celebrity. Science in the 21st century truly is an idiocracy.
+100
Agreed. And thanks for the comment.
Art imitates Life, Life Imitates Art.
Art Imitates Science. Art Takes Credit For Science.
I remember this stuff. It was all the rage, back on campus, in the late 1970s. Some talentless artist would mimic some new discovery from the field of science, and then claim “I Inspired Them”. It seems they were desperate to have some tie-in to the real world. Eventually, before the fad ran it’s course, they were taking credit for *everything* in both math and science.
The trouble was, no matter how obnoxious they were on a personal level, you were not allowed to hit them.
It was too bad, until then, I had respect for the Fine and Performing Arts. Music, dance, theater, one does not live by calculus alone.
It looks like this “research” was inspired by the arts, which,in turn, was inspired by “science”.
Maybe something got lost in the translation.
“Some talentless artist would mimic some new discovery from the field of science, and then claim ‘I Inspired Them.’ ”
Reminds me Al Gore and the invention of the internet.
From the article (my bold):
Seriously; can anyone explain to me how this is in any way a scientific study?
All I’m seeing is a modeling exercise with movie-based inputs, using a model which has not been validated, which produces a result called a projection and not a prediction, which would be falsifiable. I think the word scientific is beginning to lose its original meaning.
I’m not being snarky, sarcastic, or snide. (Oooo! Sounds like a law firm, eh?) I just don’t see any justification for the use of the word scientific.
In a world where Beyonce lyrics are studied in college…anything is possible.
As I explained, it is art, Scientific art.
Remember, in art, you can do lots of things you could never get away with in science. Art is more Powerful that way.
Just to take the devil’s side for a moment. It has some interesting hypothetical merit, though the movie tie-in seems nonsense made up for the press release. “What would happen if the jet stream stopped” is an interesting thought-experiment. Putting any more effort than a simple climate model would be wasteful (any change strong enough to stop the jet stream would have profound direct effects, making the calculation useless). However, it’s an interesting question that we now have an answer to.
But the funny people are winning the public debate. Many of you will have done your homework over the years and can visualize the massive web of entities and money behind all of this (The moon landing happened and it was Oswald) Does human activity generated CO2 have a warming effect on the climate and what does it mean? That’s a scientific argument for the scientists to sort out. Is there an unprecedented coalition of business, environmental activists, and governments driving debate and policy? That is a political question and the answer is yes.
Since our opponents like to use the tobacco analogy lets use it to make a point. The lawyers and activist organizations who won the tobacco settlement in the USA banked millions in their personal accounts. Government realized billions in new revenue. Tobacco companies passed the costs to their customers. The customers continue to smoke one thing or another. It’s a powerful revenue generating model which is being consciously emulated by the alarmists.
The George Mason University based Center For Climate Change Communications is one of many places where all of the players mentioned above come together. 4C receives it funding from all of the usual suspects (yeah you are) The shot caller at this social club is Doctor Edward Maibach who previously worked the same scam in the public health communications field. This is also the outfit behind the RICO20 letter.
We, the skeptic community need to learn from the Chevron case. All of the major elements of the larger climate debate were in play and it seemed to be going against Chevron. It’s not finished yet but Chevron changed the narrative and scored an impressive legal win by pursuing an aggressive legal strategy. We need more of that in the worst way to encourage a healthy debate. The RICO20 letter gives us the opening to expose the entire racket using the legal process. This was a strategic mistake for a gang running it’s own racket.
I wish I were still studying history. I would LOVE to be able to do a scientific study of Raquel Welch in “1 Million Years B.C.”. You know, for the science and stuff.
What a great movie, because I and my brother were too young to see it, my mother sat through it twice, she hated it.
Actually, I think the dialog was a bit weak.
Funny you should mention that I was wondering if in the virtual world all those climate scientists doing what they like most in front of those posters of Raquel or Marilyn would consider it to be equivalent to the real experience of actual sex with the real actual women?
“lets study science fiction by using climate model fiction” Sounds like a good use of the taxpayer’s dollars to me.
Wish I could get paid for playing make-believe. Time to end this nonsense by having actual oversight. The days of endless tax dollars being taken and flushed without anyone auditing what we get for our money have to end.
How have we got this far with no ROI audit on billions of dollars spent on this kind of “research”?
Dave in Canmore: We can ALWAYS count on you to keep your viewers/listeners/readers attached to sanity. It’s too bad you’re the only one crying out in the wilderness!
Professor Drijfhout said: “The planet earth recovers from the AMOC collapse in about 40 years when global warming continues at present-day rates, but near the eastern boundary of the North Atlantic (including the British Isles) it takes more than a century before temperature is back to normal.”
The AMOC never recovered back to conditions like now for 100,000 years during at least the last 4 major ice ages until reached the inter glacial periods in between. The Yonger Dryas recovery took over a thousand of years, but the climate was already moving towards the current inter glacial period back then. Present global warming rates of last 40 years are only ~0.1 c per decade, so wouldn’t be warm enough to match the 0.8 c offset for at least 80 years. (based on this model, but not supported scientifically whatsoever)
“Interestingly, the effect of atmospheric cooling due to an AMOC collapse is associated with heat flow from the atmosphere into the ocean, which has been witnessed during the climate hiatus of the last 15 years.”
The heat flow is back to front and the AMOC doesn’t change to slight temperatures, but mainly affected by changes in Arctic ocean and salinity difference between it and North Atlantic ocean. The AMOC related with the AMO shows the smallest periodic cycle of around ~64 years, where both cool and warm modes develop.
Help Save The Planet !!! Slap an Alarmist in the head until they wake up to reality !!!!
It appears theirs is a virtual reality.
Where’s a telephone!?
1) The AMOC moves heat from the tropics poleward. If the AMOC were to shut off, it might cool down the poleward regions, but wouldn’t it also warm the tropics?
2) You would have to melt all the ice in Greenland over a decade or so in order to halt the AMOC, current projections have the Greenland ice sheets melting over the next 10K years of so.
3) If the Arctic sea ice were to melt, this would increase the AMOC, not halt it, as the absence of ice causes more heat loss and more evaporation from the arctic waters.
Based on Willis’ work, I’m guessing that the tropics are about as warm as they can get. I believe what you would see is a broadening of warmer waters moving north. If shutting off the AMOC didn’t completely shut down the Gulf Stream, I’d say that Britain and points north might get quite a bit warmer as a result.
After AMOC collapse the Tropics warm up slightly (~1 c) for a period before cooling long term about 3 c with difference overall around 2 c. Most of the warming occurs in the Tropical Atlantic where the Gulf stream still flows. The AMOC failure prevents heat moving North of Western Mediterranean, so these places drastically cool. The UK cools hugely with polar ocean waters eventually on it’s western side. The Greenland ice sheet had survived previous collapses of the AMOC after the warm inter-glacier periods in the past.
The AMOC collapsed completely through the entire periods of the major ice ages. The UK has only known to have Ice age conditions when the AMOC has collapsed since they began about 3 million years ago. It now becomes obvious that the AMOC is a critical cog between ice ages and inter-glaciers. Nobody knows what extent triggers the salinity changes to cause the collapse of the AMOC. The AMOC did speed up a little during recent decades where Arctic ice had declined.
According to Carl Wunsch, you’d have to stop the planet rotating to stop the AMOC.
You have to stop the planet rotating to stop the Gulf stream which is also wind driven, East to west in the southern hemisphere and west to east in the northern hemisphere. The AMOC is solely caused by the salinity difference between the Arctic ocean and the North Atlantic ocean that causing sinking and drives the current.
I have been a ” Climate Change Denier ” for years ….Finally, at my last meeting of CCDA ( Climate Change Deniers Anonymous ) , I realized that yes, the climate does change NATURALLY !!! All is forgiven !!!
The reach for vita filler material is strong. A number of older Nobel laureates commented in recent years that they would probably not have achieved tenure based on the modern rules of volume-based academic output.